Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1087323 Posts in 72015 Topics- by 19243 Members - Latest Member: CABurton159
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9]  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Las Vegas shooting  (Read 4453 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51144
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #160 on: Oct 06, 2017, 12:08PM »

Courts established that fully automatic weapons were not legal for private ownership in the 1930s.

The "Bump Stock" and other modifications that make a non-automatic weapon act like an automatic weapon are basically trying to skirt the law.

If it walks like a duck ...

These things make AR-15s into machine guns.  Illegal.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #161 on: Oct 06, 2017, 12:25PM »

Tim, I do get what you're saying:

There's a difference between, "You can't have this because you don't need it", which is totalitarian, and "You can't have this because there's a public interest that is more compelling than the particular freedom being allowed."

I might suggest, though, that "What do people need this for?" is half the equation, even in the second case. If you're trying to do a cost benefit analysis, you have to calculate the personal benefit as well as the public cost.

Additionally, in the particular case of gun law this has been the prevailing counter-argument--that seemingly excessive weapons have legitimate benefits to hunters, target shooters, and DGU. It's easier to arrive at a consensus if some of these weapons can be shown to have no primary use other than allowing a poor marksman to kill a lot of people at once.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9684

View Profile
« Reply #162 on: Oct 06, 2017, 12:33PM »

I don't think that 'need' is valid condition for ownership.

How many 'need' all the trombones you own?

How would you go about proving?
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #163 on: Oct 06, 2017, 01:54PM »

Well, maybe I stated it badly.
 
The way I see it, cost benefit analysis if it shows harm must limit personal freedom.  I'm fine with that, at least in principle - none of us live alone on a desert island.  Absent that analysis, everything is legal.
 
I am seeing a contrast with the "but you don't need XXX"  approach. That seems to imply nothing is legal unless you can prove it should be. 
 
The burden of proof should be on the state to show harm, rather than on the individual to show need.

Ah ... yeah, no argument with that.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: Oct 06, 2017, 02:01PM »

Courts established that fully automatic weapons were not legal for private ownership in the 1930s.
 
The "Bump Stock" and other modifications that make a non-automatic weapon act like an automatic weapon are basically trying to skirt the law.
 
If it walks like a duck ...
 
These things make AR-15s into machine guns.  Illegal.

That certainly does seem a hard position to argue against anyway.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #165 on: Oct 06, 2017, 02:04PM »

I don't think that 'need' is valid condition for ownership.

That's because you choose to only see or hear the parts of the argument that don't pose real problems for your personal view, so it's never challenged with troublesome issues like facts or actual reasoning and such (which is a pretty good litmus for the level of one's intellectual integrity and honesty).
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Bruce the budgie

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Oct 1, 2013
Posts: 276
"A burp is not a grace note."


View Profile
« Reply #166 on: Oct 06, 2017, 02:20PM »

Courts established that fully automatic weapons were not legal for private ownership in the 1930s.

The "Bump Stock" and other modifications that make a non-automatic weapon act like an automatic weapon are basically trying to skirt the law.

If it walks like a duck ...

These things make AR-15s into machine guns.  Illegal.

I believe the particular legalistic hair here being split has to do with a “single press of the trigger” causing multiple shots to be fired. A bump stock, or its field-expedient imitators, merely enables rapidity of multiple trigger pulls.

(If one were to flutter-tongue a single pitch, is that one note, or many? Tremolo written for strings can look like one note with bars across the stem.)
 
This is why the ATF cannot regulate bump stocks away. The legislature has this ball in their court, and needs to fine-tune the letter of the law to match its spirit.
Logged
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #167 on: Oct 06, 2017, 04:01PM »

I don't think that 'need' is valid condition for ownership.

How many 'need' all the trombones you own?

How would you go about proving?

I think that's Tim's point, and no reasonable person would disagree with it. It's not our job to prove to the state that we need something.

When something has a general social impact, your 'need' becomes an issue because it's weighed against the public interest. If you're trying to divert groundwater, and there are people downstream from you, it's reasonable to ask what your need is, in order to create a fair balance.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
slide advantage
*
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 18, 2016
Posts: 808

View Profile WWW
« Reply #168 on: Oct 06, 2017, 05:27PM »


When something has a general social impact, your 'need' becomes an issue because it's weighed against the public interest. If you're trying to divert groundwater, and there are people downstream from you, it's reasonable to ask what your need is, in order to create a fair balance.

Good analogy.

Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #169 on: Oct 06, 2017, 06:10PM »

I'm not a second amendment scholar and don't pretend to know all the reasons.  Or much care.

But it seems to me another concept has been inserted that confuses the issue.

US courts have consistently upheld the right to exercise self defense, have they not? Even in some rather dubious circumstances.   That would seem to generate gun ownership as an implied secondary right, because clearly disabled or small or female people who would have no other option can't be denied the right to self defense.

We take that "right" for granted in the US but it is by no means universal across the world. 
Actually the biggest confusion there is recent and written directly by NRA lobbyists. Self defense has been around yes, but with strong caveats. Prior to the NRA's initial legislation in FL that they then pushed to other states, there was a duty to retreat first. If you weren't trying to get away you couldn't claim defense.

Comes back to the NRA and normalizing owning and using guns where we get the stand you ground type, no retreat self defense bs.

Or bs laws like in Texas where a bystander can stop a commission of a crime with a gun legally. Even minor ones. Thus allowing the gun owner bystander more individual power than the entire judiciary.
Logged
Ellrod

*
Offline Offline

Location: North
Joined: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 6363

View Profile
« Reply #170 on: Oct 06, 2017, 06:19PM »

Self defence usually conveys the right to use as much force as is reasonable in the circumstances.

Who was the guy on the NY subway who shot and killed a fellow threatening him with a screwdriver?

Edited to add: Bernard Goetz shot and killed 4 would be muggers. 1984.

Logged
slide advantage
*
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 18, 2016
Posts: 808

View Profile WWW
« Reply #171 on: Oct 06, 2017, 06:20PM »

If the NRA has its way, the entire USA society will evolve into episodes of Gunsmoke. I am sure they'd have no problem with guns being allowed ANYWHERE, included bars.

This country is going crazy.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #172 on: Oct 06, 2017, 06:22PM »

If the NRA has its way, the entire USA society will evolve into episodes of Gunsmoke. I am sure they'd have no problem with guns being allowed ANYWHERE, included bars.

This country is going crazy.
Bars, churches, preschools, school campuses... some of the NRA stronghold states recently passed laws to allow these.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9]  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: