• Two US TV journalists shot dead on air
    1,049 replies, posted
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48564483]Sadly, people have been killing people for thousands of years.[/QUOTE] What I'm saying is that most shootings over here involve a lot of emotions like anxiety, depression, vengeance, etc. and I don't think that is normal. People have fought and even killed others when they felt their lives were in danger, but that's just self-preservation. I don't know about you, but I've never been so pissed that I murdered a bunch of people, nor would I ever think that's an appropriate thing to do. Someone has to grow up with some serious problems to do this kind of shit.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48564532]His positions on firearms are better than any other democratic candidate tbh and he doesn't want to outright ban any guns that currently exist in the US, just doesn't want to add more - which I disagree with but it's something I can live with.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, still wouldn't vote for him. [editline]28th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Renegade Master;48564539]What I'm saying is that most shootings over here involve a lot of emotions like anxiety, depression, vengeance, etc. and I don't think that is normal. People have fought and even killed others when they felt their lives were in danger, but that's just self-preservation. I don't know about you, but I've never been so pissed that I murdered a bunch of people, nor would I think that's ever the appropriate thing to do. Someone has to grow up with some serious problems to do this kind of shit.[/QUOTE] People in the US are overworked and thus depressed, full of anxiety, etc. I think that might play a part.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48559923]Fifth amendment prevents the deprivation of life or liberty without due process. You can't just go around forcibly institutionalising mentally ill people based on the perception that they're mentally ill.[/QUOTE] Absolutely and demonstrably wrong in the US. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(involuntary_psychiatric_hold)[/URL] Most states have a code that allows them to put people on an involuntary 3 day psychiatric hold. What happens is someone either calls the cops or your therapist/psychologist has reasonable suspicion that you're a danger to yourself or others. At which point they call a pet team on you or just straight up arrest you and bring you to the hospital. [editline]28th August 2015[/editline] As a matter of fact they also have the right to extend it to a 7 day involuntary hold or even hold you indefinitely (Although you can contest it) Hell at the end they make you sign a waiver that makes it illegal for you to even handle a firearm for 5 years.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48564540]Well yeah, still wouldn't vote for him.[/QUOTE] I'm gonna vote for Donald Trump because muh guns.
[QUOTE=Toro;48564602]I'm gonna vote for Donald Trump because muh guns.[/QUOTE] Uh, no. Trump is an idiot who blows with the wind as far as how he feels.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48564572]Absolutely and demonstrably wrong in the US. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(involuntary_psychiatric_hold)[/URL] Most states have a code that allows them to put people on an involuntary 3 day psychiatric hold. What happens is someone either calls the cops or your therapist/psychologist has reasonable suspicion that you're a danger to yourself or others. At which point they call a pet team on you or just straight up arrest you and bring you to the hospital. [editline]28th August 2015[/editline] As a matter of fact they also have the right to extend it to a 7 day involuntary hold or even hold you indefinitely (Although you can contest it) Hell at the end they make you sign a waiver that makes it illegal for you to even handle a firearm for 5 years.[/QUOTE] I've held down my partner at work to keep him from blowing his brains out with his own duty weapon. 5150 is essential for the protection of people that are a danger to themselves or others. Keep in mind, that's the qualifier - there are meth'd out homeless people everywhere here and they don't qualify under 5150 so long as they can feed and clothe themselves and avoid chasing people around with sticks.
Have you guys seen the stupid you tube conspiracy theorists posting videos saying the shooting of the journalists was a false flag inside job. They're so retarded that they think literally everything is an inside job and everything is connected how could someone be that stupid? [editline]28th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Gump;48544506]Fair hint of sarcasm, considering some peoples answer to gun crime in the US is more guns in the hands of other people who might help. I dunno if my British perspective leaves me unable to understand the situation in the US properly though. Seems the US posters unanimously agree guns are Holy so there must be some aspect of it all I don't understand.[/QUOTE] Typical Americans if they had gun laws like Canada or the United kingdom stuff like this wouldn't happen as often. They also have a piss poor mental health care system as well. Oh no don't take our gunz you fucking commies! [editline]28th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48546086]All these anti gun debates turn into is large dick waving contests, what's the point anymore guys.[/QUOTE] To stop all the School shootings and random shooting incidents that run rampant in America due to poor gun control laws and an almost non existent mental health care system.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;48565731] [editline]28th August 2015[/editline] Typical Americans if they had gun laws like Canada or the United kingdom stuff like this wouldn't happen as often. They also have a piss poor mental health care system as well. Oh no don't take our gunz you fucking commies![/QUOTE] Typical Canadian continually spouting the same overused rhetoric with absolutely no substance to it.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48564388]No, how the hell is the gun store at fault? They are following the FFL process, which is a federal requirement to sell firearms. They are at no way at fault, unless they don't follow the process. (i.e. sell guns with no background check or waiting period, etc)[/QUOTE] I thought background checks or waiting periods were a States issue not a federal one? As in not all states have background checks or waiting periods? Even with background checks you might get people who have no criminal or mental health history still slip through, and as long as they pass the background check the gun shop won't care what they use the gun for, they're happy to make the sale. What I'm saying is that gun shops should be pressured to take background checks and all that into consideration in every state, and should practice discretion when someone who they're not 100% sure about comes in wanting a gun. If someone comes in who's never visited before and who looks shady, and doesn't provide a suitable reason for why they want a gun, the gun shop should evaluate the risk they hold because if that person ends up being a shooter it's gonna fall back on the gun shop for not managing their risk. It's more about enforcing self-regulation amongst gun shops rather than just the Feds being able to sue them. Like I'm sure there's plenty gun shops can do if they feel they have to manage that risk. Have all new and otherwise untrusted customers sign up with an associated gun club first and then a one month waiting period before they can buy a gun. Or simply refuse service to dodgy people. It's better for that power to be in the hands of those businesses rather than the government.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48565791]Typical Canadian continually spouting the same overused rhetoric with absolutely no substance to it.[/QUOTE] If you think there isn't a mental health crisis in the United States then you have your head in the sand.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;48566034]If you think there isn't a mental health crisis in the United States then you have your head in the sand.[/QUOTE] I absolutely agree that there is a mental health crisis in the US. As I've repeatedly said multiple times through out this thread and many others. I was more referring to the whole "Hurr US should adopt UK gun laws hurr" that has no way of working whatsoever in the US.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48565793]I thought background checks or waiting periods were a States issue not a federal one? As in not all states have background checks or waiting periods? Even with background checks you might get people who have no criminal or mental health history still slip through, and as long as they pass the background check the gun shop won't care what they use the gun for, they're happy to make the sale. What I'm saying is that gun shops should be pressured to take background checks and all that into consideration in every state, and should practice discretion when someone who they're not 100% sure about comes in wanting a gun. If someone comes in who's never visited before and who looks shady, and doesn't provide a suitable reason for why they want a gun, the gun shop should evaluate the risk they hold because if that person ends up being a shooter it's gonna fall back on the gun shop for not managing their risk. It's more about enforcing self-regulation amongst gun shops rather than just the Feds being able to sue them. Like I'm sure there's plenty gun shops can do if they feel they have to manage that risk. Have all new and otherwise untrusted customers sign up with an associated gun club first and then a one month waiting period before they can buy a gun. Or simply refuse service to dodgy people. It's better for that power to be in the hands of those businesses rather than the government.[/QUOTE] This seems like an actually effective solution.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48565793]I thought background checks or waiting periods were a States issue not a federal one? As in not all states have background checks or waiting periods? Even with background checks you might get people who have no criminal or mental health history still slip through, and as long as they pass the background check the gun shop won't care what they use the gun for, they're happy to make the sale. What I'm saying is that gun shops should be pressured to take background checks and all that into consideration in every state, and should practice discretion when someone who they're not 100% sure about comes in wanting a gun. If someone comes in who's never visited before and who looks shady, and doesn't provide a suitable reason for why they want a gun, the gun shop should evaluate the risk they hold because if that person ends up being a shooter it's gonna fall back on the gun shop for not managing their risk. It's more about enforcing self-regulation amongst gun shops rather than just the Feds being able to sue them. Like I'm sure there's plenty gun shops can do if they feel they have to manage that risk. Have all new and otherwise untrusted customers sign up with an associated gun club first and then a one month waiting period before they can buy a gun. Or simply refuse service to dodgy people. It's better for that power to be in the hands of those businesses rather than the government.[/QUOTE] Background checks are required by federal law. All states have to abide by it. Some states have waiting periods before someone can take the firearm they bought home. Every dealer has the right to not sell a gun to an individual if they don't trust them. The shooter in this story passed a federal background check, meaning the FBI felt he was no threat.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48560235]Yes he would have killed them regardless.[/QUOTE] This is literally an unprovable argument that I see people continually using now. Unless you have some magical ability of clairvoyance that allows you to see alternate what-if timelines of existence, you do not know if he "would have killed them regardless". You do not know if he would have used a knife. You do not know if he would have used a baseball bat. Maybe he would have attacked them with only his bare hands. You do not know if he would have killed them, or if he would have only succeeded in wounding them-- or perhaps he would've been overpowered (one guy vs. three other people in hand-to-hand fighting) and deaths would've been avoided altogether. He may have even been discouraged enough by the problem of not having a gun to have simply given up altogether; stabbing people takes a lot of effort, so does beating and strangling people to death. The only reason anyone uses this argument is to distract from what actually happened, that he shot and killed them with a gun and chose to use a gun because guns are powerfully-refined weapons that are extremely efficient at killing and are readily available, and to try and convince people to concede to this bizarrely stupid borderline-defeatist/fatalistic/prophetic concept of "you can't stop murderers, especially murderers with guns; they'll kill regardless of whether or not they have a gun" as if this inaccurate mindset somehow invalidates gun control. You might as take the same view about suicide then, even though it's been demonstrated to the contrary that [url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide]people are more likely to commit suicide when they have access to guns precisely because guns are both powerful and efficient tools to fulfill this end (as well as being readily available here in the United States)[/url]. People are more likely to attempt to kill one another as well as themselves when they have a gun than with any other weapon or certainly when they have no weapon at all. They're more likely to succeed with guns as well. That's how simple it is.
[QUOTE=Ridge;48566153]Background checks are required by federal law. All states have to abide by it. Some states have waiting periods before someone can take the firearm they bought home. Every dealer has the right to not sell a gun to an individual if they don't trust them. The shooter in this story passed a federal background check, meaning the FBI felt he was no threat.[/QUOTE] Yes dealers have the right to not sell guns to people if they don't trust them, but they don't have the incentive to prevent that sale because they aren't penalised if they make the sale and it's used to commit murder. The dealer could simply say 'oh I didn't know he was going to use the gun to murder someone', even if the dealer knew that that kind of customer had a higher propensity to commit crime. The premise of my idea is to create that incentive by placing risk on the operations of the business. The dealer has to actively make sure they use every tool at their disposal to ensure that guns sold aren't sold to customers who will use then to commit crimes.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48566053]This seems like an actually effective solution.[/QUOTE] It's somewhat similar to the rules for competitive shooting in Germany: If you've been a gun club member for a year and showed up regularly during that time you can apply for a sport license with which you may buy a few weapons aligned with that club's weapon rules. (The state checks once in a while if you store them properly so that noone else has a chance of using them.) [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_legislation_in_Germany&oldid=677834685"]Gun laws are otherwise very strict here in comparison though[/URL], with carry permits only granted in special circumstances and still banning it at any public event. It seems to work since knives are vastly more popular weapons here than guns for any illegitimate use. That said, whether it improves survivability for victims of attempted murder is something I don't know. I have a hunch it's the case especially with open attacks and/or multiple (simultaneous) targets like here, as well as with untrained attackers and regarding injuries to those not targeted, but to check I'd need statistics regarding attempted intentional homicide by weapon vs intentional homicide along the same axes (or at least the attempted homicide rate by country to compare it to homicide weapon statistics and homicide rates for various weapon types, which I think I've seen floating around online. It's a bit subpar compared to direct data though). What it really seems to help with is defusing confrontations with the police, with the USA having close to four times the population of Germany but German police firing only 85 times in interactions with people in 2011 ([URL="http://boingboing.net/2012/05/09/german-police-fired-85-bullets.html"]resulting in 15 injuries and 6 deaths[/URL]). Police are roughly equally armed in the two countries if I'm not mistaken. These statistics aren't tracked in the US so it's really hard to tell, but for the same year you have 19 subject (and 2 cross-fire officer) injuries and 9 subject deaths in confrontations with the NYPD alone, with 67% of the confrontations where officers fired being against firearm use of any kind ([URL="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/nypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2011.pdf"]page 17 of the official report[/URL]). The FBI counts 414 and 387 justifiable homicides by officers in 2009 and 2010, [URL="http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/deadly-force/142-dead-and-rising/national-data-shootings-police-not-collected"]respectively[/URL], and [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/11/police-killings-hundreds/18818663/"]461 in 2013[/URL], but that doesn't include any incidents that weren't ruled as justified. To get comparable international statistics I unfortunately have to resort to a [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database#"]slightly sensationalist death counter[/URL], on which a Ctrl+F for Gunshot [URL="https://archive.is/AzUYa"]currently[/URL] gives 672 results for 2015 so far. From my perspective that part alone is grounds to reduce general firearm availability somewhat drastically. That said, I doubt it would "solve murder" anywhere near as effectively considering [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate&oldid=678198157"]Germany's intentional homicide rate is still 17% of that of the USA[/URL] compared to a (very roughly estimated based on data from different years and estimates for the current year) comparative officer-inflicted subject shooting death rate of approximately 0.15%. (I'm aware that these considerations don't take the rate of subject firearm use during confrontations with the police into account (or that US police are way more trigger-happy than police here in general), but I really doubt I can find any proper general statistics in that regard. [URL="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_14_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_law_enforcement_2008-2012.xls"]At least for justifiable homicides it's close to 100% in the US though[/URL], which still results in a difference of deaths so high that I consider it overwhelmingly preventable ([I]somehow[/I] at the very least).) As an aside: Suspect suicide rates in police pursuit are probably worth looking at too. At least over here they seem to be extremely uncommon with anything not gun-related, so it's possible there some room for prevention of death there too. (As a somewhat useless aside: Comparing Germany and the USA ([B]really[/B] bad measure, so don't do that if you want to discuss something seriously and use global, regional and economic as well as political reference frames instead), the above calculations put police shootings more than 10000% higher on the "How much of a problem is it in the USA?" scale than intentional homicide. It's a really quite useless value as such but one of the reasons I think the US gun debate is normally held in entirely the wrong context.)
I wasn't specifically suggesting that Americans would have to sign up for a gun club and then be able to own a gun after x amount of time with the club, just that it was one way for the gun shop to manage risk of otherwise untrustworthy people. The shops could do many things. They could simply just sell the guns as they do now, and open themselves up to like a $100,000 fine if the gun sold end up being used for things like murder or suicide. Of course with trustworthy people like long-term customers there would be little to no risk that needs to be managed. But to manage that risk for untrustworthy customers they could try a number of strategies. Having new customers sign up for an associated gun club first before getting their hands on a personal gun was one of those. Or the gun shop could simply perform an extensive background check and have a waiting period on sales. But the great thing is that it's up to the business for how they want to manage their risk. It's not the government forcing them to do this or that. It's the government presenting a scenario to the business ('sell guns used to commit murder and we'll fine you') and letting the business choose how it wants to reduce the risk of receiving a massive fine. That's the premise of the whole proposal - incentivising self-regulation, the best kind of regulation, in arms sales. Of course it doesn't solve the issue of the guns already out there, or the black market, but in cases like what happened in Virginia it was a gun that was legally bought only just before the shooting. Only problem with the proposal is that it wouldn't tackle private sales effectively enough I don't think, unless the gun could be tracked back to the previous owner who had sold it and have the fine levied on them. Might create a bit of self-regulation in the private exchange market. So that private sellers practice discretion with their customers to manage their own risk and avoid that potential fine.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48567698]I wasn't specifically suggesting that Americans would have to sign up for a gun club and then be able to own a gun after x amount of time with the club, just that it was one way for the gun shop to manage risk of otherwise untrustworthy people. The shops could do many things. They could simply just sell the guns as they do now, and open themselves up to like a $100,000 fine if the gun sold end up being used for things like murder or suicide. Of course with trustworthy people like long-term customers there would be little to no risk that needs to be managed. But to manage that risk for untrustworthy customers they could try a number of strategies. Having new customers sign up for an associated gun club first before getting their hands on a personal gun was one of those. Or the gun shop could simply perform an extensive background check and have a waiting period on sales. But the great thing is that it's up to the business for how they want to manage their risk. It's not the government forcing them to do this or that. It's the government presenting a scenario to the business ('sell guns used to commit murder and we'll fine you') and letting the business choose how it wants to reduce the risk of it happening. Of course it doesn't solve the issue of the guns already out there, or the black market, but in cases like what happened in Virginia it was a gun that was legally bought only just before the shooting. Only problem with the proposal is that it wouldn't tackle private sales effectively enough I don't think, unless the gun could be tracked back to the previous owner who had sold it and have the fine levied on them. Might create a bit of self-regulation in the private exchange market too.[/QUOTE] It think that's a really bad idea, since it would put responsibility for crimes on innocents. It's a huge no-go as far as legislation should be concerned no matter the scale. If I'm not completely mistaken, the law would actually be very much unconstitutional in many cases since it directly violates article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights: [URL="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng"]"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."[/URL] (This doesn't explicitly take into account fines, but it moots their enforcement for crimes committed by others making them effectively void.)
It wouldn't violate article 9. It wouldn't be arbitrary arrest. Arbitrary arrest is having police officers going around arresting people for not committing any crimes. What I'm suggesting is the criminalisation of selling guns which then go on to be used to commit murder. It's not arbitrary. The point of the proposal ISN'T to have people fined or arrested. The point is to have exactly zero people fined or arrested. It's to incentivise gun shops to practice discretion with their customers; to not sell guns to customers who the dealer cannot trust. If the dealer is careless and lets just anybody buy a gun for any reason, and a gun they sold is used for murder, the dealer will face consequences. My proposal aims to eliminate such careless behaviour. I mean the alternative is either America continues to suffer from gun violence, or governments implement actual-authoritarian and potentially ineffective restrictions on guns. Of any action the United States could take to curb gun violence, this one is the least authoritarian and least bureaucratic.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48567803]It wouldn't violate article 9. It wouldn't be arbitrary arrest. Arbitrary arrest is having police officers going around arresting people for not committing any crimes. What I'm suggesting is the criminalisation of selling guns which then go on to be used to commit murder. It's not arbitrary. The point of the proposal ISN'T to have people fined or arrested. The point is to have exactly zero people fined or arrested. It's to incentivise gun shops to practice discretion with their customers; to not sell guns to customers who the dealer cannot trust. If the dealer is careless and lets just anybody buy a gun, and a gun they sold is used for murder, the dealer will face consequences. My proposal aims to eliminate such careless behaviour.[/QUOTE] It [B]is[/B] arbitrary though, at least by German standards, since there'd be no injustice whatsoever in control of the "guilty" party and no way for them to reliably avoid being prosecuted while still doing otherwise legal business. You can't just make an action "maybe illegal". [editline]29th August 2015[/editline] What you [I]could[/I] do is outlawing the sale of guns to people where there's reason to believe they'd use it in a crime or without professional background check of the buyer though, since then the necessary information is available to the seller to make a safe decision. However, this would probably be considered more authoritarian than just introducing gun permits, which streamline that exact process.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;48567827]It [B]is[/B] arbitrary though, at least by German standards, since there'd be no injustice whatsoever in control of the "guilty" party and no way for them to reliably avoid being prosecuted while still doing otherwise legal business. You can't just make an action "maybe illegal".[/QUOTE] As I said the whole point of the law would be that no one would break it. You could say the same for any law ever yes. However just consider an analogy for a minute. A very simple law - criminalisation of murder. Surely by murder being illegal, that less people are murdered in comparison to a society which didn't criminalise murder (with all else equal)? [editline]30th August 2015[/editline] [quote]What you could do is outlawing the sale of guns to people where there's reason to believe they'd use it in a crime or without professional background check of the buyer though, since then the necessary information is available to the seller to make a safe decision. However, this would probably be considered more authoritarian than just introducing gun permits, which streamline that exact process.[/quote] Well I mean my proposal is exactly your first sentence. Except it's not the government forcing the dealer to do those background checks, it's the dealer considering their options and taking the initiative to manage their risk. They could explore background checks, or they could explore another option. There's no red tape because the government's not forcing them to do any specific thing, and they could explore no measure of risk mitigation either. Just that that is very risky. The dealer would effectively measure their risk aversion and choose the most efficient strategy to minimise their risk. Gun permits would be a violation of the second amendment which is why that would never happen in the U.S. What I suggested would effectively be a market-based, market-regulated, unofficial gun permit system. No involvement by any government.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48567867]As I said the whole point of the law would be that no one would break it. You could say the same for any law ever yes. However just consider an analogy for a minute. A very simple law - criminalisation of murder. Surely by murder being illegal, that less people are murdered in comparison to a society which didn't criminalise murder (with all else equal)? [editline]30th August 2015[/editline] Well I mean my proposal is exactly your first sentence. Except it's not the government forcing the dealer to do those background checks, it's the dealer considering their options and taking the initiative to manage their risk. They could explore background checks, or they could explore another option. There's no red tape because the government's not forcing them to do any specific thing, and they could explore no measure of risk mitigation either. Just that that is very risky. The dealer would effectively measure their risk aversion and choose the most efficient strategy to minimise their risk. Gun permits would be a violation of the second amendment which is why that would never happen in the U.S. What I suggested would effectively be a market-based, market-regulated, unofficial gun permit system. No involvement by any government.[/QUOTE] All that doesn't change the fact it's unconstitutional if you enforce it as you propose. If the law isn't enforced, on the other hand, then it's pretty much just a waste of paper in a law book. "Friendly suggestion" would be a more apt name then. [editline]edit[/editline] Laws being laws or actions being "illegal" don't do anything whatsoever against crime. It's the prospective and in precedents applied punishment that does, and at the same time that's the part that would make your proposed law a farce in any country claiming to uphold laws to the benefit of its citizens. (For comparison: "Hacking tools" are afaik still illegal in Germany. It's a ridiculous law that's unenforced and people have very publicly been breaking it with zero qualms since day 1.)
It's not unconstitutional in any way, especially not of the second amendment; it doesn't violate any of the amendments of the bill of rights. Due process is still granted. From the perspective of the gun dealer being taken to court, it's the same situation as many victimless crimes, such as driving without a seatbelt. However that's constitutional, isn't it? Also worth noting that being an accessory to a crime is illegal and that's constitutional, and this is simply broadening that crime a bit for people in a very specific circumstance. [editline]30th August 2015[/editline] Funny an Australian and a German discussing proposals for laws in the United States haha [editline]30th August 2015[/editline] Anyways back on the proposal, just another interesting thought. If such a law were implemented, what you would see is private insurance plans specifically for those gun shops, so that if one of them is taken to court that the insurance would cover most or all of the costs of the fine issued to the shop. However I'd imagine that a condition of those plans is - you guessed it - requiring the shop to implement measures to mitigate the risk. In other words, to implement measures to keep guns out of bad hands.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48564540]Well yeah, still wouldn't vote for him.[/QUOTE] So you are not voting for anyone? You are a US citizen?
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48568156]So you are not voting for anyone? You are a US citizen?[/QUOTE] Why does me not voting for one person make you think I'm not voting period?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48568026]It's not unconstitutional in any way, especially not of the second amendment; it doesn't violate any of the amendments of the bill of rights. Due process is still granted. From the perspective of the gun dealer being taken to court, it's the same situation as many victimless crimes, such as driving without a seatbelt. However that's constitutional, isn't it?[/QUOTE] It is, because the action is immediately unconditionally illegal and not "maybe", and there's a way to reliably avoid it while still conducting business acceptably. It's also not victimless in the case something happens due to there being rather high immediate costs for the general public for each accident with preventable injuries without, without necessary interference from a third party. (Well, maybe not as much in the USA...) [QUOTE]Also worth noting that being an accessory to a crime is illegal and that's constitutional, and this is simply broadening that crime a bit for people in a very specific circumstance.[/QUOTE] Not quite, since being accessory to a crime is a rather active matter and requires knowledge of the prospect of that. (I assume it's already illegal to sell a gun to someone who suggests they want to shoot another person.) [QUOTE]Funny an Australian and a German discussing proposals for laws in the United States haha[/QUOTE] I was thinking the same a little while ago :v: It's an interesting discussion though, so I'm glad we have it regardless of how it looks. [QUOTE]Anyways back on the proposal, just another interesting thought. If such a law were implemented, what you would see is private insurance plans specifically for those gun shops, so that if one of them is taken to court that the insurance would cover most or all of the costs of the fine issued to the shop. However I'd imagine that a condition of those plans is - you guessed it - requiring the shop to implement measures to mitigate the risk. In other words, to implement measures to keep guns out of bad hands.[/QUOTE] I just thought of a way this can be done without necessarily shovelling money to insurances, via liability law: There actually are a few laws that only trigger after the damage is done, such as gross negligence or manslaughter. These work by making it fairly easy to avoid liability outright by applying the necessary precautions during the initial action. While it would be extremely problematic to make a firearm vendor liable for all crimes committed with those weapons, it's if I'm not mistaken very much possible to introduce liability for gun sales specifically without background checks (because that [I]could[/I] be ruled negligent and not an unwarranted burden on the business owners. I'm [I]definitely not sure[/I] how a US court would decide in the matter though. The legal landscape is very different from here so it's possible even that would be thrown out.) [editline]edit[/editline] An interesting bit of information regarding liability: The range that can be contractually disclaimed in the USA is much larger than in Germany (and probably the whole EU, for that matter). This is the reason software EULAs now always include phrases along the lines of "[You] disclaim liability for ___ [I]except[/I] when dealing in ___ where liability for ___ still applies". (EU consumer protection law can void contracts as a whole if they contain misleading or illegal clauses, so they have to be somewhat specific.)
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48568244]Why does me not voting for one person make you think I'm not voting period?[/QUOTE] Because I don't think you are voting for Hillary or Joe Bidan which only leaves it up to the republicans and the republican candidates are by far the worst which surely you won't vote for them.
:snip: merge
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48568395]Because I don't think you are voting for Hillary or Joe Bidan.[/QUOTE] There are other candidates. Trump won't win the Republican nomination, and I'll never vote democrat, so.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48568412]There are other candidates. Trump won't win the Republican nomination, and I'll never vote democrat, so.[/QUOTE] Oh I see you are a republican, so at this point you are undecided on the republican candidates? Might I ask why you don't like Bernie other than the gun debates because it seems like its a single issue when there are many other things you can agree with, with Bernie.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.