Guns
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-09-2014, 09:02 PM
RE: Guns
Self defense laws are absolutely insane in many places. Where I am, you are not allowed to attack Anyone for any reason what so ever if they come into your own home with a gun and fire at you and your family.

For example, If I take a knife and threaten him with it. I can go to jail for 10-20 years for assault with a deadly weapon and my attacker would be the prosecutor.

If someone attacks me in the street, I can face possible charges if I swing back at them. Doing anything that does not mean dying or running away is illegal and most of the states have these same laws or are far worst than that. It is really fucking retarded.

The only law that protects you is so broken and messed up from being amended so many times, it makes copyright laws seem perfectly designed and infallible. (for those of you who do not know, Copyright law is one of the most confused, messed up Piles of crap on the planet).


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 03:32 AM
RE: Guns
(21-09-2014 09:02 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Self defense laws are absolutely insane in many places. Where I am, you are not allowed to attack Anyone for any reason what so ever if they come into your own home with a gun and fire at you and your family.

For example, If I take a knife and threaten him with it. I can go to jail for 10-20 years for assault with a deadly weapon and my attacker would be the prosecutor.

If someone attacks me in the street, I can face possible charges if I swing back at them. Doing anything that does not mean dying or running away is illegal and most of the states have these same laws or are far worst than that. It is really fucking retarded.

The only law that protects you is so broken and messed up from being amended so many times, it makes copyright laws seem perfectly designed and infallible. (for those of you who do not know, Copyright law is one of the most confused, messed up Piles of crap on the planet).

That doesn't sound like any actual state in the U.S. - what state are you in?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 05:56 AM
RE: Guns
(21-09-2014 09:02 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  ... (for those of you who do not know, Copyright law is one of the most confused, messed up Piles of crap on the planet).

That's 'cos they copy/pasted them from multiple interwebz sources to meet their homework deadline.

Dunno why, it's not like anyone was holding a gun to their heads.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 10:15 PM (This post was last modified: 22-09-2014 10:21 PM by Shadow Fox.)
RE: Guns
(22-09-2014 03:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 09:02 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Self defense laws are absolutely insane in many places. Where I am, you are not allowed to attack Anyone for any reason what so ever if they come into your own home with a gun and fire at you and your family.

For example, If I take a knife and threaten him with it. I can go to jail for 10-20 years for assault with a deadly weapon and my attacker would be the prosecutor.

If someone attacks me in the street, I can face possible charges if I swing back at them. Doing anything that does not mean dying or running away is illegal and most of the states have these same laws or are far worst than that. It is really fucking retarded.

The only law that protects you is so broken and messed up from being amended so many times, it makes copyright laws seem perfectly designed and infallible. (for those of you who do not know, Copyright law is one of the most confused, messed up Piles of crap on the planet).

That doesn't sound like any actual state in the U.S. - what state are you in?

Oregon.

Heard it from someone who asked an actual cop and a ..some kinda person who worked at the court house.

Unless you give them some sort of prolonged warning and must be at least three warnings. You are not supposedly allowed to hold a gun up to protect yourself or it is somehow considered assault or threat with a deadly weapon regardless of the fact that you are being assaulted. Stand your ground laws when told to me seemed really convoluted and messed up. It is basically, even if your life is in danger, you are not allowed to use deadly force or you can go to jail for murder.

Basically, when it was told to me by..well I forget whom, but told to me by someone who heard it from a cop and a person who works at a court house. That is basically what they told me. Even if you defend yourself, there is still a strong chance you will go to jail.

Shoot a guy waving a knife around in your house? Its assault. I guess they could had heard or misinterpreted wrong but that is what I was told. Maybe they are wrong, I see no reason they would just lie to me though. But it is just the impression of what I have been given. I never owned a gun, nor do I intend too. So many of the gun laws and self protection laws are not something I need a deep understanding of...Unlike other certain laws I can think of.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 02:20 AM
RE: Guns
(22-09-2014 10:15 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 03:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  That doesn't sound like any actual state in the U.S. - what state are you in?

Oregon.

Heard it from someone who asked an actual cop and a ..some kinda person who worked at the court house.

Unless you give them some sort of prolonged warning and must be at least three warnings. You are not supposedly allowed to hold a gun up to protect yourself or it is somehow considered assault or threat with a deadly weapon regardless of the fact that you are being assaulted. Stand your ground laws when told to me seemed really convoluted and messed up. It is basically, even if your life is in danger, you are not allowed to use deadly force or you can go to jail for murder.

Basically, when it was told to me by..well I forget whom, but told to me by someone who heard it from a cop and a person who works at a court house. That is basically what they told me. Even if you defend yourself, there is still a strong chance you will go to jail.

Shoot a guy waving a knife around in your house? Its assault. I guess they could had heard or misinterpreted wrong but that is what I was told. Maybe they are wrong, I see no reason they would just lie to me though. But it is just the impression of what I have been given. I never owned a gun, nor do I intend too. So many of the gun laws and self protection laws are not something I need a deep understanding of...Unlike other certain laws I can think of.
161.219¹
Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]


I think you have heard wrong.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 08:33 AM
RE: Guns
The determining factor in regards to your right to defend yourself is typically whether or not you can prove they posed a threat to your life.

A crazy person waving their knife around randomly shouting obscenities not directed at you, no. If they lunge at you, yes. That is, of course, assuming the jury buys it. Most jury members, lawyers, and judges have never been in such a situation before, and will never comprehend its reality. To a normal person living in a bubble, all criminals are just misunderstood and could have been talked down.

So there are indeed laws allowing you to defend yourself, but these days it seems that the burden of proof tends to fall on the victim.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 08:52 AM
RE: Guns
(22-09-2014 10:15 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 03:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  That doesn't sound like any actual state in the U.S. - what state are you in?

Oregon.

Heard it from someone who asked an actual cop and a ..some kinda person who worked at the court house.

Unless you give them some sort of prolonged warning and must be at least three warnings. You are not supposedly allowed to hold a gun up to protect yourself or it is somehow considered assault or threat with a deadly weapon regardless of the fact that you are being assaulted. Stand your ground laws when told to me seemed really convoluted and messed up. It is basically, even if your life is in danger, you are not allowed to use deadly force or you can go to jail for murder.

Basically, when it was told to me by..well I forget whom, but told to me by someone who heard it from a cop and a person who works at a court house. That is basically what they told me. Even if you defend yourself, there is still a strong chance you will go to jail.

Shoot a guy waving a knife around in your house? Its assault. I guess they could had heard or misinterpreted wrong but that is what I was told. Maybe they are wrong, I see no reason they would just lie to me though. But it is just the impression of what I have been given. I never owned a gun, nor do I intend too. So many of the gun laws and self protection laws are not something I need a deep understanding of...Unlike other certain laws I can think of.

Never rely on police or politicians to tell you the law - they generally don't know it.

Oregon law:
  • Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person),
    a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person
    unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
    1. Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or
      threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
    2. Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
    3. Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.


Further, in a ruling in 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court says you have no duty to retreat outside of your home.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 07:06 PM
RE: Guns
(23-09-2014 08:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 10:15 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Oregon.

Heard it from someone who asked an actual cop and a ..some kinda person who worked at the court house.

Unless you give them some sort of prolonged warning and must be at least three warnings. You are not supposedly allowed to hold a gun up to protect yourself or it is somehow considered assault or threat with a deadly weapon regardless of the fact that you are being assaulted. Stand your ground laws when told to me seemed really convoluted and messed up. It is basically, even if your life is in danger, you are not allowed to use deadly force or you can go to jail for murder.

Basically, when it was told to me by..well I forget whom, but told to me by someone who heard it from a cop and a person who works at a court house. That is basically what they told me. Even if you defend yourself, there is still a strong chance you will go to jail.

Shoot a guy waving a knife around in your house? Its assault. I guess they could had heard or misinterpreted wrong but that is what I was told. Maybe they are wrong, I see no reason they would just lie to me though. But it is just the impression of what I have been given. I never owned a gun, nor do I intend too. So many of the gun laws and self protection laws are not something I need a deep understanding of...Unlike other certain laws I can think of.

Never rely on police or politicians to tell you the law - they generally don't know it.

mmm....OK.

Kinda nice they were wrong about that.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2015, 05:36 AM
RE: Guns
(25-05-2014 08:10 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Gun politics is a complicated subject. It is often perceived as a black-and-white issue, but I don't believe that to be the case. It is a polarizing issue. The nature of the debate splits the parties and forces them to take a side, or abstain.

In my debates on this forum I often find myself defending against arguments and accusations which have little bearing on my political belief. I find myself being forced, time and time again, to educate people on a subject they seem absurdly reticent to do any real research on. I get ganged up on, or gang up on others, with too many arguments running simultaneously for anyone to reasonably keep track of. And when tempers flare, things can turn ugly, or at best force the participants to back off to prevent that from happening.


So it's time to try something different. 1v1 debate. I don't intend this to settle the questions about gun politics once and for all. This is just my opinion, versus someone else's opinion. And hopefully a fair helping of facts.


Please reply if interested



My position:

There are two reasonable stances to have on the ownership of firearms: one can support a regulated system which ensures that only responsible, sane, law-abiding adults have access to firearms; but once granted that right there is little need for restriction beyond that. Or, one can support a near-complete ban where any ownership beyond extremely limited circumstances can be treated as a criminal matter.

I support the former stance. I think that the pros of civilian gun ownership outweigh the cons. I believe firearm homicides represent a failure of policy makers to come to a reasonable compromise, due again to the polarizing nature of the debate.

In the context of American laws my stance includes the following:
  • Citizens have the right to own firearms. That right should only be violated if they cannot demonstrate competency, or if there is significant reason to think that they might use them in an unjustified, violent manner
  • Gun ownership should be granted under license to any citizen age 18 or above
  • That license should not be denied on any grounds of race, creed, social or economic status, association, or political views
  • That license should not be excessively expensive, no more than a couple hundred dollars total; more would represent an attempt at economic discrimination
  • That license may require renewal, but I would argue no more frequently than 5-10 years; more frequently would be punitive, rather than in support of safety
  • Obtaining the license should involve a course of a reasonable length educating the applicant on the laws and legal responsibilities of owning a firearm; gun safety and storage; the basic types, mechanical function and care of firearms; a guideline of under what circumstances it is justified to use a firearm in self-defense; and a practical course involving range time with several types of guns.


The license may be denied, suspended, or revoked based on the following reasons:
  • Failure to successfully complete the course
  • Commission of a violent felony, or commission of a non-violent felony in the last ten years
  • The presence of a restraining order, warrant, or criminal charges against an applicant
  • Serious mental health concerns, a history of mental health issues or violence, or a history of such in their immediate family
  • In the latter case, the applicant should be able to appeal, and if they can pass a psychological evaluation the license should be granted



There would be additional provisions regarding concealed carry:
  • A firearms license would not grant the right to concealed carry
  • Concealed carry would be an additional rider or class of license based on completion of additional training
  • Applicants must take an additional course covering, in detail, the legal aspects of self-defense or defense of others
  • Applicant must pass much more rigorous practical shooting test



I do think that the system under which firearms are purchased needs modification.
  • I disapprove of the notion of firearm registries as they tend to be designed to be overly cumbersome for the applicants, and have been involved in breaches of personal privacy (for instance the publishing of the locations of conceal carry permit holders in New York City).
  • However, I think a basic registry which contains no more than Name, Firearm License No., and a list of Serial Nos. could be beneficial.
  • It should be possible to add, remove, or transfer firearms online, over a secure connection, given adequate verification of identity. This process should take less than 30 minutes
  • Provide way to register via mail (considered registration submitted by postmarked date) or in-person at a government office
  • Those who sell or give away a gun would be legally obligated to update the registry within 72hrs, barring a reasonable excuse for being unable to do so
  • This would close any claimed "gun show loop-holes", and could tie into the existing Form 4473 process for gun shops
  • Police would require a warrant to search the registry, and would only be granted access to the specific Firearm License No. in question and those directly tied to it by sale or transfer
  • Releasing the registry, in whole or part, to the public would constitute a federal offense with a severe punishment



I would suggest that the following restrictions on gun ownership are not reasonable regulation, but instead represent attempts at punishing gun owners or attempts at banning as many guns as possible. I would strike such laws from the books in every state:
  • Bans on specific makes or models of firearm, such as of AR-15s
  • Bans on specific firearm actions, such as semi-automatic
  • Bans on specific calibres or cartridges
  • Bans on cosmetic or ergonomic features, such as foregrips, rails, types of grips or stocks, etc.
  • Bans on firearm magazines on basis of capacity
  • State firearm registries on the basis of any of the criteria above
  • Waiting periods in excess of 48hrs; the latter being optionally implemented at a state or city level



I would also make the following changes to NFA rules:
  • I would end the 1986 ban on newly registered machine guns
  • I would increase the ATF tax stamp on machine guns from $200 to $1,000
  • I would reclassify bumpfire stocks and other mechanical assisted bumpfire devices as machine guns
  • I would remove short barreled shotguns (SBS) and short barreled rifles (SBR) from the NFA list, as they represent little more threat than regular firearms (both SBS and SBR are legal in Canada, and you don't see dozens of bank robberies with sawed of shotguns there...)
  • I would remove suppressors from the NFA list, as they are beneficial for reducing hearing loss and noise pollution associated with firearms, and are rarely used in crime, and are used effectively in crime even less often

As an outsider, I have said it before, when todays most powerful weapon becomes tomorrows least powerful weapon, you still want to claim the right to such a weapon. Look what happen to the MUSKET. That is what they had at the time of the Constitution, and since the Constitution hasn't changed, neither should the weapons for witch the law was written.

First, GOD created MAN, then Woman then Temptation then Confusion.Sadcryface
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2015, 05:47 AM
RE: Guns
(24-02-2015 05:36 AM)viking666 Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 08:10 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Gun politics is a complicated subject. It is often perceived as a black-and-white issue, but I don't believe that to be the case. It is a polarizing issue. The nature of the debate splits the parties and forces them to take a side, or abstain.

In my debates on this forum I often find myself defending against arguments and accusations which have little bearing on my political belief. I find myself being forced, time and time again, to educate people on a subject they seem absurdly reticent to do any real research on. I get ganged up on, or gang up on others, with too many arguments running simultaneously for anyone to reasonably keep track of. And when tempers flare, things can turn ugly, or at best force the participants to back off to prevent that from happening.


So it's time to try something different. 1v1 debate. I don't intend this to settle the questions about gun politics once and for all. This is just my opinion, versus someone else's opinion. And hopefully a fair helping of facts.


Please reply if interested



My position:

There are two reasonable stances to have on the ownership of firearms: one can support a regulated system which ensures that only responsible, sane, law-abiding adults have access to firearms; but once granted that right there is little need for restriction beyond that. Or, one can support a near-complete ban where any ownership beyond extremely limited circumstances can be treated as a criminal matter.

I support the former stance. I think that the pros of civilian gun ownership outweigh the cons. I believe firearm homicides represent a failure of policy makers to come to a reasonable compromise, due again to the polarizing nature of the debate.

In the context of American laws my stance includes the following:
  • Citizens have the right to own firearms. That right should only be violated if they cannot demonstrate competency, or if there is significant reason to think that they might use them in an unjustified, violent manner
  • Gun ownership should be granted under license to any citizen age 18 or above
  • That license should not be denied on any grounds of race, creed, social or economic status, association, or political views
  • That license should not be excessively expensive, no more than a couple hundred dollars total; more would represent an attempt at economic discrimination
  • That license may require renewal, but I would argue no more frequently than 5-10 years; more frequently would be punitive, rather than in support of safety
  • Obtaining the license should involve a course of a reasonable length educating the applicant on the laws and legal responsibilities of owning a firearm; gun safety and storage; the basic types, mechanical function and care of firearms; a guideline of under what circumstances it is justified to use a firearm in self-defense; and a practical course involving range time with several types of guns.


The license may be denied, suspended, or revoked based on the following reasons:
  • Failure to successfully complete the course
  • Commission of a violent felony, or commission of a non-violent felony in the last ten years
  • The presence of a restraining order, warrant, or criminal charges against an applicant
  • Serious mental health concerns, a history of mental health issues or violence, or a history of such in their immediate family
  • In the latter case, the applicant should be able to appeal, and if they can pass a psychological evaluation the license should be granted



There would be additional provisions regarding concealed carry:
  • A firearms license would not grant the right to concealed carry
  • Concealed carry would be an additional rider or class of license based on completion of additional training
  • Applicants must take an additional course covering, in detail, the legal aspects of self-defense or defense of others
  • Applicant must pass much more rigorous practical shooting test



I do think that the system under which firearms are purchased needs modification.
  • I disapprove of the notion of firearm registries as they tend to be designed to be overly cumbersome for the applicants, and have been involved in breaches of personal privacy (for instance the publishing of the locations of conceal carry permit holders in New York City).
  • However, I think a basic registry which contains no more than Name, Firearm License No., and a list of Serial Nos. could be beneficial.
  • It should be possible to add, remove, or transfer firearms online, over a secure connection, given adequate verification of identity. This process should take less than 30 minutes
  • Provide way to register via mail (considered registration submitted by postmarked date) or in-person at a government office
  • Those who sell or give away a gun would be legally obligated to update the registry within 72hrs, barring a reasonable excuse for being unable to do so
  • This would close any claimed "gun show loop-holes", and could tie into the existing Form 4473 process for gun shops
  • Police would require a warrant to search the registry, and would only be granted access to the specific Firearm License No. in question and those directly tied to it by sale or transfer
  • Releasing the registry, in whole or part, to the public would constitute a federal offense with a severe punishment



I would suggest that the following restrictions on gun ownership are not reasonable regulation, but instead represent attempts at punishing gun owners or attempts at banning as many guns as possible. I would strike such laws from the books in every state:
  • Bans on specific makes or models of firearm, such as of AR-15s
  • Bans on specific firearm actions, such as semi-automatic
  • Bans on specific calibres or cartridges
  • Bans on cosmetic or ergonomic features, such as foregrips, rails, types of grips or stocks, etc.
  • Bans on firearm magazines on basis of capacity
  • State firearm registries on the basis of any of the criteria above
  • Waiting periods in excess of 48hrs; the latter being optionally implemented at a state or city level



I would also make the following changes to NFA rules:
  • I would end the 1986 ban on newly registered machine guns
  • I would increase the ATF tax stamp on machine guns from $200 to $1,000
  • I would reclassify bumpfire stocks and other mechanical assisted bumpfire devices as machine guns
  • I would remove short barreled shotguns (SBS) and short barreled rifles (SBR) from the NFA list, as they represent little more threat than regular firearms (both SBS and SBR are legal in Canada, and you don't see dozens of bank robberies with sawed of shotguns there...)
  • I would remove suppressors from the NFA list, as they are beneficial for reducing hearing loss and noise pollution associated with firearms, and are rarely used in crime, and are used effectively in crime even less often

As an outsider, I have said it before, when todays most powerful weapon becomes tomorrows least powerful weapon, you still want to claim the right to such a weapon. Look what happen to the MUSKET. That is what they had at the time of the Constitution, and since the Constitution hasn't changed, neither should the weapons for witch the law was written.

The Constitution says 'arms', not 'muskets'. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: