So your position here is that he should be locked away forever.
No I am not. I qualified who "they" are.
Ooof
The reason you're having to repeat is because you keep implying that that is exactly what you're requiring. Remember, this hypothetical is:
Guy beats up his wife ONCE, goes to jail, serves his time, and is let out.
That's the scenario. You tried to dodge the scenario by inferring from this that it would definitely happen again and so he should be locked away forever. And if not, why is he in jail at all. The answer is because he did it ONCE. Once is enough to put someone in jail. But not for life. You continue to try to avoid this scenario, I think for some reason you'd like to pretend that it doesn't happen. People are not good or evil. Even people who beat up their wives once in a hypothetical. They're grey, all of them. This means that if someone loses their cool and hits someone, it shouldn't be a life sentence. But, at the same time, that person has demonstrated that they're a danger and something needs to be done in the immediate.
Man you're the one who's giving me a black and white hypothetical. I keep putting "ifs" and you keep ignoring them. I even gave an example of someone who hit their wife once and should not be in jail, let alone be there forever. Whether someone gets a fine, a short term sentence or life depends on the likelihood of reoffending (see below).
Have you seen P Diddy's elevator video? If there were multiple of videos of him doing that, and they weren't AI generated or whatever, would you let him out?
You want to flip this on and off like a light switch. He's either garbage and should never see the light of day again, or he should be let out and handed a gun and given full trust.
With regards to rights of free men vs prisoners, yes it should be binary. This isn't exclusive to guns.
How can you ever have the confidence to let someone out if you don't have training wheels?
By the severity of the crime, motivation, character, history, etc. You need to put some faith in some people and give them a second chance. It just has to be determined through sentencing.
Why is this restriction (that parole is not acceptable) in place to begin with? Because they have rights?
Because whether or not you make them pinky promise that they won't buy a gun through a dealer makes 0 difference. You either trust them or you don't. A career criminal will illegally buy guns from his criminal friends and you won't know about it until they've killed somebody and got caught doing it. The only people affected by the background check in this case are free citizens who have done nothing wrong in the past.
They did, right up until they committed that crime, and then they lost some rights when they were imprisoned, that's what it means to be imprisoned, you lose some of your rights.
This will open another can of worms but I'm going to say it. No, they should not lose "some" of their rights. They should only lose the right to walk freely among the public. Even that right is lost temporarily and should be restored once (or if) the sentence is over (obviously).
What's your argument for not letting prisoners vote? I remember seeing Bernie Sanders getting **** on for this by Americans from all sides and never quite understood it. The response seemed vengeful and emotional with no practical reason behind it. To be clear, I'm not just saying you should restore their voting rights after they're freed. I'm saying they should be allowed to vote from within the prison.
These are your examples for me... a serial killer and a child rapist.
I'm giving you examples of people I'd never let out. This what you all seemingly objected to.
There are many forms of "child rapist", including the 18 year old that had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.
I'm aware your laws regarding this subject are stupid like that. That's why I used "child" and not "underage". Anyone who's hit puberty is not a "child", at least not how I see it. In some states, a 17 year old taking a dick pic can be a child pornographer and a registered sex offender. That's absurd, but the solution is having reasonable laws, not just giving them parole after convciting them.
And before anyone jumps on this, as some of you often do, no I am not saying someone who's just hit puberty can give consent.
I'm asking you to consider something short of life in prison but also short of fully trusted. I'm asking you to consider a grey area.
The grey area to me is why we have sentencing.
Someone incarcerated for exposing themselves in public or to children should be let out at some point (that's not a life in prison type of crime), and should also probably not be allowed near a school. Right? You think they should be allowed to hang out near schools?
I may be opening yet another potential can of worms here, but yes I think they should be allowed near schools
if they didn't get life in prison. I'm the Arab in this conversation and it seems I'm far less prude. I don't think indecent exposure is THAT big of a deal. Obviously the person doing it is likely a sick pedo who couldn't help himself, but there's better ways of dealing with it than life in prison or letting them outside as long as they promise not to go near a school again. I'd leave out life as a last resort or if we discover more severe crimes after searching his property and online history.
You want me to give you examples of people who have only committed one offense?
No. I wasn't clear. I know not everyone reoffends. Far from it.
I asked for examples demonstrating that parole makes a difference. Let's say 10 people were convincted. 2 got life in prison, 4 were let out on parole, and 4 were let out a the end of their sentence. What's the likelihood of someone out on parole reoffending compared to someone who served his/her full sentence?
Edit: To be super clear here, I'm advocating for more leniency than you. For the person who cannot be trusted with a gun, I say they should have some of their freedom, you say they should not.
I don't see how that's lenient. Sounds reckless. You're literally saying you don't trust someone to own a gun, but you're giving him the freedom to hurt others by other means, and the ability to buy gun illegally which is
very easy to do anyway.
That is not "banning" private sale. You're doing another sidestep instead of acknowledging your mistake. Let's investigate:
Look at this! Now we're saying it's "restricting" instead of "banning". Yes, I would agree that requiring a background check for private sale is RESTRICTING private sale. But it's not banning private sale.
I misspoke. In this context I don't see the difference. Allow me to take back the word restriction there and replace it with "ban". If you have to go through a dealer to do a "private sale" it is no longer a private sale. You're just buying a used gun from a dealer that happened to belong to someone you knew. That's an effective ban.
Yea, I am. The "rest" generally don't want guns, and they don't want to get into a shootout with the 5-15% that you're talking about to prevent a tyrannical government. To make matters worse, the idea is that the 5-15% use guns to install a tyrannical government at which point they control the military. I don't think arming some anti-gun folks in los angeles is going to do much good against the US military.
So... this sounds like a bad idea to me.
Hmm...
A tyrannical government is one that does not respect rights. Even if democratically installed, it's not to be tolerated. See my signature for more information.
And how do you propose the 85% would depose such tyrnanical government?
Let's say your president and congress agreed to dismantle or pack the supreme court, then practically suspended your constitution and decided to have 0 respect for your rights (however you'd like to define them). What would you do then? Send them a strongly worded letter? Protest with your friends so that the police can crack your skulls?
Spoken like a proper authoritarian - base your information on trust of the source rather than what is being said.
You cited the source as if it has some authority (outside of the law). I cited the same source going the other way on the topic. You selectively chose Heller as if it was the final word on what the 2A means. Uncle Thomas had the final word.
Occupation is not the concern right now.
First of all if my hypothetical above about your pres/congress/court comes true, I would classify it as an occupation. Just not one by a foreign power. Foreign ccupation is an even bigger concern in general anyway and on its own should guarantee rights to small arms. While foreign occupation of America is impractical due to the large bodies of water, it isn't in other countries.
I reacted to it by explaining that you'd quickly realize it was a mistake and recant (which you didn't). I'm not sure what else you were looking for.
Perhaps I mixed up your response with others who reacted poorly in this instance. Except...
There are a lot of those coming from your account, not just that one.
It seems you're not the only one here who shares this view and it's influencing how you read my words. I'm not going to apologize for saying things that can only be interpreted in its most absurd possible way by an ex wife or someone who has preconceived notions of who I am. Just because you view my opinion as extreme on a separate topic, doesn't mean it's extreme outside GTP or that you should take everything else I say as the worst possible interpretation.
If rich people had to pay their fair share of taxes then maybe they wouldn’t be able to get so unbelievably rich as to feel entitled, lawless, and try to get away with horrible things. I see we keep them grounded by making them actually work for their money.
I hope this has nothing to do with my posts or guns.
Jesus Christ, bro. It's right there.
Let's see. Here's the full quote and context:
FPV MIC asked:
"Do you think selling guns at a flea market or gun show where background checks probably wouldn't be done is a good idea?"
To which I responded:
"No person outside of a prison cell of any country should be restricted from purchaisng guns from anywhere or anyone they like.
If you're going to impose any restriction, you need to do a meaningful study showing a direct causal effect of a great harm to the public.
If I had it my way from scratch I'd have mandatory basic training during/after high school with a license granted upon completion. Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be on the street to begin with."
I was clearly* answering a question about private sales (flea market/gun show). Clearly the "cannot be trusted with a gun" part is in reference to background checks, which theoretically determines someone's trustworthiness of owning a gun. I also put two ifs there, and made it clear that if I designed a system from scratch, I'd make a shall-issue (which I don't consider a restriction per se) process by which people can obtain guns.
*unless you're my psycho ex gf.
Danoff's right, you simply can't admit when you said something stupid that you didn't mean. You have to try and make out like you were right all along and it's everyone else's fault somehow.
Try asking me nicely to clarify next time.
If there's a legitimate competitive scene for the 7" Sig Rattler LT and not just you wanting an excuse to blast stuff with some random weapon, then absolutely.
Who's going to determine what's a legitimate reason or not? I can think of many good reasons for myself, but why should I trust some government schmuck to make that determination? I'm speaking from experience here. You do not want to let rights or other important aspect of life be at the discretion of a government entity or individual. Rules and specific, tight guidelines should be required.
If you're curious about that particular model, let me elaborate. If you're competing in a 2 gun match (rifle and handgun), and the target disances for the rifle stages are up to 200m, you'd want the shortest possible rifle you could get that can accurately make hits at that far. The longer the barrel, the more torque it has on your arm making it more difficult to hold it steady especially after a while. You could say why not the same model but in rimfire, but remember, it's at 200m. You'd be lucky getting any hits at all on the move at 100m with rimfire. The model I cited is best suited for this situation.
Also, what you just said is false anyway.
Category D
All self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading or lever-action shotguns[16] that have a magazine capacity of more than five rounds, semi-automatic rimfire rifles over ten rounds, are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers.
en.wikipedia.org
It sounds like a complete ban on the model above.
The "government" is far better equipped than the public will ever be. They have automatic weapons, tanks, missiles, weaponised drones and aircraft. They have training and strategy and command structures. They have stockpiles of equipment and food and ammunition and fuel in defensible bases.
The tanks, missiles and nukes can only do what you said following that.
If they want us wiped out, we're gonna get wiped out.
I acknowledged that already in my previous post. They'd have to choose between genocide or losing control. Without armed citizens, they don't need to make that choice. See Afghanista, Iraq, Ukraine, etc.
You're not going to win, you're just going to make sure that the country is destroyed when the military has to mobilise against it's own people and you're going to make sure that a whole lot of people die.
You'd rather live in tyranny than fight back and forcing your opponent to consider a genocide and expose themselves to the psychotic tyrants that they are?
The obvious answer would be because you've got to get into power before you can worry about being deposed. Is that too logical for you?
It's not logical or relevant at all.
No, they aren't, and it shows how much you don't know about American politics if you think Republicans are just as pro-gun control as Democrats.
Some Republicans might support some gun control legislation (like banning bump stocks), but for the most part, they block gun control legislation. It's more present at the state level than the federal level, though.
As for the voters, it's hard to say, most voters regardless of party favour gun control of some kind but that doesn't always translate into who gets voted in.
If you're talking about state-level, sure. I wasn't, though. I was talking about federal level. The ATF is a federal agency. NICS is also federal level. Bump stock bans are federal (10 years in federal prison). It's harder for local politicians and governers to screw their voters. That's true. That is of course, until they run for president and become "the lesser evil".
Also your polls are usually ****ed up. I remember one poll, in which the respondents were against Obama care but for the ACA. For the handful who may read this and aren't familiar, ObamaCare is literally the ACA. You can design a poll to show whatever you like. How exactly the questions are phrased can mean different things to different people.
It's like the gunshow loophole thing. You're saying it's not a ban on privae sales, and neither do most Americans polled on it. However, when explained to some, they change their answers. For example, you can ask someone if he's for "universal background checks" and he'll say yes. Then you ask that same person if he should be allowed to gift or sell his gun to a sibling without going to a dealer, and he'd say yes. Those two answers are not compatible.
It gets worse when a new bill is Orwellianly named as if it does what people want, but in fact, does the opposite. This is like the "right to work" ******** that happened in California which stripped away rights from gig workers. People literally voted against precisely what they thought they were voting for.
GTP is absolutely social media.
That's your opinion.
Given this broad spectrum of SM platforms, the applications of SM are quite diverse and not limited to sharing holiday snapshots or advertising and promotion.
In this article, the authors present the results from a structured review of the literature, identifying and analyzing the most quoted and dominant definitions of social media (SM) and alternative terms that were used between 1994 and 2019 to identify ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Even they're recognizing the definition is broad.
What most people think of social media is a holiday snapshot sharing platform (or similar). And again, the books I've read and talks I listened to, the experts talking about the negative effects of social media, are refering to instagram-like platforms. I don't even remember coming across the word social media during the AOL/MSN messenger days.
The
U.S. Code describes a mass shooting as "a multiple homicide incident in which not fewer than 3 victims are killed"
That's not what I asked. It doesn't even have the "school" part of my question.
I'm aware of what you sent. It's total ********. If an armed burglar is caught fleeing from a home and shoots 3 cops, it's technically a mass shooting. If a man kills his 2 children and wife with a gun, it's technically a "mass shooting" by that definition. This isn't what anyone in his right mind thinks when they hear "mass shooting" let alone school shooting. It was defined that way PRECISELY to inflate the statistics and scare poor people into agreeing to gun control laws. Just like they agreed to give up their 4th amendment after 9/11. Manufactuering consent at its finest.
Perhaps it'll help YOU form a more informed opinion if you took publicly available numbers and did the statistics on your own. While we're at it, do you know how many people are murdered by rifles in America annually? Not even just AR15's, I mean ALL rifles. If you don't already know the answer, please don't look it up yet. Take a guess first and post it here. Then I'll give you a link to a government document. Your government.
There are people who spend their careers trying to figure this out
Quite the opposite in the real world. More often than not, their careers depend on not figuring it out.
I'm sure you did create a graph though and I'm sure it showed you something, but unless you account for all the variables, the data will be misleading.
What variables? I took this:
Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and...
www.gunviolencearchive.org
And filtered out what I don't consider a mass school shooting. There was another website with a list of school shootings as well.
I mean in order to get an accurate picture you'd have to look at everything from mental health care statistics to parenting styles to the impact and accessiblity of media like video games and TV.
Seriously? Video games? Can I return the favor and ask how old you are? I already said I'm not solely blaming social media but I will absolutely absolve video games from gun violence and die on that hill.
