Guns

[Blood Eagle]

I was convicted of a felony, I took the first offenders act, which I screwed up and finished the rest of my probation in jail. I can vote so I don't know if the state doesn't know or the feds or since I completed my time I was awarded the first offenders act. I honestly don't know, I've had jobs that took issue with it and others that didn't care.

From what I know, if you are convicted of a Felony in Georgia you cannot vote while serving time but once you are released you can. But a Felony is a lifetime ban from firearm ownership on the federal level.

 

[PocketZeven]

We've discussed this before but what would a mandatory registration accomplish? If a citizen wants a concealed weapons permit there already is mandatory training unless you live in Arizona where it's perfectly legal to conceal a firearm without a permit (if you meet the criteria aka are legal to own guns). I agree that police need more training. More police may reduce crime overall but cannot and will not eliminate it. Also more police means higher taxes because police are paid by the taxpayers. So now we are talking about limiting people's rights even more, raising taxes, making things mandatory that don't really serve a purpose from a crime reduction standpoint (mandatory registration). When you say police have mandatory registration, are you talking about their own privately owned guns or the ones they are issued? Their private guns would only be registered if the state requires it (like California) but gun laws for police are more lax than regular civilians due to law enforcement exemptions. That means police can own stuff the most citizens can't. For example, in California we have a safe handgun roster. Basically means that you cannot buy certain handguns here that haven't been subject to California sponsored specific testing like drop tests etc. Police officers can buy anything that doesn't meet the requirements because of the law enforcement exemption. Their duty weapons? Those belong to the department and arguably the taxpayers (some small rural departments use their own). Privately owned guns are serialized and there is federal and state paperwork involved that has a record of the number and the person. Issued weapons are serialized and attached to the officer it was issued to. Military weapons are serialized and loaned to a servicemember through an armory to be returned at a certain time and date. That serial number is recorded and attached to the servicemenber. Those aren't privately owned guns, those belong to the government and arguably the taxpayer. I've heard plenty of people advocate for an armory style US gun owner system but those guns are your personal property hence my opposition. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a police officer with a gun". That's just untrue. Police were already included the first way when "good guy" was mentioned.

I cannot take state laws in consideration. Gunlaws in my opinion should be federal. Perhaps for concealed carrying but not gunownership as a whole.

Isnt reducing crime the goal? More tax=more safety=worth it. But then again most americans dont seem to object paying for the US's absurdly large military budget (750 Billion vs 100 Billion law enforcement budget)? So actually you wouldnt need to increase (your already low) taxes at all. Why not double the budget for law enforcement? Do you really think the US military needs 750 Billion (increase from 650).

 

[Famine]

I cannot take state laws in consideration. Gunlaws in my opinion should be federal.

There's one pretty major federal gun law, which says that the federal government has no place deciding that for 50 separate countries-in-all-but-name* with different cultures, challenges, environments and heritage, so that power is reserved for the states themselves.

It seems pretty sensible when one state is 1,200sqmi and 40% urban, while another is 650,000sqmi, 90% uninhabited (and uninhabitable) and has 200 apex predators per human. One rule governing firearms does not fit both places, unless that rule is "You have to live there, you decide.".


*Don't think of the USA as one country with 50 states. Think of it as 50 countries which cooperate in the interests of overall economy, security and justice.

 

[PocketZeven]

There's one pretty major federal gun law, which says that the federal government has no place deciding that for 50 separate countries-in-all-but-name* with different cultures, challenges, environments and heritage, so that power is reserved for the states themselves.

It seems pretty sensible when one state is 1,200sqmi and 40% urban, while another is 650,000sqmi, 90% uninhabited (and uninhabitable) and has 200 apex predators per human. One rule governing firearms does not fit both places, unless that rule is "You have to live there, you decide.".


*Don't think of the USA as one country with 50 states. Think of it as 50 countries which cooperate in the interests of overall economy, security and justice.

There are many things that you indeed should fall under state governance. However criminal law and gun laws are not relevant to those differerent cultures, environments and heritage. That the government has no place deciding is a matter of opinion.

 

[Famine]

However criminal law and gun laws are not relevant to those differerent cultures, environments and heritage.

Why lump together "criminal law and gun laws" like that?

More importantly, why are they not relevant? Something that may be a petty crime in one location may be a far more serious crime in another simply through the consequences of the action emerging from the location - deciding the level of the crime and the magnitude of the appropriate punishment at a federal level is simply inappropriate. Why can't local bodies decide what a crime is and how serious it is, rather than having the federal government spend money and time (which is also money) creating that law for every locale, however inappropriate it is, in the entire nation?

@Danoff earlier gave you the example of a lone farm in the middle of nowhere under KKK siege, hours from police assistance (and your solution was to create segregation legislation that would allow "coloured" people to have guns to defend themselves from violent white racists). I'd hoped you'd understand from the example that necessity is determined by the circumstances at that very specific level, not a panel of suits thousands of miles away.

The environment, culture and heritage of Alaska is very different from the environment, culture and heritage of Pennsylvania. Laws that may suit one are not likely to suit the other, because of the huge differences between them. The USA was created with exactly that in mind - and it only exists because the states have agreed what it can't impose on them. Gun control is among those things precisely because of the differences in cultures, environments and heritage of those 50 little (and not so little) countries.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why lump together "criminal law and gun laws" like that?

More importantly, why are they not relevant? Something that may be a petty crime in one location may be a far more serious crime in another simply through the consequences of the action emerging from the location - deciding the level of the crime and the magnitude of the appropriate punishment at a federal level is simply inappropriate. Why can't local bodies decide what a crime is and how serious it is, rather than having the federal government spend money and time (which is also money) creating that law for every locale, however inappropriate it is, in the entire nation?

@Danoff earlier gave you the example of a lone farm in the middle of nowhere under KKK siege, hours from police assistance (and your solution was to create segregation legislation that would allow "coloured" people to have guns to defend themselves from violent white racists). I'd hoped you'd understand from the example that necessity is determined by the circumstances at that very specific level, not a panel of suits thousands of miles away.

The environment, culture and heritage of Alaska is very different from the environment, culture and heritage of Pennsylvania. Laws that may suit one are not likely to suit the other, because of the huge differences between them. The USA was created with exactly that in mind - and it only exists because the states have agreed what it can't impose on them. Gun control is among those things precisely because of the differences in cultures, environments and heritage of those 50 little (and not so little) countries.

I agree to disagree.

 

[Famine]

I agree to disagree.

On which bit? Only a lot of it is factual and a chunk of it is questions for you...

 

[PocketZeven]

On which bit? Only a lot of it is factual and a chunk of it is questions for you...

In my opinion criminal law and gun laws (not excluding other laws, these were just relevant to the discussion) should be federal. Please give me better examples on how some criminal laws should be different for different states. The example of the kkk should apply to the whole country and not just a few states.

Even small countries like mine have varied terrain and cultures yet for example criminal law or gun laws are not region specific.

Edit: England or any country in the UK probably even more so.

 

[Northstar]

Even small countries like mine have varied terrain and cultures yet for example criminal law or gun laws are not region specific.

How about compared to other European countries?

 

[PocketZeven]

How about compared to other European countries?

Those are different countries with their own governments, political systems etc. Why would you compare them?

 

[Northstar]

Those are different countries with their own governments, political systems etc. Why would you compare them?

Because as has been pointed out to you several times now, the US is more or less 50 countries. Think of the federal level as the EU.

So, do you think the EU should have control over gun laws for all of its members?

 

[Famine]

In my opinion criminal law and gun laws (not excluding other laws, these were just relevant to the discussion) should be federal.

Yes, I got that from the post I already responded to. My question was why.

Please give me better examples on how some criminal laws should be different for different states.

Utah, which is a heavily religious state, has outlawed all forms of gambling, and it does not permit anyone to buy or sell alcohol outside of state-owned and controlled stores (and then not on a Sunday). Gambling and the purchase of alcohol outside these stores is a criminal offence.

This works for Utah's culture and heritage - the Mormon religion. It doesn't work for neighbouring Nevada, which is very fond of gambling and alcohol consumption literally in the street, nor many of the other 48 states (there are 17 states that control the sale of alcohol; Utah is the most restrictive. There are two states that ban gambling outright). This is thus not a power the Federal government has or should have, but one reserved to the state itself.

It even works at lower levels. Some states restrict gambling (and types of gambling) outside of certain cities, while some allow the cities to restrict it themselves. This is as it should be - smaller units of government should have a wider set of powers that are geographically limited, while larger ones should have a smaller set of far-reaching powers. The smallest unit is, of course, the individual.

Even small countries like mine have varied terrain and cultures yet for example criminal law or gun laws are not region specific.

Yeah, no, not really. I've been to every corner of the Netherlands, and the terrain is almost identical to Lincolnshire, if Lincolnshire also had Glasgow in it. As for culture... nah.

You're trying to compare one of Europe's smaller countries to the fourth largest land area in the world, which runs from ocean to ocean, desert to tundra, from 100m below sea level to 6,200m above it, from -60C to +60C, with a population whose ancestry stretches to every other country in the world (including yours) and literal indigenous people and wildlife you've only ever seen in a zoo or on TV. The variety within a US state is broader than most countries, never mind the variety across them.

They are not homogenous. The USA itself exists only as a protective framework above the fifty member states and - by design and necessity - there are powers the members have not given to it precisely because what works for 30 states might not work for the other 20.

Those are different countries with their own governments, political systems etc. Why would you compare them?

Don't think of the USA as one country with 50 states. Think of it as 50 countries which cooperate in the interests of overall economy, security and justice.

 

[PocketZeven]

Because as has been pointed out to you several times now, the US is more or less 50 countries. Think of the federal level as the EU.

So, do you think the EU should have control over gun laws for all of its members?

You should think the eu as a coalition of neighbouring countries of Canada, the USA and Mexico. That would be a better comparison. A EU member cant vote directly for the members of the EU comission (only the representatives from their own country). So you really shouldnt compare the EU with the USA.

The USA however does not resemble such a union. I have heard this notion before, but I dont see how you one can see the USA as 50 countries. I could say that my country would also be compiled of 12 countries. However al 50 states vote for a federal government, the majority of each state have the same ethnic background, the same language is standardised, the whole country has one military etc. Only someone from the USA would ever presume that states in the USA are similar to countries in the EU.


Even if I would ignore unreasonable comparison the EU does actually have a firearms directive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Firearms_Directive

 

[Famine]

Only someone from the USA would ever presume that states in the USA are similar to countries in the EU.

I'm not from the USA.

The USA however does not resemble such a union. I have heard this notion before, but I dont see how you one can see the USA as 50 countries.

I've explained this to you in three posts now, but it's baked into the structure of the USA. It is a constitutionally limited cooperation of fifty member states. Even the federal government itself isn't actually in any of the 50 states, for this specific reason...

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes, I got that from the post I already responded to. My question was why.

Utah, which is a heavily religious state, has outlawed all forms of gambling, and it does not permit anyone to buy or sell alcohol outside of state-owned and controlled stores (and then not on a Sunday). Gambling and the purchase of alcohol outside these stores is a criminal offence.

This works for Utah's culture and heritage - the Mormon religion. It doesn't work for neighbouring Nevada, which is very fond of gambling and alcohol consumption literally in the street, nor many of the other 48 states (there are 17 states that control the sale of alcohol; Utah is the most restrictive. There are two states that ban gambling outright). This is thus not a power the Federal government has or should have, but one reserved to the state itself.

It even works at lower levels. Some states restrict gambling (and types of gambling) outside of certain cities, while some allow the cities to restrict it themselves. This is as it should be - smaller units of government should have a wider set of powers that are geographically limited, while larger ones should have a smaller set of far-reaching powers. The smallest unit is, of course, the individual.

Yeah, no, not really. I've been to every corner of the Netherlands, and the terrain is almost identical to Lincolnshire, if Lincolnshire also had Glasgow in it. As for culture... nah.

You're trying to compare one of Europe's smaller countries to the fourth largest land area in the world, which runs from ocean to ocean, desert to tundra, from 100m below sea level to 6,200m above it, from -60C to +60C, with a population whose ancestry stretches to every other country in the world (including yours) and literal indigenous people and wildlife you've only ever seen in a zoo or on TV. The variety within a US state is broader than most countries, never mind the variety across them.

They are not homogenous. The USA itself exists only as a protective framework above the fifty member states and - by design and necessity - there are powers the members have not given to it precisely because what works for 30 states might not work for the other 20.

I was referring to criminal law and gun laws that apply to gun ownership. Gambling has much more to do with zoning requirements like in the netherlands. But even then obviously a casino would not get a permit in a religious town in the netherlands, but would get one in another part of the netherlands.

I dont think the size of a country is relevant when it comes to criminal law. Large countries like china, canada and india have federal criminal laws.

You dont know the netherlands as good as you think. see below. Culturally there are certainly differences like someone from Liverpool differs from someone London.

edit:

I'm not from the USA.

I've explained this to you in three posts now, but it's baked into the structure of the USA. It is a constitutionally limited cooperation of fifty member states. Even the federal government itself isn't actually in any of the 50 states, for this specific reason...

I am curious how the structure of the USA different then an individual european country? My country also has provinces and county officials who are seperately elected by vote (not appointed). So the national government is also not neccessarily in every province.

 

[ryzno]

Y'all have WAY more patience than me...

 

[Famine]

I was referring to criminal law and gun laws that apply to gun ownership. Gambling has much more to do with zoning requirements like in the netherlands.

Gambling is a criminal offence if not conducted where it's permitted...

I dont think the size of a country is relevant when it comes to criminal law. Large countries like china, canada and india have federal criminal laws.

So does the USA, but the states still have the power to create their own laws, as do the cities, districts and counties below them...

You dont know the netherlands as good as you think. see below.

Yup, that's East Anglia alright.

 

[PocketZeven]

Gambling is a criminal offence if not conducted where it's permitted...

So does the USA, but the states still have the power to create their own laws, as do the cities, districts and counties below them...

Yup, that's East Anglia alright.

That applies to the Netherlands as well. It is illegal, except in certain zones with permits. How is that so much different?

I would very much disagree with you there about the variation of culture within the netherlands. Obviously a country with a larger size will have more variety like China, Canada etc. But that doesnt justify why one should compare the EU with the USA. Do you have the opinion that states in the usa differ similary like a country like england differs culturally with Italy?

edit: Forgot to say the netherlands also has laws on province and county level.

The point was about gun laws should be federal in my opinion. Could you give an example why specifically gunlaws should not be federal?

 

[Danoff]

Do you have the opinion that states in the usa differ similary like a country like england differs culturally with Italy?

Yea the culture in Maine does not closely resemble the culture in Texas. Hawaii is its own thing.

The point was about gun laws should be federal in my opinion. Could you give an example why specifically gunlaws should not be federal?

There are federal gun laws (the most of famous of which is probably the 2nd amendment, but there are more). Just not all gun laws are federal.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yea the culture in Maine does not closely resemble the culture in Texas. Hawaii is its own thing.



There are federal gun laws (the most of famous of which is probably the 2nd amendment, but there are more). Just not all gun laws are federal.

I would agree with hawaii (there is ethnic and language diversity). Maine and Texas I am not that familiar with, but western Dutch and eastern Dutch vary a lot too. In the west there is much more cultural diversity and in the east not so much.

It still does not explain why one should see the USA as 50 "countries". In my opinion states have more similarities to provinces in a country then individual countries in the EU.

Why wouldnt gun laws be federal. I personally cant understand why one can easily purchase and open carry in one state and in some it is almost impossible to obtain a permit. A democratic federal law in my opinion would make more sense.

Edit: added context about cultural diversity in regions in a small country like the netherlands.

 

[ryzno]

It goes back to our founding, there was no federal government, every state represented themselves.

 

[PocketZeven]

It goes back to our founding, there was no federal government, every state represented themselves.

That isnt unique to the USA. It applies to most countries in the world.

 

[ryzno]

That isnt unique to the USA. It applies to most countries in the world.

It's not, but we also don't want our federal government controlling our entire lives. It's a big reason why people move to different states, they are all governed differently.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's not, but we also don't want our federal government controlling our entire lives. It's a big reason why people move to different states, they are all governed differently.

Most countries consisted of tribes or counties that eventually became united under some rule. Not wanting the federal government controlling lives isnt exclusive to americans. Why would you think that? How do you think european countries are run?

 

[BobK]

Most countries consisted of tribes or counties that eventually became united under some rule. Not wanting the federal government controlling lives isnt exclusive to americans. Why would you think that? How do you think european countries are run?

Why are you saying the federal government should have more control over Americans' lives?

 

[PocketZeven]

Why are you saying the federal government should have more control over Americans' lives?

Nope. Just confused why gunlaws arent federal.

 

[ryzno]

Nope. Just confused why gunlaws arent federal.

And as @Danoff said, we have Federal gun laws. The states use them as a starting point to state gun laws. Rather simple.

 

[PocketZeven]

And as @Danoff said, we have Federal gun laws. The states use them as a starting point to state gun laws. Rather simple.

I understand, but I was referring to registration, carrying and background checks/permits. They vary a lot among states. Why isnt it the same among among all states? Could you explain why they should vary so much among states?

 

[Corsa]

I dont see how you one can see the USA as 50 countries

Born and raised in New York, been in the states 41 years this is the first I've heard of this as well.

I think you may have taken it out of context? As in it was an example of how to approach our laws more so than it being 50 countries reporting to D.C.

Famine has good points on how diverse our country is and the laws of the land do indeed mirror that.

I can head to my cabin in Tennessee and target shoot in my backyard all day nobody cares.
Back in NYC I'd be arrested for discharging a firearm within city limits.

The laws also vary within state lines. I can target shoot at my sister's house in Buckingham, FL but cannot at my parents house in Jacksonville, FL.

Still, while our media loves to dramatize our current political divisions, the USA is very much united as one country and I could never consider my neighbors in Georgia a foreign land. They are my brothers.

 

[PocketZeven]

Born and raised in New York, been in the states 41 years this is the first I've heard of this as well.

I think you may have taken it out of context? As in it was an example of how to approach our laws more so than it being 50 countries reporting to D.C.

Famine has good points on how diverse our country is and the laws of the land do indeed mirror that.

I can head to my cabin in Tennessee and target shoot in my backyard all day nobody cares.
Back in NYC I'd be arrested for discharging a firearm within city limits.

The laws also vary within state lines. I can target shoot at my sister's house in Buckingham, FL but cannot at my parents house in Jacksonville, FL.

Still, while our media loves to dramatize our current political divisions, the USA is very much united as one country and I could never consider my neighbors in Georgia a foreign land. They are my brothers.

Perhaps I should add more detail in my question. Target shooting in a backyard in a populated city is logically illegal for a number of reasons (sound disturbance, false police reports etc.) . I am not saying it should be illegal in Tennessee, because I view it as zoning (where you can shoot freely targetshoot or hunt) that should indeed be decided by local/regional government, because of different terrain and population density.

I am talking about the way you purchase, register, training, background checks, permits etc . In other words mainly the requirements and laws around how and who can obtain and own a gun in my opinion should be federal.

Is it easy to buy a gun in a state where its very easy to purchase (even when you are not from that state?) and then smuggle it in your bag to a heavily regulated state?