When seconds count, the police are only...seconds away

[JimC]

What about those people in the community who have a psychiatric condition?

you have to do something wrong before your rights can be restricted.

Martin Bryant never did anything wrong before using his legally acquired guns to go on his killing spree, and I kind of suspect that he was not the only one, many of whom don't even suffer from an identifiable "psychiatric condition", to commit a first offence using legally owned firearms.

Fair enough, but there will be others with clearly diagnosed conditions but without a police record, that Seth will not think should be restricted in terms of gun ownership...

[Hermit]

What about those people in the community who have a psychiatric condition?

you have to do something wrong before your rights can be restricted.

Martin Bryant never did anything wrong before using his legally acquired guns to go on his killing spree, and I kind of suspect that he was not the only one, many of whom don't even suffer from an identifiable "psychiatric condition", to commit a first offence using legally owned firearms.

Fair enough, but there will be others with clearly diagnosed conditions but without a police record, that Seth will not think should be restricted in terms of gun ownership...

Yes. I was agreeing with your drift and adding to it. If you have to do something wrong before you are prohibited from owning a firearm, psychiatric condition or none, that leaves a lot of people legally owning firearms that they subsequently use to commit murder or some other crimes for that matter.

*Waits for predictable and idiotic objection from predictable forum members containing words like "cars", "kitchen knives" or similar.*

[JimC]

What about those people in the community who have a psychiatric condition?

you have to do something wrong before your rights can be restricted.

Martin Bryant never did anything wrong before using his legally acquired guns to go on his killing spree, and I kind of suspect that he was not the only one, many of whom don't even suffer from an identifiable "psychiatric condition", to commit a first offence using legally owned firearms.

Fair enough, but there will be others with clearly diagnosed conditions but without a police record, that Seth will not think should be restricted in terms of gun ownership...

Yes. I was agreeing with your drift and adding to it. If you have to do something wrong before you are prohibited from owning a firearm, psychiatric condition or none, that leaves a lot of people legally owning firearms that they subsequently use to commit murder or some other crimes for that matter.

*Waits for predictable and idiotic objection from predictable forum members containing words like "cars", "kitchen knives" or similar.*

In a way, what I was trying to say to Seth was, OK, in the US you want guns available to everybody, except when there is a very clear case that would not be a good idea, like a criminal record. I guess I was trying to get him to see that a diagnosed, real psychiatric condition would also fall into that category, even in the absence of a previous criminal act...

[Tero]

The gun dudes that do mass killings are always going to be there. We can reduce the more common redneck shooting his wife while drunk crimes by 100%. By taking away the guns of course.

[pErvinalia]

you have to do something wrong before your rights can be restricted.

Martin Bryant never did anything wrong before using his legally acquired guns to go on his killing spree, and I kind of suspect that he was not the only one, many of whom don't even suffer from an identifiable "psychiatric condition", to commit a first offence using legally owned firearms.

Fair enough, but there will be others with clearly diagnosed conditions but without a police record, that Seth will not think should be restricted in terms of gun ownership...

Yes. I was agreeing with your drift and adding to it. If you have to do something wrong before you are prohibited from owning a firearm, psychiatric condition or none, that leaves a lot of people legally owning firearms that they subsequently use to commit murder or some other crimes for that matter.

*Waits for predictable and idiotic objection from predictable forum members containing words like "cars", "kitchen knives" or similar.*

In a way, what I was trying to say to Seth was, OK, in the US you want guns available to everybody, except when there is a very clear case that would not be a good idea, like a criminal record. I guess I was trying to get him to see that a diagnosed, real psychiatric condition would also fall into that category, even in the absence of a previous criminal act...

His "you have to do something wrong before your rights can be restricted" is bollocks anyway. He's happy for the state to quarantine people, under threat of machine gun, who've potentially been infected with Ebola.

[Seth]

What about those people in the community who have a psychiatric condition?

I have a psychiatric condition, and I'm no danger for myself or the neighbourhood, even if I had any gunz.

In your case, sure, but there will be a number in any community with a diagnosed psychiatric condition who could very easily snap. If guns are available, that snap may become a tragedy...

From Seth's point of view, where only a past criminal record is the determinant, such tragedies are the price one pays for the freedom to have guns.

I'm glad I live in a relatively sane society...

I didn't say a past criminal record was the only criteria, merely that it is irrational to argue for prior restraint for everyone just because there's a chance that someone, somewhere with a mental defect will use a gun to hurt others. The key is that any law identifying criteria that disqualify one from possessing firearms, which is a compelling government interest, must be reasonable and necessary and must be the least intrusive regulation (on both the individual and society at large) that actually achieves the intended purpose. In other words, a strict scrutiny standard applies because the right being regulated is a fundamental one explicitly protected by the Constitution.

There is no dispute that persons who are insane must not possess firearms or any other weapons, but the key is that it's an individualized restriction based on objective medical evidence that the person constitutes an imminent risk to himself or others. A general prohibition on firearms to all of society obviously does not even reside in the same galaxy with a constitutionally sound particularized exercise in due process based on some sort of objective evidence of mental defect.

Our system already provides that any person who has been involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital is disqualified from owning guns for life. And while I disagree with the "for life" part because many mental health issues are temporary, it's certainly reasonable that a person's ability to safely own guns be critically reviewed by medical professionals and a judge if they suffer some mental problems that require hospitalization. But the criteria must be objective and medically sound and government must not be permitted to expand such criteria sua sponte, as has been done in the past. It used to be that only persons convicted of felony offenses could be stripped of their right to own guns, but some time ago "domestic violence" was added, which is not per se a problem, until the BATFE interpreted this to mean misdemeanor domestic violence, which these days includes something as simple as having an argument with a family member in which ANY sort of physical contact is made. A slap, a shove, even a touch can be enough to get your rights removed for life, which is both unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair. Even the ALLEGATION of "domestic violence" that results in a restraining order is sufficient to bar the accused from possessing firearms without any requirement for a hearing before a judge. A woman who alleges her husband threatened to hit her (but did not actually do so) is sufficient in many jurisdictions for a judge to sign a boiler-plate order of protection that not only ejects the man from his home but strips him of his right to keep and bear arms so long as the order is in force. And such orders have no built-in expiration. No small number of men have been charged with illegal possession of a firearm at the federal level over a protective order issued years or decades ago by an ex-girlfriend whom the accused has never been near since whatever argument triggered the "emergency protective order."

You have a bad breakup argument, your ex tells the police she's "afraid" of you and that you have guns, and whether or not she has a valid complaint a judge issues an order of protection telling you to keep away from each other, you move to the other end of the country and comply completely, and five years later you try to buy a gun and are denied, and then arrested, because the protection order was never lifted. That's hardly due process or justice.

The key is that due process is required in order to strip someone of their fundamental rights. We demand due process when we incarcerate someone, or hospitalize them, or restrain their speech and the same burden of proof and due process lies with the government when it comes to possessing arms.

[Seth]

What about those people in the community who have a psychiatric condition?

you have to do something wrong before your rights can be restricted.

Martin Bryant never did anything wrong before using his legally acquired guns to go on his killing spree, and I kind of suspect that he was not the only one, many of whom don't even suffer from an identifiable "psychiatric condition", to commit a first offence using legally owned firearms.

And how is that a rationale for barring all seven billion people on the planet from owning firearms?

At best it's a strong rational for ARMING everybody else, since when someone does so, the only people in a position to do anything about it at that moment is most often an armed citizen.

Besides, even convicted felons get guns, even though they are not supposed to, even in strict gun-control nations like the UK.

How does disarming everyone else prevent that?

[Seth]

What about those people in the community who have a psychiatric condition?

you have to do something wrong before your rights can be restricted.

Martin Bryant never did anything wrong before using his legally acquired guns to go on his killing spree, and I kind of suspect that he was not the only one, many of whom don't even suffer from an identifiable "psychiatric condition", to commit a first offence using legally owned firearms.

Fair enough, but there will be others with clearly diagnosed conditions but without a police record, that Seth will not think should be restricted in terms of gun ownership...

Not true. See above.

[Seth]

What about those people in the community who have a psychiatric condition?

you have to do something wrong before your rights can be restricted.

Martin Bryant never did anything wrong before using his legally acquired guns to go on his killing spree, and I kind of suspect that he was not the only one, many of whom don't even suffer from an identifiable "psychiatric condition", to commit a first offence using legally owned firearms.

Fair enough, but there will be others with clearly diagnosed conditions but without a police record, that Seth will not think should be restricted in terms of gun ownership...

Yes. I was agreeing with your drift and adding to it. If you have to do something wrong before you are prohibited from owning a firearm, psychiatric condition or none, that leaves a lot of people legally owning firearms that they subsequently use to commit murder or some other crimes for that matter.

*Waits for predictable and idiotic objection from predictable forum members containing words like "cars", "kitchen knives" or similar.*

Okay, answer that question then. What about cars, kitchen knives, hammers and other potential deadly weapons? Shall we ban them as well? If not, why not.

[Seth]

The gun dudes that do mass killings are always going to be there. We can reduce the more common redneck shooting his wife while drunk crimes by 100%. By taking away the guns of course.

So he'll just knife her or beat her to death with a cricket bat. And since SHE cannot own a gun for self defense, she's placed at greater risk.

[Seth]

His "you have to do something wrong before your rights can be restricted" is bollocks anyway. He's happy for the state to quarantine people, under threat of machine gun, who've potentially been infected with Ebola.

That's because spreading Ebola is "something wrong" and the particular circumstances involved require a TEMPORARY detention to ensure that the person does not spread the disease, after which they are free to go.

I have no objection to TEMPORARILY removing someone's firearms when an in-progress "heat of passion" (or intoxication, by way of example) issue makes it reasonable and prudent to do so in the short term to keep the peace, provided that once due process has been implemented and the individual has an opportunity to argue before a judge that there is not (or never was) any credible threat posed by the possession of firearms, he or she gets the weapons back.

It's still not rational to argue for prior restraint of every person in the country on the specious notion that doing so will somehow prevent domestic violence. It won't. Plenty of domestic violence victims are injured and killed with items other than firearms.

The important point is that prior restraint on everyone is not a rational position to take.

[Seth]

His "you have to do something wrong before your rights can be restricted" is bollocks anyway. He's happy for the state to quarantine people, under threat of machine gun, who've potentially been infected with Ebola.

Oh, by the way, this is a classic example of the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.

[Hermit]

*Waits for predictable and idiotic objection from predictable forum members containing words like "cars", "kitchen knives" or similar.*

Okay, answer that question then. What about cars, kitchen knives, hammers and other potential deadly weapons? Shall we ban them as well? If not, why not.

Sure.

To begin with, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that firearms regulations per se equal a blanket ban on all guns. What you keep thinking of as a ban on guns in Australia is in fact regulation. You see, the massive buyback scheme in 1996 netted all of 20% of the total guns in private possession at the time. 80% remained untouched. Hunters, sporting shooters pastoralists and agriculturalists remain licensed to own guns. What has been banned is stuff that is specifically designed to kill people, such as Kalashnikovs, Uzis and the like.

Much like cars, really. You can't just hop into a car and drive it on a public road here in Australia. You need to go through a compulsory training process, pass theoretical and practical tests, and the car has to be classed as suitable for use on public roads and registered as such with the relevant government institutions. If you break driving regulations often enough and/or severely enough, you lose the right to drive a car on public roads. If you keep losing your license frequently enough or get caught driving without a license you better be prepared to lose that right for the rest of your life and/or spend a period in incarceration. An acquaintance of mine had his car confiscated because he drove it on a public road. He was doing wheelies in front of his mates with his Formula 2 specced racing car. Duh. He got two rather expensive infringement notices and four demerit points were added to his drivers license. If your tally of points exceeds twelve you automatically lose the right to drive for a minimum of three months, and since one requirement by car racing organisers is that you a holder of a currently endorsed drivers license, his racing activity would have been placed on hold for the same period. As it was, he did not exceed the allowed limit, so he kept racing with one of his other F2 cars.

So, yes, cars cause deaths. They can even be used to intentionally kill people. Same with kitchen knives. Same with cricket bats. Same with the 80% of remaining rifles in private possession. While we regret those deaths, and while we continually work towards the reduction of such deaths, we tolerate them because deaths of humans caused by cars, kitchen knives, cricket bats, hunting and sporting firearms et cetera are not caused by implements that are designed for the primary purpose of killing people. They are unfortunate, incidental to the fundamental purpose of those implements and increasingly rare side effects. And that is why we don't ban cars, knives, cricket bats, hunting rifles, sporting pistols and whatnots even though they can and do cause the deaths of human beings.

EDITED by klr on request by Hermit

[JimC]

^^^^^^



And Oz has quite a vibrant hunting culture, which I was certainly a part of until poor eyesight forced me to quit. We are not "anti gun", we are simply (like the rest of the civilised world), rather careful about the type of guns that are allowed in our community...

[Seth]

*Waits for predictable and idiotic objection from predictable forum members containing words like "cars", "kitchen knives" or similar.*

Okay, answer that question then. What about cars, kitchen knives, hammers and other potential deadly weapons? Shall we ban them as well? If not, why not.

Sure.

To begin with, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that firearms regulations do not per se equal a blanket ban on all guns.

While this is technically true, as demonstrated by the fact that there are already more than 50,000 firearms regulations in force in the US, the problem is that for those who propose more regulations, the intent, stated or unstated, is to achieve an ultimate goal of banning all guns, or perhaps all handguns. This has been demonstrated time and time again by those who think that more gun regulations will reduce gun crimes, or who use that as an excuse to restrict law-abiding citizen's rights to keep and bear arms because these persons simply do not feel that anyone but the police and military should possess firearms.

The gun-owning public in the US has been fighting this often devious and carefully-concealed intent for about a hundred years, so we know exactly what such people mean when they say "common sense gun control." What they mean is anything but common sense and quite literally always has the ultimate goal of banning firearms, in particular handguns, completely. Having been lied to and deceived for a hundred years, we gun owners are not so callow anymore, and we resist all attempts to further regulate gun ownership or possession because no further regulation is actually needed. All the laws that are necessary to deal with unlawful or even merely unsafe conduct with firearms already exist and have been enforced for decades. There is nothing anyone can do with a firearm that is harmful to anyone that is not, or has not been illegal for a very long time.

Therefore, no matter what the claim, any new regulations are actually intended to infringe further on the rights of law abiding gun owners rather than actually addressing any illegal or harmful conduct that is currently unregulated.

What you keep thinking of as a ban on guns in Australia is in fact regulation.

It's both. It's a regulation that bans the possession of certain types of firearms that also required the surrender of such firearms to the government for destruction under penalty of law.

You see, the massive buyback scheme in 1996 netted all of 20% of the total guns in private possession at the time. 80% remained untouched. Hunters, sporting shooters pastoralists and agriculturalists remain licensed to own guns. What has been banned is stuff that is specifically designed to kill people, such as Kalashnikovs, Uzis and the like.

Well, here in the US, because a primary purpose (but not the only one) is to maintain an armed citizenry capable of reporting for duty in the Organized Militia of the United States, possessing "stuff that is specifically designed to kill people" is not only protected, it is explicitly protected by the 2nd Amendment. Of all of the categories of "arms" that the Supreme Court has examined, it has clearly stated that the ordinary personal weapons of the soldier, or suitable for use by soldiers or militia members, are the most applicable and protected category of arms contemplated by the 2nd Amendment.

Indeed, in the most-often misunderstood Supreme Court case on gun control, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the reason that the defendants were convicted of illegal possession of a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act is specifically because the Supreme Court refused to take judicial notice that such shotguns are recognized as a common and ordinary weapon of a soldier. The reasons why the Court did not make a finding that such shotguns ARE commonly used by soldiers, as is factually and historically the case (see "trench shotgun"), is because of the particular facts of the case, which was an appeal by the government of a lower court ruling holding that the NFA registration requirements for short shotguns were unconstitutional because they violated the 2nd Amendment.

As Wikipedia puts it:

Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Judge Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons. In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the supreme court and would simply disappear. Therefore the governments appeal to the supreme court, which happened immediately, would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even show up.That is exactly what happened, and so the precedent was set that some restrictions on gun ownership is constitutional.[2] [3]

Because Miller did not appear, even through an attorney, and at the well-planned intent of the United States Attorney, no evidence of the utility or use of a sawed-off shotgun as a military weapon was placed before the court, even though the evidence that such arms are quite commonly used by soldiers and have been since the invention of the shotgun.

The Court declined to take judicial notice of this fact, as it could have done, because it wished to support the notion that the federal government could enforce gun control regulations in spite of the 2nd Amendment's express prohibition against doing so.

But what the Court DID affirm, in it's ruling, is that military arms that are reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held: The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[2] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

Much like cars, really. You can't just hop into a car and drive it on a public road here in Australia. You need to go through a compulsory training process, pass theoretical and practical tests, and the car has to be classed as suitable for use on public roads and registered as such with the relevant government institutions. If you break driving regulations often enough and/or severely enough, you lose the right to drive a car on public roads. If you keep losing your license frequently enough or get caught driving without a license you better be prepared to lose that right for the rest of your life and/or spend a period in incarceration. An acquaintance of mine had his car confiscated because he drove it on a public road. He was doing wheelies in front of his mates with his Formula 2 specced racing car. Duh. He got two rather expensive infringement notices and four demerit points were added to his drivers license. If your tally of points exceeds twelve you automatically lose the right to drive for a minimum of three months, and since one requirement by car racing organisers is that you a holder of a currently endorsed drivers license, his racing activity would have been placed on hold for the same period. As it was, he did not exceed the allowed limit, so he kept racing with one of his other F2 cars.

So, yes, cars cause deaths. They can even be used to intentionally kill people. Same with kitchen knives. Same with cricket bats. Same with the 80% of remaining rifles in private possession. While we regret those deaths, and while we continually work towards the reduction of such deaths, we tolerate them because deaths of humans caused by cars, kitchen knives, cricket bats, hunting and sporting firearms et cetera are not caused by implements that are designed for the primary purpose of killing people. They are unfortunate, incidental to the fundamental purpose of those implements and increasingly rare side effects. And that is why we don't ban cars, knives, cricket bats, hunting rifles, sporting pistols and whatnots even though they can and do cause the deaths of human beings.

Ah, the old "designed for killing" canard. I knew you'd toss that one out. You "tolerate" those deaths not because those items are not "designed for the primary purpose of killing people," you tolerate those deaths because those items have utility to the public for transportation, food preparation, recreation, hunting and sport shooting. Hunting rifles are specifically designed for the primary purpose of killing, so killing is not the criteria you are trying to use. What you are objecting to is a philosophical difference between a "hunting" rifle and a "military" rifle, which function exactly identically, and both of which may be used to kill. The issue you have is an emotional reaction to the notion that certain classes of firearms are used for killing human beings, not that they are designed for this or that purpose. But ANY firearm may be used to kill a human being, and therefore your objection to one or another particular type of firearm is entirely irrational and is based on emotion, not reason and logic.

Firearms, all firearms of any description, including field artillery and rocket launchers are designed to do one thing and one thing only: They are designed to eject a projectile at a specified velocity in a specific direction. That's it. Firearms have no "intent" or inherent purpose other than that. Period.

What they are USED for however is where your complaint lies, and the fallacy in your logic is that you falsely assume that a particular type of firearm that you believe to be "designed for the primary purpose of killing people" has as its only possible use the killing of people. This is obviously not even remotely true, as demonstrated by the fact that less than one ten-thousandth of one percent of all firearms in the US are ever used to kill a person. The other 99.9999 percent are used to eject projectiles at a specified velocity in a specific direction for the purposes of putting holes in inanimate objects like paper and tin cans and the occasional game animal. That they MAY be used lawfully for self defense to deter or prevent a crime, either by wounding or killing the criminal or merely by frightening him out of committing the crime does not change the function or design of the firearm at all. Just as a kitchen knife can be used to slice tomatoes or jugular veins, a firearm can be used to punch holes in paper or violent criminals. The difference is not in the basic function or nature of the object, it's in the use that the object is put to, which may be lawful and necessary or illegal and unnecessary, and that depends not on the weapon, but on the operator of the weapon.

Let's look at your logic: To drive a car you have to be of age, know how to drive, demonstrate you know how, and obey the rules of the road. If you do so, you cannot be denied a license to operate a car on the public highways. Moreover, you can OWN a car without having to be licensed to drive it on a public highway, and you may drive any car on private property, particularly your own, without having to be licensed to do so. Only when you operate one on the PUBLIC highways does the state gain any authority to regulate your possession or use of a car. And so long as you don't hurt others with your car, you have a right to drive it on the public highways and possess it.

The same rationale applies to firearms or any other weapon. The possession of a firearm is not the same thing as the use of a firearm, nor is it the same as the misuse of a firearm.

A firearm is an inanimate object that does nothing without being operated by a human being, and it is the operation that is properly regulated in the interests of public safety, not the existence or possession of the object. And because firearms have "fundamental purposes" other than "killing people" it is entirely irrational to claim that they must be banned merely because some small number of them are misused, just as it is irrational to ban cars, kitchen knives or cricket bats, all of which kill people, just because a small number of them are misused.

Yours is an irrational and illogical argument based on emotion and not upon reason or logic, and therefore has no place in a forum dedicated to rationalism.