The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 10, 2013, 11:44 PM   #1
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
From the Bloomberg op-ed mouthpiece: here's the next front

http://www.dailycamera.com/editorial...-put-others-at

More research will, I'm sure, turn up more "dangerous elements" amongst the ciitzenry. Not sure if a 10 year ban is the goal for all of these new sub-sets of citizens, but this appears to be the new chisel for chipping away.

Or maybe I am just way behind the curve.
edit: Theohazard has asked for a bit more info (to avoid drive by status). Good point.
The short summary is that this op-ed piece points out that besides the well-recognized groups of people that are banned from possessing firearms (e.g.: Felons), research shows that other behaviors are indicative of a high potential for violent behavior. One of the examples given: 2 drunk driving offenses within 5 years. The article suggests banning these people from possessing firearms for possibly 10 years.

So, it appears that the next trenches of the gun debate will be fought by statistical analysis of behavior and demographics rather than crime stats. "Why 10 years? Do you have 20 years of data that shows that people with 2 drunk driving violations are potentially violent for the next 10 years?"
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.

Last edited by doofus47; December 11, 2013 at 02:31 AM. Reason: to avoid drive by status
doofus47 is offline  
Old December 10, 2013, 11:57 PM   #2
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
One of the things I have hard time getting around is how gun violence is its own special category. If you are wounded or killed by some other kind of violence are you somehow less violated or dead?
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 12:15 AM   #3
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
Doofus47, could you give a quick summary of the article? As it is now, your OP is pretty close to a drive-by and stands a good chance of being closed by the mods. Also, I'd rather not have to read the piece myself, as it will probably anger me enough that I'll end up ranting to my wife about it, and she's pretty tired of my anti-gun-control rants after the year we've had in the gun world!
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 12:52 AM   #4
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
A bunch of fear mongering about things already prohibited that should be, but hints that they aren't. Violent misdemeanors, involuntary commitments, and so on.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 01:46 AM   #5
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Some group called the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy (I know anti-gun groups, and I've never heard of these guys) wants to establish a set of criteria under which people are subject to temporary (10 years by their suggestion) deprivation of the right to own guns. There's no indication of how they'll get around pesky things like due process.

Frankly, this should be enough to make any rational person reject their argument:

Quote:
So is the loss of individual rights worth the increase in public safety? Possibly.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 02:40 AM   #6
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
Tom S:
Quote:
Frankly, this should be enough to make any rational person reject their argument:

Quote:
So is the loss of individual rights worth the increase in public safety? Possibly.
Agreed 100%, but considering the numbers of people who don't care about NSA behavior b/c "I'm not a terrorist".... This might be a good move for the anti-gunners: create some FUD about dangerous people going undetected, then tell people that "science" tells us who these people are. PM news report summary "It's not YOU, it's the other guy you don't know. These 'moderate laws' will help keep us all safe." Science makes all things bearable, especially when other people have to bear 'it.'
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 07:54 AM   #7
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,881
Looks like their goal is to have more citizens on a list that cannot own guns. They will chip away until everyone for one reason or another will not be allowed to own a gun. Seems like another form of gun control to disarm the citizens.
rebs is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 08:27 AM   #8
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
Good to some unbiased research from:

Quote:
a collection of gun violence scholars at major universities who call themselves the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy

The caps made me a gigggle a bit.
Quote:
And as it turns out, the list of People Who Should Not Be Allowed to Possess a Gun may be inadequate.
If you are going to propagandize you may as well do all you can to emphasize your points.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 08:29 AM   #9
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
10 years is not a temporary ban in my world. If the plan was to change the people the are permanently banned to 10 years I could probably support that. But in general I think once someone has served their time or had the case disposed of they should have their rights and privileges returned. There is no need to go looking for new and unfounded ways to ban more people.

That "reasonable" inch becomes more ridiculous all the time.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 08:35 AM   #10
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
Frankly, this should be enough to make any rational person reject their argument:

Quote:
So is the loss of individual rights worth the increase in public safety? Possibly.
Unfortunately for the irrational majority the answer has been yes for at least the last 10 or 15 years. Post 9-11 fear has helped pave the way for overreach on a number of issues.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 08:41 AM   #11
jimbob86
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Looks like their goal is to have more citizens on a list that cannot own guns. They will chip away until everyone for one reason or another will not be allowed to own a gun. Seems like another form of gun control to disarm the citizens.
Agreed: More Incrementalism/Slippery Slope/Compromise (Nibbling at Lawdog's Cake) ........

Is the increase in "Safety" worth the loss of more Freedom?

No, and those who think so will, eventually, have neither.

"Safety" is as bottomless and black a pit as "Need": you can sacrifice everything you have, and everything everyone else has, and it will never be filled in...... and you are left with nothing, and void remains.
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 10:47 AM   #12
psyfly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 932
Thank you, jimbob86, for turning the statement around so it now makes sense in English:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbob86
Is the increase in "Safety" worth the loss of more Freedom?
The way the author (not the Original Poster) originally stated it, it made no sense.

And, thank you for:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbob86
"Safety" is as bottomless and black a pit as "Need": you can sacrifice everything you have, and everything everyone else has, and it will never be filled in...... and you are left with nothing, and void remains.
I'd like your permission to quote this one widely. (If granted, please PM me with an appropriate attribution if "jimbob86 on TFL" won't serve.)

Best,

Will
__________________
Show me the data
psyfly is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 10:57 AM   #13
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
Reemphasize:

Quote:
People Who Should Not Be Allowed to Possess a Gun
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 11:33 AM   #14
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
Seeing as Chicago politicians statistically have about a 30% chance of being convicted of a felony I'd recommend they be permanently banned from owning firearms.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 12:59 PM   #15
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Is the increase in "Safety" worth the loss of more Freedom?
I've never seen proof, from anywhere or any time, that giving up freedom in exchange for safety has actually made anyone safer.

If that were the case, gun-control advocates could quote real statistics showing that the 1968 and 1994 laws reduced gun violence. They can't.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 12, 2013, 12:58 AM   #16
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
Well if you guys go line by line of the people they want to give a 10 year ban to, it's mostly people already under a life-time ban. They work very hard to hint at classes of already Prohibited Persons not being prohibited. The "involuntarily committed" are Adjudicated Mentally Deficient for example. You could go 1 for 1 with every example they have, and find a 4473 question their hypothetical person can't answer honestly and pass the form.

Edit To Add: I haven't seen a study Tom, I doubt there is one, so it's causation/correlation right now, but there has been one part of the 93-94 omnibus stuff from Clinton's crime/gun package in effect for the full 20+ year homicide downturn. The AWB came and went. Grants for local police funding has probably come and gone with various funding levels. Background checks have been in place for pretty much the full time, and are probably here to stay
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 12, 2013, 01:16 AM   #17
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,436
Quote:
a collection of gun violence scholars at major universities who call themselves the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy
That right there is enough to undermine any credibility they might hope to have. There's nothing like parsing the input to focus on your particular obsession.

The problem is violence. Guns are but one tool that can be used to perpetrate violence. When you focus solely on violence perpetrated with guns, you can't possibly hope to have much impact on violence in general. It's like trying to improve traffic safety by studying and responding ONLY to accident caused by burned out brake lights. Never mind bald tires, faulty brakes, cell phone abuse, drunk drivers, etc. -- we have to address the burned out brake light problem if we're going to reduce accidents.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 12, 2013, 07:54 AM   #18
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
Quote:
One of the things I have hard time getting around is how gun violence is its own special category. If you are wounded or killed by some other kind of violence are you somehow less violated or dead?

I know what you mean. To me, a person who beats somebody to death with his fists is far more violent, and mentally a greater threat to society than somebody who shoots someone. It takes a special kind of evil to kill somebody up close and personal.
TimSr is offline  
Old December 12, 2013, 08:24 AM   #19
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy
Here is a quick run down of their game plan:

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/gu...9bb30f31a.html

Quote:
Other recommendations did not target the mentally ill in particular. The group recommended a special warrant that would allow police to remove firearms from the possession of people authorities believe to be a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, the consortium proposed a new civil restraining order process could allow citizens to petition the court for the temporary removal of firearms from friends or family members who are considered at that time to be dangerous, according to the report.
Other high-risk populations targeted by the consortium's recommendations include people with histories of substance abuse and domestic violence.
There is a lot more at the link. I'd point out that the last group is already banned from ownership so we are back to the "double secret" ban.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old December 12, 2013, 10:13 AM   #20
jimbob86
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Well if you guys go line by line of the people they want to give a 10 year ban to, it's mostly people already under a life-time ban.
Were it not for the "mostly" in there ..... hmmmm......

So they want to remove the lifetime bans and replace them with 10 year bans?



Do they think about the things they propose or just spout them out like they get paid per idea, dumb or not?

That does make more sense than adding a ten year ban on top of the lifetime ban ..... but then again, these are the kind of people that brought us Life+x years in prison .... words are malleable with them ......


Lifetime + 10 years? So you can't buy a gun from your casket?

....and if you do posses a gun in the 10 years after your death, then it is still a felony, and you should be charged, and if convicted, and put on the Infinity year ban list ......... and if that does not work, we'll pass another law, to make gun possession even moar ......... illegallllllllllllllll............ er? Then, of course on to moar illegallest! Then, We'll just add meaningless suffixes! ....... Moar Illegallestishmentness!

Silly, yes ...... but not as silly as the thinking of these people, who seem to believe that if they just have another study in support of passing a feel-good law, then people that are inclined to do violence to others will give 3 toots in a tornado that they are violating any law, let alone the laws that they are constantly dreaming up .... Laws only affect the Law-abiding.
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 12, 2013, 10:24 AM   #21
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbob86
Lifetime + 10 years? So you can't buy a gun from your casket?

....and if you do posses a gun in the 10 years after your death, then it is still a felony, and you should be charged, and if convicted, and put on the Infinity year ban list ......... and if that does not work, we'll pass another law, to make gun possession even moar ......... illegallllllllllllllll............ er? Then, of course on to moar illegallest! Then, We'll just add meaningless suffixes! ....... Moar Illegallestishmentness!
jimbob86, can you imagine the difficulty of fighting the zombie apocalypse if the zombies have guns too?

I fully support any law preventing the dead from possessing firearms.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old December 12, 2013, 10:28 AM   #22
jimbob86
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
...... "Mama, put my guns in the ground, I can't use them, anymore ......"
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 12, 2013, 10:38 AM   #23
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,685
Quote:
I fully support any law preventing the dead from possessing firearms.
I hope such a law will be at least as effective as the one preventing the dead from VOTING!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old December 12, 2013, 10:44 AM   #24
jimbob86
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
I hope such a law will be at least as effective as the one preventing the dead from VOTING!
In some locales, the dead would be armed to the teeth!
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 12, 2013, 12:00 PM   #25
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Gun related scholarship is driven for the most part by an antipathy towards firearms. There are a few neutral scholars or some who are or not gun friendly but will honestly analyzed the data.

The biases in science are now well documented across many fields. The pre-existing biases direct what is studied and what gets published.

Eventually, the truth will come out but it is a hard process.

I shudder to think what would have happened if Lott's work didn't come out as positive for gun usage but his methodology was the same. He would be damned by all the gun folk in the harshest language.

I've seen a touch of that with my AR-15 study. Folks of lesser analytic minds have called me names - imagine that.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08894 seconds with 8 queries