On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:51 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/19/2014 9:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:34 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/19/2014 5:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 4:18 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 12/19/2014 2:02 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> They also failed to foresee that hand-held weapons would become so >>>> powerful. >>>> >>> >>> Are you sure that more powerful hand-held weapons would change their >>> minds about the need to keep a balance of power between the government and >>> the citizens? I suspect it would just reinforce the idea. >>> >>> >>> They foresaw a country without a standing army with an armed citizenry >>> that could be called upon to defend their states. So I think the straight >>> forward interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that citizens have the right >>> to the same arms that are commonly issued to individual soldiers - which >>> would be assault rifles. >>> >> >> The government argued as much in this Supreme Court case: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller >> >> >> >>> I think the U.S. government could ban handguns - but not assault >>> rifles. And this might go a long way toward reducing gun homicides because >>> as it is now almost all homicides are with handguns. >>> >> >> But if people are willing to commit the most severe crimes (murder), >> would a law against handguns serve any additional deterrent? The access to >> such devices will have less and less correlation to the legality of such >> devices as 3d printing technology takes off. >> >> >> It's not a question of access, it's a question of portability and >> concealment. >> > > My point here is only that making an item illegal can't stop people from > getting something they really want (and 3d printers make any attempts to > ban things that much harder). > > > Of course part of the reason people "really want" guns is that other > people have them. Every time there's a notorious shooting, there's a spike > in gun sales. > > > And no matter how severe the laws against handguns are made, you can > only imprison someone for life once (so if their plan is to kill someone an > additional law won't stop them). > > >> Cops could much more easily see who was carrying an M16 rather than a >> Glock, and even rifles could be banned in certain areas. So while everyone >> would have the right to own an M16 they could be arrested for carrying it >> around town and down to liquor store. >> >> We've already seen plastic printed magazines and even plastic guns >> being made from 3d printers. And of course if rifles are legal, then sawing >> the barrel and stock off to make it concealable will always be an option. >> >> >> No, because there would be a definition of "rifle" that would make >> sawing it off illegal, as there is for shotguns for that very reason. >> > > I'm not saying laws against concealing them can't be written, only that > it's unrealistic in my mind that a "long-gun only" policy could keep > concealable weapons out of the hands of criminals. > > > But it seems that in your mind all laws are futile. > > No, just victimless crimes (as the majority of possession-based crimes are). When there is no victim, there's no one to report you, and this leads to all kind of expansions of police powers to search and surveil, and criminals out of people who have no malicious intentions against fellow man. When so much of the population is turned into de facto criminals, the police become the enemy of the people. > > >> >> >> >> For the overwhelming majority of people people who commit murders with >> guns, ownership of the gun is already forbidden for them (as they likely >> have existing felony convictions). >> >> >> Sounds like another statistic dreamed up by the NRA. >> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/nyregion/28homicide.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0 > "More than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records; and of those > who wound up killed, more than half had them." > > > You've slipped from "felony conviction" to "criminal record", which is a > very different thing. > > You're right. I tried but could not find statistics on murders committed by felons. In any case, few law abiding results with no criminal records commit murder. > > http://usgovinfo.about.com/blnoguns.htm > Among those prohibited include: "Persons under indictment for, or > convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on > year;" > > > Those are persons to whom you cannot sell or give a gun to - unless their > rights are restored by the state after serving their sentence (which is > automatic in many states). It doesn't say such a person can't possess a > gun. > > It is a felony for a gun dealer to sell a gun to a felon, but it's also a felony for a felon to possess a firearm. Restoration of firearm rights also requires restoration of rights under federal law ( http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_Restoration.shtm ), which as far as I know is not automatic. > > > >> But you're right that simply outlawing possession of handguns wouldn't >> have much effect because they are easily concealed. There would have to be >> a drive to confiscate all of them and forbid their importation and sale and >> sale of ammunition - which is why it won't be done. >> > > And even if we succeedein eliminating all guns, we'd get in its place an > epidemic of knifings. > > > Hard to have a drive-by knifing. > Maybe drive by swording. ;-) Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
