The Gun Control Debate Thread

[PCS]

 

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

@PCS  Good info. This stuff has generally been going in the Charlottesville thread. 

 

 

Ya know,I missed/forgot that thread.  Though in my defense,this whole mess started due to some "gun control" legislation. I'll throw any future stuff in that thread since the discussions will probably take place there.   

[PleaseBlitz]

2 minutes ago, PCS said:

 

 

 

Ya know,I missed/forgot that thread.  Though in my defense,this whole mess started due to some "gun control" legislation. I'll throw any future stuff in that thread since the discussions will probably take place there.   

No defense needed. I was originally posting it in the DMV News thread, but the mob has spoken.

[PCS]

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

No defense needed. I was originally posting it in the DMV News thread, but the mob has spoken.

 

 

They do that at times don't they? 

 

 

The DMV thread. Damn. Forgot that one too. SIgh.  

[visionary]

 

[China]

Record number of guns seized at US airports last year

 

More guns were seized at airports across the United States last year than ever before in the Transportation Security Administration's 18-year history, the agency reported Wednesday.

The 4,432 firearms detected in carry-on and checked bags at TSA airport checkpoints represent an approximately 5% increase over the 4,239 found in 2018 -- and 87% of the firearms found last year were loaded.

"The continued increase in the number of firearms that travelers bring to airport checkpoints is deeply troubling," said David Pekoske, the TSA's administrator, in a press release.
"There is a proper way to travel safely with a firearm. First and foremost, it should be unloaded. Then it should be packed in a hard-sided locked case, taken to the airline check-in counter to be declared, and checked."

The TSA detected the most firearms -- 323 -- at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, followed by Dallas/Fort Worth International (217); Denver International (140); George Bush Intercontinental in Houston (138); and Phoenix Sky Harbor International (132). Firearms were found at 278 airport checkpoints nationwide.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[TheGreatBuzz]

@tshile moving the discussion over here.

 

The reason I mentioned being at home is because it seems to me like it would be easier to claim feeling threatened at home than somewhere that everyone has a right to be like a park or something.  Now VA is different from FL (where I got my license) in that the burden of proof is on the shooter to show cause.  FL it is on the state to prove there was no cause.  Again, if I’m in my house and don’t shoot them in the back, I feel like I’d have a low chance of being convicted of something.  And again, if there is only one person left to tell the story, my chances are even better.

 

My understanding is that VA has a Castle Doctrine law which is specific for your residence.  Outside of that, they do not have a “duty to retreat” law specifically but relevant cases have said you don’t have to retreat unless you were the original aggressor.  But you are correct that you have to have a reasonable fear in order to use deadly force no matter where you are.

 

I’ve heard the saying about before you shoot, you better be prepared to spend the rest of your life in jail.  I respond with better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.  Any reasonable person should not have too much of an issue with this.  No need to shoot unless there is a reason to shoot.  Those that do otherwise deserve to be in jail and probably had no business having a gun to begin with.

[tshile]

Yup. Being at home makes it easier to claim you felt threatened. But I was trained, that even in those cases, you better be able to show you were in fear for your life. Because in this state "they broke into my house" is not a justification for shooting someone.

 

It used to be. But they got tired of young people (ie: teenagers) getting shot because they broke into someones house to steal an xbox. So they changed the laws slightly to require there to be a real and legitimate threat. That's why they'll say something like - you better not shoot them while they're carrying your TV (because they're not a threat to you if they're carrying your tv... they're just stealing your tv... and when the cops show up and find a broken tv on the ground next to the body, it's really not hard to put it all together.)

 

It's very easy to make the claim of threat to life when someone breaks into your house at 2am. But if the cops show up and you say "nah he wasn't actually coming after us, he just broke into our house so I shot him" then they're going to arrest you... maybe a jury will side with you, but once you make it obvious you shot them for a reason other than fearing for your life the police are no longer on your side; to them you're just a nut that unnecessarily killed someone, and broke the law in doing it.

 

The stuff is all highly subjective, so all of that advice is within that context. The easier it is for the police, the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury to see that your life was actually in danger, the better your chance of successfully claiming self defense. That's all it's really about. 

Edited January 22, 2020 by tshile

[TheGreatBuzz]

I will admit that is one thing I like about Florida.  If you’re using both hands to carry out my tv, that just means you won’t be shooting back.

[tshile]

The desire to protect my property agrees with you.

 

Seeing life lost over a stolen TV makes me think otherwise.

 

I like the intent of VA's laws. Life is lost to protect life, not as a punishment for stealing property. The problem I see with it is the subjectivity of it all. Even if you were in the right, you're at the mercy of the cops and prosecutors and ultimately a judge. Someone trying to make a name for themselves, having political/social bias, or a bad day could cause a result that isn't 'right' in my opinion. 

 

(For example on the general notion of justified shooting and not, to me: Based on my personal opinions, which is based on my interpretation of VA's laws, Zimmerman would be in prison for murder. He escalated. And he did so against the advice of a 911 operator. He was safe in his house, and instead actively put himself in a position where he was no longer safe. That's the opposite of deescalating.)

((I realize that's not what Floridas laws are, I'm speaking strictly with respect to VA's laws))
 

Edited January 22, 2020 by tshile

[grego]

Yikes. I dunno about that tshile. If someone breaks into my house, how am I supposed to know whether they are both unarmed (as if that necessarily matters, but for the sake of argument) and only wanting to steal my Xbox? 

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, grego said:

Yikes. I dunno about that tshile. If someone breaks into my house, how am I supposed to know whether they are both unarmed (as if that necessarily matters, but for the sake of argument) and only wanting to steal my Xbox? 

 

So that's sort of why being in your house allows you a lot of leeway... It's subjective. I think in VA, if you were in your house and they broke in, you're going to be given a lot of leeway on what constitutes "fearing for your life"

 

Which is why I keep listing obvious examples of when you won't be given that leeway. If the guy was carrying a TV when you shot him, then you shot him because he was stealing your tv, not because you were in fear of your life. I can go on an on with examples, but that one illustrates the point perfectly. No one is going to look at a dead body with a busted TV and glass shattered everywhere and agree that the dude was a threat to your life... He was stealing your property, you were mad, and you shot him. And in this state, that is illegal. You're going to have to hope a jury sides with you, and to me that's not a very good position to be in (if you can help it.)

 

But if a guy comes in your bedroom window at 2 am and you shoot him immediately, you're going to be perfectly fine with the self defense justified shooting.

 

Likewise, if you come home to find a man attempting to break in the front door and you know your wife (and/or kids) are home, you're likely justified to shooting that person on the spot.  It's not 100% guarantee. So i use the word likely.

 

We're spending a lot of time making a very clearly defined statute overly complicated. Virginia requires you to have been in fear of your life or great bodily harm (or for someone else) and you made every reasonable attempt to deescalate. It does not matter if you are in your house. All that matters is that you were in fear of your life or great bodily harm (or for someone else) and you made every reasonable attempt to deescalate.

 

Being in your house reduces the requirement to retreat until you cannot retreat any longer. I does not change the rest of it.

 

We could spend hours on examples but that's how the law works and it's very cut and dry in its definition. It's the subjectivity of the police, prosecutors, judges, and jury that matters, and whether they agree with you that it was reasonable for you to feel your life was in danger.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

We're spending a lot of time making a very clearly defined statute overly complicated. 

 

I disagree that it is clearly defined.  “Fear for your life” is awfully blurry if you ask me.  If the law were so clear, it would not be nearly as much up to the whim of a judge or jury or prosecutor or cop.

 

3 hours ago, tshile said:

and you made every reasonable attempt to deescalate.

Where do you see this?  I’ve not read anywhere regarding a requirement to attempt to deescalate.

 

3 hours ago, tshile said:

It does not matter if you are in your house. 

I disagree again.  If it didn’t matter if they are in your house, then why have a Castle Doctrine?  It would just be fear of death everywhere.

 

4 hours ago, tshile said:

Being in your house reduces the requirement to retreat until you cannot retreat any longer. I does not change the rest of it.

Virginia has no duty to retreat law if you’re not the aggressor.  You aren’t required to retreat.

 

I guess you don’t know the laws of the state all that well either.  

[tshile]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I disagree that it is clearly defined.  “Fear for your life” is awfully blurry if you ask me.  If the law were so clear, it would not be nearly as much up to the whim of a judge or jury or prosecutor or cop.

 

 

it is clearly defined. There’s only two parts to it and the sentences are simple and short. It’s subjective in how it’s ruled on. Learn how words work please. 

 

Quote

Where do you see this?  I’ve not read anywhere regarding a requirement to attempt to deescalate.

 

 

yeah you got me good man. It’s only when you’re the aggressor you have to deescalate. 
 

 

Quote

I disagree again.  If it didn’t matter if they are in your house, then why have a Castle Doctrine?  It would just be fear of death everywhere.
 

 

the Castile doctrine says you still have to fear for your life. Again. Words. Figure out how they work. 

 

Quote

 

Virginia has no duty to retreat law if you’re not the aggressor.  You aren’t required to retreat.

 

 

 

My bad

 

Quote

 

I guess you don’t know the laws of the state all that well either.  

you got me on one item. Congrats.  Your assholeishness is duly noted. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by tshile

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

it is clearly defined. There’s only two parts to it and the sentences are simple and short. It’s subjective in how it’s ruled on. Learn how words work please. 

So if it is so simple, short, and clearly defined then why would it be subjective?  If it were clearly defined, than how could it be “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions?”  (I Googled how words work)

 

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

yeah you got me good man. It’s only when you’re the aggressor you have to deescalate. 

You were the one claiming Virginia requires you “made every reasonable attempt to deescalate.”  Seems like an important distinction.  

 

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

the Castile doctrine says you still have to fear for your life. Again. Words. Figure out how they work. 

You claimed “it doesn’t matter if it’s in your house” and even went so far as to underline it.  *Noting that it was immediately after your statement about the requirement to deescalate which is also false*. You are wrong here.  If being in your house didn’t matter, there would be no need for a Castle Doctrine.  Fear of life would be no matter the location.

 

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

My bad

No worries.  We all make mistakes.

 

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

you got me on one item. Congrats.  Your assholeishness is duly noted.

More than one.  I appreciate the congrats though.  And I figured my assholeishness would have been noted a while ago.  Though I am sensing some of yours with your repeated “figure out how words work” lines.

 

 

*When I moved here from Florida, I made a point of researching the nuances of VA gun laws since I was a Florida permit holder.  

[China]

Alabama parents arrested after child fires gun at school in Wilcox County

 

CAMDEN, Ala. (AP) — The parents of an Alabama first-grader were taken into custody after the child accidentally fired a gun at school Friday, officials said.

 

The incident happened at J.E. Hobbs Elementary School in rural Wilcox County, where District Attorney Michael Jackson said a 6-year-old boy brought a gun to school and the weapon went off.

 

A bullet hit a wall but no one was hurt, he said. The county school superintendent issued a statement on Facebook saying the gun was in the child’s coat pocket at the time.

The parents were charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, Jackson said, but authorities did not immediately release their names.

[sportjunkie07]

It’s really not that difficult. If you go into someone else’s house the owner has no idea what your intentions are other than you are there for something bad.

 

you don’t have time to sit down with a thief and ask him if he is just stealing small merchandise, whether he is armed, and whether he plans to rape and murder your wife and kids.

 

unfortunately, you can’t protect yourself in many states, which is just a shame.

 

Why do you think there are so many people for gun rights? It is for stupid situations like these where liberals get in charge of things and take away freedoms that should be given to every citizen.

 

 

[Larry]

26 minutes ago, sportjunkie07 said:

It’s really not that difficult. If you go into someone else’s house the owner has no idea what your intentions are other than you are there for something bad.

 

you don’t have time to sit down with a thief and ask him if he is just stealing small merchandise, whether he is armed, and whether he plans to rape and murder your wife and kids.

 

unfortunately, you can’t protect yourself in many states, which is just a shame.

 

Why do you think there are so many people for gun rights? It is for stupid situations like these where liberals get in charge of things and take away freedoms that should be given to every citizen.

 

 

 

Since your post doesn't actually reference anything in particular other than vague rantings about liberals, could you mention exactly which freedoms liberals are taking away from every citizen, and in which stupid situations?  

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Since your post doesn't actually reference anything in particular other than vague rantings about liberals, could you mention exactly which freedoms liberals are taking away from every citizen, and in which stupid situations?  

 

You know exactly the point he is trying to make. 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

You know exactly the point he is trying to make. 

 

"Liberals bad, coming for our guns"?  

 

But since you apparently know what he's saying (and not only that, know that I know it, too), could you please tell me what you know I already know?  Then I'll know what I already know, too.  And maybe then we can all talk about his point, instead of talking about people's opinions about what other people think.  

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

"Liberals bad, coming for our guns"?  

 

But since you apparently know what he's saying (and not only that, know that I know it, too), could you please tell me what you know I already know?  Then I'll know what I already know, too.  And maybe then we can all talk about his point, instead of talking about people's opinions about what other people think.  

 

I think his post was pretty straight forward, regardless of citing specific states/laws. 

[RansomthePasserby]

Maryland’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Turns Deadly: Officer Kills Man Who Refused To Turn In Gun

 

“FERNADALE, Md. (WJZ) — A 61-year-old man is dead after he was shot by an officer trying to enforce Maryland’s new ‘red flag’ law in Ferndale Monday morning...

 

...Police continue to investigate the shooting. At this time it’s not clear who called police to alert them about Willis.”

 

read more here

 

It’s troubling that they don’t know who called the police to the guy’s house. I’m all for guns being restricted for the mentally unstable, but shouldn’t this be something that requires a warrant or something more concrete than just anyone calling the police on anyone else? At the very least require a diagnosis and description of the mental health disorder by a mental health professional so the police have a better idea about what they’re walking into?

Edited January 28, 2020 by RansomthePasserby
Made link more obvious

[PleaseBlitz]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginias-democratic-controlled-house-of-delegates-passes-seven-gun-control-measures/2020/01/30/cce67e54-4386-11ea-b503-2b077c436617_story.html

 

Virginia’s Democratically controlled House passes seven gun control measures

 

Quote

Democrats in the House of Delegates on Thursday passed seven of the eight gun control measures advocated by Gov. Ralph Northam, a significant step for an issue that Republicans had blocked for decades.

 

In debate ahead of the votes, lawmakers showed flashes of the emotion that has supercharged the gun control issue in Virginia in recent weeks.

Republicans from rural areas said the actions betrayed their way of life and the wishes of thousands of armed gun-rights protesters [mostly from out of state] who descended on Richmond earlier this month. Invoking the heritage of American Revolution and a society “forged from wilderness,” Del. Les Adams (R-Pittsylvania) warned that the bills “are strongly resented by our people.”

 

But Democrats noted that voters gave them a 55-45 majority in the House in last fall’s elections, partly on the promise of gun control. They used that muscle to push the votes through in less time than it took Republicans to adjourn last summer’s 90-minute special session on gun control, where no votes were taken.

 

Other bills are still alive in committees, though a proposed ban on assault weapons has hit snags in both House and Senate, as lawmakers wrestle with how to define which guns would qualify and how the state would implement a ban. That was the lone measure from the governor’s agenda that did not get to the House floor Thursday.

 

On party-line votes, the House approved bills that would:

* enact universal background checks on private gun sales;

* require an owner to report the loss or theft of a firearm within 24 hours;

* give local governments the authority to enact gun laws of their own, such as banning weapons in public buildings;

* create a “red flag” law, or extreme risk protective order, in which authorities can temporarily seize firearms from someone deemed a threat to themselves or others;

* limit handgun purchases to one per month, a policy that had been in effect in Virginia until 2012;

* tighten the law prohibiting access to firearms for someone subject to a protective order;

* make it a felony to “recklessly” leave a firearm within reach of a child age 18 or younger, up from the current age of 14.

 

****, pass the ****ing assault weapons ban.  It's not that ****ing hard.  

[Larry]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 

 

****, pass the ****ing assault weapons ban.  It's not that ****ing hard.  

Actually, I suspect that defining "assault weapon" isn't easy. 
 

(Which is why I would prefer "any semi auto rifle with removable magazines".  Much less nebulous definition. And goes to what I think is the heart of the problem - the ability to fire several shots in a few seconds, and then reload in seconds.)

[twa]

will they pass in the senate....or are they just more feels good stuff?

 

[PleaseBlitz]

27 minutes ago, Larry said:

Actually, I suspect that defining "assault weapon" isn't easy. 
 

(Which is why I would prefer "any semi auto rifle with removable magazines".  Much less nebulous definition. And goes to what I think is the heart of the problem - the ability to fire several shots in a few seconds, and then reload in seconds.)

It’s been done before, they were banned for years federally and in several states. Not hard. 

 

 

27 minutes ago, twa said:

will they pass in the senate....or are they just more feels good stuff?

 

Already done:

 

Quote

The state Senate has also passed versions of five of the bills, meaning the chambers are likely to send measures to Northam (D) for his signature in the coming weeks.

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by PleaseBlitz