|
Mo_Steel posted:Can you suggest some laws you think would be effective at restricting violent criminals from obtaining firearms that you believe would also not unduly burden law abiding citizens and which you would be willing to support? Sure. A federally funded mandate to rectify firearms law country wide, including increased (and funded) mandatory reporting from the states to the FBI NICS database in a timely manner, and a federally recognized concealed carry program with well defined standards of training as opposed to a hodge-podge of state laws that may or may not have training requirements or reciprocity. I would also support disbanding the BATFE and transferring their alcohol and tobacco functions to the FDA, their firearms and explosives regulation to the IRS and FBI (as all controlled weapons under the NFA are restricted by tax stamps anyway), due to decades of institutional incompetence and outright malice. In a nutshell, politically impossible. Mo_Steel posted:It was tongue-in-cheek because your "I've never seen my guns run out and kill people themselves" comment was written as though it was some sort of masterful commentary on the topic. I know, but it's D&D. Taking things too seriously is what we do here. 
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because you can conceivably incapacitate someone with a bludgeon or stun gun, without killing them. In fact it is probably rather easier to incapacitate them than kill them with a weapon not designed to kill. There is a reason police carry batons and not machetes. There is a reasonable ground somewhere between a shotgun and tying your own arms behind your back when responding to an attacker, and in my country we decide what that is all the time. Our police don't carry guns because it is assumed they should not need to shoot people very often. They do carry less lethal weaponry, training, and protective clothing, because those are considered to aid the police officer in subduing someone and protecting their own life, without significantly increasing the risk of killing or maiming the offender. Subduing an individual with a blunt weapon isn't that simple and stun guns aren't anywhere near as reliable and effective as their manufacturers would like you to think. If you're trying to subdue your potential attacker and they have no such intent towards you then guess what? You're a a MASSIVE disadvantage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
It's okay, Taerkar, in whatever strange alternate reality OwlFancier lives in, people are 100% capable of judging the exact force to hit someone over the head with in order to render them unconscious with a cartoonish lump on their head rather than doing them any permanent injury. I mean, blunt force trauma never killed anyone, right?  It's not like the whole reason the taser and stunguns were developed was to provide a less lethal tool to police than clubbing people into submission with nightsticks.Wait, nevermind, that was exactly the case. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Subduing an individual with a blunt weapon isn't that simple and stun guns aren't anywhere near as reliable and effective as their manufacturers would like you to think. If you're trying to subdue your potential attacker and they have no such intent towards you then guess what? You're a a MASSIVE disadvantage. I didn't say it was simple, I said it was less likely to kill them than shooting them. Shooting people is certainly an effective method of stopping them, but it also carries a significant risk of serious injury or death, which is my objection. I don't expect you to perfectly judge how much force you need to use, I expect society to prevent you from using extreme force, such as firearms. If you accidentally kill someone in a fight, well, that's unfortunate but to be expected sometimes. However, requiring people to use less lethal weaponry will reduce the probability of that occurring. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
edit: ^^^^ And that risk is inherently accepted by the assailant by initiating the criminal encounter. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there was at least one case in this country where someone defended themselves with a club only to be successfully sued by their assailant for brain damage or some other sort of permanent injury. Though that's more of a commentary on the civil lawsuit portion of our laws here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It's okay, Taerkar, in whatever strange alternate reality OwlFancier lives in, people are 100% capable of judging the exact force to hit someone over the head with in order to render them unconscious with a cartoonish lump on their head rather than doing them any permanent injury. Probably is less likely to kill them than a jacketed hollowpoint impacting their skull and mushrooming inside of their brain though
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:Probably is less likely to kill them than a jacketed hollowpoint impacting their skull and mushrooming inside of their brain though At a tradeoff of significantly greater likelihood of getting you killed, yes You've got about an 80% chance of surviving being shot in the first world anyway so A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:edit: ^^^^ And that risk is inherently accepted by the assailant by initiating the criminal encounter. Whether they accept the risk or not doesn't justify its existence in the first place. We have social constructs and laws that prevent people from accepting risks that don't need to be accepted. If a criminal accepts the risk of death or serious injury in the commission of a crime, it is considered that they aren't thinking clearly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Appeal to emotion doesn't make it any more right. It is irrelevant whether or not a gun might make those people feel better, if giving people guns would result in more deaths. quote:Because you can conceivably incapacitate someone with a bludgeon or stun gun, without killing them. In fact it is probably rather easier to incapacitate them than kill them with a weapon not designed to kill. quote:If their response to threat is to escape (a good response) then they don't need to carry a gun to do that. I don't dispute that carrying a gun doesn't mean you have to use it, only that if you don't use it, you didn't need it to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Cool I always wanted landmines I think rebuilding a segment of your house would suck. Leg hold traps are much cheaper to purchase and easier to maintain, arm and disarm as needed. You could probably anchor it to a supporting beam or the cement block in the house too so that no one caught in it is going to get more than a few feet from the entrance they tried to go through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Whether they accept the risk or not doesn't justify its existence in the first place. We have social constructs and laws that prevent people from accepting risks that don't need to be accepted. If a criminal accepts the risk of death or serious injury in the commission of a crime, it is considered that they aren't thinking clearly. Your point being? You're pretty much arguing from the point of blaming the person who is a victim of a crime of the end result of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:At a tradeoff of significantly greater likelihood of getting you killed, yes Personally I view the probability of such a situation where I am being assailed by an attacker who is so disproportionately advantaged that I absolutely need a gun to prevent my own life from being taken by it as such a minimal one it's not even worth considering seriously. If this situation is somehow different for you personally, I would agree to provisions similar to those provided before wide scale concealed carry legalization, where permits for concealed carry could be given out in appropriate circumstances by judges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Again, you're assuming that the death of a victim and the death of a violent assailant are equally detrimental. No, I am assuming that the death of some victims who could conceivably have been saved by guns, is less detrimental than the deaths of however many people would die, victims and attackers, if we gave everyone free access to firearms. All else being equal, I would favour the victim, but I don't at all believe that any specific victim has greater value than a plurality of human lives. Dead Reckoning posted:What? No. Have you ever had any sort of physical combat training in your life? Swinging at someone with an aluminum baseball bat is extremely likely to cause permanent injury or death, which is why every court in the land will charge you with aggravated battery or assault with a deadly weapon if you do it unprovoked. More to the point, the sort of strikes most likely to rapidly incapacitate an attacker are also the most likely to cause death. In many police use-of-force continua, baton strikes to the head are considered deadly force. Which is why we arm soldiers with clubs? Certainly batons are capable of killing, however they are still, less lethal than firearms. I don't dispute that you can't kill someone with one, even accidentally, but I rather doubt that clubs are more lethal than guns. Dead Reckoning posted:Your logic is unreasonable. That's like saying your car doesn't need airbags because you were able to swerve around a downed tree one time without hitting it. If the fitting of airbags made driving in general more lethal, at the chance of possible saving people who crash into trees, yes? Taerkar posted:Your point being? You're pretty much arguing from the point of blaming the person who is a victim of a crime of the end result of it. It is possible to suggest that violent altercations are bad for both participants and we should aim to reduce both the frequency and severity of violent altercations? Are we required to blame one of the parties completely for the event and suggest that there is nothing else that can be done because it was their conscious, in-a-vacuum decision which caused the event and dictated all of the specifics of it? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I think rebuilding a segment of your house would suck. Leg hold traps are much cheaper to purchase and easier to maintain, arm and disarm as needed. You could probably anchor it to a supporting beam or the cement block in the house too so that no one caught in it is going to get more than a few feet from the entrance they tried to go through. Can't they just pry the traps open, though? I mean they're not gonna be getting very far afterwards but this seems unduly hard on the carpeting. I think we need to go back to the self-guided gunmech thing again. Palace of Hate posted:Personally I view the probability of such a situation where I am being assailed by an attacker who is so disproportionately advantaged that I absolutely need a gun to prevent my own life from being taken by it as such a minimal one it's not even worth considering seriously. If this situation is somehow different for you personally, I would agree to provisions similar to those provided before wide scale concealed carry legalization, where permits for concealed carry could be given out in appropriate circumstances by judges. I don't feel the need to carry, personally, because I'd much rather focus on living in the kind of place and hanging around the kind of people where the odds of getting attacked out of nowhere are close to nil, and I'm in the kind of position where I can do that. As it was the one time I did need to use a gun defensively it was happenstance that I had it in pieces in the workshop, and I probably woulda eaten the bolt if I'd had to pop the guy with it instead of just get his attention. That's my own personal decision, if things was different I might need to carry a gun, and if I need to I should be able to. The courts have proven absolutely gently caress-awful at determining need in the past, and there is not in fact some kind of public safety crisis of CCW holders running rampant in the streets mowing down all and sundry, so what's the big loving moral panic for? Let people live their lives how they feel, even if it's stupid. Maybe it's not, you don't know. Some busybodies watched CNN and 'feel unsafe' is not a compelling reason to have a bureaucracy that gives no fucks override peoples' own personal assessment of their risk and what they need to live, they have to live their lives, they know about 'em, I don't and you don't. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:Actually up until a few years ago I was assured by law that the police would be very interested in apprehending individuals who decided to walk around in public with a concealed weapon, instead of "training" them and giving them a piece of plastic that says they can just do that
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:Personally I view the probability of such a situation where I am being assailed by an attacker who is so disproportionately advantaged that I absolutely need a gun to prevent my own life from being taken by it as such a minimal one it's not even worth considering seriously. If this situation is somehow different for you personally, I would agree to provisions similar to those provided before wide scale concealed carry legalization, where permits for concealed carry could be given out in appropriate circumstances by judges. Your probability of being assaulted by an attacker period is pretty drat low, especially depending upon where you live, where you work, who you are, and so on. I believe that I have said before in this very thread that I have no desire personally to carry a weapon for self-defense because I don't consider myself to be a person that's high risk, nor do I feel a need to have a weapon in the house for home defense. There certainly are people who carry for self defense who aren't in serious risk of being assaulted, but since they have historically shown to be pretty drat good at not abusing that right, then whatever? Those that do abuse it are frankly the types that probably would have carried the gun anyways. Simply put though, if you did feel a need, real or imagined, to carry something for self defense, why would you carry something other than the most effective tool for it? Taerkar fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Can you suggest some laws you think would be effective at restricting violent criminals from obtaining firearms that you believe would also not unduly burden law abiding citizens and which you would be willing to support?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Already responded to this question. And you can't invalidate someone's arguments about guns just because they don't carry one - does that mean I can't disagree with racism because I'm white? Does that mean I can't sympathize with the handicapped because I'm not? That's ridiculous on its face and you know it. OwlFancier, I still want to hear your response to how you can just invalidate an argument on the right to carry guns just because they don't carry one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Expanding participation in NICS, and allowing some sort of voluntary opt-in to allow individuals to make use of the system for face-to-face sales. (I'm still trying to think of a good way to do this without making it possible for employers or strangers to run an FBI check on anyone they please.) Aggressively prosecuting straw purchases, especially in light of Abramski v. United States. I honestly think there's a lot that can be done within the scope of existing laws or that can be accomplished with minor tweaks to existing statutes. I would ABSOLUTELY support a voluntary NICS check for F2F sales. Especially if there were a good way to anonymize it so that no records could be kept.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:(I'm still trying to think of a good way to do this without making it possible for employers or strangers to run an FBI check on anyone they please.) System also tracks who's running the checks, if you spam NICS habitually without an FFL you get flagged as a possible unlicensed dealer, government investigates and finds out you've been using it fraudulently, bam If it's just some schmo doing a "is this person a felon/illegal alien/ever used a drug/dishonorably discharged/anything else y/n' once who the gently caress cares, you can get more juicy detail out of Googling someone Alternately, when you write down the serial on the 4473 does that go to the feds or is that just for dealer records? Let every NICS check have a serial tied to it. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Can't they just pry the traps open, though? I mean they're not gonna be getting very far afterwards but this seems unduly hard on the carpeting. I think we need to go back to the self-guided gunmech thing again. It'd be nearly impossible for a person to pry one open if designed properly, and the time spent doing so is still time you have to defend yourself and call the police. Also wood floors are much better than carpeting.  As far as guided gunmechs, we have Roombas already, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to design a device that shoots at any moving object above a certain size without an RFID tag attached I'd think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:OwlFancier, I still want to hear your response to how you can just invalidate an argument on the right to carry guns just because they don't carry one. Because if you don't carry a gun, you don't enjoy its benefits. You can argue that the very idea of the existence of gun-carriers may dissuade people but I think the violent crime rate of the US would suggest that that isn't a very significant factor. If you manage to live your life without carrying a gun, then you don't need one. You can of course argue "why not carry one anyway?" but that is in contrast to most other things that you do "just in case". Free access to guns requires lots of guns to be available, lots of guns being available means that they are more available to criminals, and increases the rate of gun accidents. Gun proliferation makes both crime more dangerous and adds another cause of accidents. So, carrying a gun just in case isn't a negative-free option, you have to weigh the unlikely need to use one, against the other risks their presence creates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Also wood floors are much better than carpeting. Finally something we can all agree on
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:System also tracks who's running the checks, if you spam NICS habitually without an FFL you get flagged as a possible unlicensed dealer, government investigates and finds out you've been using it fraudulently, bam I'm thinking of a buyer-initiated system, where anyone can initiate a check on someone within X window, but they need to have the buyer's temporary ID to run it. Essentially, buyer calls in his own ID to open up the ability to check him. That grants him a temporary ID for some window of time. He gives that ID to the seller, who calls/texts/whatever it in, and gives a Yes/No on the spot. Doesn't consider the purpose, all it does is run an NICS check - doesn't check the gun, doesn't involve a serial, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because if you don't carry a gun, you don't enjoy its benefits. You can argue that the very idea of the existence of gun-carriers may dissuade people but I think the violent crime rate of the US would suggest that that isn't a very significant factor. I enjoy the benefits because I participate and compete in shooting sports.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I enjoy the benefits because I participate and compete in shooting sports. That is nice, but I would ask how many corpses that is worth?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I'm thinking of a buyer-initiated system, where anyone can initiate a check on someone within X window, but they need to have the buyer's temporary ID to run it. I mean, OK, but this seems really unduly complicated. A yes/no from a NICS tells you effectively nothing, and is less useful in every regard than any other kind of snooping you can do, and I'm fairly certain as established right now the system knows who's using it. There's structural issues with opening it up to everybody on the FBI's end, but they don't have to do with authenticating users really OwlFancier posted:That is nice, but I would ask how many corpses that is worth? .05 Rapists, or 800,000,000 Small Women in imperial units
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is nice, but I would ask how many corpses that is worth? If you weren't aware of this already: an argument based on availability and potential harm alone being used to justify total removal of a thing can also be applied to many facets of modern life, such as consumption of various substances, some of which you probably enjoy yourself, as well as other inherently dangerous tasks and objects, such as driving or riding in modern transportation devices.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:If you weren't aware of this already: an argument based on availability and potential harm alone being used to justify total removal of a thing can also be applied to many facets of modern life, such as consumption of various substances, some of which you probably enjoy yourself, as well as other inherently dangerous tasks and objects, such as driving or riding in a modern transportation devices. Yes it can. And I would apply the same argument against things that pose a significant threat to others for my own personal enjoyment. Strictly speaking this applies to guns. I'd certainly like to take up sport shooting, but given that doing so would require large scale deregulation of firearms in the UK, I'm not going to request the right to do that. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is nice, but I would ask how many corpses that is worth? Let's see... there's about 30k total deaths to firearms a year, including suicides. About 7,000,000 or so firearms are sold a year based upon something someone mentioned earlier. So... .0043
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I would ABSOLUTELY support a voluntary NICS check for F2F sales. Especially if there were a good way to anonymize it so that no records could be kept. The nice thing about a voluntary system is, it avoids all the objections of a mandatory system, but it would still significantly cut down on the ability of unlicensed buyers to acquire guns. Most gun owners absolutely don't want to sell to prohibited possessors, even if they would be legally in the clear by pleading ignorance. If there were a non-intrusive way to do NICS checks, I think most gun owners would refuse to sell F2F without utilizing it unless they knew the buyer intimately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Alternately, when you write down the serial on the 4473 does that go to the feds or is that just for dealer records? Let every NICS check have a serial tied to it. Bad plan, you've just created both a defacto registry and a massive data storage problem. OwlFancier posted:That is nice, but I would ask how many corpses that is worth? Well, so far, of the literally hundreds of thousands of rounds I've put through my various guns, I have an all-time human kill count of zero. Maybe a fractional number, if you're holding carbon credits for the amount of powder I've burned creating greenhouse gasses against me. That said, as far as accidental deaths go, guns are well behind swimming pools and automobiles on a yearly basis. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
So what's the opinion on autonomous robots with guns? I suppose a gun on a drone being directly controlled is not meaningfully different from a gun in the hand of a troop, but how about a robot programmed to shoot lethally at intruders? Would this be a legitimate extension of the second amendment, or would you be creating a lethal hazard for possible casual passerby?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
are you asking what will happen or what would be hilarious
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:are you asking what will happen or what would be hilarious
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So what's the opinion on autonomous robots with guns? I suppose a gun on a drone being directly controlled is not meaningfully different from a gun in the hand of a troop, but how about a robot programmed to shoot lethally at intruders? Would this be a legitimate extension of the second amendment, or would you be creating a lethal hazard for possible casual passerby? A fantastically horrible idea unless they were 100% foolproof, which would never happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I am curious as to thoughts in general. It seems like something that probably either exists on a small scale, or could very easily exist in the essentially immediate future. It is also perhaps a different topic from the Pro-Skub/Anti-Skub debates Booby traps (which'd be anything that triggers autonomously from your standard cartoon bear trap to ED-209) are already extremely illegal, so there's no need to create specific new laws to ban killbots in civilian hands. For that matter, so is a (self-loading) firearm with any form of electronic trigger although that's ATF policy not an actual law. I doubt anyone's going to bother manufacture them illegally until the point where you could just duct-tape a shotgun to your servant-bot and point it at a bank, although they're virtually guaranteed to show up in cop hands in the near future, which will be the point at which facial recognition software is finally developed that can recognize black faces. None of the extant arguments for civilian firearms usage would extend to a robot of any kind, except the 'preparing for war with the government' one, which doesn't hold much sway with the actual government. IIRC there was an episode of Doomsday Preppers not that long ago where a guy was getting his apocalypse shack raided by methheads so some retard built a motion-activated sentry turret for it, on TV A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
I would think these robots might be popular with corporate security, though - I've heard Microsoft has a couple of prototypes even if they're just mobile cameras and a loudspeaker to say "GET LOST, SON" for now. I could very easily see them pressing for legalizing such things if it means they can downsize their security workforce. Then again, contractors might be cheaper than bots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes it can. And I would apply the same argument against things that pose a significant threat to others for my own personal enjoyment. Feel free to outline your proposals for legislation outlawing private transit, alcohol, swimming pools, fatty/salty foods, etc right now, then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
I think it's incredibly unlikely you will see armed corporate wardroids anywhere outside like a De Beers diamond mine in a particularly lovely country, one of the ones where they already employ mercenaries with their own attack helicopters and have dissidents murdered on the regular. Self-propelled security cameras, absolutely. You might see more computerization of human-controlled firearms in the near future, though. Already people are prototyping 'smart' guns that can correct for wind and range, the military is testing self-guided small caliber munitions though who knows if that'll ever trickle down to something you can get at Walmart, and a gun that can independently track its target for the defense crowd wouldn't be out totally of the realm of the plausible. While I wouldn't expect anything that interferes with the actual firing to go over big (like a biometric safety or whatever) there'll probably be a lot less skill and personal judgement involved in the not-too-distant future, and if anyone comes up with a competent challenge to the ATF's opinions on e-triggers poo poo will get real wierd and you'll start seeing people with skul-guns and rednecks riding around in Rascals surrounded by a halo of voice-activated flying heliguns. By 2050 smartguns will have the vote, and instantly become a majority bloc. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 18:55
|
|