Why not? I mean, what’s the downside you’re afraid of from more gun-related legislation?
That once we have “reasonable” universal registration in place, the people who have publicly declared for years that their eventual goal is banning the private possession of firearms will have the means in place, as was the case in Britain and Australia. Surprise sucka!
If we were inclined to subvert the Constitution to seize their guns, we certainly don’t need registration to find them. We just seize the membership records from the NRA; they have already collected everything we need to target the most virulent gun fellaters.
That succinctly addresses my opinion of the fears of the average gun nut.
At least now the anti-gun folks admit that there is a Constitutional right. Prior to Heller, that side of the argument refused to admit that (focusing instead on the National Guard, etc.).
Obviously, numbnuts. I am saying that our existing rules for unintentional homicide and criminal liability are wrong and need to be changed when discussing objects that are easily portable, easily negligently stored, and whose sole purpose is to be more deadly than other objects.
Facts not in evidence, much like your outlandish propaganda-driven claims about the rate of defensive gun use.
Exactly. The current laws are wrong, because the current laws do not address the profound ease with which people who are not supposed to have firearms (by existing law) are acquiring them from people who do have them and are grossly, criminally negligent with their storage.
I’m sorry, but what point are you actually trying to defend here? Do you think we all have a god-given right to leave loaded firearms lying around within reach of toddlers? Do you not keep your guns secured? I recognize this is kind of cliche, but what on earth are you actually afraid of? I have an inquisitive three-year-old, and I am not afraid of this proposed increase in criminal liability for recklessly negligent gun storage, because I don’t store my guns negligently (and yet, if I were of a mind to, I could EASILY, with an investment less than the cost of my pistol, store said pistol loaded and cocked in a place as easy to access as my bedside table that the kid could STILL not get at it). There is no excuse whatsoever for allowing a firearm you own to cause a death that you were not intending, so I argue that leaving loaded guns unsecured is tantamount to intent to cause a death.
Any conversation about strict liability is meaningless unless everyone knows exactly what your talking about. Your example of a toddler blowing his/her head off with loaded glock sitting on coffe table is one thing, having your gun safe stolen from you home and getting a knock on your door 5-10 years later from law enforcement because your guns killed someone else is quite another. Control advocates like to say things like “reasonable gun control” then introduce assault weapons bans which are complete nonsense. Don’t be surprised when nobody takes you at face value when you start talking about gun liability. The other side can smell you incrementalism a mile away.
There is no rational way to incrementalize your way from registration to gun seizure without complete overthrow of the the Constitution. That just isn’t going to happen, and those who pose that outcome simply aren’t living in reality.
What is the downside of revamping our centuries old criminal justice system to placate the irrational fears of a minority of the population? Are you kidding?
You seem obsessed with fellatio but to each his own. The NRA is not where the fringiest element of the gun rights side reside. And if we were inclined to subvert the constitution to seize guns at the federal level, the country would be unrecognizable anyway.
Right, because the example you gave was fencing for pools not charging people who fail to fence with intentional homicide. Your ideas are stupid, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but when you started talking about your theories and then shifting them to adjust to criticism, I should have known, you were talking out of your ass.
So you never proposed first degree murder charges for unintentional murder?
Then when I pointed out that you were effectively proposing the death penalty for unintentional murder, you didn’t dial it back to second degree murder?
Now I point out that we have had third degree murder almost as long as we have had criminal laws, you are trying to say that we have been wrong for centuries and that there really isn’t a reason to distinguish between unintentional homicide and intentional murder?
Right. Because centuries of jurisprudence has never had to deal with things like guns before, guns are a recent invention like the iphone.
Yeah we already have a crime for that, you want to throw murder 2 on top of that.
And you would be wrong under almost every criminal legal theory we have in this country. What you have is what is commonly referred to as an uninformed opinion.
I am not afraid that this singular and unique criminal liability that you wan to impose will be imposed on me. I simply take offense to the notion that we need to create a heightened criminal liability for a set of circumstances that are already dealt with under current law.
I wasn’t specifically making the registration –> seizure argument, at least not in my last post. But I totally agree with you, just not for any of the same reasons.
How frequent would random, senseless gun killings have to be for you to think that fear of them was not irrational? :rolleyes:
You’re a sick, sick person.
Fear of guns is rational. The manifestation of your fear of guns is irrational.
How many people do you think are murdered by random gun violence every year?
If you eliminated criminals and gang members from the equation, how many gun murders do you think there are? Or are you trying to say that if we could save even one life we should ignore all other factors and ban guns?
You’re a stupid, stupid person.
I love that Dumuri Ajashole started off by characterizing himself as somewhat in the middle on the gun rights debate, but ends up showing kinship with Kable and calling Zeriel a half a tard. Add in the hoplophobia bullshit, and his lack of perspective is pretty clear. Dude, you’re about as moderate as Ted Nugent on this issue. Dumbfuck.
ETA: I agree that in this debate one side is driven by a fear of big black scary things, but it ain’t guns and it ain’t the gun control advocates.
Then you might stop claiming otherwise, hmm? :rolleyes:
That isn’t even coherent. Again, the thing we want to reduce is deaths. Fear of death is, for a non-psychopath, very rational and normal.
In the US alone, in the tens of thousands. Now, how many more would make you think it’s a problem, not something to be irrationally feared?
Perhaps. But I’m sane.
I’ve specified elsewhere that it is in fact strict liability based on actual negligence. “I had a quality gun safe, and reported thefts within 24 hours of my own knowledge of same” would be affirmative defenses to any civil or criminal liability for your guns’ involvement in bad shit.
Interestingly, I’ve elsewhere on the Dope proposed a reasonable (by which I have specified I mean “No more onerous or pricey than a CDL”) licensing and training structure to be implemented to re-open legal civilian manufacture and purchasing of fully automatic weapons.
That’s pretty funny, Bruce. How are your parents?
My state doesn’t have a distinction between degrees of murder, FYI, so I didn’t “dial it back” so much as “not really care about the distinction”.
Yes. We’ve been wrong for centuries on other issues, from slavery to gay rights, after all.
You are apparently, given your repeated insistence that I’m “wrong”, unclear on the difference between “I am describing the system as it is” and “I am describing the system as I want it to be.” This does not surprise me, given your ongoing general lack of both intelligence and reading comprehension on the subject of this thread.
Well, your offense is noted. And wrong–it is not adequately dealt with under current law.
More true than most gun advocates would like to admit about a very vocal subset of gun advocates.
Out of curiosity, I looked up some stats. There aren’t any particularly good ones (not good enough to cite, anyway), but it seems like around 20% of gun deaths involve a non-criminal victim. That’s enough, to me, to look at the issue.
All of which is vastly outweighed by gun suicides, which compromise ~65% of gun deaths, and which it is not irrational to be concerned about (even if I personally am unconcerned about it).
“A San Francisco Bay transit officer was accidentally shot and killed by a colleague Tuesday as they searched a suspect’s apartment to serve a warrant, officials said.”
http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/4737493
One officer’s gun discharged accidentally.
?? How do guns discharge accidentally, unless someone pulls the trigger? I though modern guns had safety mechanisms to prevent this.
A better article:
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-officer-shot-in-Dublin-5163548.php
Guns don’t kill people, oh wait. Yes they do.