Milnet.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Global Politics => Topic started by: Jarnhamar on August 27, 2018, 05:40:58

Title: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 27, 2018, 05:40:58
Quote
David Hogg, gun control advocates march on Smith & Wesson headquarters, demand $5 million donation[


https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/26/david-hogg-gun-control-advocates-march-smith-wesso/

Seems typical of that group. The only thing missing is the usual attempts at blackmail.


As with most anti-gun politicians, celebrities and spokes people, Mr Hogg is quite happy to employ armed security.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/5/david-hogg-employed-armed-security-nra-protest-org/

Title: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 21, 2019, 09:23:15
New Zealand bans “military style” assault guns after mosque attacks: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/after-mosque-attacks-new-zealand-quickly-bans-assault-weapons-1.4345293

Looks like the ban is quite broad, is immediate to prevent stockpiling, and includes even “accessories” to weapons. There will be a buy back, but the price tag looks minimal. The law for it all, apparently, will come later.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 21, 2019, 11:51:51
Did some reading on what they consider an MSSA; got this from wikipedia, but it's pulled from the legislation.  Apparently an MSSA is anything that has;

    Folding or telescopic butt
    Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
    Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
    Bayonet lug
    Pistol grip as defined by regulation
    Flash suppressor

So you could buy something legally under their A class license, and easily swap out a part and have it meet the definition of an MSSA.  So it sounds like they are banning the various modular rifles and large magazines, as well as buying them back from the legal owners.  I know a lot of people won't like it, but it seems like a fairly reasonable approach that balances the needs of hunters, farmers etc against the increasing risk from fringe lunatics going on killing sprees.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 21, 2019, 13:00:58
Gun confiscation worked in Britain.

Year old stats, but I don't think they'll be much change once the new ones are compiled.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/london-stabbings-2018-clapham-shepherds-bush-crouch-hill-kingsland-hammersmith-greenwich-latest/

<snip>
Quote
Figures from London's Metropolitan police showed that knife crime has surged by 16 per cent in the capital — as Britain's crime epidemic continues.

Excluding those killed in terror attacks like London Bridge, Westminster and Manchester, there was still a 12 per cent rise in murders — the highest numbers in a decade.The total number of offences involving a knife or bladed instrument that have been recorded by cops in the year to March 2018 rose to 40,147, a seven-year-high.

There were 1,299 stabbings in London up to the end of April, according to official statistics from the Met Police.
<snip>

Near as I can tell, this is just London.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: AbdullahD on March 21, 2019, 13:36:45
Did some reading on what they consider an MSSA; got this from wikipedia, but it's pulled from the legislation.  Apparently an MSSA is anything that has;

    Folding or telescopic butt
    Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
    Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
    Bayonet lug
    Pistol grip as defined by regulation
    Flash suppressor

So you could buy something legally under their A class license, and easily swap out a part and have it meet the definition of an MSSA.  So it sounds like they are banning the various modular rifles and large magazines, as well as buying them back from the legal owners.  I know a lot of people won't like it, but it seems like a fairly reasonable approach that balances the needs of hunters, farmers etc against the increasing risk from fringe lunatics going on killing sprees.

That would literally be my entire collection gone... such an arbitrary set of qualifiers 😡

I feel bad for NZ gun owners :(
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Brihard on March 21, 2019, 13:59:33
Gun confiscation worked in Britain.

Year old stats, but I don't think they'll be much change once the new ones are compiled.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/london-stabbings-2018-clapham-shepherds-bush-crouch-hill-kingsland-hammersmith-greenwich-latest/

<snip><snip>

Near as I can tell, this is just London.

At the risk of playing too fast and loose with regards to correlation versus causality, Britain has also seen a reduction of 21,000 police officers since 2010 (https://fullfact.org/crime/police-numbers/). London Met has seen a decrease of somewhere around 10%- they lost about 3000 (https://fullfact.org/crime/london-losing-3000-police-officers/).

I'll try to succinctly contextualize this and then give the 'so what?'. A police service will always have two personnel overheads: A certain amount have to be on the road taking all the calls coming in, from the mundane to the serious. Generally they will be pretty fully occupied doing these things. Call volume can be diverted with things like online and telephone report centers and such, but in any major municipality the cops on the road are nearly always fully busy. They aren't in a position to do much proactive, like knocking on doors to make sure offenders are abiding by curfews and release conditions, or running surveillance, doing undercover drug buys, and writing search warrants. Think of these units as your pioneers, your mortars, your direct fire support platoon. You lose too many troops, your battalion doesn't get to have these nice things because otherwise the rifle companies are empty.

A certain amount of officers will have to be in the office- managers, administrators who require specific policing experience and skills... You invariably lose some 'roadable' this way.

You take every other officer, and that's your support units. That's your investigative support sections. Your robbery unit. Your sex crimes unit. Your domestic violence unit. Your major crimes / homicide units. Your auto theft unit. Your probation/parole/conditions enforcement unit. Your drug teams. Your surveillance teams. Your prolific offender enforcement units. These units all work in concert. There are a lot of ways bad guys are taken off the street.

Traffic units adequately resourced to do enforcement will pull over stupid drivers (which a lot of gang types are). Those stupid drivers will get tickets. Eventually ones who are stupid enough may lose their licenses and get hit with suspensions- then you get them caught driving suspended, and from stops like that you see drugs and guns being seized from vehicles that are searched incidental to arrest; you see passengers IDed where they otherwise wouldn't be, and guys out on probation or interim release who have enforceable conditions get breached.

Prolific offender units will pcik a few of the known problem eprsonalities. They'll do surveillance, they'll do door knocks to check up on probation conditions. They'll actively investigate reported breaches (e.g., don't hang out with criminals, don't consume alcohol, abide by a 10pm to 7am curfew, etc). They'll learn who's stealing what and who they're selling it to and attack those networks.

Drug teams will start with street level undercover buys and will work their way up a network. They'll identify dealers at whatever level they're targeting, and they'll do the necessary surveillance to get search warrants. Once those doors get kicked, violent people go to jail, drugs and crime guns are found and off the street. Criminal networks are disrupted.

Your auto theft units will do surveillance and work GPS enabled bait cars. The people who steal cars tend to have other stuff going on- when they're caght, often they have conditions, or are on parole or probation. They may have weapons, they often have drugs. They may be accompanied by other criminal associates who can be IDed and action taken. These operations get them in jail for a while.

So when police services get stripped of people, the positions necessarily hit the proactive units the hardest. The units that *aren't* stuck going call to call, and who are able to specifically target certain offenders, areas, or problem patterns. Because the people who are going around sticking knives into people are almost invariably living the kind of lifestyle where these sorts of units will encounter them, and on the aggregate, more of them will come off the street and end up in jail for a while, making patrol officers more able to respond adequately to stuff as it comes in, and maybe do a bit of proactive work themselves, such as doing foot patrols around drinking establishments and entertainment districts, and other stuff to deter crimes of opportunity or drunken stupidity. It's really the same problems we've seen in Canadian cities as populations have grown and police services haven't- just that Britain went through massive cuts.

So essentially they're now running very short staffed and are struggling to do anything other than just go to the emergency calls that come in. That leaves a lot of not great people on the street who are basically 'left alone' until something bad enough to make it through call triage has already been committed.

So bear all that in mind when attempting to make univariate comparisons of things like changed gun laws and crime levels. It's a gross oversimplification that really doesn't look at the larger problem in any real depth at all.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 14:04:46
Did some reading on what they consider an MSSA; got this from wikipedia, but it's pulled from the legislation.  Apparently an MSSA is anything that has;

    Folding or telescopic butt
    Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
    Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
    Bayonet lug
    Pistol grip as defined by regulation
    Flash suppressor

So you could buy something legally under their A class license, and easily swap out a part and have it meet the definition of an MSSA.  So it sounds like they are banning the various modular rifles and large magazines, as well as buying them back from the legal owners.  I know a lot of people won't like it, but it seems like a fairly reasonable approach that balances the needs of hunters, farmers etc against the increasing risk from fringe lunatics going on killing sprees.

Can you please explain to me how whether a firearm has a flash hider or not will save lives and prevent mass shootings?
Has there been many bayonet inflicted deaths during mass shootings?

Reading the above a magazine that holds 7 cartridges would be okay but something that is pinned to 2 rounds but looks like it holds 8 would be banned?


What might really have saved lives is allowing the NZ government to arbitrarily access private message on forums, access private email accounts and access text messages and conversations. They could run programs that red flag anything remotely close to hate speech (or dislike speech or fear?) and arrest them.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Colin P on March 21, 2019, 14:09:21
It's not based on logic, it's being seen to be "doing something"
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Target Up on March 21, 2019, 14:17:27
At the risk of playing too fast and loose with regards to correlation versus causality, Britain has also seen a reduction of 21,000 police officers since 2010 (https://fullfact.org/crime/police-numbers/). London Met has seen a decrease of somewhere around 10%- they lost about 3000 (https://fullfact.org/crime/london-losing-3000-police-officers/).

I'll try to succinctly contextualize this and then give the 'so what?'. A police service will always have two personnel overheads: A certain amount have to be on the road taking all the calls coming in, from the mundane to the serious. Generally they will be pretty fully occupied doing these things. Call volume can be diverted with things like online and telephone report centers and such, but in any major municipality the cops on the road are nearly always fully busy. They aren't in a position to do much proactive, like knocking on doors to make sure offenders are abiding by curfews and release conditions, or running surveillance, doing undercover drug buys, and writing search warrants. Think of these units as your pioneers, your mortars, your direct fire support platoon. You lose too many troops, your battalion doesn't get to have these nice things because otherwise the rifle companies are empty.

A certain amount of officers will have to be in the office- managers, administrators who require specific policing experience and skills... You invariably lose some 'roadable' this way.

You take every other officer, and that's your support units. That's your investigative support sections. Your robbery unit. Your sex crimes unit. Your domestic violence unit. Your major crimes / homicide units. Your auto theft unit. Your probation/parole/conditions enforcement unit. Your drug teams. Your surveillance teams. Your prolific offender enforcement units. These units all work in concert. There are a lot of ways bad guys are taken off the street.

Traffic units adequately resourced to do enforcement will pull over stupid drivers (which a lot of gang types are). Those stupid drivers will get tickets. Eventually ones who are stupid enough may lose their licenses and get hit with suspensions- then you get them caught driving suspended, and from stops like that you see drugs and guns being seized from vehicles that are searched incidental to arrest; you see passengers IDed where they otherwise wouldn't be, and guys out on probation or interim release who have enforceable conditions get breached.

Prolific offender units will pcik a few of the known problem eprsonalities. They'll do surveillance, they'll do door knocks to check up on probation conditions. They'll actively investigate reported breaches (e.g., don't hang out with criminals, don't consume alcohol, abide by a 10pm to 7am curfew, etc). They'll learn who's stealing what and who they're selling it to and attack those networks.

Drug teams will start with street level undercover buys and will work their way up a network. They'll identify dealers at whatever level they're targeting, and they'll do the necessary surveillance to get search warrants. Once those doors get kicked, violent people go to jail, drugs and crime guns are found and off the street. Criminal networks are disrupted.

Your auto theft units will do surveillance and work GPS enabled bait cars. The people who steal cars tend to have other stuff going on- when they're caght, often they have conditions, or are on parole or probation. They may have weapons, they often have drugs. They may be accompanied by other criminal associates who can be IDed and action taken. These operations get them in jail for a while.

So when police services get stripped of people, the positions necessarily hit the proactive units the hardest. The units that *aren't* stuck going call to call, and who are able to specifically target certain offenders, areas, or problem patterns. Because the people who are going around sticking knives into people are almost invariably living the kind of lifestyle where these sorts of units will encounter them, and on the aggregate, more of them will come off the street and end up in jail for a while, making patrol officers more able to respond adequately to stuff as it comes in, and maybe do a bit of proactive work themselves, such as doing foot patrols around drinking establishments and entertainment districts, and other stuff to deter crimes of opportunity or drunken stupidity. It's really the same problems we've seen in Canadian cities as populations have grown and police services haven't- just that Britain went through massive cuts.

So essentially they're now running very short staffed and are struggling to do anything other than just go to the emergency calls that come in. That leaves a lot of not great people on the street who are basically 'left alone' until something bad enough to make it through call triage has already been committed.

So bear all that in mind when attempting to make univariate comparisons of things like changed gun laws and crime levels. It's a gross oversimplification that really doesn't look at the larger problem in any real depth at all.

Not sure of your point here. There could be four million cops on the payroll, they’re almost never where murders or violent crimes happen till after the fact, then it’s the same statistic. Maybe they respond faster, but almost all policing is reactive rather than proactive, especially in rural areas.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Brihard on March 21, 2019, 14:36:55
Not sure of your point here. There could be four million cops on the payroll, they’re almost never where murders or violent crimes happen till after the fact, then it’s the same statistic. Maybe they respond faster, but almost all policing is reactive rather than proactive, especially in rural areas.

OK, sorry man, I didn't break it down enough. I'll try again.

Firstly- I'm not talking about flushing the streets with cops so that there is one coincidentally on scene when a knife comes out able to instantly respond. I'm talking about prevention in a couple of different ways. I will preface by strongly disagreeing that police is almost purely reactive. That's the case in a poorly resourced organization, absolutely, but a ton of proactive work can be and is done.

One: There *is* a deterrent effect to some extent. When bars close and people pile out onto the street in an entertainment district, fights will be prevented in many cases merely by police being visible. The kind of situations that lead to some drunk idiot pulling a knife or gun on someone. Some people will still have more sense if they see police or know them to be around.

Two: I'm talking more about 'disabling' criminal behaviour. The types of people who commit violent offences are generally involved in a whole host of different criminal behaviours. Stealing cars, trafficking in drugs and stolen property... They tend to spend significant periods bound by parole / probation / bail conditions aimed at curbing behaviour, stuff like stay in your house at night, don't drink alcohol, etc. These are things that proactive police units can engage. Like I mentioned, the auto theft units who will run bait cards; the prolific offender units who will do door knocks and curfew checks, and breach and return to jail people who violate conditions.The drug units who will proactively investigate and execute search and arrest warrants. Stuff like that. All this proactive work gets criminals off the street and either in jail or on bail conditions that make it harder for them to do stuff. Fewer criminals are able to be in a situation where they can or choose to commit acts of violence.

Even modest numbers in police resources in a community can allow for the stand up or expansion of proactive units that can have a disproportionately positive effect on that particular crime patterns they're targeting. Conversely, reducing police numbers disproportionately hits those units first because other priorities have to be maintained for first response. You start taking resources away form these units, and criminals are able to carry on with much greater impunity- which invariably will lead to more things like robberies/carjackings gone wrong, drug binges, and the other sorts of shenanigans where violence occurs.

All that to say- simply looking at 'gun laws vs crime stats' as a simple comparison is utterly meaningless when there are much more significant big picture things happening.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 14:53:46



https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/police-announce-process-hand-over-reclassified-mssas?nondesktop&fbclid=IwAR0SmG7X6Nqw6Y26aM3KE-bqE1KlcLlENb30YUUg_IleDcANLnInQi9qSr4

Quote
Last Friday, our country was shocked by a brutal and senseless attack. We recognise our world has changed.

Police focus is on ensuring the immediate safety and peace of mind of our communities.

Today, the Government has made immediate changes to classifications in the Arms Act which will mean some firearms are going to be reclassified as military style semi-automatic firearms (MSSAs).

At 3pm today, changes have been by an Order in Council under section 74A(c) of the Arms Act came into force adding two more groups of semi-automatics under the MSSA definition:

• a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or less rimfire cartridges) that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges; and

• a semi-automatic firearm that is a shotgun and is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges.

As a result of these changes many people who, up until now have owned these firearms legally, will no longer be able to possess them on their current licence conditions.

This means for many people, you will now be in unlawful possession of your firearm.

Given this is an immediate change, there is an amnesty to allow the notification and hand in their firearms to Police.

To organise the hand in of your firearm, you will need to complete a form on the Police website. Those who are unable to do so can call Police on 0800 311 311.

When the form is submitted Police will be notified you are in possession of a firearm that needs to be handed in. We will contact you to organise a suitable time and place for you to hand over your firearm. This may mean you bring it to Police at an allocated time, or a Police employee comes to you directly to collect the firearm.

I can’t emphasise enough that in the current environment, it is important you do not take your now-unlawful firearm anywhere without notifying Police. It is absolutely vital that we manage the safe and organised transport of all firearms into Police custody.

There is clear information on our website around what firearms are affected by the change and what to do if your firearm if affected.

The Government has signalled there will be further changes made over the coming weeks to ban all military style semi-automatics and assault rifles permanently.

While legislation is being finalised, the Government in the interim has acted to restrict the potential stock-piling of these guns, parts and high-capacity magazines, prevent additional purchases and encourage people to notify Police about their intention to hand in their firearms.

We will continue to update the public and especially the firearms community as required.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre

So by the sounds of it a bunch of guns were made illegal over night. Doesn't appear to be much talk about compensation or a by back for these semi-autos. Just turn them into the police. I wonder what kind of compliance they'll get.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Remius on March 21, 2019, 14:54:14
All that to say- simply looking at 'gun laws vs crime stats' as a simple comparison is utterly meaningless when there are much more significant big picture things happening.

Interesting look at the knife phenomenon in the UK in particular the youth aspect where knife violence seems to be more prevalent.

It is long but does support what you are saying Brihard.

Cuts to social services, mental health resources and increased poverty are some of the factors.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/28/beyond-the-blade-the-truth-about-knife-in-britain

The real test is whether or not gun laws keep gun crimes from happening. 
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Brihard on March 21, 2019, 14:58:50
Interesting look at the knife phenomenon in the UK in particular the youth aspect where knife violence seems to be more prevalent.

It is long but does support what you are saying Brihard.

Cuts to social services, mental health resources and increased poverty are some of the factors.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/28/beyond-the-blade-the-truth-about-knife-in-britain

The real test is whether or not gun laws keep gun crimes from happening.

Absolutely those things come into play as well.

When I was policing in a mid sized community (urban/suburban centre, large rural catchment), whenever fluctuating resources and call volume allowed we would do what proactive stuff we could. It made an observable difference, particularly when we could work certain known violent or prolific offenders. Now that's very small scale, but the reasoning scales upwards easily. We also saw the impact that inadequate resources for youths and mental health in particular had.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: FJAG on March 21, 2019, 15:12:35
Can you please explain to me how whether a firearm has a flash hider or not will save lives and prevent mass shootings?
Has there been many bayonet inflicted deaths during mass shootings?

Reading the above a magazine that holds 7 cartridges would be okay but something that is pinned to 2 rounds but looks like it holds 8 would be banned?


What might really have saved lives is allowing the NZ government to arbitrarily access private message on forums, access private email accounts and access text messages and conversations. They could run programs that red flag anything remotely close to hate speech (or dislike speech or fear?) and arrest them.

Allowing governments to arbitrarily access private messages truly is an invasion of privacy that effects all of us. Who then decides what constitutes "hate" speech? Is it CNN's reporting of the stuff Trump says? That's truly a slippery slope.

Let me give you just a brief viewpoint on why bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and thirty round magazines are being used as guidepoints. It's primarily because such things are frequently the functions attached to military high powered rifles whose primary use is the killing of people. You do not need any of those things for legitimate hunting or even home defence. Many people are of the view that people who need/want to own modern military firearms are displaying worrisome personality disorders and that it an unreasonable step in society to make such highly destructive weapons readily available.

Here's a quick opinion of one columnist:

Quote
...Doesn’t it seem clear that anyone who feels the need for an AR-15 is already displaying abundant evidence of disordered thinking? If you are paranoid enough to think you need so much firepower for home protection, that’s more paranoia than sanity can contain.

If you say you need an AR-15 to go deer hunting, that’s preposterous. And if you think that you and your patriotic buddies, armed with a small arsenal of semi-automatic rifles converted to full-auto with bump stocks, can resist an American government supported by the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, then that’s clear evidence of lunacy....

https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-no-one-needs-an-ar15 (https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-no-one-needs-an-ar15)

I know that I'm venturing into risky ground because many people on this forum are strong advocates of owning military firearms. Hell, I own two myself; one a hundred and forty year old single shot lever action British military rifle in 450/570 calibre the other a seventy-five year old German 8mm Mauser with a five round internal magazine (both have bayonet lugs [and bayonets], are high powered but neither has flash suppressors or a high capacity magazine). I haven't fired either in over fifty years.

Let's face facts. The vast majority of society--even in the US--is of the view that there needs to be much stricter gun control and that military firearms, and pseudo-military firearms, are unnecessary and undesirable in a free and democratic society and further that people who defend and encourage their continued proliferation have something wrong with them. Try to remember that the Heller decision in the USSC in 2008 that interpreted the 2nd amendment broadly on the grounds of self defence was only a five to four ruling and that it did indicate that limitations were acceptable on a case by case basis.

This issue is just another one of those that highlights the strata that our society is divided into. Neither side will ever admit that their views may be unreasonable or that there is any valid justification for their opponents views. Personally, I think that semi-automatic is semi-automatic regardless of whether it's wrapped up in an AR-15 style body or a Ruger Mini-14. I also believe that 5 round magazines and strict background check and registration requirements are reasonable limits to their ownership. The former, alas, all to easy to get around. The aim of the game is to make the majority of society feel safe and comfortable in their lives. What works here might not work in South Africa or Afghanistan. Conditions differ. NZ has been gobsmacked and what is being done there now is to make the people feel good that the government is taking action on their collective behalf. That matters and is, IMHO, worth so much more than the usual bullsh*t "thoughts and prayers" for the victims of gun violence that the US political leadership takes after these events.

 :2c:
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: cld617 on March 21, 2019, 15:13:03


https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/police-announce-process-hand-over-reclassified-mssas?nondesktop&fbclid=IwAR0SmG7X6Nqw6Y26aM3KE-bqE1KlcLlENb30YUUg_IleDcANLnInQi9qSr4

So by the sounds of it a bunch of guns were made illegal over night. Doesn't appear to be much talk about compensation or a by back for these semi-autos. Just turn them into the police. I wonder what kind of compliance they'll get.

Ridiculous. Considering Quebec has seen about a 17% compliance with their registry, I wouldn't suspect NZ's compliance will be that much larger. Similar societal types in possession of arms, and you certainly don't foster attitudes of understanding by telling someone they're a criminal with the stroke of a pen.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 21, 2019, 15:35:16
Can you please explain to me how whether a firearm has a flash hider or not will save lives and prevent mass shootings?
Has there been many bayonet inflicted deaths during mass shootings?

Reading the above a magazine that holds 7 cartridges would be okay but something that is pinned to 2 rounds but looks like it holds 8 would be banned?


What might really have saved lives is allowing the NZ government to arbitrarily access private message on forums, access private email accounts and access text messages and conversations. They could run programs that red flag anything remotely close to hate speech (or dislike speech or fear?) and arrest them.

Those are the current regs, I think they are looking at a hard cap of 5 rounds for any magazine/tube etc (maybe higher for the 22LR varmint guns).

I don't think banning any of these will do anything to prevent a mass shooting, but can see limiting them to just small magazines limiting the damage (just from the logistics of carrying a bunch of mags and swapping them out every few seconds). The bayonet one is kind of random, but if they are limiting long gun ownership to uses relating to hunting, domestic farm usage etc is there any good reason to have flash suppressors or pistol grips? I can't think of any, but not a big gun guy.

 Targeting some of the underlying mental health issues, economic disparity and monitoring extremism  would be actual preventative measures. Those are a lot harder to do effectively, but hopefully that's something they look at once the shock wears off.

Don't really know if this will make any real difference, but they did seem to look at it, realize they aren't happy with it, and decide to take action and change it (while allowing some exceptions for hunting, farming and recreational use). They are guesstimating about $200m for a buyback, so don't think this is a case of turn it in for nothing, but it is refreshing to see a democratic government make a reasoned decision and take quick action instead of voicing platitudes and empty thoughts and prayers.

Really don't think a massive privacy invasion by the police is in order though. For one, if they had carte blanch access, you are now in a needle in a haystack situation wading through the volume of bs, and anyone with half a brain that wants to avoid it will come up with a work around.  Getting tips from concerned citizens is still probably your best bet for effectively focusing on actual threats, and that requires public trust. You lose that pretty quickly when you are worried about them scanning all your online activities.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 15:47:04
Quote from: FJAG
Allowing governments to arbitrarily access private messages truly is an invasion of privacy that effects all of us. Who then decides what constitutes "hate" speech? Is it CNN's reporting of the stuff Trump says? That's truly a slippery slope.

Why is your privacy more important than the lives of children? Think of the children ;)

I totally agree but the "think of the children"/"if it saves just one life" premise has long been a mantra by gun control advocates.

Being honest you don't really care either way really about firearms, that's cool. I wouldn't expect you to get too emotional over those old guns you mentioned that you haven't shot in 50 years (aside from an heirloom sort of thing).

Perhaps if you're an imbiber of alcohol you would be more bothered by the "saves just one life" mantra if the government was looking at severely restricting alcohol ownership/possession or out right banning it.

That's why I bring up computers and privacy. Maybe it's apples and oranges but the privacy thing I mentioned (along with no alcohol, no smoking) would surely save some lives and that's enough for some people to support it.

Maybe in a couple years the government going through our PMs and Email "to save lives" will be the next fight.

Quote from: FJAG
Let me give you just a brief viewpoint on why bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and thirty round magazines are being used as guidepoints. It's primarily because such things are frequently the functions attached to military high powered rifles whose primary use is the killing of people.

Okay, what constitutes high powered? Is it the size and power of the bullet? If so the 5.56mm bullet that the AR15 isn't very powerful compared to common hunting calibers like .308s, 30-06 and such. There's often arguments that the AR15s 5.56 caliber is under powered.


Quote from: FJAG
You do not need any of those things for legitimate hunting or even home defence. Many people are of the view that people who need/want to own modern military firearms are displaying worrisome personality disorders and that it an unreasonable step in society to make such highly destructive weapons readily available.

I'm not a hunter but I think trying to decide whats needed and whats not for hunting seems very subjective. I've heard that line a lot, you don't need such and such a gun for hunting, often from non-hunters. I think that may be like me with my legal background of 1x PLQ PO check saying you don't need a lawyer if you're not guilty. Right?

A Remington 700 bolt action rifle and Remington 870 pump-action shotgun are probably the most widely known,owned and used "hunting" guns. At least in North America but all over the world too I suspect.  Would you care to take a guess at how many people have been killed with those guns by the police and military? 700 makes a hell of a sniper rifle. Police have been using the 870 forever.

One could say hunters don't need the same guns snipers use to kill people and police use to shoot criminals.

As for home defense, are you suggesting that the AR15 rifle isn't good for defending your house? We use them for self-defense in the military and to protect our country. I can't really think of many better guns for home defense than an AR15.

Quote
https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-no-one-needs-an-ar15 (https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-no-one-needs-an-ar15)
Doesn’t it seem clear that anyone who feels the need for an AR-15 is already displaying abundant evidence of disordered thinking? If you are paranoid enough to think you need so much firepower for home protection, that’s more paranoia than sanity can contain.
Some might argue believing in an invisible being in the sky is evidence of disordered thinking. Begging an invisible person for help if someone is attacking you? Might work.  I'd stick with an AR myself  ;D


Quote from: FJAG
I know that I'm venturing into risky ground because many people on this forum are strong advocates of owning military firearms.

I'll say! Your posts are always awesome though, I thoroughly enjoy them. Even if you think I have some kind of disorder  :Tin-Foil-Hat:
 
Quote from: FJAG
Let's face facts. The vast majority of society--even in the US--is of the view that there needs to be much stricter gun control and that military firearms, and pseudo-military firearms, are unnecessary and undesirable in a free and democratic society and further that people who defend and encourage their continued proliferation have something wrong with them. Try to remember that the Heller decision in the USSC in 2008 that interpreted the 2nd amendment broadly on the grounds of self defence was only a five to four ruling and that it did indicate that limitations were acceptable on a case by case basis.

This issue is just another one of those that highlights the strata that our society is divided into. Neither side will ever admit that their views may be unreasonable or that there is any valid justification for their opponents views. Personally, I think that semi-automatic is semi-automatic regardless of whether it's wrapped up in an AR-15 style body or a Ruger Mini-14. I also believe that 5 round magazines and strict background check and registration requirements are reasonable limits to their ownership. The former, alas, all to easy to get around. The aim of the game is to make the majority of society feel safe and comfortable in their lives. What works here might not work in South Africa or Afghanistan. Conditions differ. NZ has been gobsmacked and what is being done there now is to make the people feel good that the government is taking action on their collective behalf. That matters and is, IMHO, worth so much more than the usual bullsh*t "thoughts and prayers" for the victims of gun violence that the US political leadership takes after these events.

 :2c:

Good points for sure. Going after guns is easy and low hanging fruit. It's a bandaid solution that will make people in the moment feel better and safer- catnip for politicians.

I have 100% confidence that anyone here with our Mariomike mentored research skills could make some wicked IEDs, pipebombs and chemical weapons in our houses. Anyone with access to the net can download the know how (Maybe a great example of stricter police powers and anti-privacy laws eh?)

Say we get rid of privately owned firearms, maybe we'll see a drop in crime and someone might have to work harder to kill a bunch of people. Who do we blame when guns are gone and someone does a chemical attack (Japan) or daisy chains a bunch of pipe bombs to children? Do we look at banning more stuff or do we take a look at whats radicalizing people, the process and ways to bring people back. Ways for people to be constructive rather than destructive.

Pretty sure firearm owners realize our days are numbered.  lt is what it is but I don't think it will solve any problems. If anything it will probably succeed in accomplishing exactly what the NZ shooter wanted. I think we should look for better solutions than going for a kill count of 7 instead of 17.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 15:52:43
Quote from: Navy_Pete
They are guesstimating about $200m for a buyback, so don't think this is a case of turn it in for nothing, but it is refreshing to see a democratic government make a reasoned decision and take quick action instead of voicing platitudes and empty thoughts and prayers.

Have a read of the memo from the NZ Police I posted. It doesn't appear that there is any sort of compensation for the over-night illegal guns that need to be turned in. Maybe owners will get lucky and the government will pay them out afterwards.

When the RCMP and Canadian government just attempted the same thing a couple years ago there was no discussion of compensation for the guns that were deemed illegal.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 21, 2019, 16:38:47

Pretty sure firearm owners realize our days are numbered.  lt is what it is but I don't think it will solve any problems. If anything it will probably succeed in accomplishing exactly what the NZ shooter wanted.

I also think they are quite numbered, we might be surprised by just how fast things could happen.*  All that money invested in the hardware in the gun porn threads, can now be spent on paying carbon taxes.
* The one issue that I see is who is going to step onto the first nation reserves and disarm that particular population of every soon to be prohibited weapon, or will they all be given trappers licenses so they can keep sidearms.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 21, 2019, 17:09:42


https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/police-announce-process-hand-over-reclassified-mssas?nondesktop&fbclid=IwAR0SmG7X6Nqw6Y26aM3KE-bqE1KlcLlENb30YUUg_IleDcANLnInQi9qSr4

So by the sounds of it a bunch of guns were made illegal over night. Doesn't appear to be much talk about compensation or a by back for these semi-autos. Just turn them into the police. I wonder what kind of compliance they'll get.

I think I am missing something becuase it sounds to me like mag load restrictions vice all out platform bans.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 17:47:29
I think I am missing something becuase it sounds to me like mag load restrictions vice all out platform bans.

The NZ PM said the gun the shooter used will be banned.

I don't know if that means a Smith and Wesson MP15 AR 15 or all AR15s, easy to presume the latter.

As for the mag restrictions I didn't spend too much time looking at it but I get the feeling it's written to basically ban any gun that accepts magazines larger than a standard 5 round style magazine you would see in a Browning semi-auto. Basically anything that can be suggested to "look armyish".
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 21, 2019, 18:18:20
Take a look at the attached list. Any firearm that is semi automatic and has a detachable magazine greater than 5 rounds is now illegal to own in NZ. Any firearm that  falls within the definition below is also immediately banned from private possession and must be turned in:

New Zealand Arms Act 1983: Public Act 1983 No 44: (as 01 October 2018)

military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
(a) a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
      (i) a folding or telescopic butt:
      (ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
             (B)is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:
      (iii)a magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges) that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 7 cartridges; or
             (B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 10 cartridges:
      (iv) bayonet lugs:
      (v) a flash suppressor:
      (vi) a component of a kind defined or described by an order under section 74A as a pistol grip for the purposes of this definition; or
(b)a semi-automatic firearm of a make and model declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(c)a semi-automatic firearm of a description declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(d)a semi-automatic firearm that has a feature of a kind defined or described in an order under section 74A as a feature of military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 21, 2019, 18:25:57
Take a look at the attached list. Any firearm that is semi automatic and has a detachable magazine greater than 5 rounds is now illegal to own in NZ. Any firearm that  falls within the definition below is also immediately banned from private possession and must be turned in:

New Zealand Arms Act 1983: Public Act 1983 No 44: (as 01 October 2018)

military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
(a) a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
      (i) a folding or telescopic butt:
      (ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
             (B)is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:
      (iii)a magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges) that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 7 cartridges; or
             (B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 10 cartridges:
      (iv) bayonet lugs:
      (v) a flash suppressor:
      (vi) a component of a kind defined or described by an order under section 74A as a pistol grip for the purposes of this definition; or
(b)a semi-automatic firearm of a make and model declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(c)a semi-automatic firearm of a description declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(d)a semi-automatic firearm that has a feature of a kind defined or described in an order under section 74A as a feature of military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act

Interesting. I wonder if they differentiate between a flash suppressor and a muzzle break.

I find the mag restriction portions confusing.  So why cant they just buy 5 or 4 round mags ? 

That would knock out my M305, SKS and DA Grizzly (MF) ... and it comes damn close to taking out my No.5 JC too... phew for bolt actions!
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Target Up on March 21, 2019, 19:12:16
There go the SKSs I suppose.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: FJAG on March 21, 2019, 20:01:57
Take a look at the attached list. Any firearm that is semi automatic and has a detachable magazine greater than 5 rounds is now illegal to own in NZ. Any firearm that  falls within the definition below is also immediately banned from private possession and must be turned in:

New Zealand Arms Act 1983: Public Act 1983 No 44: (as 01 October 2018)

military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
(a) a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
      (i) a folding or telescopic butt:
      (ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
             (B)is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:
      (iii)a magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges) that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 7 cartridges; or
             (B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 10 cartridges:
      (iv) bayonet lugs:
      (v) a flash suppressor:
      (vi) a component of a kind defined or described by an order under section 74A as a pistol grip for the purposes of this definition; or
(b)a semi-automatic firearm of a make and model declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(c)a semi-automatic firearm of a description declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(d)a semi-automatic firearm that has a feature of a kind defined or described in an order under section 74A as a feature of military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act

Just a technical comment. The above provisions appear vague and uncertain insofar as when you are dealing with a detachable magazine, does the detachable magazine in excess of the limits have to be present with the rifle for the rifle to be illegal or does the mere existence somewhere in the world of such a magazine make the weapon illegal?

In Canada the magazine itself is regulated. Firearms are regulated specifically on the inherent characteristics of the firearm and not the characteristics of a magazine that might be attached to it. It's little things like this that keep lawyers employed. My guess is this law will be amended when there is time for reflection.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 21, 2019, 20:10:22
Just a technical comment. The above provisions appear vague and uncertain insofar as when you are dealing with a detachable magazine, does the detachable magazine in excess of the limits have to be present with the rifle for the rifle to be illegal or does the mere existence somewhere in the world of such a magazine make the weapon illegal?

In Canada the magazine itself is regulated. Firearms are regulated specifically on the inherent characteristics of the firearm and not the characteristics of a magazine that might be attached to it. It's little things like this that keep lawyers employed. My guess is this law will be amended when there is time for reflection.

 :cheers:

Hi FJAG, read about that, apparently they didn't previously regulate the magazines. You could have the rifle with a small magazine, but as soon as you bought the larger magazine, the rifle was reclassified as an MSSA. Kind of dumb, and I think that's a loophole they are looking to close. Apparently they expected the person that had the previous A class license to reapply and get the E class license to have an MSSA if they wanted to buy an accessory that would change the category of the weapon system.  Kind of unmanageable, but guess it will become a moot point.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 21, 2019, 20:37:26
It's not based on logic, it's being seen to be "doing something"
:nod:
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: FJAG on March 21, 2019, 21:04:51
Then again

(https://i.imgflip.com/11rfqk.jpg)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 21:13:32
Here's a question.

Ar15s have been around since the 60s. Magazine fed high capacity guns have been around from the 30s (Thompson).

It seems like in most mass shootings there's AR15s and pistols and such present but the amount of fatalities seem low (with upmost respect to the dead) considering the shooters are using these high capacity, high power, military grade, *buzz word* guns.

But now and then you get a shooting with the same kind of firearms with a considerably larger body count like in this shooting.

What, if anything, is the reason for that?  If it was the guns and magazines wouldn't we logically see more shootings with higher body counts? Is it a matter of most shooters giving up for lack of a better description more quickly? Someones pissed off at everyone at work and they want to go in and hurt them and once they hurt a few people the shock of the situation kicks in and it's over?

Does police reaction time place a crucial role?

The fact people are crammed in to close quarters where they can't escape?

Apparently this guy thought about the shooting and planned it for 2 years. I'm not sure what if any training he had (or picked up). Is the body count so high here because he was absolutely committed to what he was doing and (I'm guessing) remained relatively calm throughout?
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 22, 2019, 00:03:18
I read something about this a few months back, but cannot remember the source.

The jist of it, IIRC, was that the 5.56mm round is not all that lethal (all things being equal). The article went on to explain that most mass shooters are not super methodical (thankfully)  and move on once a victim is down.

This guy in NZ seems to have been more than exceptionally motivated to cause as much death as possible.
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: FJAG on March 22, 2019, 00:59:24
I read something about this a few months back, but cannot remember the source.

The jist of it, IIRC, was that the 5.56mm round is not all that lethal (all things being equal). The article went on to explain that most mass shooters are not super methodical (thankfully)  and move on once a victim is down.

This guy in NZ seems to have been more than exceptionally motivated to cause as much death as possible.

There has been much debate on this subject for some time. Here's one paper that discusses the issue of the effectiveness/lethality of the 5.56 round during CQB and why there may be conflicting reports on the round.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519801.pdf (https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519801.pdf)

Don't forget that the mil spec 5.56mm round is not identical to the .233 Remington round. See here for one article on the subject:

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/5-56-vs-223/ (https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/5-56-vs-223/)

Note especially that while milspec 5.56 ammo is all solid core which depends on velocity and yaw to make its wound effects, civilian .233 ammo may also be softpoint which expands/fragments on contact.

In summary, without knowing all of the factors and conditions and the type of ammo used in any particular case it becomes difficult to explain one situation's differentiation from another.

This is getting to be a morbid subject.

 :not-again:
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 22, 2019, 07:21:43
Just splitting off the gun law debate because of its specificity and details to leave the "Analysis" thread for the broader political discussion.

Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Colin P on March 24, 2019, 16:11:33
Much of the bulk commercial ball is built using the cheapest components they can get and still perform well. So it may not be optimized for terminal damage to the target, just to get there. 
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 25, 2019, 23:29:36
Essentially if you own a rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than 5 rounds turn it into the police.

(https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/about-us/firearms-classification.jpg)

It sounds like people are registering some pretty powerful weapons on the online forums including pocket nukes and plasma rifles lol
Title: Re: NZ Gun Law Changes (split from NZ Mosque Shootings)
Post by: DetectiveMcNulty on March 26, 2019, 00:14:59
No guns? No problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmxK_pBaG4E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmxK_pBaG4E)

Time to go back to basics, folks! Just do the basics really well.

Title: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: FJAG on April 05, 2019, 17:59:26
By now we're all aware of US Cities who are refusing to cooperate with US Federal Immigration authorities when it comes to enforcing immigration laws creating so-called "Sanctuary Cities".

Currently there is a growing move amongst County Sheriffs to form "Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties" wherein they are going to refuse to give effect to their State Legislatures' gun control legislation. See here:

Quote
Hundreds Of Counties Vowed To Be ‘Second Amendment Sanctuaries’ Since Parkland
“As a law enforcement officer, I have discretion to use the laws that I want to. That’s my decision. I’m not going to enforce that particular law.”
04/05/2019 By Matt Vasilogambros

There are “sanctuary cities” that refuse to assist federal immigration enforcement. Now, there are “sanctuary counties” that refuse to enforce new gun control laws.

Rural, conservative communities are pushing back against state legislatures that have been approving new firearm restrictions at a rapid rate since the February 2018 massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida. More than 200 counties across nine states have vowed not to enforce new state measures that restrict gun access, and 132 have declared themselves to be Second Amendment “sanctuaries,” borrowing a term at the center of the immigration debate, according to a Stateline analysis.

For gun rights supporters, it’s a defiant rebuff to state leaders they believe are attacking their communities’ gun heritage and way of life. So far, county leaders have not translated their rhetoric into action by, for example, defying a “red-flag” court order to confiscate guns from a person deemed to be dangerous to himself or others. ...

See rest of article here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/counties-second-amendment-sanctuaries-parkland_b_5ca35e88e4b035e30b062801 (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/counties-second-amendment-sanctuaries-parkland_b_5ca35e88e4b035e30b062801)

There is a difference in the two concepts in that there is a constitutional division between States powers and Federal powers in the US and States do not have to opt into assisting the Federal authorities in their lawful duties while counties are the creatures of State governments and as such it's agents.

Interestingly enough, Chapter VI Article 3 of the US Constitution provides that:

Quote
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

All states amend this to include their several constitutions and other provisions as well.

Some states are dealing with the broad issue, such as Florida re "Sanctuary Cities".

Quote
Florida may send a big message to sanctuary cities
Elina Shirazi By Elina Shirazi | Fox News

MIAMI — Florida has one of the largest illegal immigrant populations in the country and its new governor wants to make sure they don't have protection from local authorities.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is pushing for a ban on sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Several bills making their way through the state legislature would effectively make it against the law for police departments to refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials. If a law enforcement official refuses, they could be fined or fired. ...

See rest here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-may-send-a-big-message-to-sanctuary-cities (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-may-send-a-big-message-to-sanctuary-cities)

The police have historically had discretion in how to deal with perceived offences. Not every minor infraction needs to be dealt with a charge. Such discretion had, however, been roped in when circumstances indicated that enforcement was too lax or mores changed; such as in domestic dispute situations.

The question is, at what point does the willful disobedience of a county official against his/her elected representatives' laws (even if in line with the desires of the local community) does it move from mere civil disobedience to open revolt? At what point does it impair the overall respect for the rule of law?

 :worms:
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 05, 2019, 19:10:22
I'll leave sancturary citites alone. There is not a single good thing about them I find right or acceptable.

In the same token, I wont really address gun sanctuary.

I will give an opinion though on gun control.

If it ever becomes a full court press, to remove all guns or force gun owners into laws like ours, there will be a civil war.

Canadians might roll over to political pressure and disarm, but Americans won't.

You can take that to the bank.

America was born in blood and they have very long memories. The vast majority believe that when the government says you don't need guns, that's exactly the time you'll need them.

The Afghans, for centuries, have turned back well equipped invaders, with guns that they hammered out of scrap metal, while sitting cross legged in the dirt. A perfectly functioning AK47 can be made from a square shovel. Black powder and gun cotton can be made in your garage with common chemicals. Lead can be had from old batteries. If Afghans can do it with rudimentary tools. An industrialized nation's citizens can turn them out by the thousands in basements and garages, if they wish.

As with everywhere, you can outlaw them, but you'll never get rid of them, nor will you ever stop their manufacture. Not by private citizens.

With the idea that government is breaking the law, by going against the 2nd Amendment, those people will ignore government and it's laws as illegitimate.

Just as both types of sanctuary cities are doing right now.

Just my  :2c:
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: quadrapiper on April 06, 2019, 00:04:38
If it ever becomes a full court press, to remove all guns or force gun owners into laws like ours, there will be a civil war.
The delta between "civilian" and "military" armament has spread somewhat since their last nasty internal debate, and the facilities and expertise for producing purely military armament have grown more complex, and, I think, fewer. The only reason the militia movement, Bundy, and similar belligerent, well-armed (for civvies) individuals are still alive is that the US federal government has treated them as a kid-gloves law-enforcement problem, rather than as e.g. an armed insurgency.

I'm not sure "civil war" is a reasonable description for what would happen if the gloves ever properly came off.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: quadrapiper on April 06, 2019, 00:11:59
With the idea that government is breaking the law, by going against the 2nd Amendment, those people will ignore government and it's laws as illegitimate.
Noting that the founders were on occasion cryptic, there's that "well regulated militia" aspect: while that might very well even require the existence of some volunteer force of armed citizens, the current arrangement of massively armed individuals doesn't seem in accordance with the text.

A federal government could do any number of things within that interpretation and not consider itself in violation; perhaps even see it as upholding the full concept of that amendment.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: FJAG on April 06, 2019, 00:34:11
The current state of the law re the Second Amendment comes from the USSC case of District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). It includes a provision at pp 54-56 which is summarized in the headnote as follows:

Quote
 Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 06, 2019, 01:08:30
I did not mean actually breaking the 2nd, but that'll be interpretation of owners. In their eyes the government would be wrong. It doesnt matter. You're bothing missing the point. It is not the legal interpretation that's in question. The 2nd will be argued back and forth. It will make no difference. Forget it. It's not part of the equation.

If they come for the guns legalities won't matter. People will not give up their freedom, 2nd amendment or not. And millions will see gun confiscation as the first step to the loss of that. 'Don't Tread on Me' isn't a cheap slogan down there. For millions in the US, it has deep meaning

Like I say, even if by some miracle of epic proportions, they do get them all, it would only be a very temporary situation. I would hazard a guess and say they would be built even while being confiscated.

And we're not talking a few crackpots like Bundy. The delta isnt as far apart as you think. An AK-47 is arguably one of the best assault rifles ever made. Read what I wrote above about making those. Heck, in a pinch an expediant smg can be made out of 2 feet of square or round tubing and basic hand tools in a few hours. Lots of stuff can be done with 3d printers and table top CNC mills which are everywhere. The programs are already out there with the knowledge and lots and lots that know how to use it. You can't confiscate everything.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: FJAG on April 06, 2019, 02:17:08
I did not mean actually breaking the 2nd, but that'll be interpretation of owners. In their eyes the government would be wrong. It doesnt matter. You're bothing missing the point. It is not the legal interpretation that's in question. The 2nd will be argued back and forth. It will make no difference. Forget it. It's not part of the equation.

Actually FJ we're not missing the point at all. We get the point exactly and you are hitting the nail on the head. That's why I thought I'd throw out this topic to see what the wider aspect of these phenomena are. Is the US reaching a point where people will only obey those laws that they want to, and even more critical, will police forces enforce only those laws that they want to or think that their constituents want them to enforce?

Both of these issues (immigration and Second Amendment) are ones that are based largely (but not exclusively) on an urban/rural split. Considering that 2/3 of the US population favors some forms of gun control or stricter gun laws, its probable that the urban population of Atlanta favors it the same as their brothers in New York City while their respective state's rural communities are less disposed that way. That brings about an interesting problem for probably most states in how to balance the expectations of their respective urban/rural populations/voters.

I don't ever see any US state government wanting to "confiscate" all their citizens' firearms (that's just an NRA fairy tale scenario) so I doubt that there will ever be that mass uprising. There will, however, be continuing conflicts over such things as background checks, felon possession, open carries, protective orders, Sovereign Citizens etc., where case by case enforcement will be necessary. It's these more limited cases which will test the system.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: daftandbarmy on April 06, 2019, 02:57:29
I don't ever see any US state government wanting to "confiscate" all their citizens' firearms

Because every homesteader might need to mobilize at a 'Minute's Notice' to defend themselves against the rapacious legions of George III, right? ;)

It's comforting to know that Northern Ireland isn't the only part of the English speaking world that is lost in the 80s.... the 1780s....
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Brihard on April 06, 2019, 09:40:42
The delta between "civilian" and "military" armament has spread somewhat since their last nasty internal debate, and the facilities and expertise for producing purely military armament have grown more complex, and, I think, fewer. The only reason the militia movement, Bundy, and similar belligerent, well-armed (for civvies) individuals are still alive is that the US federal government has treated them as a kid-gloves law-enforcement problem, rather than as e.g. an armed insurgency.

I'm not sure "civil war" is a reasonable description for what would happen if the gloves ever properly came off.

You’re wrong, and FJ is right.

Pushback against widespread gun confiscation would not be on the order of the sorts of armed insurgencies we see overseas where real belligerents number in maybe the tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions of Americans would actively resist efforts to confiscate firearms, and there would not be a clear division where the police and military play ball and the citizenry do not. Many police and military would have nothing to do with participating in gun confiscations and would be part of actively resisting.

Sending police or soldiers in to confiscate firearms on a wide scale would be committing many, many of them to their deaths. Every single home could potentially develop into an armed standoff. Normally police have the benefit in such cases of containment and minimal external threats, but you can bet that if widespread gun confiscation were attempted, guys on perimeter would sometimes find themselves attacked from outside the perimeter.

Some resistance would be organized; much more would be spontaneous and impromptu, and there are enough heavily armed and bat-crap crazy anti government types that the death toll would be huge. A lot of them are good shots. How many Waco standoffs - or for that matter Dallas shootings - are you ready for every single day? How willing are you to have the already strained relationship between police and the public totally shattered, and for no police to be available to do regular duties?

Widespread gun confiscation in the US is a total non-starter. The genie is way too out of the bottle.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 06, 2019, 12:36:43
>Is the US reaching a point where people will only obey those laws that they want to, and even more critical, will police forces enforce only those laws that they want to or think that their constituents want them to enforce?

Both problems already exist, there and here, just not highlighted by issues as incendiary as illegal immigration and firearm control.  People disobey (ignore) unjust laws (their perception), particularly laws that infringe on such fundamental rights as life/security, freedom of expression, property, and in general "pursuit of happiness".  Police are intelligent and discreet enough to avoid enforcing laws in places where it is unreasonable or impractical to do so.

These two sides of the coin have a long history; what is new is the publicity each incident receives, which stokes the fires of indignation among whoever objects (whether to a law, or the law's enforcement).
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Chris Pook on April 06, 2019, 13:10:29
>Is the US reaching a point where people will only obey those laws that they want to, and even more critical, will police forces enforce only those laws that they want to or think that their constituents want them to enforce?

....  Police are intelligent and discreet enough to avoid enforcing laws in places where it is unreasonable or impractical to do so.

...


Caledonia?

Funny that.  Caledonia is an alternate name for Scotland. And much of the US antipathy to standing armies and confiscation of weapons finds, in my opinion, its origins among Anglo-Scots Borderers, Huguenots and Palatines that were disarmed by their governments, violently suppressed by standing armies, often dragoons, used as police, and evicted from their lands. 

The exiles found themselves forced into foreign military service or into plantations amid hostile populations for the benefit of the governments that suppressed them.

It is suggested that people find themselves stuck in the past.  I suggest consideration of this from Colin P on his Facebook page.

(https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56242607_2714655278576232_3969006851923640320_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=1e1657dc02481a384b2fe626b7c1dd7a&oe=5D3E4FB2)

My comment to him still stands.

"And we're still here."



Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 06, 2019, 13:17:15
Caledonia?
Funny that.  Caledonia is an alternate name for Scotland.

That Caledonia. I thought you may have been talking about the one in Ontario. People forcefully thrown off their legally acquired and paid for land for government expediency and to suppress rebellion.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Chris Pook on April 06, 2019, 14:16:30
I was.

It reminded me of the other Caledonia and its role in creating a 2nd Amendment culture.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 06, 2019, 14:32:25
Quote from: Brihard


Sending police or soldiers in to confiscate firearms on a wide scale would be committing many, many of them to their deaths. Every single home could potentially develop into an armed standoff. Normally police have the benefit in such cases of containment and minimal external threats, but you can bet that if widespread gun confiscation were attempted, guys on perimeter would sometimes find themselves attacked from outside the perimeter.

Some resistance would be organized; much more would be spontaneous and impromptu, and there are enough heavily armed and bat-crap crazy anti government types that the death toll would be huge. A lot of them are good shots. How many Waco standoffs - or for that matter Dallas shootings - are you ready for every single day? How willing are you to have the already strained relationship between police and the public totally shattered, and for no police to be available to do regular duties?


Great post.

I think it's important when looking at this issue to keep ego out of the equation.  One side thinks the police and military would roll up on American citizens and kick everyone's ***. The other side thinks these militia groups would send the law enforcement running with their tail between their legs.

The truth is exactly what Brihard says, the genie is way too out of the bottle. There's an estimated 400 million guns in the US, an estimated 120 guns per 100 people. A lot of them are willing to die for their right to own them. Law enforcement AND civilians would fill up body bags.

Another great point, when all the police are tied up in shootouts confiscating 400 million guns who's dealing with traffic accidents, stolen bikes, domestic assaults, Facebook threats? 
What happens when the military gets called in and a charismatic battalion commander says he didn't sign up to fight Americans, and his soldiers agree,then decide to support "the people"?

Widespread gun confiscation in the US is a total non-starter for sure.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: FJAG on April 06, 2019, 14:50:51
For a few examples of how such actions can develop and end up see the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: quadrapiper on April 06, 2019, 14:51:54
And we're not talking a few crackpots like Bundy. The delta isnt as far apart as you think. An AK-47 is arguably one of the best assault rifles ever made. Read what I wrote above about making those. Heck, in a pinch an expediant smg can be made out of 2 feet of square or round tubing and basic hand tools in a few hours. Lots of stuff can be done with 3d printers and table top CNC mills which are everywhere. The programs are already out there with the knowledge and lots and lots that know how to use it. You can't confiscate everything.
Rather doubt there'll ever be a hard push from the US government; however, compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, the sort of armament floating around in private US hands is rather limited: pervasive and numerous, but without a national army's worth of heavier weapons in the mix. "Taking everyone's guns" isn't feasible for various reasons - that said, any notion the specifically belligerent groups and movements have of actually standing up to "the Feds" should the latter apply their full capabilities is delusional.

What is likely needed at this point is something akin to a constitutional convention, affecting both state and federal regulation, to determine a single national framework binding both levels of government, as the routine application of the second amendment varies overmuch state to state.

I cannot understand the tolerance of people like Bundy: that he and his publicity stunts haven't ended up in dead law enforcement is incredible; equally, he represents a sort of defiance-as-the-goal sneering at government authority that's hard to justify.

I've no objection to private firearms ownership, including large and varied collections in support of historical, competition, or hunting activities: it's the group of US firearms owners who have made (generally military-style) armament a political expression, and who variously:
This sort http://www.thedonovan.com/categories.html (http://www.thedonovan.com/categories.html) don't bother me, though I disagree with some of their politics. The sort of person who wakes up and decides to tool up as if going on patrol in Iraq to scull about Anytown USA for political points? Deeply concerning, and cancerous. That sort of thing encourages arms races between political ideologies, represents a massive hazard as far as NDs, let alone intentional violence, and cultivates a paranoid and fearful atmosphere not conducive to effective governance.

And that's without addressing the groups and thus ideologies these individuals share space with, none of which are of value to society.

FJAG points out, far more eloquently than I might, the broader conceptual issues in the current US situation. I am more concerned by the sheriffs than the municipalities: a city council making a certain decision at least has a collaborative process and represents multiple inputs, while the sheriff is appointed specifically to enforce laws*, is operating in isolation, and of course has far more direct access to coercive options (e.g. Arpaio).

*With all the usual policing-by-consent notions of intelligent enforcement, which this sort of behaviour far exceeds.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Chris Pook on April 06, 2019, 15:03:05
Just a point, quadrapiper:

Sheriffs are elected in the US generally and Colorado in particular.   They are not appointed.

Quote
Colorado sheriffs
Sheriff is an elected position in the state of Colorado according to the state's constitution.

Election
A sheriff is elected for a four year term in each county. Before he or she enters office he will create a bond, with at least three sufficient sureties, between $5,000 and $20,000, that the board of county commissioners specifies and approves. No person will be considered a surety who is not worth at least $2,000 over and above his or her debts.[1]

Government roles
Every person elected or appointed to the office of sheriff for the first time will attend a minimum of 80 hours of a training course the first time a training course is given after the person's election or appointment.

Every sheriff must possess basic peace officer certification and shall undergo at least 20 hours of in-service training provided by the county sheriffs of Colorado every year during such sheriff's term.

The county only pays all reasonable costs and expenses of these training sessions.[2]

Only U.S. citizens, Colorado citizens and residents of the county in which they are appointed or elected may serve as sheriff. He or she must possess a high school diploma or its equivalent or a college degree and must have a complete set of fingerprints taken.[3]

The sheriff has charge and custody of the county jails and of the prisoners in the jails. The sheriff will supervise them personally or a deputy or jailer will supervise them.[4]

The sheriff is also fire warden of his or her county in case of prairie or forest fires.[5]

The sheriff is in charge of transporting prisoners to a correctional facility or other place of confinement who may have been convicted and sentenced and who are ready for such transportation. If any sheriff fails or neglects to do this, the boards of county commissioners can take away this responsibility. This does not apply to the transportation of the insane.[6]

The sheriffs, undersheriffs, and deputies must keep and preserve the peace in their counties quiet and suppress all frays, riots, and unlawful assemblies and insurrections. They can command anyone to their aid that they see necessary to do their duties.[7]


https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_sheriffs

In short, Sheriffs draw their authority directly from the consent of the governed, and not from the "government" at large.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 06, 2019, 15:25:13
Rather doubt there'll ever be a hard push from the US government; however, compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, the sort of armament floating around in private US hands is rather limited: pervasive and numerous, but without a national army's worth of heavier weapons in the mix. "Taking everyone's guns" isn't feasible for various reasons - that said, any notion the specifically belligerent groups and movements have of actually standing up to "the Feds" should the latter apply their full capabilities is delusional.

What is likely needed at this point is something akin to a constitutional convention, affecting both state and federal regulation, to determine a single national framework binding both levels of government, as the routine application of the second amendment varies overmuch state to state.

I cannot understand the tolerance of people like Bundy: that he and his publicity stunts haven't ended up in dead law enforcement is incredible; equally, he represents a sort of defiance-as-the-goal sneering at government authority that's hard to justify.

I've no objection to private firearms ownership, including large and varied collections in support of historical, competition, or hunting activities: it's the group of US firearms owners who have made (generally military-style) armament a political expression, and who variously:
  • make much noise about being armed specifically to enable fantastical notions of shooting Feds or "others,"
  • show up (in the more extreme expression) in public heavily armed at political events/demonstrations, including demonstrations by "the other side," and
  • overlap significantly with the more violent and loathsome portions of the US right (Klan, Nazis, etc.).
This sort http://www.thedonovan.com/categories.html (http://www.thedonovan.com/categories.html) don't bother me, though I disagree with some of their politics. The sort of person who wakes up and decides to tool up as if going on patrol in Iraq to scull about Anytown USA for political points? Deeply concerning, and cancerous. That sort of thing encourages arms races between political ideologies, represents a massive hazard as far as NDs, let alone intentional violence, and cultivates a paranoid and fearful atmosphere not conducive to effective governance.

And that's without addressing the groups and thus ideologies these individuals share space with, none of which are of value to society.

FJAG points out, far more eloquently than I might, the broader conceptual issues in the current US situation. I am more concerned by the sheriffs than the municipalities: a city council making a certain decision at least has a collaborative process and represents multiple inputs, while the sheriff is appointed specifically to enforce laws*, is operating in isolation, and of course has far more direct access to coercive options (e.g. Arpaio).

*With all the usual policing-by-consent notions of intelligent enforcement, which this sort of behaviour far exceeds.

I'm glad you have so much faith in human behaviour. I'm not diametrically opposed to your opinion, I just don't agree with the cut and dry. There is no black or white at all. It's all grey.

Any government that uses it's full military potential against it's citizens is already too far gone to save.

If walking around geared up isn't against the law. Who says they can't? You may not like it, but really, that's just too bad isn't it?  Trying to equate Canadian feelings and righteousness about US law is a mugs game. The look like us, but thought wise, patriot wise, engagement wise and freedom wise, they are a much more staunch breed than Canadians. They put it all out there, they are not afraid, nor will they be cowed, they wear it proudly and loudly.

Canadians sit home, watch CBC and complain to the cat.

Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: FJAG on April 06, 2019, 16:11:51
Just a point, quadrapiper:

Sheriffs are elected in the US generally and Colorado in particular.   They are not appointed.

https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_sheriffs

In short, Sheriffs draw their authority directly from the consent of the governed, and not from the "government" at large.

I disagree with your conclusion.

While Sheriffs are elected by their constituents, their authority comes from the state's constitution. The same constitution, in each case, provides for an elected assembly to make laws and a judiciary (whether appointed or elected) to adjudicate cases under the law. Sheriffs are sworn to uphold the constitution and thereby the powers of the other elected officials including the statutory/regulatory laws made by the legislature and the case law that has been decided by the state judiciary.

In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government. The powers of the states and the federal government is divided by the US constitution and neither a state (nor it's counties) can legislate within a federal field. Secondly, counties are creatures of the state constitution and other state laws and only have as much power as the state delegates to the counties. Again, a county is a very low level legal entity and it and it's officials and employees (including sheriffs) are bound to work within the framework of the state laws.

If county electors don't like a state law, their recourse is to elect a new state legislature. It is not to elect a sheriff who won't enforce state laws. There is a common law concept (which exists in both the US and Canada) called mandamus which is a writ or order issued from a court which requires a public official to perform a public or statutory duty (whether state or federal) that is imposed on him/her. Failure to obey the order can lead to contempt of court actions including imprisonment. This is what happened to Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Arapaio who failed to cease racial profiling practices within his force as ordered by a US District Court.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 06, 2019, 16:37:41
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-met-john-kass-chicago-policing-20190321-story.html

"Authorities confirmed that two police officers — TAC cops, not rookies — were making a drug arrest shortly after 2 p.m. on Sunday.

A mob appeared, threatening the officers, surrounding them, threatening to reach for their own weapons to shoot them dead, and the cops let the suspect go.

What is learned here? The street is officially no longer afraid of the Chicago police."

So: perhaps the way to avoid armed stand-off tragedies is for police to defuse the situation by standing down.  Or, perhaps all people who think they should be able to stand apart from the law should all receive the maximum force of the law. 

What inflames people and promotes the gradual unwinding of society is the certain knowledge - provided by the internet as current events and archives of past events - that some groups receive the full force of the law while others go unimpeded and unpunished.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Chris Pook on April 06, 2019, 17:07:16
I disagree with your conclusion.

While Sheriffs are elected by their constituents, their authority comes from the state's constitution. The same constitution, in each case, provides for an elected assembly to make laws and a judiciary (whether appointed or elected) to adjudicate cases under the law. Sheriffs are sworn to uphold the constitution and thereby the powers of the other elected officials including the statutory/regulatory laws made by the legislature and the case law that has been decided by the state judiciary.

In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government. The powers of the states and the federal government is divided by the US constitution and neither a state (nor it's counties) can legislate within a federal field. Secondly, counties are creatures of the state constitution and other state laws and only have as much power as the state delegates to the counties. Again, a county is a very low level legal entity and it and it's officials and employees (including sheriffs) are bound to work within the framework of the state laws.

If county electors don't like a state law, their recourse is to elect a new state legislature. It is not to elect a sheriff who won't enforce state laws. There is a common law concept (which exists in both the US and Canada) called mandamus which is a writ or order issued from a court which requires a public official to perform a public or statutory duty (whether state or federal) that is imposed on him/her. Failure to obey the order can lead to contempt of court actions including imprisonment. This is what happened to Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Arapaio who failed to cease racial profiling practices within his force as ordered by a US District Court.

 :cheers:

I agree that the powers of the sheriff (the Shire Reeve) are circumscribed by the constitution(s) of the United (and several) States.  Constitutions created and amended and interpreted by representatives of the governed.  One of the interpreters is the Shire Reeve, given his powers by hand.

Having spent a fair amount of time trying to understand rules, only to have my interpretation, and those of others, overturned by local inspectors with similar mandates to interpret those rules on behalf of the local community, I would suggest that the best we can come to is that the outcome is moot (as in debatable by the Shire Moot).

Otherwise what is the need for lawyers and courts?

 ;D :cheers:
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Baden Guy on April 06, 2019, 17:09:08
"I am anti-gun violence, not anti-gun, by Chris Balch

I am not anti-gun. I own guns that I use for target shooting and a handgun that is primarily designed for personal defense.

I grew up in 1950s rural Connecticut, where everybody owned guns. I spent autumn weekends on our family’s 150-acre farm with my dad, learning safety, responsibility and hunting. More than once I proudly brought home a Thanksgiving supper.

I have a clean legal record. I pass a firearms background check on state and federal levels.
But today, between 22 percent and 40 percent of firearms transfers (NRA numbers vs. the CDC’s) are between private parties and don’t require a background check.

Today, young people whose only experience with firearms is a virtual one from video games, will turn 18 and be eligible to purchase a high capacity military-style-sport-rifle. Or turn 21 and be eligible to buy a handgun. No other qualifications.

I’m not anti-gun, but I am pro-common sense:

All firearms sales and transfers should go through federal dealers with 100 percent background checks.

First-time buyers should complete a safety/responsibility training course.

We need a mandatory 48-hour waiting period. (Research shows this prevents crimes of passion and suicides.)

These simple changes will reduce the chances of guns ending up in hands of those that should not own them. These changes will improve the understanding of the responsibility that comes with the ownership of firearms, and will reduce crimes of passion/suicides, while having little impact on law-abiding owners."
https://www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/i-am-anti-gun-violence-not-anti-gun-by-chris/article_b8aa97e3-0bc7-570d-b0bc-3351378956eb.html

Just an article chosen from many. Obviously thee are differences in this country. But I am also sure that most of us can extrapolate the general sentiment.
"I am anti-gun violence, not anti-gun."
 

Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: NavyShooter on April 07, 2019, 11:01:01
Regarding the confiscation of firearms in the US, here is a somewhat sobering perspective that I came across a while back.

https://survivalblog.com/mathematics-countering-tyranny/?fbclid=IwAR3cxXuNeWh9bEhda5KhI9tuOwOycLaMIgYRziIsoktCGnfRZt_aswI3EZQ

I'm not sure that the confiscation of guns would be done solely by "SWAT/ERT" type officers - the rumbles out of New Zealand are such that normal 'beat cops' are showing up at doors (in small groups of 2-4) already.  (Anecdotal - saw something on Facebook - as reliable as Wikipedia...)

So, the question of who/how many raids may not be the 82K, officers, it may be the 900K officers - but in looking at the overall - that'd make the number of potential raids drop by an order of magnitude - but would still be probably about 100 raids/visits to seize guns PER OFFICER.

Not a good statistic to have to stare down...especially if the precipice is tipped and some damn fool starts to shoot back instead of handing over their guns.

Which, in the US, I firmly believe would happen at some point.

In Canada?  The historical references indicate that civil compliance will occur when a gun ban comes. 

The likelihood of armed resistance to a gun ban in Canada is, honestly, minuscule. However, looking at Quebec and their recent foray into registration again, the passive inaction and likelihood of civil disobedience is extremely high.

What are my thoughts?  Enforce the laws we already have, and punish the guilty effectively. 

I truly hope never to see the scenario in the link above play out - unfortunately, I think we are on a slippery slope...and the US is far more likely to see that cliff than Canada.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 07, 2019, 14:09:44
Posted without comment.

https://video.fymy1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/10000000_2282429485308463_6076659621760598016_n.mp4?_nc_cat=106&efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&_nc_ht=video.fymy1-2.fna&oh=e105494af3f2bb364f682f02bb3aa039&oe=5CAA6299
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: milnews.ca on April 07, 2019, 15:02:58
... In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government ...
I agree with you they they have to enforce the laws they're given.

That said, like any peace officer, there's an element of discretion that can be used in enforcement (to a point, anyway).  In a situation where an official is elected, I suspect the "direction" of discretion will be affected by the electorate/desire to be re-elected.  Again, there are limits re: laws being ignored, but I think the political element would "flavour" any breaks given.
Posted without comment.

https://video.fymy1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/10000000_2282429485308463_6076659621760598016_n.mp4?_nc_cat=106&efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&_nc_ht=video.fymy1-2.fna&oh=e105494af3f2bb364f682f02bb3aa039&oe=5CAA6299
Interesting video - who put this together?
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 07, 2019, 16:01:48
I agree with you they they have to enforce the laws they're given.

That said, like any peace officer, there's an element of discretion that can be used in enforcement (to a point, anyway).  In a situation where an official is elected, I suspect the "direction" of discretion will be affected by the electorate/desire to be re-elected.  Again, there are limits re: laws being ignored, but I think the political element would "flavour" any breaks given.Interesting video - who put this together?


No idea. I suspect it was a friend of the firearm owner or himself with a cell. It's California, which makes it doubly difficult. The gist is, he has 80% lowers. Those are not firearms, they're paperweights.
He completed and assembled one into a 100% lower and registered it per regulations, totally law abiding. As the cop explained, once an upper was attached, he had an illegal gun, according to them. We can't see from the vid whether an upper is on it or not.
That seems to be the excuse that is being used anyway, kind hard to follow with all the bumph going on.

If he registered the complete thing with caliber, barrel length , etc. They consider it an assault rifle (not going there today). If he had just left it as a lower registration they wouldn't have taken it. Should have just left it a lower and put whatever upper he wanted at the time, use it and take it of. Back to just a lower.

I'm impressed with the amount of cops that showed up for this friendly visit.

Oh, and remember when I said the 2nd is in the eye of the beholder, not the law? Listen to the civilian.

I think that's what's going on.

Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 07, 2019, 17:31:20

No charges? California cop admits stealing thousands of bullets over 30 years
12,000 stolen bullets found at home of Department of Consumer Affairs investigator

Call him the cop who took a bullet. Thousands of bullets.

That’s what Steven C. Richter did for up to 30 years as a veteran investigator for the California Department of Consumer Affairs and a deputy for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. But he wasn’t decorated for valor.

Richter, 64, resigned both jobs in disgrace in 2015. He then admitted he’d been stealing thousands of rounds of ammunition and other items for decades, documents released to the Bay Area News Group and KQED under the state’s new police transparency law show.

But even after authorities found more than 12,000 stolen bullets in his home, and even after Richter told investigators he traded his loot to a now defunct Inland Empire wholesale gun store in exchange for guns, he wasn’t charged with a crime.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/14/no-charges-california-cop-admits-stealing-thousands-of-bullets-over-30-years/
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 07, 2019, 20:47:18
Posted without comment.

https://video.fymy1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/10000000_2282429485308463_6076659621760598016_n.mp4?_nc_cat=106&efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&_nc_ht=video.fymy1-2.fna&oh=e105494af3f2bb364f682f02bb3aa039&oe=5CAA6299

Got nothing but a white page and a notice saying, "URL signature expired."
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: milnews.ca on April 07, 2019, 21:31:08
Got nothing but a white page and a notice saying, "URL signature expired."
Same as of 2031EDT, too.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 08, 2019, 00:37:14
 :dunno: Sorry, I haven't gained full control of the internet yet.  ;D
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Colin P on April 08, 2019, 13:33:06
Part of the issue is that the gun lobby can never trust the gun control fanatics to stop pushing for more laws. Giving in to any demands weakens the 2nd Amendment position and the gun control groups are pretty clear that they want almost all of the guns banned. They will take slice and then come back for another one, each time saying "It's only reasonable". The NRA gets zero credit from them for pushing firearm safety and playing a big part in reducing accidental firearm shootings. It's time to ask the gun control fanatics what are they willing to give up?
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: daftandbarmy on April 08, 2019, 15:18:11
Part of the issue is that the gun lobby can never trust the gun control fanatics to stop pushing for more laws. Giving in to any demands weakens the 2nd Amendment position and the gun control groups are pretty clear that they want almost all of the guns banned. They will take slice and then come back for another one, each time saying "It's only reasonable". The NRA gets zero credit from them for pushing firearm safety and playing a big part in reducing accidental firearm shootings. It's time to ask the gun control fanatics what are they willing to give up?

That's easy... you can have their guns after you pry them from their cold, dead fingers (circles right temple with right forefinger) :)
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Colin P on April 08, 2019, 20:10:56
To give you an idea about the production capability of the small gun makers, they can produce AR's cheaper than China can. A submachine is a super simple gun to make. the hardest part to make is the mag.
Title: Re: Is America on a Slippery Slope?
Post by: Loachman on April 15, 2019, 22:13:09
The question is, at what point does the willful disobedience of a county official against his/her elected representatives' laws (even if in line with the desires of the local community) does it move from mere civil disobedience to open revolt? At what point does it impair the overall respect for the rule of law?

If the elected representatives' laws are contrary to the US constitution, which LE people swear to uphold, which takes precedence?

Noting that the founders were on occasion cryptic, there's that "well regulated militia" aspect: while that might very well even require the existence of some volunteer force of armed citizens, the current arrangement of massively armed individuals doesn't seem in accordance with the text.

There is a considerable body of writing by many of the US founders that is anything but "cryptic". "Well-regulated" in their time meant "well-trained" and "well-equipped", and the arms covered by the Second Amendment were intended to be of military utility.

The "militia" was (and still is, legally) every able-bodied adult male citizen, who was expected to have his own arms.

Pushback against widespread gun confiscation would not be on the order of the sorts of armed insurgencies we see overseas where real belligerents number in maybe the tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions of Americans would actively resist efforts to confiscate firearms, and there would not be a clear division where the police and military play ball and the citizenry do not. Many police and military would have nothing to do with participating in gun confiscations and would be part of actively resisting.

Those ones tend to take their constitution - that they swore to uphold - seriously, and many also tend to be firearms owners themselves. Many have openly let that be known.

Sending police or soldiers in to confiscate firearms on a wide scale would be committing many, many of them to their deaths. Every single home could potentially develop into an armed standoff. Normally police have the benefit in such cases of containment and minimal external threats, but you can bet that if widespread gun confiscation were attempted, guys on perimeter would sometimes find themselves attacked from outside the perimeter.

I think that few would follow such orders, either out of respect for their constitution, respect for fellow citizens who pose no threat to society, or for self-preservation.

"Taking everyone's guns" isn't feasible for various reasons - that said, any notion the specifically belligerent groups and movements have of actually standing up to "the Feds" should the latter apply their full capabilities is delusional.

Any notion that a majority of "the Feds" would co-operate with a mass confiscation is also "delusional".

I cannot understand the tolerance of people like Bundy: that he and his publicity stunts haven't ended up in dead law enforcement is incredible; equally, he represents a sort of defiance-as-the-goal sneering at government authority that's hard to justify.

Such situations are not as simple as they may appear to be. There was a long history leading up to that situation, including creeping federal over-regulation of land that had been used for grazing for generations. They, and their supporters (either in location or elsewhere), viewed them as standing up to a bully government. And that was the main reason for the codification of the right to keep and bear arms in the US Second Amendment.

I've no objection to private firearms ownership, including large and varied collections in support of historical, competition, or hunting activities: it's the group of US firearms owners who have made (generally military-style) armament a political expression, and who variously:
  • make much noise about being armed specifically to enable fantastical notions of shooting Feds or "others,"

Yes, there are some crazies (who still very rarely commit any actual violent crimes).

  • show up (in the more extreme expression) in public heavily armed at political events/demonstrations, including demonstrations by "the other side," and

This is stupid and rude, wins them no friends on the anti-gun side, and few on the pro-gun side. They still have a legal right to bear arms as long as they do so lawfully. More and more states now have "constitutional-carry" laws (I cannot recall the precise count, but am pretty certain that it's a majority of them), whereby no permit is required for either concealed or open carry. There has been no increase in violence as a result, and, in general, US violent crime rates, including homicide, are well down from their peak in the 1960s despite a massive increase in the number of firearms owned. The national murder rate is driven by major Democrat-run cities with gang problems and restrictive firearms laws, and most of the violent crimes in those tend to occur in a few specific neighbourhoods that receive little policing (out of fears of violence or being called "racist"). Several states have lower homicide rates than Canada, and, a few years ago, Nunavut topped the chart for highest homicide rate of all US and Canadian states, provinces, and territories (with a small population, a few more or less murders in any year can skew the statistics).

  • overlap significantly with the more violent and loathsome portions of the US right (Klan, Nazis, etc.).

And those of other political/racial persuasions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers.

And, despite the fact that the "US right" tends to get all of the bad press, there is a more dangerous and more violent aspect on the US far left side. Groups such as Antifa should not be underestimated.

While Sheriffs are elected by their constituents, their authority comes from the state's constitution. The same constitution, in each case, provides for an elected assembly to make laws and a judiciary (whether appointed or elected) to adjudicate cases under the law. Sheriffs are sworn to uphold the constitution and thereby the powers of the other elected officials including the statutory/regulatory laws made by the legislature and the case law that has been decided by the state judiciary.

In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government. The powers of the states and the federal government is divided by the US constitution and neither a state (nor it's counties) can legislate within a federal field. Secondly, counties are creatures of the state constitution and other state laws and only have as much power as the state delegates to the counties. Again, a county is a very low level legal entity and it and it's officials and employees (including sheriffs) are bound to work within the framework of the state laws.

If county electors don't like a state law, their recourse is to elect a new state legislature. It is not to elect a sheriff who won't enforce state laws. There is a common law concept (which exists in both the US and Canada) called mandamus which is a writ or order issued from a court which requires a public official to perform a public or statutory duty (whether state or federal) that is imposed on him/her. Failure to obey the order can lead to contempt of court actions including imprisonment. This is what happened to Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Arapaio who failed to cease racial profiling practices within his force as ordered by a US District Court.

Unconstitutional laws tend to be struck down by courts. In the matter of firearms ownership and use, many Sheriffs put the US constitution ahead of lesser laws that, in their view, violate their constitution.

In "Sheriff Joe's" case, he was convicted of criminal contempt of court, which is a misdemeanour, and pardoned by President Trump. Up to 2016, he still won elections with clear majorities. Yes, he was a controvertial figure, but still received a lot of local support. In any case, I do not see a constitutional aspect to his case, as opposed to the Second Amendment's codification of a natural human right.[/list]
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 16, 2019, 12:56:44
Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#7e37b44f5edc

Quote
Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives
Paul Hsieh
Paul Hsieh
Contributor
I cover health care and economics from a free-market perspective.

After the Parkland, Florida shootings, some are calling for more government research into “gun violence.”

Currently, the federal government’s Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is restricted by Congress from using tax money to promote gun control (although not from conducting research into gun-related violence). Some legislators want to remove this funding restriction. Separate from the federal government, the state of California has created a “gun violence research center” and the state of New Jersey is considering establishing a similar program. Similarly, university professors such as David Hemenway of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, have called for more federal funding of gun violence research.

Many gun rights advocates are wary of such research, fearing it will be used to fuel a partisan political agenda. Dr. Timothy Wheeler of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership has noted that CDC has a track record of anti-gun bias. In the 1990s, one CDC official even stated that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.”

But regardless of whether “gun violence” research is being conducted by the federal government, states, universities, or private organizations, there are three key principles all public health researchers and firearms policy analysts should remember.

The first principle is:

* Firearms save lives as well take lives.

If one imagines that guns in civilian hands are used solely as murder weapons, it makes sense to ban or strictly regulate them.

But millions of Americans legally carry a firearm every day, and most cite self-defense as their primary reason. The overwhelming majority of the time, those guns are never drawn in anger. But innocent civilians can and do sometimes use their guns in self-defense. Any discussion of firearms policy must acknowledge the lives saved by legal use of guns as well as the lives lost by criminal use.

The numbers of defensive gun uses (DGUs) each year is controversial. But one study ordered by the CDC and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:

    Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Another study estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,” (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.”

(In comparison, there were 11,208 homicide deaths by firearm in the US in 2012. There were a total of 33,636 deaths due to “injury by firearms,” of which the majority were suicides, 21,175.)
SIG Pro SP2022, one of many pistols suitable for personal defense.

SIG Pro SP2022, one of many pistols suitable for personal defense. By Augustas Didžgalvis - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons

A second key principle in judging gun violence research:

* The value of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens should be measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented, not criminals killed.

As an example of the latter type of analysis, one recent Washington Post story reported that, “For every criminal killed in self-defense, 34 innocent people die”:

    In 2012, there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI’s homicide database, but only 258 gun killings by private citizens that were deemed justifiable, which the FBI defines as “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.” That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths.

However, this comparison can be misleading. An armed civilian does not have to kill the criminal in order to save an innocent life. As the National Research Council notes, “[E]ffective defensive gun use need not ever lead the perpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess the benefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime and injury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.”

We don’t judge whether the police are doing a good job by the numbers of criminals they kill each year, but rather by how well they stop crime. The same should be true in judging the effectiveness of civilian DGUs.

The exact number of DGUs is not precisely known. There are reasons to think the actual number may be higher or lower than the figures cited. For example, some respondents to surveys may consciously or unconsciously exaggerate the degree of peril they were in, which could lead to an overestimate of DGUs.

On the other hand, gun policy researcher Brian Doherty explains how reported numbers could also be an underestimate. Just as many sexual assault victims don’t report those crimes to the authorities, many law-abiding people who successfully use a gun to deter a crime without firing a shot may similarly choose to avoid reporting these incidents to the police:

    [Y]our possession or use of the weapon might be a matter of greater concern to the cops than whatever the intruder or criminal you were repelling was up to. They’ll doubtless never lay hands on him; you are right there, for any investigation and harassment the cops might want to call forth. Many gun owners or gun users might see little good and much possible bad arising from calling the cops after a DGU incident, and thus many or even most would never make a police blotter, never make a newspaper.

It’s relatively easy to measure the number of lives lost due to criminal gun violence. It’s harder to measure the number of lives saved by legal defensive gun use. Murders that didn’t happen don’t show up on crime statistics. This is just another example of Bastiat’s classic principle of “the seen vs. the unseen.”

Finally, a third principle to remember in analyzing public health gun violence research:

* The right to self-defense does not depend on statistics and numbers.

Doherty makes an important point about the ultimate relevance of any such research studies: “However large the number of DGUs, or how small; and however large the number of accidents or tragedies caused by guns, or how small, the right and ability to choose for yourself how to defend yourself and your family — at home or away from it — remains, and that numerical debate should have no particular bearing on it.”

One of my friends had to use his legal concealed handgun to protect himself when attacked by two knife-wielding criminals. I’ve written about his story here.

For those who wonder whether AR-15-style rifles have a legitimate self-defense use, took a look at this story where someone used an AR-15 to protect himself during a home invasion against 3 black-clad intruders, and another story where a man used his AR-15 to stop a knife attack against others.

It is our inalienable right to self-defense that makes me a proud supporter of responsible gun ownership and of the Second Amendment. Guns can be used for good as well as evil purposes.

We would consider it irresponsible for a public health researcher to study only the negative effects of, say, caffeine consumption without also considering the positive effects. If public health researchers wish to have credibility with the millions of gun rights supporters such as myself, they should endeavour to quantify the very real benefits of legal gun ownership in addition to the genuine harms caused by illegal gun use. Studies that discuss only the latter without the former are incomplete at best — and dishonest at worst.

I support good public policy based on objective research, informed by a proper understanding of individual rights — including the right to self-defense. If we’re going to engage in gun violence research, let’s do it right — by recognizing both the positive and negative aspects of civilian firearm ownership.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: kkwd on April 20, 2019, 07:31:51
Chuck Norris picked up a new gig promoting Glock. Seems some people are not pleased at all according to this "article". It is written in that new style that passes for journalism these days, random thoughts from Twitter.

Quote
“Chuck shouldn't be working with gun companies at a time like this,” wrote a commenter, who — like Norris — is a martial artist. “He should be advocating ways to keep his gun loving friends from possible becoming surprising random mental health people that use guns to kill others and children. Please tell me Chuck, that you do something like that for the kids at least and aren't all about the money. I mean no wonder Bruce Lee died....he wasn't like all these a holes, just about the [money].”

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/chuck-norris-slammed-for-becoming-the-face-of-glock-so-sad-to-see-youre-just-a-sponsor-now-160931110.html (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/chuck-norris-slammed-for-becoming-the-face-of-glock-so-sad-to-see-youre-just-a-sponsor-now-160931110.html)
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Journeyman on April 20, 2019, 08:26:38
….according to this "article". It is written in that new style that passes for journalism these days...
Not debating gun control, just pointing out that you choose an article from the "Entertainment" section of "Yahoo.com,"  then wring your hands about the quality of journalism in your life.  Seems about right.
           :boring: 
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: PPCLI Guy on April 20, 2019, 08:34:41
Reflecting the new style of governance in the US, It is written in that new style that passes for journalism these days, random thoughts from Twitter.


FTFY
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: kkwd on April 20, 2019, 14:12:18
Not debating gun control, just pointing out that you choose an article from the "Entertainment" section of "Yahoo.com,"  then wring your hands about the quality of journalism in your life.  Seems about right.
           :boring:

I am not taking any more insults from you.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Journeyman on April 20, 2019, 14:45:02
I am not taking any more insults from you.
a)  I can live with that;

b)  Insulting you could be considered a 'personal attack' under the site's regulations.  Rather, I was suggesting that if you don't like the quality of political reporting from Yahoo's Entertainment people, etc, perhaps you should consider upping your game for what sources of journalism you choose to read.  Naturally, it's completely up to you.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: kkwd on April 21, 2019, 14:49:51
a)  I can live with that;

b)  Insulting you could be considered a 'personal attack' under the site's regulations.  Rather, I was suggesting that if you don't like the quality of political reporting from Yahoo's Entertainment people, etc, perhaps you should consider upping your game for what sources of journalism you choose to read.  Naturally, it's completely up to you.

You didn't get it did you? I chose this particular piece on purpose. I was not endorsing Yahoo Entertainment as a source of news. Sometimes over analysis of a post leads to misunderstanding. Didn't I not sufficiently explain myself with the quotation marks? Maybe I should have used some emoticons but I stay away from them as much as possible.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Halifax Tar on April 21, 2019, 16:48:28
I really think people over estimate the "positive" reaction a US Government sanctioned gun grab would get from US Military people. 

I would predict vast swaths of the US Military and Police Forces simply disregarding or outright resisting and such direction or order on the basis of their oath to defend the constitution.

This is the crux of the gun issue in the USA IMHO.  You can not take forceful action against firearms or it leads to open and violent insurrection in that country.  I see no other outcome.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: kkwd on April 21, 2019, 18:02:33
I really think people over estimate the "positive" reaction a US Government sanctioned gun grab would get from US Military people. 

I would predict vast swaths of the US Military and Police Forces simply disregarding or outright resisting and such direction or order on the basis of their oath to defend the constitution.

This is the crux of the gun issue in the USA IMHO.  You can not take forceful action against firearms or it leads to open and violent insurrection in that country.  I see no other outcome.

Rep Eric Swalwell is running for president in the next election you may have heard. The top item on his campaign site is called "Ending gun violence".

https://ericswalwell.com/my-plan/ (https://ericswalwell.com/my-plan/)
Quote
Ending Gun Violence

No more turning a blind eye to American lives stolen by gun violence. We must enact truly universal background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases, do more to take guns away from domestic abusers, push states to adopt gun violence restraining order laws, and remove weapons of war from our communities once and for all. I’m the only candidate calling for a mandatory national ban and buyback of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons.
I can't figure out in this how his policy would ever end gun violence. He advocates a buyback of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, whatever that is. But it seems to be is should be called confiscation, the government can't buy back what they never owned in the first place. They belong to individual citizens and such a proposal would make them criminals overnight.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 21, 2019, 18:58:07
KKWD I like the article you posted because to me it highlights how self-important we've become. The people reacting to Chuck Norris's announcement I mean.

"I'm unsubscribing from you!" - I think Mr Norris will survive.

Quote
“Chuck shouldn't be working with gun companies at a time like this,” wrote a commenter, who — like Norris — is a martial artist. “He should be advocating ways to keep his gun loving friends from possible becoming surprising random mental health people that use guns to kill others and children. Please tell me Chuck, that you do something like that for the kids at least and aren't all about the money. I mean no wonder Bruce Lee died....he wasn't like all these a holes, just about the [money].”

Riiiiight.


Mass shootings in the US, horrific as they are, are an insignificant number compared to where the majority of shootings are coming from.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 22, 2019, 00:20:03
" advocating a buy back of military style, semi automatic, assault weapon.

It won't be a buy back. It'll be a $25 convenience fee for them not having to come take them. A true buyback of blue book value would be beyond the reach of any system. Given the ignorants' ever shifting definition of assault weapons, given the amount of AR's and variants alone numbering in millions, no goverment could afford it.

I won't even attempt to parse his definition, other than to say, military style and semi automatic don't belong in the definition of assault weapons. We've been down that road here more than once here and I doubt anyone's thoughts on it have changed very much.




Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Eaglelord17 on April 22, 2019, 11:23:08
I really think people over estimate the "positive" reaction a US Government sanctioned gun grab would get from US Military people. 

I would predict vast swaths of the US Military and Police Forces simply disregarding or outright resisting and such direction or order on the basis of their oath to defend the constitution.

This is the crux of the gun issue in the USA IMHO.  You can not take forceful action against firearms or it leads to open and violent insurrection in that country.  I see no other outcome.

Not to mention there is tons of citizens in the USA who did serve at some point and would not be willing to accept that as well. When you have a military of 1 million troops, and your system is designed and optimized for quick rotations (3 years and out if you like), you end up with a lot of trained citizens on the streets. 7.3% of all Americans have served (specifically 1.4% of females and 13.4% of males) which is a large amount who would also likely resist.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: kkwd on April 24, 2019, 06:46:01
Quote
Fear & Loading: Chuck Norris vs. President Trump in Indianapolis?

Who wins?

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2019/4/12/fear-loading-chuck-norris-vs-president-trump-in-indianapolis/ (https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2019/4/12/fear-loading-chuck-norris-vs-president-trump-in-indianapolis/)
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Colin P on April 26, 2019, 22:49:11
" advocating a buy back of military style, semi automatic, assault weapon.

It won't be a buy back. It'll be a $25 convenience fee for them not having to come take them. A true buyback of blue book value would be beyond the reach of any system. Given the ignorants' ever shifting definition of assault weapons, given the amount of AR's and variants alone numbering in millions, no goverment could afford it.

I won't even attempt to parse his definition, other than to say, military style and semi automatic don't belong in the definition of assault weapons. We've been down that road here more than once here and I doubt anyone's thoughts on it have changed very much.

yep let say an average price of $700 per gun x 350-400 million = $245,000,000,000.00 (at 350)
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 26, 2019, 23:30:23
Toronton will be holding a gun buy back.

$250 for a rifle, $350 for a pistol.

There's a Canadian company that's selling pistol frames for $49. You need to register pistol frames with the RCMP, so, considered guns?
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 27, 2019, 08:55:40
Toronton will be holding a gun buy back.

$250 for a rifle, $350 for a pistol.

There's a Canadian company that's selling pistol frames for $49. You need to register pistol frames with the RCMP, so, considered guns?
Who has frames? Registered portion is the gun.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 27, 2019, 09:05:51
Who has frames? Registered portion is the gun.

https://sjhardware.com/product/stripped-tt33-handgun-frame/

You should buy us each one buddy :)

All kidding aside I think gun buy back programs are great. I actually arranged for a guy to turn an unregistered pistol over to the police without repercussion and man it was stressful and intimidating for me and i was the middle man.

The programs are great (as long as jerks like us don't ruin it) but I've also heard of someone being charged for bringing a gun to the police a day before the amnesty started which is pretty stupid.

And there was our own Toronto police selling 'turned in' guns back to the public to 'raise funds' for the department a few years back
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 16, 2019, 20:45:35
https://nypost.com/2019/05/16/police-station-mocked-for-photo-of-knife-haul-that-includes-a-spoon/


https://youtu.be/MhfuuKiTcYQ
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 24, 2019, 19:24:05
Suspicious visit by the NZ police about firearms. Strange that they didn't want to discuss anything on camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tKEjSVhj-Q&feature=youtu.be



Gun owners upset by 'heavy-handed' police raids complain to IPCA
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/112872575/complaints-about-heavyhanded-raids-on-gun-owners-land-at-ipca