NationStates

Conserative Morality wrote:-le snip-

So? Agree? Disagree?

Am I just rambling?

Sovaal wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:If ex-cons can't have guns, then that shouldn't be in the Constitution.

Never said ex-cons, said violent offenders.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Registration and tracking of firearms is all-important, as is licensing for individuals. I'm not sure that there are many circumstances I would support a full ban on a person's right to own firearms, but restricting ownership of certain firearms for certain individuals is probably useful.

The ones I can think of which would be essential for banning people owning firearms includes convicted criminals, specifically those that have had convictions for physical violence like assaults, battery, domestic violence, robbery, theft etc., and those suffering from mental illnesses and other mental trauma, such as PTSD. I would also think those with severe mental disabilities would be other candidates for firearms bans too.

Acquiring a license to own handguns in particular, I think, is a good idea. Criminal activity is overwhelmingly reliant on concealment of weaponry.

That is how it is done here in New Zealand. Anyone wishing to own a firearm must hold a firearms licence by law. Having a licence requirement would also mean that the state or federal government could require mandatory practical courses on firearm use and gun safety, and require that firearms be kept inside a secure storage facility such as a safe in order to keep them away from children.

I do think a limitation on different 'classes' of weapons is useful - but the current definitions of 'assault' weapons are asinine and borderline useless.

New Zealand has a different term called a "military style semi-automatic weapon", which essentially is considered to be any long firearm that isn't a rifle, shotgun or fully automatic.

Silencers is a question I struggle with. Any policy on silencers has to be Federal, not piecemeal state-by-state, but... on one hand, the use of silencers to lessen hearing loss and damage is perfectly legitimate and silencers don't work like Hollywood 'plink plink' kind of bullshit. It turns a roar into a bark. It's not exactly a sneaky-beaky murder weapon. On the other hand, turning a roar into a bark is sometimes enough combined with background ambiance to conceal the firing of a gun in circumstances where a gun should not be fired, which is... problematic.

Limiting silencers to those with hunting permits might be a good suggestion.

Open carry is an issue that I think should mostly be regulated by the individual states, with some exceptions. There is no fucking reason you need to open carry a fully automatic weapon in public, full stop. Keep that shit on private property. I'd prefer it if people didn't carry their AR-15 dick replacements into the local department stores with tactical webbing and camo from head to toe either, but I guess that's more a personal preference.

Personally I think open carry is stupid. There's absolutely no need for it other than "muh second amendment rights".

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sovaal wrote:Never said ex-cons, said violent offenders.

That is a kind of ex con. If you can permanently lose a right from criminal behavior, even after serving all your time, then that is not really a constitional right.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sovaal wrote:Never said ex-cons, said violent offenders.

That is a kind of ex con. If you can permanently lose a right from criminal behavior, even after serving all your time, then that is not really a constitional right.

Alvecia wrote:I think America would be a much safer place without all the guns, but I don't think there's any action you can take at this point that will meaningfully impact them. They're too pervasive. Too entrenched.

Ifreann wrote:

Alvecia wrote:I think America would be a much safer place without all the guns, but I don't think there's any action you can take at this point that will meaningfully impact them. They're too pervasive. Too entrenched.

We could order an artillery bombardment on their trenches.

Conserative Morality wrote:Registration and tracking of firearms is all-important, as is licensing for individuals. I'm not sure that there are many circumstances I would support a full ban on a person's right to own firearms, but restricting ownership of certain firearms for certain individuals is probably useful. Acquiring a license to own handguns in particular, I think, is a good idea. Criminal activity is overwhelmingly reliant on concealment of weaponry.

I do think a limitation on different 'classes' of weapons is useful - but the current definitions of 'assault' weapons are asinine and borderline useless. Restrictions on semiautomatic long guns should be based primarily on ease of concealment - 'tactical' attachments, bayonet lugs, that shit doesn't matter. Collapsing stocks and shortened barrels and extended magazine capacity is more important, and even then I don't believe in a complete ban on such things.

Private and government property, naturally, can restrict what comes onto their property. Your rights end where another's begin. If the city doesn't want your glock in the local social services department, leave it at home and quitcher bitchin'.

Silencers is a question I struggle with. Any policy on silencers has to be Federal, not piecemeal state-by-state, but... on one hand, the use of silencers to lessen hearing loss and damage is perfectly legitimate and silencers don't work like Hollywood 'plink plink' kind of bullshit. It turns a roar into a bark. It's not exactly a sneaky-beaky murder weapon. On the other hand, turning a roar into a bark is sometimes enough combined with background ambiance to conceal the firing of a gun in circumstances where a gun should not be fired, which is... problematic.

Open carry is an issue that I think should mostly be regulated by the individual states, with some exceptions. There is no fucking reason you need to open carry a fully automatic weapon in public, full stop. Keep that shit on private property. I'd prefer it if people didn't carry their AR-15 dick replacements into the local department stores with tactical webbing and camo from head to toe either, but I guess that's more a personal preference.

So? Agree? Disagree? Am I just rambling?

MERIZoC wrote:(Image)

Ifreann wrote:Don't people regularly lose their right to vote, even after serving their time?

Zeclil wrote:Today I learned that the AR-15 is fully automatic.

Civilians who want to obtain a fully automatic weapon must have a metric fuckton of documentation for licenses, permits, etc. The license for a fully automatic weapon is heavily regulated by the federal government and is further influenced by state laws. Only the clean of record and sound of mind can own fully automatic weapons.

The AR-15 cannot, legally, be made into a fully automatic, either. The Auto-sear, receiver machinings, etc. are very difficult for anyone without a fully fledged machine shop. If you were to make a fully automatic conversion yourself, you would probably kill yourself before anything else. The AR-15 is a civilian weapon and was not designed for the capability of full-auto.

A Rational Anarchist wrote:

Galloism wrote:Then, when you consider the history of such firearm registries (how, in Chicago, it was used as a precursor and method to take away pretty much all the guns later), it would make anybody nervous to have their name and firearms in a database somewhere. Add on top of that how governments and corporations are losing confidential information at crazy levels, and I want to be in as few databases as possible. I have a LOT of concerns with firearm registries. I would have fewer concerns of such if the McDonald v. Chicago and DC v. Heller were decided by thicker majorities (7-2 or 8-1 perhaps), instead of a 5-4 in both cases, but still with concerns about data breach.

Balancing the rights of peaceful individuals in their own homes versus Sandy Hook/Pulse-type public atrocities wasn't hard enough. Now I have to worry about privacy disasters as well.

Egads.

Although, just to clarify -- what difference does the thickness of the SCOTUS decisions make concerning "data breach?" Even if both decisions were 9-0, a concentrated database of personal information is still a breach disaster waiting to happen. Or does "data breach" just mean "SCOTUS eventually reverses and now the 'gun grabbers' know where all the guns are?"

EDIT: fixed quote to quote the person I meant to quote.

Zeclil wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Registration and tracking of firearms is all-important, as is licensing for individuals. I'm not sure that there are many circumstances I would support a full ban on a person's right to own firearms, but restricting ownership of certain firearms for certain individuals is probably useful. Acquiring a license to own handguns in particular, I think, is a good idea. Criminal activity is overwhelmingly reliant on concealment of weaponry.

I do think a limitation on different 'classes' of weapons is useful - but the current definitions of 'assault' weapons are asinine and borderline useless. Restrictions on semiautomatic long guns should be based primarily on ease of concealment - 'tactical' attachments, bayonet lugs, that shit doesn't matter. Collapsing stocks and shortened barrels and extended magazine capacity is more important, and even then I don't believe in a complete ban on such things.

Private and government property, naturally, can restrict what comes onto their property. Your rights end where another's begin. If the city doesn't want your glock in the local social services department, leave it at home and quitcher bitchin'.

Silencers is a question I struggle with. Any policy on silencers has to be Federal, not piecemeal state-by-state, but... on one hand, the use of silencers to lessen hearing loss and damage is perfectly legitimate and silencers don't work like Hollywood 'plink plink' kind of bullshit. It turns a roar into a bark. It's not exactly a sneaky-beaky murder weapon. On the other hand, turning a roar into a bark is sometimes enough combined with background ambiance to conceal the firing of a gun in circumstances where a gun should not be fired, which is... problematic.

Open carry is an issue that I think should mostly be regulated by the individual states, with some exceptions. There is no fucking reason you need to open carry a fully automatic weapon in public, full stop. Keep that shit on private property. I'd prefer it if people didn't carry their AR-15 dick replacements into the local department stores with tactical webbing and camo from head to toe either, but I guess that's more a personal preference.

So? Agree? Disagree? Am I just rambling?

Frankly, I agree with a decent percentage of your thoughts on the matter. But, just a few things.

They are called suppressors, not silencers; just semantics, sure, but a pet peeve.

Today I learned that the AR-15 is fully automatic.

Civilians who want to obtain a fully automatic weapon must have a metric fuckton of documentation for licenses, permits, etc. The license for a fully automatic weapon is heavily regulated by the federal government and is further influenced by state laws. Only the clean of record and sound of mind can own fully automatic weapons.

The AR-15 cannot, legally, be made into a fully automatic, either. The Auto-sear, receiver machinings, etc. are very difficult for anyone without a fully fledged machine shop. If you were to make a fully automatic conversion yourself, you would probably kill yourself before anything else. The AR-15 is a civilian weapon and was not designed for the capability of full-auto.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

A Rational Anarchist wrote:
Balancing the rights of peaceful individuals in their own homes versus Sandy Hook/Pulse-type public atrocities wasn't hard enough. Now I have to worry about privacy disasters as well.

Egads.

Although, just to clarify -- what difference does the thickness of the SCOTUS decisions make concerning "data breach?" Even if both decisions were 9-0, a concentrated database of personal information is still a breach disaster waiting to happen. Or does "data breach" just mean "SCOTUS eventually reverses and now the 'gun grabbers' know where all the guns are?"

EDIT: fixed quote to quote the person I meant to quote.

The United Kingdom has a full gun registry for all registered firearms and I'm not currently aware of it being some privacy disaster waiting to happen.

Sovaal wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:The United Kingdom has a full gun registry for all registered firearms and I'm not currently aware of it being some privacy disaster waiting to happen.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

Imperializt Russia wrote:The United Kingdom has a full gun registry for all registered firearms and I'm not currently aware of it being some privacy disaster waiting to happen.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Sovaal wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

Certainly distasteful, but it's apparently not a data breach. That was - it seems - publicly available information already.
That is a matter for New York State to resolve.

Also, "star of david" jokes, that's super classy.

The Poynter Institute, a school for journalists, notes that some other news agencies have published various types of databases as well.
"Publishing gun owners' names makes them targets for theft or public ridicule. It is journalistic arrogance to abuse public record privilege, just as it is to air 911 calls for no reason or to publish the home addresses of police or judges without cause," Al Tompkins, a Poynter senior faculty member, said in a statement Wednesday. "Unwarranted publishing of the names of permitted owners just encourages gun owners to skip the permitting."

Sovaal wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Certainly distasteful, but it's apparently not a data breach. That was - it seems - publicly available information already.
That is a matter for New York State to resolve.

Also, "star of david" jokes, that's super classy.

The Poynter Institute, a school for journalists, notes that some other news agencies have published various types of databases as well.
"Publishing gun owners' names makes them targets for theft or public ridicule. It is journalistic arrogance to abuse public record privilege, just as it is to air 911 calls for no reason or to publish the home addresses of police or judges without cause," Al Tompkins, a Poynter senior faculty member, said in a statement Wednesday. "Unwarranted publishing of the names of permitted owners just encourages gun owners to skip the permitting."

Maybe not a data breach, but still idiotic and doesn't make me or other gun owners trust such a system any more.

And people always like to compare themselves to oppressed groups, both sides do it.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

A Rational Anarchist wrote:
Balancing the rights of peaceful individuals in their own homes versus Sandy Hook/Pulse-type public atrocities wasn't hard enough. Now I have to worry about privacy disasters as well.

Egads.

Although, just to clarify -- what difference does the thickness of the SCOTUS decisions make concerning "data breach?" Even if both decisions were 9-0, a concentrated database of personal information is still a breach disaster waiting to happen. Or does "data breach" just mean "SCOTUS eventually reverses and now the 'gun grabbers' know where all the guns are?"

EDIT: fixed quote to quote the person I meant to quote.

The United Kingdom has a full gun registry for all registered firearms and I'm not currently aware of it being some privacy disaster waiting to happen.

Telconi wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:The United Kingdom has a full gun registry for all registered firearms and I'm not currently aware of it being some privacy disaster waiting to happen.

Having a full gun registration database is the privacy disaster. It's already happened to you.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Sovaal wrote:
Maybe not a data breach, but still idiotic and doesn't make me or other gun owners trust such a system any more.

And people always like to compare themselves to oppressed groups, both sides do it.

In Switzerland, your car is not issued a licence plate but you are issued a licence number which must be fitted to all your vehicles. A public record of licenceholders is easily available.

In Norway, elements of the tax registry is publicly available. It lists the name of the person, their recorded income, recorded wealth and recorded taxes paid that year. You can go look it up for yourself online. I believe another Nordic country has a similar system, but you must be a resident of the country and pay a fee to access the registry.

So, there is no fundamental issue with registries, even of personal information.
Either there is a specific cultural problem here in the Anglosphere for some reason; it's resistance to change because we don't have these registries now and therefore do not want them for few rational reasons (if any); or it's bullshit, whether intentionally or not, spread partly by people with presumably vested interests in not having them published as public record.

The issue here wasn't that names and addresses were in the publicly available record, but that they were published. But it's public record, so isn't it readily available anyway? I don't know of this registry.
Anyone truly motivated to burgle the home of a known weapon-owner, or attack them for being one (for... some reason???) would already know of the registry, be able to look it up, and select targets. But I doubt Norway's tax registry incites any more instances of burglary against wealthy than the Forbes Rich List does.

The East Marches II wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:In Switzerland, your car is not issued a licence plate but you are issued a licence number which must be fitted to all your vehicles. A public record of licenceholders is easily available.

In Norway, elements of the tax registry is publicly available. It lists the name of the person, their recorded income, recorded wealth and recorded taxes paid that year. You can go look it up for yourself online. I believe another Nordic country has a similar system, but you must be a resident of the country and pay a fee to access the registry.

So, there is no fundamental issue with registries, even of personal information.
Either there is a specific cultural problem here in the Anglosphere for some reason; it's resistance to change because we don't have these registries now and therefore do not want them for few rational reasons (if any); or it's bullshit, whether intentionally or not, spread partly by people with presumably vested interests in not having them published as public record.

The issue here wasn't that names and addresses were in the publicly available record, but that they were published. But it's public record, so isn't it readily available anyway? I don't know of this registry.
Anyone truly motivated to burgle the home of a known weapon-owner, or attack them for being one (for... some reason???) would already know of the registry, be able to look it up, and select targets. But I doubt Norway's tax registry incites any more instances of burglary against wealthy than the Forbes Rich List does.

It's another episode of "I live in a bubble", come back when you hit the real world fam.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Telconi wrote:

Having a full gun registration database is the privacy disaster. It's already happened to you.

uh-huh.

Telconi wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:uh-huh.

You see no issue with a government, hostile to the exercise of a human right, in keeping a comprehensive database of all of it's people who exercise said right?