Jump to content

Assault Rifle

TahoeHorn

By TahoeHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

I'm on an Internet board entertaining myself, talking to people who have proposals which they are clueless about.  I figure fewer than a hundred will read my posts.  Fewer than ten will care.

You don't actually talk to the people who are clueless about guns.  You're ranting about the misuse of "assault rifle" among people who already know that term doesn't fit. You're ranting about "scary" guns with people who do not categorize guns by level of fear. You're talking to a bunch of gun owners.

You are sinking to Swam levels of idiocy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
Posted
Quote

Owners of assault weapons living in north suburban Deerfield have until June 13 to remove the firearms from within village limits or face daily fines after a ban was approved Monday night.

The Village Board of Trustees unanimously approved a ban on certain types of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, amending a 2013 ordinance that regulated the storage of those items.

The new ordinance prohibits the possession, sale and manufacturing of certain types of assault weapons and large capacity magazines within the village, according to the ordinance. One change from the law as it was originally discussed exempts retired police officers from the ban, according to Village Manager Kent Street.

Violations carry a fine of between $250 and $1,000 per day, according to Matthew Rose, the village attorney. He said the fine is levied each day until there is compliance.

Street said the new law is modeled after one approved by Highland Park in 2013. That ban survived a legal challenge by one of the city’s residents and the Illinois State Rifle Association. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that legislation constitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court let the decision stand when it declined to take up the appeal.

Unlike Highland Park, Deerfield opted not to enact a total ban on assault weapons during a 10-day window that Illinois lawmakers’ gave home-rule municipalities in 2013 before the state’s new Firearm Concealed Carry Act eliminated their ability to do so.

However, Deerfield trustees did enact an ordinance defining assault weapons and requiring the safe storage and safe transportation of those weapons within the village. That measure, which was enacted during the permitted time frame, preserved Deerfield's right to amend the ordinance in the future, Street previously said.

...

In the ordinance, the definition of an assault weapon includes, among others, semiautomatic rifles that have a fixed magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; shotguns with a revolving cylinder; and semiautomatic pistols and rifles that can accept large-capacity magazines and possess one of a list of other features. Among the dozens of specific models cited are the AR-15, AK-47 and Uzi, according to the ordinance.

...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/deerfield/news/ct-dfr-deerfield-assault-weapon-ban-tl-0412-story.html

Bold emphasis is mine.  I wonder if the Illinois State Rifle Association or SAF will challenge it (again?).

Damn... Just looked at SAF's legal cases page.  They are really busy.

On a somewhat related note to the Deerfield local ordinance:

Quote

A bill set to be introduced this week in South Carolina would bar local governments from enacting stricter gun control, dramatically reducing the ability of local politicians to determine how to address gun violence in their communities.

The bill, written by state Representative Joshua Putnam and reviewed by The Independent, would mean changes to gun laws at the local level would have to be approved by two thirds of both chambers of the South Carolina legislature. If passed, South Carolina would join a handful of states where similar laws exist, including Florida, ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-ban-local-politicians-passing-152615126.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, zork said:

What about giving up some of your HIPPA rights to be able to purchase, own,  a gun wrt mental health issues, SSRI drugs, etc?  Not exactly sure how it could work but if you are crazy, mentally ill without a reasonable doubt,  you shouldn't be purchasing/owning a gun.  Nor should Felons but that is already the law I believe.  I don't wade into these discussions much.  

Some States are enacting so called "Red Flag Laws":

Quote

...

One measure that’s gained traction in the aftermath of the attack is known as a “red flag law,” or an extreme risk protection order, which allows authorities to temporarily take away guns from individuals who are deemed dangerous by a judge.

Even before the Stoneman Douglas attack, five states had such laws in place. Now, more than 20 others are considering them. The White House has said it supports such laws, and in the Senate, a bipartisan proposal would offer funding to encourage states to adopt them. Another Senate proposal would establish a federal extreme risk protection law.

How do the laws work?

In March, Florida became the sixth state to embrace risk protection orders, which in general, allow law enforcement, and in some cases family members, to petition a judge to temporarily remove guns from anyone the judge determines poses a danger to themselves or others. Judges can issue a temporary or emergency order to intervene in moments of an immediate crisis or threat, or a longer-term order for individuals deemed to present an ongoing risk.

In ruling on risk protection orders, judges are asked to consider evidence of threats, violent behavior, mental health issues, a conviction for domestic violence and other factors. Emergency orders can last for two or three weeks. To remove guns for a longer period — generally up to a year — the court has to set a hearing, offering the person an opportunity to argue their case.

...

Supporters of risk protection orders say they serve a critical function, helping to remove firearms from the hands of people who may pose a threat but are not legally prohibited to buy guns.

Federal law already prevents convicted felons, fugitives, or anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from buying or possessing a gun. But as researchers who study the intersection of mental health and violence point out, only a small minority of those who suffer from a mental illness go on to become violent toward others.

“I get called upon to do a lot of dangerousness evaluations for people who are either a danger to themselves or a danger to somebody else,” said Dr. Amy Barnhorst, a psychiatrist at the University of California at Davis. “Often times, those people don’t meet strict criteria to be held in a psychiatric hospital and if they don’t get committed to the hospital, they also retain their right to own firearms.”

Barnhorst, who along with her colleague Dr. Garen Wintemute, helped craft California’s version of the law, says such efforts target gun owners who may be angry, threatening or acting erratically. For example, someone who makes threats to carry out a school shooting, or someone who lost a job and threatens to shoot up their workplace.

“There are lot of dangerous people out there who want to do hurtful things that are not mentally ill.”

Supporters say these laws — sometimes referred to as gun violence restraining orders — carry other benefits as well. They don’t create a criminal record; they are temporary; they offer due process; they don’t stigmatize mental illness; and they include penalties for false reports. Critics, however, call them unconstitutional and argue that they fail to offer enough due process.

“We think it’s an unconstitutional notion that your rights can be suspended three days or 21 days based on [a hearing] in which you’re not allowed to participate or make your views known,” said Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, a gun rights organization. He said that very few people have the money and sophistication to challenge such orders in court.

...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-law-that-allows-guns-to-be-taken-from-dangerous-people/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30083

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

General public?

 

I'm on an Internet board entertaining myself, talking to people who have proposals which they are clueless about.  I figure fewer than a hundred will read my posts.  Fewer than ten will care.

What is your solution, other than repeat the NRA line and bring donuts to the meeting where you shake your head at everyone?  Nobody gives a shit what you are against. What are you for as a solution to trying to find a way to limit the number of mass shootings using high capacity round weapons?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

What is your solution, other than repeat the NRA line and bring donuts to the meeting where you shake your head at everyone?  Nobody gives a shit what you are against. What are you for as a solution to trying to find a way to limit the number of mass shootings using high capacity round weapons?  

My solutions focus on people, not guns.  I have a number of solutions.  The two biggest focus on the mentally ill and small children with, practically speaking, no parenting.

 

I think an expert could look at 1,000 elementary school children and find the 25 or so that are a serious risk to society.  Almost all the problems (e.g. mass shootings) from that cohort will come from those 25 kids.  My solutions start dealing with those kids very, very differently. 

A stitch in time saves nine.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  There are some kids who are six years old we KNOW will be trouble.  We KNOW it but we wait and deal with them when they're 16 and have committed a felony.  Insanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3648

Posted
Posted

The Australia talk was a while back, but someone had doubted the robustness of the statistics before and after the ban. Well, I'm a nerd, so I ran some numbers.  I looked at the 22 years before and after the gun ban, 3+ deaths, I recorded weapons used but this is data for all killings not just shootings:

 

Frequency of mass murder event:

Historically: Every 18.5 months

Effect of ban: More often by 22 days (4%)

Significance: 0.07

Given both the high degree of randomness and low effect, we cannot show any impact.

 

Deaths per event:

Historically: 8.3 deaths

Effect of ban: 2.4 less deaths per event.

Significance: 0.7

That's a low-confidence decrease.  It is important to note that if Port Arthur is removed as an outlier, there is no change.

 

Other notes:

The majority of pre-law killings are gun-related.  Only about half of post-law killings are.

The weapon of choice to inflict the most deaths is arson, and it is not close (double any other method).

Despite claims of no mass shootings in 22 years, there have been 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted
On 4/4/2018 at 9:44 AM, thrillhammer said:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

What this means is that gun lovers need to get serious about the possibility of nabobs banning and confiscating guns and making serious proposals to curtail some of the dangers guns present.  I have made one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

My solutions focus on people, not guns.  I have a number of solutions.  The two biggest focus on the mentally ill and small children with, practically speaking, no parenting.

 

I think an expert could look at 1,000 elementary school children and find the 25 or so that are a serious risk to society.  Almost all the problems (e.g. mass shootings) from that cohort will come from those 25 kids.  My solutions start dealing with those kids very, very differently. 

A stitch in time saves nine.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  There are some kids who are six years old we KNOW will be trouble.  We KNOW it but we wait and deal with them when they're 16 and have committed a felony.  Insanity.

Ooh, is this where you talk about putting kids into state-run orphanages? I love this part of the story.

I absolutely agree that we actually can identify the problem kids well in advance of their most heinous crimes. I think the necessary interventions should be 100% positive and supportive (guaranteed free-at-point-of-use physical and mental healthcare for parents and kids, free-at-the-point-of-use healthy food, ample time off work for parents to spend time with kids, high-quality schooling guaranteed to all children, free-at-the-point-of-use enrichment activities for all kids, etc...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thrillhammer

thrillhammer 683

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

What this means is that gun lovers need to get serious about the possibility of nabobs banning and confiscating guns and making serious proposals to curtail some of the dangers guns present.  I have made one.

it must really suck to be you.  this is such a terrible, sheltered, paranoid, ignorant way to live.   

has there ever been a movie made about a government confiscating guns? a book written?  it's not even in anyone's imagination except the extreme rightwing.   i wonder if overeaters have the same paranoia, that the government will one day come and confiscate their hershey's kisses.  seriously dude, there is some ocd involved here. i wish you recognized it.  has there even been a government that confiscated guns in any society ever, in the history of man?

best of luck to you sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28674

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

it must really suck to be you.  this is such a terrible, sheltered, paranoid, ignorant way to live.   

has there ever been a movie made about a government confiscating guns? a book written?  it's not even in anyone's imagination except the extreme rightwing.   i wonder if overeaters have the same paranoia, that the government will one day come and confiscate their hershey's kisses.  seriously dude, there is some ocd involved here. i wish you recognized it.  has there even been a government that confiscated guns in any society ever, in the history of man?

best of luck to you sir.

Right, it's not like people are calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

... has there even been a government that confiscated guns in any society ever, in the history of man?

...

Yes.

 

Quote

... Large-scale gun confiscations were aimed at subpopulations deemed to be subversive or dissident. ... Gun registration and targeted confiscations therefore played an essential role in Stalin’s genocidal activities. ...

...The Armenians had been officially prohibited from owning firearms for hundreds of years in the Ottoman Empire; what weapons they did have were confiscated in the interests of eradicating that part of the population. ...

... So, while the Nazis ultimately favored loosening gun restrictions on the German population as a whole, the disarmament of Jews and other targeted minority populations was an essential feature of Hitler’s genocidal program, which included the murder of six million Jews (and millions of others deemed unworthy to live under the Third Reich) between 1938 and the end of World War II.  ...

Ugandan dictator Idi Amin is indeed considered responsible for the massacre of at least 300,000 civilians in his own country, most of them members of Christian tribes loyal to his predecessor, Milton Obote. ... Kopel reports that the law changed again in 1970, under Amin, essentially reverting to a version of the 1955 law requiring permits and proof of fitness for gun ownership, but by that time, presumably, a large percentage of the guns in private hands had already been confiscated.

The actual estimates are that between 1.5 and 3 million Cambodians, including about a half-million members of ethnic minority groups, were slaughtered by the communist Khmer Rouge between 1975 and 1979. ...According to the Small Arms Survey of the Graduate Institute of International Studies, the Khmer Rouge went about disarming the Cambodian public — and arming itself — via a program of gun confiscation:

..

From that bastion of conservative spin:  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-gun-history/

Bonus:

Quote

... Tens of millions of people became victims of genocide in the twentieth century because they were members of groups targeted for eradication for reasons of ethnicity, religion, or ideology by ruthless military dictatorships. More often than not, these massacres were preceded by (or concurrent with) concerted efforts to disarm the targeted populations, a task obviously made easier by the existence of gun registration requirements.  ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, thrillhammer said:

it must really suck to be you.  this is such a terrible, sheltered, paranoid, ignorant way to live.   

has there ever been a movie made about a government confiscating guns? a book written?  it's not even in anyone's imagination except the extreme rightwing.   i wonder if overeaters have the same paranoia, that the government will one day come and confiscate their hershey's kisses.  seriously dude, there is some ocd involved here. i wish you recognized it.  has there even been a government that confiscated guns in any society ever, in the history of man?

best of luck to you sir.

You fuckin serious?  A ban of weapons is tantamount to confiscation, as is a buy-back program.  My point is, if gun lovers don't get serious about what seems to be coming and stop wholesale denying that guns present any problems or nibbling at the periphery, then that's where we're going to be.

You are aware that a retired Supreme Court justice recently advocated the repeal of the Second Amendment?

And, in case you can't seem to read, regardless of the phraseology, semantics, etc. that I or anyone else employs, I am advocating for gun nuts to get serious about some form of compromise on the issue:  tiered ownership, magazine restrictions, some combination thereof.  Molon Aabe is going to result in just that.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
thrillhammer

thrillhammer 683

Posted
Posted

okay, so stalin's russia and armenia.  do you really think the united states government is comparable to this?  if so they are coming for your hershey's kisses also.  watch out!

bans are not confiscations.  these are two entirely, completely, totally separate things.  we can ban future sales, and grandfather what's already owned.  that's the way all new laws/regulations work.  when they banned ivory sales they didn't bust down your door and confiscate all your ivory.  now maybe stalin would have, or armenia, but we don't do that here.  jesus.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28674

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

okay, so stalin's russia and armenia.  do you really think the united states government is comparable to this?  if so they are coming for your hershey's kisses also.  watch out!

 

Next time just don't ask a question multiple times if you don't want an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...