PDA

View Full Version : What are the chances?....


DrVino
12-09-2012, 2:57 PM
Curious if anyone with the legal qualifications can answer this one:

If You can buy a WASR, a Polish Underfolder, a Saiga (converted to AK config) in CA, what are the chances of getting the "named" ban reversed?

I'm thinking of the Polytech/Norinco AKS formats.



res ipsa loquitur:

Moonshine
12-09-2012, 3:06 PM
The only way to get a polytechnic or Norinco is to have the receiver cut and therefore destroyed prior to importing into the state. Then you would either do an 80% build or use NODAK spit to reassemble the kit. It would certainly make a nice AK build.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 3:19 PM
Thanks.

I am asking a more 'academic' question, rather than one related to the possession or acquisition of a particular firearm.

To wit: other than the markings on the receiver, a Polytech (or any other banned-by-name rifle) does not differ from the plethora of AK variants legally available in retail in CA. So, then, why should they remain outlawed? They do not make for a large portion of what's out there, but milled or stamped, they are still better shooters than the alternatives and there is no doubt a market for them.

I am curious if its feasible to seek to remove these brand names from the list.

m03
12-09-2012, 3:20 PM
I am curious if its feasible to seek to remove these brand names from the list.

There are bigger fish to fry.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 3:22 PM
I hate to sound hyperfixated on what may seem like beating a dead horse, but what legal angle could be used to remove some names off the list?

And to continue with your metaphor (with no sarcastic intent): what big fish ARE being fried in CA right now?

roushstage2
12-09-2012, 3:29 PM
The 10-day wait, IIRC, for one.

IVC
12-09-2012, 3:35 PM
I hate to sound hyperfixated on what may seem like beating a dead horse, but what legal angle could be used to remove some names off the list?

The list must be stricken down completely on the grounds that the national AWB didn't achieve any results, hence it is just an arbitrary list.

The order of things is first to get "carry" right recognized at the national level, then go after LTC issuing in states like CA, then remove handgun roster which is a lower hanging fruit since it's only about transfer, not legality of the handguns, then attack parts of the waiting period and rationing of handguns, etc.

AWB is on the radar, but it requires a lot more legal framework be established through the precedent setting court rulings.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 3:45 PM
The 10-day wait, IIRC, for one.

Really?

Having responsible citizens follow a reasonable process for eligibility verification is a bigger fish than rescinding a stupid and unreasonable list that limits WHAT they can buy?

I'm not being sarcastic or looking for a fight. Can you please explain the logic of that?

It seems the latter is a broader impingement on our gun liberties.

I would think that keeping the Seung-Hui Chos, Jared Loughners and James Holmes away from guns is more beneficial to keeping our rights to own, long-term.

Frankly, it seems that there are only two scenarios where someone *must* have a gun right away: 1) they want to shoot someone pronto, or 2) they can reliably predict natural catastophes and see one coming. In the case of the latter, I have a business proposition.
I also wonder if the time when one is stressed and anxious about a more vague threat is the best time for one to be a first-time gun buyer.

I would think buying a hunting rifle for a trip is not something you do last minute. I'd imagine that purchase to precede buying tickets and making reservations as a new rifle needs some sort of minimum checking.
I may be ignorant on this, but if one is given a permit to carry because of extenuating circumstances (imminent threat), then acquisition may be expedited as well. No?

aklover_91
12-09-2012, 3:55 PM
The stated core of the right is to have a functioning weapon in case of a violent confrontation with another individual.

Who are you to tell me, or anyone, that I should have to wait an arbitrary period of time to gain access to the tool I can use to most effectively defend myself?

We can't predict disaster, that's exactly the point. One could roll of 10 seconds from now, let alone in ten days. **** just happens, it doesn't follow a schedule.

Banning a gun based on a name or feature suite burns me just as much as anyone else, but your priorities are out of line if you're more concerned with that than with access to what we need to exercise the actual, stated core of what the courts have decided the right is all about.

Moonshine
12-09-2012, 4:01 PM
I couldn't agree more that the list is completely irrational but my understanding is the reason we got to where we are now was because the DOJ decided they'd rather have bullet buttoned and featureless "series" rifles than allow for registration (and therefore RAW status) every time someone comes up with a new roll mark.

This creates a bizzarre situation whereby a stripped Bushmaster XM-15 receiver is an assault weapon but a fully built up featureless Bushmaster CARBON-15 is not. And it gets more confusing because I also believe some companies like Bushmaster and Colt have now changed their roll marks to get off the list.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 4:11 PM
What other ways do we have to prevent mentally ill, violently-inclined individuals from wreaking havoc? It seems every time this happens (VA Tech, Arizona, Colorado) the anti-gun people cry out for firearms gun prohibition and the pro-gun people say we are not properly carrying out or enforcing preventative and screening measures.

My point of reference is that gun ownership is a right, but it comes with a responsibility - both towards one personal conduct with firearms as well as toward the broader community.

That is to say: sane, law-abiding people have an obligation to make sure others who are not sane or law-abiding have as little of a chance of obtaining firearms. I have no idealistic delusions that this would eliminate criminals' and mental patients' access to guns, but it would sure make it harder. Would it create a more robust black market? Probably. Could that be policed effectively? Possibly.

Ultimately, I don't know that it serves the gun-owning community any service to insist on a standard that does not filter out those individuals who, through their actions, repeatedly bring into question our right to own.

I was making smart-*** a joke about the disaster. And out side of that joke my point was reverberated in your comment: nobody can predict a disaster. But if one is going to hit tomorrow, will a new, first-time owner have time to acquire ammunition, necessary accessories and *skill* and competence to be safe and effective? Everyone has a different learning curve and everyone is different under pressure.

Re: priorities: "...a functioning weapon in case of a violent confrontation with another individual" I had no problem staying out of trouble and avoiding unstable individuals during all of my waiting periods.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 4:15 PM
I couldn't agree more that the list is completely irrational but my understanding is the reason we got to where we are now was because the DOJ decided they'd rather have bullet buttoned and featureless "series" rifles than allow for registration (and therefore RAW status) every time someone comes up with a new roll mark.

This creates a bizzarre situation whereby a stripped Bushmaster XM-15 receiver is an assault weapon but a fully built up featureless Bushmaster CARBON-15 is not. And it gets more confusing because I also believe some companies like Bushmaster and Colt have now changed their roll marks to get off the list.

It sounds like it would rock the boat and have more negative consequences for owners to pursue getting rid of the list.

aklover_91
12-09-2012, 4:23 PM
What other ways do we have to prevent mentally ill, violently-inclined individuals from wreaking havoc? It seems every time this happens (VA Tech, Arizona, Colorado) the anti-gun people cry out for firearms gun prohibition and the pro-gun people say we are not properly carrying out or enforcing preventative and screening measures.

My point of reference is that gun ownership is a right, but it comes with a responsibility - both towards one personal conduct with firearms as well as toward the broader community.

That is to say: sane, law-abiding people have an obligation to make sure others who are not sane or law-abiding have as little of a chance of obtaining firearms. I have no idealistic delusions that this would eliminate criminals' and mental patients' access to guns, but it would sure make it harder. Would it create a more robust black market? Probably. Could that be policed effectively? Possibly.

Ultimately, I don't know that it serves the gun-owning community any service to insist on a standard that does not filter out those individuals who, through their actions, repeatedly bring into question our right to own.

I was making smart-*** a joke about the disaster. And out side of that joke my point was reverberated in your comment: nobody can predict a disaster. But if one is going to hit tomorrow, will a new, first-time owner have time to acquire ammunition, necessary accessories and *skill* and competence to be safe and effective? Everyone has a different learning curve and everyone is different under pressure.

Re: priorities: "...a functioning weapon in case of a violent confrontation with another individual" I had no problem staying out of trouble and avoiding unstable individuals during all of my waiting periods.

You mean premeditated acts of violence committed by people without disqualifying color on their records?

Boy howdy, I can see how waiting a whole ten days would prevent those people from doing bad things :rolleyes:

So you haven't ever had any trouble. Big whoopdy do. Can you tell me when I'll have trouble? I'd certainly like to know when I need to consider my safety and when I don't.

Hell, I might as well not have fire sprinklers or an extinguisher in my kitchen. After all, my house has never burnt down and I have no reason to suspect it will in the future.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 5:30 PM
Boy, you like things literal.

The whole point of the 10 days is to allow for an application by a person with disqualifying marks (convictions, psych history) to be flagged and then declined. The end goal is deny access to such people.

And you may have a point that if it's not a 1911, it'll be a hatchet form Home Depot. But you can do a lot more damage in less time with a 1911 than a hatchet... (and I don't just mean killing and wounding people)

I appreciate preparedness. I got my guns for sportsmanship, nostalgia (Soviet block born and raised) and because I realize that if a big quake hits, Feinstein and Obama will fly in for a quick walk-around, grip-n-grin, make sad eyes and say "help is on the way" and then fly back to D.C. where they will sit cozy in their respective residences while you and I and our families are here without water, sewage or electricity for a month (and if the big one hits during a heat wave, we're really screwed).

But you and I don't have anything to lose by a reasonable waiting period. By virtue of being on a gun forum we more than likely have at least one firearm already. You and I lose nothing by agreeing to wait for that WASR with picatinny rail, scope, green laser and 1-point tactical sling ('cause, you know, those are authentic... ;) ).

People who appreciate the uncertainty of natural disasters are taking (and have taken) proactive measures to be prepared.

By the way, did you build your house or buy it already built?

m03
12-09-2012, 5:43 PM
Boy, you like things literal.

The whole point of the 10 days is to allow for an application by a person with disqualifying marks (convictions, psych history) to be flagged and then declined. The end goal is deny access to such people.

Yeah, and we already have a near-instant check at the FEDERAL level for that. The 10 day wait is superfluous and unnecessary, especially for people who already own firearms. The 30 day wait between pistol purchases is even more ridiculous.

As for the examples you posted, you need to do your research. A 10 day wait would have had no effect, as weapons in every case were purchased months in advance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Preparation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#Preparation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes#Events_leading_to_the_shooting

aklover_91
12-09-2012, 5:46 PM
The thing is, as much as sportsmanship make up 'guns as a hobby', the have nothing to do with 'weapons as a right'.

In point of fact, the 10 day wait is not a period to review the application to posess a firearm (thought it was originally billed as one).

Currently, it's a 'cooling off period'. The federal NICS check is complete in minutes and the California check, as it's been explained to me, is conducted on the 10th day and takes as much time.

It's a burdensome, onerous, and arbitrary restriction that prevents people from exercising their right in absence of a discernible reason.

That is a much bigger issue, currently, than what is written on the side of your gun.

And you're right, I lose nothing by waiting (other than my time, and possible doubled travel expenses), I have somewhere around a dozen guns.

But me having mine doesn't mean someone else has his, and he has every right to, well, exercise his right if he should feel the need to.

Putting up pointless hurdles for a false sense of safety made redundant by systems already in place is pretty clearly a burden on that.

ewarmour
12-09-2012, 5:48 PM
The list must be stricken down completely on the grounds that the national AWB didn't achieve any results, hence it is just an arbitrary list.

Logic has no place in discussing firearms laws in California.

10 day wait?
What good is a 10 day "cool off" period when I have 10 firearms at home in the safe?

Moonshine
12-09-2012, 5:58 PM
I've never had an issue with waiting 10 days to pick up a gun I bought. Most crimes of passion happen in the heat of the moment and I thought that was supposed to be the logic behind the 10 day wait. However with a valid LEO credential, CCW, or other license (example C&R FFL) I think the waiting period should be waived.

12voltguy
12-09-2012, 6:04 PM
Logic has no place in discussing firearms laws in California.

10 day wait?
What good is a 10 day "cool off" period when I have 10 firearms at home in the safe?

I've never had an issue with waiting 10 days to pick up a gun I bought. Most crimes of passion happen in the heat of the moment and I thought that was supposed to be the logic behind the 10 day wait. However with a valid LEO credential, CCW, or other license (example C&R FFL) I think the waiting period should be waived.
you thought wrong

DrVino
12-09-2012, 6:07 PM
To your last two posts:

I think the 10 day should involve a more thorough or better functioning verification and cross-checking period and not a cooling off period. Yes, that would involve some sort of centralized system. As unAmerican as that sounds, I do believe we already have a system of COEs to keep certain people out of certain circumstances, situations, settings and jobs.

"Cooling off" makes sense for sane people.

Take it from this doctor: none of those three guys went from sane to homicidal in a blink of an eye. Some of them were dealing with their illnesses *Y E A R S*. Most of them had symptoms of a severe psychiatric disorder for closely to a year. All of them came into contact with administrators or other people of authority as well as mental health professionals who noted and documented their state.

They should have been barred from buying guns and ammo by some sort of warning system. Ironically, the reason why they were not is rooted in the same philosophy if not legal tenet, that allowed them to refuse medication.

Let's be clear: am not discussing an issue related to any firearm I own.

I am very much perplexed by the juxtaposition of a "right is to have a functioning weapon in case of a violent confrontation with another individual" (which I understand and support) in the absence of ensuing, as a group, that those that should not have that right do not in fact come into possession of any firearm.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 6:08 PM
I've never had an issue with waiting 10 days to pick up a gun I bought. Most crimes of passion happen in the heat of the moment and I thought that was supposed to be the logic behind the 10 day wait. However with a valid LEO credential, CCW, or other license (example C&R FFL) I think the waiting period should be waived.

What about ordinary non-LEO people?
How about an equivalent of a COE that one renews periodically by demonstrating a clean criminal record, responsible ownership track record and mental stability?

DrVino
12-09-2012, 6:10 PM
10 day wait?
What good is a 10 day "cool off" period when I have 10 firearms at home in the safe?

touche'

aklover_91
12-09-2012, 6:19 PM
To your last two posts:

I think the 10 day should involve a more thorough or better functioning verification and cross-checking period and not a cooling off period. Yes, that would involve some sort of centralized system. As unAmerican as that sounds, I do believe we already have a system of COEs to keep certain people out of certain circumstances, situations, settings and jobs.

"Cooling off" makes sense for sane people.

Take it from this doctor: none of those three guys went from sane to homicidal in a blink of an eye. Some of them were dealing with their illnesses *Y E A R S*. Most of them had symptoms of a severe psychiatric disorder for closely to a year. All of them came into contact with administrators or other people of authority as well as mental health professionals who noted and documented their state.

They should have been barred from buying guns and ammo by some sort of warning system. Ironically, the reason why they were not is rooted in the same philosophy if not legal tenet, that allowed them to refuse medication.

Let's be clear: am not discussing an issue related to any firearm I own.

I am very much perplexed by the juxtaposition of a "right is to have a functioning weapon in case of a violent confrontation with another individual" (which I understand and support) in the absence of ensuing, as a group, that those that should not have that right do not in fact come into possession of any firearm.

It's worth noting that this wasn't a failure of the systems in place, it was a failure of evidence existing or a failure of people actually entering their data into the system.

The COE is really nothing more than the same background check normally performed, but with a larger fee attached.

The flaw with this reasoning is it presupposes evidence for a denial exists, which is generally not the case.

I'm not sure how you think it works, but every time you buy a gun at a dealer you're having a full federqal background check conducted.

As for the 'cooling off' logic, it doesn't hold up against someone who already has guns as was previously stated. It's also worth noting that if someone drives to a gun store, fills out his paperwork, buys a gun, loads the gun, then immediately goes and shoots someone, that wasn't a crime of passion.

There are enough steps there that it's pretty clearly a premeditated homicide. If someone was upset enough to take an hour out of their day to get a gun and then use it when they didn't have it, I have a hard time buying they weren't mad enough to wait a few days.

I'd also seriously ask why myself and everyone else are being punished for the theoretical actions of an infinitesimally small percentage of the population.

Unless you have an isolation tank full of precogs somewhere that doesn't produce a minority report, I'm not sure what a 10 day wait can accomplish.

That being the case, it's impossible to exercise your right to keep and bear arms during the 10 days Johnny Law says you can't.

Meplat
12-09-2012, 6:53 PM
Thanks.

I am asking a more 'academic' question, rather than one related to the possession or acquisition of a particular firearm.

To wit: other than the markings on the receiver, a Polytech (or any other banned-by-name rifle) does not differ from the plethora of AK variants legally available in retail in CA. So, then, why should they remain outlawed? They do not make for a large portion of what's out there, but milled or stamped, they are still better shooters than the alternatives and there is no doubt a market for them.

I am curious if its feasible to seek to remove these brand names from the list.

You, Sir, have run afoul of the first rule of CA law: ďAbandon all logic.Ē :rolleyes:

Meplat
12-09-2012, 7:03 PM
Really?

Having responsible citizens follow a reasonable process for eligibility verification is a bigger fish than rescinding a stupid and unreasonable list that limits WHAT they can buy?

I'm not being sarcastic or looking for a fight. Can you please explain the logic of that?

It seems the latter is a broader impingement on our gun liberties.

I would think that keeping the Seung-Hui Chos, Jared Loughners and James Holmes away from guns is more beneficial to keeping our rights to own, long-term.

Frankly, it seems that there are only two scenarios where someone *must* have a gun right away: 1) they want to shoot someone pronto, or 2) they can reliably predict natural catastophes and see one coming. In the case of the latter, I have a business proposition.
I also wonder if the time when one is stressed and anxious about a more vague threat is the best time for one to be a first-time gun buyer.

I would think buying a hunting rifle for a trip is not something you do last minute. I'd imagine that purchase to precede buying tickets and making reservations as a new rifle needs some sort of minimum checking.
I may be ignorant on this, but if one is given a permit to carry because of extenuating circumstances (imminent threat), then acquisition may be expedited as well. No?

Your right you are ignorant on this.:rolleyes:

Bhobbs
12-09-2012, 7:07 PM
I've never had an issue with waiting 10 days to pick up a gun I bought. Most crimes of passion happen in the heat of the moment and I thought that was supposed to be the logic behind the 10 day wait. However with a valid LEO credential, CCW, or other license (example C&R FFL) I think the waiting period should be waived.

That only works for someone's first gun. After that, the 10 day wait is pointless.

Why should LEOs be exempt from the 10 day wait when I'm not?

tcrpe
12-09-2012, 7:14 PM
"Why should LEOs be exempt from the 10 day wait when I'm not?"

Because of their union campaign donations?

m03
12-09-2012, 7:22 PM
"Cooling off" makes sense for sane people.


And I'll start believing this line as soon as it's proven with statistical evidence. The fact is, if the waiting period is all that's standing between a murderer and their victim, there are millions of other ways to accomplish their task. The homicide statistics seem to indicate that the waiting period does not prevent murders to any measurable degree.

penguinofsleep
12-09-2012, 7:26 PM
as much as i dislike the 10 day wait as well, id much rather be able to buy WHAT i want vs having something right away. however, im guessing there are legal issues and precedents or other issues that i may not be aware of dictating that the 10 day wait be removed before the ban list or "safe" list.

no, i dont think the whole 10 day wait thing "fights" crime, nor does a "safe" list make people any safer, but buying what i want for many years (or possibly the rest of my life) seems more important to me than being able to get something that may not be exactly what i need or want "right this second". i agree that it doesn't make much sense to keep someone who already owns firearms *responsibly and safely* to buy more when ever they want. i can also see maybe someone feels worried or threatened and would like a means for defense asap. but i find it more ridiculous that someone may not be able to get the right tools for the job if their situation dictates it. in principle, there are other ways (albeit probably not as effective) to protect yourself from and dodge trouble if you don't already possess a firearm. however, in principle, SSE aside, there isn't really another way around the purchase of a desired item being banned.

Meplat nails a very important point about CA and every other thing here though:
"Abandon all logic."

hoffmang
12-09-2012, 7:32 PM
The original Roberti-Roos list is susceptible to a challenge, but from a purely functional perspective the by features/SB-23 bans are more of a priority.

We'll get them eventually, but they aren't first.

-Gene

Meplat
12-09-2012, 7:32 PM
Boy, you like things literal.

The whole point of the 10 days is to allow for an application by a person with disqualifying marks (convictions, psych history) to be flagged and then declined. The end goal is deny access to such people.

And you may have a point that if it's not a 1911, it'll be a hatchet form Home Depot. But you can do a lot more damage in less time with a 1911 than a hatchet... (and I don't just mean killing and wounding people)

I appreciate preparedness. I got my guns for sportsmanship, nostalgia (Soviet block born and raised) and because I realize that if a big quake hits, Feinstein and Obama will fly in for a quick walk-around, grip-n-grin, make sad eyes and say "help is on the way" and then fly back to D.C. where they will sit cozy in their respective residences while you and I and our families are here without water, sewage or electricity for a month (and if the big one hits during a heat wave, we're really screwed).

But you and I don't have anything to lose by a reasonable waiting period. By virtue of being on a gun forum we more than likely have at least one firearm already. You and I lose nothing by agreeing to wait for that WASR with picatinny rail, scope, green laser and 1-point tactical sling ('cause, you know, those are authentic... ;) ).

People who appreciate the uncertainty of natural disasters are taking (and have taken) proactive measures to be prepared.

By the way, did you build your house or buy it already built?

Please, Please, Please, Educate yourself before trying to school your betters! We have what is called in instant national background check. The same check is performed on every purchaser in the nation and it takes seconds, minutes at most. The CA 10 day wait provides no better background check than any other states. The real purpose of the 10 days is to put a burden on both buyer and seller, and to stifle commerce. Ask any marketing expert what it would do to sales of everything from shoes to coffee pots if the customer had to come back in ten days to get them.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 7:45 PM
Your right you are ignorant on this.:rolleyes:

Thanks for the condescension.
But if that's the game, then it's spelled "you're". "Your" is possessive....
:)

12voltguy
12-09-2012, 7:49 PM
Thanks for the condescension.
But if that's the game, then it's spelled "you're". "Your" is possessive....
:)

But, ya'll understood didn't ya?:D

Meplat
12-09-2012, 7:52 PM
Logic has no place in discussing firearms laws in California.

10 day wait?
What good is a 10 day "cool off" period when I have 10 firearms at home in the safe?

Exactly. And at least some of them were probably inherited or acquired before reporting requirements. If one has a pistol that last had a paper trail when bought from a hardware store in Fargo ND in 1938, which store went out of business in 1952, and one goes down and uses a pistol he just bought and DROSed at a local gun shop where everybody knows his face to commit a crime; he is not smart enough to pull it off, 10 days or no10 days.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 7:52 PM
Please, Please, Please, Educate yourself before trying to school your betters! We have what is called in instant national background check. The same check is performed on every purchaser in the nation and it takes seconds, minutes at most. The CA 10 day wait provides no better background check than any other states. The real purpose of the 10 days is to put a burden on both buyer and seller, and to stifle commerce. Ask any marketing expert what it would do to sales of everything from shoes to coffee pots if the customer had to come back in ten days to get them.

Not trying to school anyone, but it seems to be common operating assumption that the purpose of the 10 is to allow for filtering out specific individuals. And what's wrong with it being properly utilized for that very purpose? Whether instant or 10 day, it's not worked in very high-profile cases.

One can take that point and use it as an argument for more draconian measures (total gun prohibition), or for enforcing the "filtering" process.
Or, one can focus on solving a problem that causes rehashing of an issue that gets us all (on all sides) fired up.

As I said, it's not working as a filter at is sure is not working to "stifle commerce". I've been to a few gun and sporting goods stores (several times each) in the last month and the lines are out the door.
Clearly, people do not mind the 10day...

As the above illustrates "marketing expert" are not expert at anything....

DrVino
12-09-2012, 7:56 PM
And I'll start believing this line as soon as it's proven with statistical evidence. The fact is, if the waiting period is all that's standing between a murderer and their victim, there are millions of other ways to accomplish their task. The homicide statistics seem to indicate that the waiting period does not prevent murders to any measurable degree.

And I said it is only of use if the person in question is mentaly stable.

Take is as a professional medical opinion from someone who deals with this kind of population: if someone can stay so mad for 10 [business] days as to kill someone, they ain't right in the head.....

DrVino
12-09-2012, 8:01 PM
a....buying what i want for many years (or possibly the rest of my life) seems more important to me than being able to get something that may not be exactly what i need or want "right this second"


precisely


.......i can also see maybe someone feels worried or threatened and would like a means for defense asap.....

is there anyone here with the legal background to say if there are situations of grave and imminent danger where 10-day periods are waived? say by a judge?

DrVino
12-09-2012, 8:03 PM
But, ya'll understood didn't ya?:D

Kindasorta....

But I figure one ought to apply the same level of scrutinous pedanticism to oneself as one does to others....

Meplat
12-09-2012, 8:05 PM
Thanks for the condescension.
But if that's the game, then it's spelled "you're". "Your" is possessive....
:)


You are welcome. Now slink back to the Brady camp.

I donít know anything about spelling, but at least I donít try to school others in it.

I wish you had the same good sense about waiting periods.

VegasND
12-09-2012, 8:10 PM
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke


Plenty of members here who are willing to acquiesce to infringements, some are happy to defend them.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 8:10 PM
You are welcome. Now slink back to the Brady camp.

I don’t know anything about spelling, but at least I don’t try to school others in it.

I wish you had the same good sense about waiting periods.



Aawwww.............. gawrgsh..... Them Brady girls ARE cute with theirn hair 'o gold....

Meplat
12-09-2012, 8:11 PM
Not trying to school anyone, but it seems to be common operating assumption that the purpose of the 10 is to allow for filtering out specific individuals. And what's wrong with it being properly utilized for that very purpose? Whether instant or 10 day, it's not worked in very high-profile cases.

One can take that point and use it as an argument for more draconian measures (total gun prohibition), or for enforcing the "filtering" process.
Or, one can focus on solving a problem that causes rehashing of an issue that gets us all (on all sides) fired up.

As I said, it's not working as a filter at is sure is not working to "stifle commerce". I've been to a few gun and sporting goods stores (several times each) in the last month and the lines are out the door.
Clearly, people do not mind the 10day...

As the above illustrates "marketing expert" are not expert at anything....

Oh, they mind it, they are just exceptionally motivated.

Meplat
12-09-2012, 8:14 PM
Aawwww.............. gawrgsh..... Them Brady girls ARE cute with theirn hair 'o gold....

OK, Iíll quit.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 8:15 PM
OK, Iíll quit.

Oh, come on... It was just starting to get fun....

aklover_91
12-09-2012, 8:17 PM
Not trying to school anyone, but it seems to be common operating assumption that the purpose of the 10 is to allow for filtering out specific individuals. And what's wrong with it being properly utilized for that very purpose? Whether instant or 10 day, it's not worked in very high-profile cases.

If we suppose access to weapons is a right, a filtering process failing to accomplish anything is actually a damn good argument to not have one in the first place, not a prohibition of weapons.


One can take that point and use it as an argument for more draconian measures (total gun prohibition), or for enforcing the "filtering" process.
Or, one can focus on solving a problem that causes rehashing of an issue that gets us all (on all sides) fired up.


The filtering process is already enforced, which is a point you seem to be missing. A mandatory abridgement of a right should take precedence over access to weapons functionally identical to ones you can already get.


As I said, it's not working as a filter at is sure is not working to "stifle commerce". I've been to a few gun and sporting goods stores (several times each) in the last month and the lines are out the door.
Clearly, people do not mind the 10day...

I've passed on a lot of deals myself because the scheduling issues and cost of going out of my way to come back and pick a gun up weren't something I could eat, and I guarantee you I'm not the only one in this thread.

As the above illustrates "marketing expert" are not expert at anything....

As to your medical opinion, unless you're advocating a decade long psychiatric evaluation to determine who is 'stab;e' enough to have a weapon, I'm not sure how it's relevant.

If that is what you're advocating, you'll find few kindred spirits here.

Meplat
12-09-2012, 8:20 PM
precisely




is there anyone here with the legal background to say if there are situations of grave and imminent danger where 10-day periods are waived? say by a judge?

They are not. Usually when one goes to the authorities after a credible threat, they are told: "Come back when he actually does something."

DrVino
12-09-2012, 8:21 PM
Plenty of members here who are willing to acquiesce to infringements, some are happy to defend them.

That is an interesting idea, VegasND.
I presume you are referring to my idea of better screening measures.
I think that by being intransigent, obstinate and unyielding on issues like better screening we paint ourselves into a corner AND make ourselves look irrational.
That tends to cost big in the long run.
I see it as "getting in front of the issue". Responsible gun owners defending responsible gun ownership by ensuring that people who have no business possessing firearms are denied access.
Call it a long-term outlook or self-policing.
My concern is that by not finding and not helping develop more effective measures of "filtering out" risk individuals we are shooting ourselves in the foot (pardon the pun).

aklover_91
12-09-2012, 8:24 PM
Then how do you suppose to improve the filtering method, without straying into territory that would be a huge infringement of an individuals rights?

Or to effectively enforce it, for that matter.

Every gun bought at initial sale in the entire country is already subject to a federal background check. It's already illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a disqualified person.

Tell us how the process can be improved without violating my right to a weapon, or violating my other civil rights.

If your real issue here is one of thinking we're putting the cart before the horse, you're dead wrong. Legally speaking, we are on much firmer ground trying to remove the 10 day wait than going after the AWB. If you don't know how, I'd suggest actually putting the time in to research the subject.

VegasND
12-09-2012, 8:30 PM
Infringements are written into laws that don't respect Rights. Those remain in force until a case is brought and a court agrees that the law infringes. Many existing laws contain infringements and many -- apparently you included -- are willing to accept them because they think some other people need to have their Rights limited. Of course, it's easy to accept because you accept so many improperly imposed infringements every day.

How about, in the 'long run', we reimpose the Constitution and it's limits upon governments.
That is an interesting idea, VegasND.
I presume you are referring to my idea of better screening measures.
I think that by being intransigent, obstinate and unyielding on issues like better screening we paint ourselves into a corner AND make ourselves look irrational.
That tends to cost big in the long run.
I see it as "getting in front of the issue". Responsible gun owners defending responsible gun ownership by ensuring that people who have no business possessing firearms are denied access.
Call it a long-term outlook or self-policing.
My concern is that by not finding and not helping develop more effective measures of "filtering out" risk individuals we are shooting ourselves in the foot (pardon the pun).

12voltguy
12-09-2012, 8:33 PM
living in the USA a free nation, it not ever 100% safe
that is the risk, don't like it move, please don't change my country into something without freedom
I think most understand what I am saying

DrVino
12-09-2012, 8:35 PM
If we suppose access to weapons is a right, a filtering process failing to accomplish anything is actually a damn good argument to not have one in the first place, not a prohibition of weapons.

OK, so acutely psychotic patients have a right to not take their meds (self determination) AND to buy guns and stockpile ammo?

I think it's failed because there is nothing in place that would force a mental health professional to add a patient to a no-sell list if they met some basic clinical criteria. We don't blink at physicians notifying DMV to pull driving privileges of seizure patients who have break-through seizures even when they take their meds. Why not do something similar with people meeting diagnostic criteria for some psych disorders?

The filtering process is already enforced, which is a point you seem to be missing.

How is it enforced, if every few years we get someone going on a spree and in the weeks afterwards we learn how they had set off so many people's red lights but nothing was done to ensure that A mandatory abridgement of a right should take precedence over access to weapons functionally identical to ones you can already get.


I've passed on a lot of deals myself because the scheduling issues and cost of going out of my way to come back and pick a gun up weren't something I could eat,

I see shipping to FFL of $35 all the time... add $25 DROS and $75 FFL transfer fee = $135. Is that too steep of an ancillary acquisition cost on a firearm that probably was going for $1K-$2K or more?

As to your medical opinion, unless you're advocating a decade long psychiatric evaluation to determine who is 'stab;e' enough to have a weapon, I'm not sure how it's relevant.

See my comments above, particularly about driving privileges. There are some very basic and easily ascertained elements of patient history and clinical signs that could be set as "triggers" which would obligate the physician to refer a patient for specialty evaluation.


As to kindred spirits, well I am not so much looking for friendship and approval as I am looking for an understanding how people feel about certain ideas.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 8:42 PM
Then how do you suppose to improve the filtering method, without straying into territory that would be a huge infringement of an individuals rights?

Or to effectively enforce it, for that matter.

Every gun bought at initial sale in the entire country is already subject to a federal background check. It's already illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a disqualified person.

Tell us how the process can be improved without violating my right to a weapon, or violating my other civil rights.

If your real issue here is one of thinking we're putting the cart before the horse, you're dead wrong. Legally speaking, we are on much firmer ground trying to remove the 10 day wait than going after the AWB. If you don't know how, I'd suggest actually putting the time in to research the subject.


Just made some comments about screening. See above. This is a vigorous discussion and I'm trying to keep up as best as I can.

What I think may be a hinging point here is whether a mentally ill person has the same *kinds* or *set* of civil rights as someone without a mental illness (and by "mental illness" I don't mean OCD, or agoraphobia but rather paranoid schizophrenia, some subtypes of bipolar disorder, for example). I would argue that maintaining their 2nd Amendment rights is NOT that person's biggest problem.

On the flip side, I would also argue that that hypothetical person's free access to firearms IS *OUR* problem.

aklover_91
12-09-2012, 8:43 PM
OK, so acutely psychotic patients have a right to not take their meds (self determination) AND to buy guns and stockpile ammo?

I think it's failed because there is nothing in place that would force a mental health professional to add a patient to a no-sell list if they met some basic clinical criteria. We don't blink at physicians notifying DMV to pull driving privileges of seizure patients who have break-through seizures even when they take their meds. Why not do something similar with people meeting diagnostic criteria for some psych disorders?

If you've been determined to be a threat to others, you are already disqualified.


How is it enforced, if every few years we get someone going on a spree and in the weeks afterwards we learn how they had set off so many people's red lights but nothing was done to ensure that A mandatory abridgement of a right should take precedence over access to weapons functionally identical to ones you can already get.

Because this is real life and nothing works perfectly.




I see shipping to FFL of $35 all the time... add $25 DROS and $75 FFL transfer fee = $135. Is that too steep of an ancillary acquisition cost on a firearm that probably was going for $1K-$2K or more?

Considering I have ~$850 in my most expensive firearm, that's a good chunk of change to me. I have no doubt I'm not the only one.


See my comments above, particularly about driving privileges. There are some very basic and easily ascertained elements of patient history and clinical signs that could be set as "triggers" which would obligate the physician to refer a patient for specialty evaluation.


Driving is a privilege, guns aren't. If you continue to treat them otherwise, you'll make nothing but enemies here.


As to kindred spirits, well I am not so much looking for friendship and approval as I am looking for an understanding how people feel about certain ideas.

Most of the people here and those who are running the fight disagree with you, if you hadn't already ascertained that.

hoffmang
12-09-2012, 8:53 PM
Initial waiting periods may be constitutional or they may not be. However, subsequent waiting periods clearly are unconstitutional and the reason in California is due to registration of firearms. Either you are prohibited or you are not. If you become prohibited while firearms are registered to you then the state has at least the moral obligation to come and take your firearms away.

It's very easy to maintain that database.

Also, for those claiming that mental health is some special exception, I would suggest you read up on how "danger to self or others" works in California via WIC 5150 and 5250. California's mental health determinations work very differently than other states and I would argue do a better job of incenting various folks to make sure that those who need help get it and that that help, when they're dangerous, leads to temporary disarmament.

-Gene

DrVino
12-09-2012, 8:57 PM
If you've been determined to be a threat to others, you are already disqualified.
Clarify/elaborate. I'm not following...


Because this is real life and nothing works perfectly.
?!?!?!
The problem lies in the fact that there is no defined protocol for reporting high-risk mental patients (who often live in the community on their own recognizance) to a "no-sell" kind of list. Those that have had run ins with the law previously as a result of their illness have a record. It's those that have not yet had problems that fall through the cracks.

So what will we set as acceptable as "collateral damage".
Gun prohibitionists say: "how many more Virginia Tech will it take before *something* is done?". Usually, that *something* is not anything any of us would like to see happen.

So, shouldn't we - as responsible gun owners - do something to diminish the rate of these kinds of events (which not only fuel the fire of gun prohibitionists, but lend credence to their arguments in the public's eyes).

Considering I have ~$850 in my most expensive firearm, that's a good chunk of change to me. I have no doubt I'm not the only one. I get your point. How much ammo do you have at home and how much did that cost?


Driving is a privilege, guns aren't. If you continue to treat them otherwise, you'll make nothing but enemies here.

It holds the same status in this country. And is far more necessary to Activities of Daily Living. The right/privilege is revoked for public safety.

It's not how I treat them.

It's how SHE sees them.




DrVino
12-09-2012, 9:02 PM
Also, for those claiming that mental health is some special exception, I would suggest you read up on how "danger to self or others" works in California via WIC 5150 and 5250. California's mental health determinations work very differently than other states and I would argue do a better job of incenting various folks to make sure that those who need help get it and that that help, when they're dangerous, leads to temporary disarmament.

-Gene
You have a point re: 5150, 5250 but there has to be some critical mass reached in the person's behavior for them to be held.

Would you speculate that if AZ, VI and CO had similar mental health determinations (?) as CA, those respective shooters would not have been successful?

m03
12-09-2012, 9:07 PM
And I said it is only of use if the person in question is mentaly stable.

I'm sure plenty of people who were otherwise stable have been convicted of stabbing bludgeoning their SO to death. If you're mad enough to kill without care for the consequences, chances are you wont even take the time to seek out the best weapon possible...you'll just get whatever takes the least time necessary to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Take is as a professional medical opinion from someone who deals with this kind of population: if someone can stay so mad for 10 [business] days as to kill someone, they ain't right in the head.....

Cool story bro.

aklover_91
12-09-2012, 9:12 PM
Clarify/elaborate. I'm not following...


?!?!?!
The problem lies in the fact that there is no defined protocol for reporting high-risk mental patients (who often live in the community on their own recognizance) to a "no-sell" kind of list. Those that have had run ins with the law previously as a result of their illness have a record. It's those that have not yet had problems that fall through the cracks.

GCA of 1968. Anyone who has been committed or judged to be mentally defective is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html

So what will we set as acceptable as "collateral damage".
Gun prohibitionists say: "how many more Virginia Tech will it take before *something* is done?". Usually, that *something* is not anything any of us would like to see happen.

So, shouldn't we - as responsible gun owners - do something to diminish the rate of these kinds of events (which not only fuel the fire of gun prohibitionists, but lend credence to their arguments in the public's eyes).

See above.


I get your point. How much ammo do you have at home and how much did that cost?


Currently, about five hundred rounds. I buy a case of the caliber I expect to shoot most two or three times a year because it's the only way I can afford to shoot a couple boxes every month.


It holds the same status in this country. And is far more necessary to Activities of Daily Living. The right/privilege is revoked for public safety.

Factually, this is wrong on it's face. You'd do well to read the Heller and McDonald verdicts.

You have a point re: 5150, 5250 but there has to be some critical mass reached in the person's behavior for them to be held.

Would you speculate that if AZ, VI and CO had similar mental health determinations (?) as CA, those respective shooters would not have been successful?

So you're for restricting a right before there is evidence to prove that it's necessary? Until it's been entered into the rolls that someone is absolutely a threat, they aren't. If you disagree on that point, discussing it further would be futile because we'd hold completely exclusive notions.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 9:14 PM
I'm sure plenty of people who were otherwise stable have been convicted of stabbing bludgeoning their SO to death.



No. They were not "otherwise stable". "otherwise stable" don't kill their SOs.

You can review PubMed for dysfunction of various brain regions including but not limited to temporal lobe and inferior orbitofrontal region dysfunction and anterior cingulate gyurus.

THOSE are some "cool" stories. Bro.

erik_26
12-09-2012, 9:15 PM
There are bigger fish to fry.

Funny, we keep hearing this.

Someone says, "Hey, what is the status on 10-day wait?" Answer: "There are bigger fish to fry, send more money."

Someone says, "Hey, what is the status on equal LTC issuing?" Answer: "There are bigger fish to fry, send more money."

Someone says, "Hey, when is the roster going away?" Answer: "There are bigger fish to fry, send more money."

Someone says, "Hey, when will the hi-cap magazine restrictions go away?" Answer: "There are bigger fish to fry, send more money."

Someone says, "Hey, when is the bullet button going away?" Answer: "There are bigger fish to fry, send more money."


This is all we ever hear. Maybe there will be a little chirp about how the cogs are spinning and the master plan is working. Maybe we will hear some legal jargon that none of us understand. Maybe we hear there is a case coming up or a we are dependant on a ruling.

In the end, the victories are far and few between and take several years. To be honest, most of our 'victories' are just a temporary stay of a most certain fate.

Mean while the restrictions on the docket are sprouting like weeds.

We keep hearing all this talk but don't see any of the fruit from the tree that a lot of people have generously watered with their hard earned monies.


The reality people is, if you want the answers to any of those questions, you can almost have it all if you leave California for any of our neighboring states. If you want freedoms and change, you need to leave California. That is the honest to gods truth.

You can keep sending your money and waiting it out. But in the end, by the time you actually might get to use any freedoms won back, you will be to old to enjoy them.

You can't count on the Calguns Foundation to win your rights for you. They are useful to help legally defend yourself in arms related cases, kudos there. But to win your rights back, well that lies in the hands of the voters. The majority of California voters don't want guns in this state.

Yankee Clipper
12-09-2012, 9:16 PM
Really?

Having responsible citizens follow a reasonable process for eligibility verification is a bigger fish than rescinding a stupid and unreasonable list that limits WHAT they can buy?

I'm not being sarcastic or looking for a fight. Can you please explain the logic of that?

It seems the latter is a broader impingement on our gun liberties.

I would think that keeping the Seung-Hui Chos, Jared Loughners and James Holmes away from guns is more beneficial to keeping our rights to own, long-term.

Frankly, it seems that there are only two scenarios where someone *must* have a gun right away: 1) they want to shoot someone pronto, or 2) they can reliably predict natural catastophes and see one coming. In the case of the latter, I have a business proposition.
I also wonder if the time when one is stressed and anxious about a more vague threat is the best time for one to be a first-time gun buyer.

I would think buying a hunting rifle for a trip is not something you do last minute. I'd imagine that purchase to precede buying tickets and making reservations as a new rifle needs some sort of minimum checking.
I may be ignorant on this, but if one is given a permit to carry because of extenuating circumstances (imminent threat), then acquisition may be expedited as well. No?
The waiting period is a resent phoneme. We've gone on for centuries without one and in many states they still don't have one. Proof of the pudding: in states where CCW/no waiting period is the law, crime is less.
After this state started restricting semi-auto sporting rifles like the AR-15, crime stats still went up. But when sales of AR 15s went up, crime went down. Waiting periods and restricting types of firearms only sounds good until it's put into practice: ask Great Britain & Australia what it's done for their crime statistics.

aklover_91
12-09-2012, 9:18 PM
No. They were not "otherwise stable". "otherwise stable" don't kill their SOs.

You can review PubMed for dysfunction of various brain regions including but not limited to temporal lobe and inferior orbitofrontal region dysfunction and anterior cingulate gyurus.

THOSE are some "cool" stories. Bro.

If you're for restricting people without a history of sever dysfunction, we have noting further to discuss.

Banning people for something 'they maybe might do' isn't acceptable.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 9:22 PM
GCA of 1968. Anyone who has been committed or judged to be mentally defective is prohibited from possessing a firearm.


...and were Holmes or Cho (& Loughenr) adjudicated?
These kinds of disorders take a good amount of time to develop. A lot of time can pass before patients see mental health professionals, let alone have a brush with law that would get them adjudicated.



Factually, this is wrong on it's face. You'd do well to read the Heller and McDonald verdicts.

I'd do well to have a drink....
The problem I think you are disregarding is that most voters don't know what Heller and McDonald are AND would agree that cars are infinitely more essential to daily living than firearms are. I think that is something to be dealt with.

hoffmang
12-09-2012, 9:24 PM
You have a point re: 5150, 5250 but there has to be some critical mass reached in the person's behavior for them to be held.

Would you speculate that if AZ, VI and CO had similar mental health determinations (?) as CA, those respective shooters would not have been successful?

Pre-crime or pre-crazy is not a workable system. All three would have had about an 80% chance of being 5150'ed in California, yes. That would have stopped those three but had nothing to do with the BOMBS that CO shooter made.

Timothy McVeigh used no firearms.

Even dictatorships and disarmed countries suffer mass casualty events because evil happens no matter how much liberty a society gives up.

-Gene

DrVino
12-09-2012, 9:27 PM
If you're for restricting people without a history of sever dysfunction, we have noting further to discuss.

Banning people for something 'they maybe might do' isn't acceptable.

Paranoid schizophrenics should not have their 2nd Amendment rights restricted even if they have not so much as slapped anyone *YET*?

Again, this goes back to my question whether we are willing to delineate *different* civil rights for people with some mental illnesses....

As I said previously, if you think you're the Son of Xenu, hear voices and have ideations of reference, keeping your 2nd Amendment rights intact is neither your biggest concern nor is it in the public's interest.

m03
12-09-2012, 9:28 PM
No. They were not "otherwise stable". "otherwise stable" don't kill their SOs.


"Crime of passion" aka "Temporary Insanity".

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plea+of+temporary+insanity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion

Honor killings are also relevant in some cultural settings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing


The problem I think you are disregarding is that most voters don't know what Heller and McDonald are AND would agree that cars are infinitely more essential to daily living than firearms are.

Sure, for the average person right now. 20 years from now that may not be the case. There are also a those that do not drive and seem to get by just fine (I actually know a few of them here in LA).

DrVino
12-09-2012, 9:31 PM
Even dictatorships and disarmed countries suffer mass casualty events because evil happens no matter how much liberty a society gives up.

-Gene

No intellectual beef with that.

But, how does one make a clear and easily understandable disconnection between that evil happening and gun ownership rates.

How does one make that a convincing enough argument to overcome the cited statistics linking rates of crime, murder, etc with gun ownership rates? Particularly, when a linear correlation is emphasized?

aklover_91
12-09-2012, 9:32 PM
Unless there's evidence to suggest you'll absolutely hurt someone with them, you can think you're Yahweh.

These kinds of disorders take a good amount of time to develop. A lot of time can pass before patients see mental health professionals, let alone have a brush with law that would get them adjudicated.

So what's the plan, Stan? If they take time to develop and never see a shrink, it's not going to be in the system.

Mandatory, extensive, expensive psychiatric evals then? Because there is no way you'll convince me that's alright.

The problem I think you are disregarding is that most voters

Frankly, I don't give a damn what 'the voters' think. Why do you think CGF and SAF spend so much money on litigation instead of legislation?

aklover_91
12-09-2012, 9:36 PM
No intellectual beef with that.

But, how does one make a clear and easily understandable disconnection between that evil happening and gun ownership rates.

How does one make that a convincing enough argument to overcome the cited statistics linking rates of crime, murder, etc with gun ownership rates? Particularly, when a linear correlation is emphasized?

Because no linear correlation exists.

I know it's bad form to say 'take my word for it', but digging through source material on this subject is a hobby of mine.

Never once have I seen a definitive correlation between access to firearms increasing homicide, not in 10 years of reading.

Crime is caused by a whole slew of factors, but they're cultural and economic. A gun being easy to get results in more homicides being shootings, but not in increase in homicides.

glocksmith
12-09-2012, 9:36 PM
Someone needs a girlfriend.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 9:36 PM
Unless there's evidence to suggest you'll absolutely hurt someone with them, you can think you're Yahweh.


So what's the plan, Stan? If they take time to develop and never see a shrink, it's not going to be in the system.

Mandatory, extensive, expensive psychiatric evals then? Because there is no way you'll convince me that's alright.

That's a bit Orwellian, even for CA....


Frankly, I don't give a damn what 'the voters' think. Why do you think CGF and SAF spend so much money on litigation instead of legislation?[/QUOTE]

I don't know. But somebody just made some rather poignant comments about that.....

aklover_91
12-09-2012, 9:45 PM
That's a bit Orwellian, even for CA....

So what else can you suggest that would actually accomplish anything? I'm not trying to be extreme here, but if your main worry is mental problems how else do you propose to find them before they reach 'critical mass'?

donny douchebag
12-09-2012, 9:50 PM
...I am not so much looking for friendship and approval as I am looking for an understanding how people feel about certain ideas....

Ho boy. Are you in for an education. You should just quit now while you're ahead. The bottom line is many here ain't normal.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 9:53 PM
Ho boy. Are you in for an education. You should just quit now while you're ahead. The bottom line is many here ain't normal.

LOL
That drink is looking better and better....

donny douchebag
12-09-2012, 10:07 PM
Funny, we keep hearing this.....ect...

I couldn't agree with you more. Leaving is the only way anything will change for anyone in this state. Be sure to keep sending money though. Above all else keep sending money.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 10:07 PM
So what else can you suggest that would actually accomplish anything? I'm not trying to be extreme here, but if your main worry is mental problems how else do you propose to find them before they reach 'critical mass'?

I say the following with the caveat that legal professionals are better versed on the nuances of the matter:

Get around the "adjudicated" loophole. I call it that because those that have notoriously gone berserk with guns had not been adjudicated but may have had some contact with mental health professionals.

Mental health professionals are obligated to notify law enforcement if their patient expresses desire to hurt a specific person.

I think that patients with psychotic features should be immediately put on a "no-sell" list. Some diseases are reportable to the CDC because of the public threat. A formal process with more permanent restrictions to their gun ownership should follow.

I would like to believe that a public awareness campaign might help flag some people who do not come into contact with health professionals regularly. Though the folks at NAMI might not like it. As long as it serves public safety and gets ill people help, I don't think they can oppose those measures in good faith.

Along with that, there should be avenues should be created for spiritual guides, school administrators, bosses and law enforcement encountering individuals causing a disturbance but not doing anything "arrestable" to get these people into some assessment or intervention that would expedite getting them on a "no-sell" list if warranted.

This is because the type of person I am thinking of may come to the attention of their spiritual guide, school administrators, or come into contact with law enforcement and while not doing anything "arrestable" may be clearly "off".

Of course, reasonable and reasonably achievable checks could be in place to prevent abuse of this.

It's a loose framework, but I think it would be a positive thing the pro-gun community could lead on.

Meplat
12-09-2012, 10:08 PM
It is also important to remember that more gun deaths have been committed by the ones on the other side of the background checks than on this side. More murders have been committed by government than ordinary citizens, by orders of millions. The fewer citizens have guns, the more emboldened tyrants become.

CapS
12-09-2012, 10:11 PM
That's a bit Orwellian, even for CA....


So, are you not a California resident?
More to the point, are you a gun owner?
Still closer, what do you understand the Second Amendment to mean?

I ask because you seem relatively uninformed, and I'd like to know
a little more about your beliefs. I mean neither sarcasm nor offense.

:oji:

Cap

DrVino
12-09-2012, 10:12 PM
There are also a those that do not drive and seem to get by just fine (I actually know a few of them here in LA).


Replace "drive" with "own guns".


How do you argue that down with people who believe gun ownership by civilians is as archaic of an idea as slavery?

DrVino
12-09-2012, 10:14 PM
It is also important to remember that more gun deaths have been committed by the ones on the other side of the background checks than on this side. More murders have been committed by government than ordinary citizens, by orders of millions. The fewer citizens have guns, the more emboldened tyrants become.


In this country?
(says the guy in whose homeland the govt milita was gunning down protesters in the streets in the year of his birth)

Meplat
12-09-2012, 10:15 PM
Ho boy. Are you in for an education. You should just quit now while you're ahead. The bottom line is many here ain't normal.

Thank you!

And thank heaven!

Anchors
12-09-2012, 10:16 PM
Really?

Having responsible citizens follow a reasonable process for eligibility verification is a bigger fish than rescinding a stupid and unreasonable list that limits WHAT they can buy?

I'm not being sarcastic or looking for a fight. Can you please explain the logic of that?

It seems the latter is a broader impingement on our gun liberties.

I would think that keeping the Seung-Hui Chos, Jared Loughners and James Holmes away from guns is more beneficial to keeping our rights to own, long-term.

Frankly, it seems that there are only two scenarios where someone *must* have a gun right away: 1) they want to shoot someone pronto, or 2) they can reliably predict natural catastophes and see one coming. In the case of the latter, I have a business proposition.
I also wonder if the time when one is stressed and anxious about a more vague threat is the best time for one to be a first-time gun buyer.

I would think buying a hunting rifle for a trip is not something you do last minute. I'd imagine that purchase to precede buying tickets and making reservations as a new rifle needs some sort of minimum checking.
I may be ignorant on this, but if one is given a permit to carry because of extenuating circumstances (imminent threat), then acquisition may be expedited as well. No?

That is where you're wrong.
Almost every state in the country requires no waiting period.
Background checks are instant at FFL dealers in those states.
It is free for every state to use the FBI NICS system.
California chooses to use their own DROS system, charge you $25 for it, and imposes a 10-day wait as a "cooling off" period.
Contrary to popular belief, this period was never needed to establish eligibility and has always been a "cooling off" period.

It doesn't matter if you own 40 guns already. You still need to cool off for ten days. Doesn't matter if you already have three Glock 19s, you still need to cool off for a fourth one because, man, there's no telling what you'll do once you get that one. You were probably buying it specifically to start randomly killing innocent people.
That is how the state operates.

Bhobbs
12-09-2012, 10:20 PM
Not trying to school anyone, but it seems to be common operating assumption that the purpose of the 10 is to allow for filtering out specific individuals. And what's wrong with it being properly utilized for that very purpose? Whether instant or 10 day, it's not worked in very high-profile cases.

Actually, no. The 10 day wait is a cooling off period. The background check filters people out. It takes a couple minutes and I have heard is done on the last day of the waiting period.

One can take that point and use it as an argument for more draconian measures (total gun prohibition), or for enforcing the "filtering" process.
Or, one can focus on solving a problem that causes rehashing of an issue that gets us all (on all sides) fired up.

As I said, it's not working as a filter at is sure is not working to "stifle commerce". I've been to a few gun and sporting goods stores (several times each) in the last month and the lines are out the door.
Clearly, people do not mind the 10day...

I mind it a lot. It makes me mad that I have to wait to tsar my possessions home even though I have multiple firearms already. The waiting period doesn't keep me from doing anything.

As the above illustrates "marketing expert" are not expert at anything....

Responses in red.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 10:23 PM
So, are you not a California resident?
More to the point, are you a gun owner?
Still closer, what do you understand the Second Amendment to mean?

I ask because you seem relatively uninformed, and I'd like to know
a little more about your beliefs. I mean neither sarcasm nor offense.

:oji:

Cap

Yes, - I live in CA.

Yes, ten times

Uninformed? Well, maybe I have not committed to memory some rulings and things, but the main point of divergence seems to be approach and not so much interpretation as an alternative long-term strategy to preserving rights to own other than digging in and not finding positive ways to gain grounds on the matter.
I don't mean to disrespect or insult anyone. I think that pro-gun community risks a bad rep by doing things that make them seem as having a more radical, extreme all-or-nothing stance. That said, some things are not to be budged on. Others require creative solutions.

I think the 2nd establishes a fundamental right to own.

However..... ( :) )

We live in complex times of high population density and societal issues that predisposes us to problems our founding fathers might not have experienced or imagined that lead to probably greater gun violence.
That, coupled with current trends in popular opinions, forces us, I think, to consider what we are prepared to do to keep our guns. (I will not delude myself that a second civil war will take place with Reserve generals taking sides, etc etc)
All that said, I should change my signature to read:

I LIKE my guns.
I want to KEEP my guns.
If what I say bothers you,
You should listen to her






DrVino
12-09-2012, 10:42 PM
Almost every state in the country requires no waiting period.

So whose rules should be the law of the land?

Contrary to popular belief, this period was never needed to establish eligibility and has always been a "cooling off" period.

Well, that's a bit like condom with holes in it, isn't it?

That is how the state operates.

Have you tried to get a medical license in this state?....
Radioactive Materials?...

Meplat
12-09-2012, 10:43 PM
In this country?
(says the guy in whose homeland the govt milita was gunning down protesters in the streets in the year of his birth)

We are fighting desperately here to keep it not in this country. Please help.

Is there something magic about the dirt you now stand on? It can happen here.

DrVino
12-09-2012, 10:44 PM
OK
Calling it a night.
I'm sure I'll have more notifications in my inbox tomorrow....

DrVino
12-09-2012, 10:45 PM
We are fighting desperately here to keep it not in this country. Please help.

You said more people have been murdered by those doing background checks.

Librarian
12-09-2012, 10:54 PM
How does one make that a convincing enough argument to overcome the cited statistics linking rates of crime, murder, etc with gun ownership rates? Particularly, when a linear correlation is emphasized?

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed it earlier in the thread. What statistics show a correlation with gun ownership rates and any kind of crime at all?

There's a primary difficulty - gun ownership rates have not been accurately determined in the United States. We have a reasonable estimate of the total civilian gun stock in the US, and that continues to increase by a few million every year. But plotting the rate of any violent crime you care to name over 10-20 years shows ups and downs, while the number of guns monotonically increases.

What we don't have is information on who has all the guns; the best we can say is that the distribution is uneven - that is, with about one gun per person in the US, it isn't the case that each person has or has access to a gun.

m03
12-09-2012, 11:38 PM
In this country?
(says the guy in whose homeland the govt milita was gunning down protesters in the streets in the year of his birth)

Dragged into unnecessary wars abroad.

Replace "drive" with "own guns".

Makes as much sense as replacing "free speech" with "drive".

How do you argue that down with people who believe gun ownership by civilians is as archaic of an idea as slavery?

The same way I argue the point with those who believe that freedom of speech and due process are archaic ideas.

Now, are you going to get to the point or are you just content with talking around it?

hoffmang
12-09-2012, 11:56 PM
But, how does one make a clear and easily understandable disconnection between that evil happening and gun ownership rates.

How does one make that a convincing enough argument to overcome the cited statistics linking rates of crime, murder, etc with gun ownership rates? Particularly, when a linear correlation is emphasized?

Please cite your sources as non-justifiable homicides have been shrinking as both an absolute number and as a per capita number while the stock of privately owned firearms has continued to increase at historic rates.

Hint - there are no peer reviewed/serious sources for the position you posit in the quote above. Did you know that multiple victim shootings have stayed basically constant per-capita over the last 30 years? Of course the population has grown meaning that the absolute number of paranoid schizophrenics mathematically must increase.

-Gene

DrVino
12-10-2012, 12:34 AM
Dragged into unnecessary wars abroad.



Makes as much sense as replacing "free speech" with "drive".



The same way I argue the point with those who believe that freedom of speech and due process are archaic ideas.

Now, are you going to get to the point or are you just content with talking around it?

The point is to hear what people think. Is that a problem?

DrVino
12-10-2012, 12:40 AM
Please cite your sources as non-justifiable homicides have been shrinking as both an absolute number and as a per capita number while the stock of privately owned firearms has continued to increase at historic rates.

Hint - there are no peer reviewed/serious sources for the position you posit in the quote above. Did you know that multiple victim shootings have stayed basically constant per-capita over the last 30 years? Of course the population has grown meaning that the absolute number of paranoid schizophrenics mathematically must increase.

-Gene

I guess I'll have to go back to the Brady Campaign site and look at their page on 'how to use research". The media is pushing this idea that the more guns a country's populus has, the more crime (and gun violence) goes up.
It seems they have the bully pulpit on this issue.
Why is it that I never hear opposing studies cited when this is brought up on TV?
I'm not arguing against you, I'm telling you how it plays on the TV screens.

Critical point of clarification:

How do the rates over the last 3 decades compare to before that cut off point (which seems to loosely coincide with the AWB)?

(didn't I say I was done for the night? Damn you! Instant email notification, Damn you!)

Librarian
12-10-2012, 12:54 AM
Critical point of clarification:

How do the rates over the last 3 decades compare to before that cut off point (which seems to loosely coincide with the AWB)?


You need to start running through the Uniform Crime Reports at the FBI site.

For example http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01a.xls

But you can get the data quicker at http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm - they've done the work, 1960 - 2011.

Copy the data, drop it into Excel, plot the rates for each crime individually and violent crime aggregated. See what you get.

And remember, not once during that span, nor for any year in the 20th or 21st centuries, did the number of firearms in civilian hands decrease in the US. http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj284/Librarian_bucket/gunstock.jpg

kcbrown
12-10-2012, 2:53 AM
I say the following with the caveat that legal professionals are better versed on the nuances of the matter:

Get around the "adjudicated" loophole. I call it that because those that have notoriously gone berserk with guns had not been adjudicated but may have had some contact with mental health professionals.


The "adjudicated" loophole is nothing of the sort. It is a very necessary step in protecting the rights of the individual. It is otherwise known as "due process", and just like I very much doubt you'd be in favor of having your driving privileges summarily and unilaterally revoked just because some "authority" says they should be, so too would any reasonable person object to the notion of their right to meaningful self-defense being stripped from them just because some "authority" says they're not mentally sound. The right to self-defense is so central to our humanity that of all the enumerated rights we have, the right to keep and bear arms is the one that should be most heavily safeguarded.



Mental health professionals are obligated to notify law enforcement if their patient expresses desire to hurt a specific person.

I think that patients with psychotic features should be immediately put on a "no-sell" list. Some diseases are reportable to the CDC because of the public threat. A formal process with more permanent restrictions to their gun ownership should follow.


How is this any different from the "no fly" list the TSA maintains?



Of course, reasonable and reasonably achievable checks could be in place to prevent abuse of this.


Such checks already exist and are in place. It's that pesky "adjudicated" "loophole" you referred to previously.



Has it ever occurred to you to ask whether it's really worth pursuing this particular train of thought you brought up? As you said, we get some mass killing spree every few years because some nutjob gets his hands on firearms when we'd all be better off if he didn't all other things being equal. But what's the loss from that? Perhaps 10 people per year? I understand that people want to be safe in this world, but hasn't it occurred to you that the increase in deaths due to people being erroneously flagged, and thus prevented from raising a meaningful defense of their very lives, by any "solution" to the problem you pose could easily exceed the death rate caused by the crazies who slip through the cracks of the current system?

No, as regards the "controls" on our rights, enough is enough. The safest place you can live in is probably an insane asylum where everyone is straitjacketed. Short of that, everything will pose a safety compromise. I would suggest that liberty is worth the risks that come with it. If you, or anyone else, is uncomfortable with that notion, there are plenty of countries in this world where liberty is nothing but an empty word. I very much want to keep this country from falling any further into that particular abyss.

roushstage2
12-10-2012, 3:22 AM
Really?

Having responsible citizens follow a reasonable process for eligibility verification is a bigger fish than rescinding a stupid and unreasonable list that limits WHAT they can buy?

I'm not being sarcastic or looking for a fight. Can you please explain the logic of that?

It seems the latter is a broader impingement on our gun liberties.

Frankly, it seems that there are only two scenarios where someone *must* have a gun right away: 1) they want to shoot someone pronto, or 2) they can reliably predict natural catastophes and see one coming. In the case of the latter, I have a business proposition.


This thread took off while I was at work. I'll answer because you had asked me many replies ago. I'm probably already saying what has already been said in some fashion (I didn't read through all of the replies either), but:

The actual verification happens very quickly. It doesn't take 10 or 11 days to run the check. In CA, the ten 24-hour periods are a "cooling off period." "It's for the kids and puppies." If I already own firearms, what am I going to do with the next...handgun let's say, that I can't do with the one I already own or a CCW'er is already carrying, loaded, on their person at that very instant and even minutes, hours and days before they purchase the next? It's quite silly, IMO. Besides, most every other state doesn't have a wait and I'm not seeing daily rampages because someone did what you are describing. Perhaps I'm a bit un-educated on that aspect, but I have a feeling that would be rather big news if it happened as often as Big Brother wants you to think it does so you support these "life-saving laws."

As for the list that limits what I can buy: the only thing on the list that is banned that I am personally interested in would be certain ARs. Problem? No. OLLs are readily available for $100. Would having the same thing but with a banned name be any better? Realistically, no. Maybe it's an AK thing...dunno. I'm not on the up-and-up on what makes it different from an AR when it comes to buying/building/assembling one.

I'm not looking to get more technical than that, or try and catch up on the rest of this thread right now, so that's my reply for the night :)

IVC
12-10-2012, 10:00 AM
I guess I'll have to go back to the Brady Campaign site and look at their page on 'how to use research". The media is pushing this idea that the more guns a country's populus has, the more crime (and gun violence) goes up.
It seems they have the bully pulpit on this issue.
Why is it that I never hear opposing studies cited when this is brought up on TV?
I'm not arguing against you, I'm telling you how it plays on the TV screens.

That's the incorrect use of statistics. As an MD (I assume), you should know that not understanding the difference between correlation and causation have caused more damage than any other misinterpretation of science. Witness early IQ test, eugenics and connect the dots all the way to the last century Europe.

If you want to counter the "correlation" argument, just correlate our murder rate to the inner city minorities, and by extension to the urban black population. Now your correlation argument becomes "blacks shouldn't have guns" and you're back to the roots of gun control. This leads to a politically unpleasant situation where "it's not guns, it's minorities".

Thus, anyone pushing the correlation angle will have to explain how come they are not racist. The only way is to open discussion about mathematics, then explain how the method is wrong. We either have "guns and blacks kill people" or "neither guns nor blacks kill people." Pick your poison.

Hint: the former is scientifically correct, the latter is "correlation is causation" fallacy.

DrVino
12-10-2012, 10:05 AM
But what's the loss from that? Perhaps 10 people per year?

I sure hope that one of my kids is not one of those 10...

...the increase in deaths due to people being erroneously flagged, and thus prevented from raising a meaningful defense of their very lives, by any "solution" to the problem you pose could easily exceed the death rate caused by the crazies who slip through the cracks...

Is there any model or data that could support your contention?
The flips side of your very own argument could be that those killed because they were erroneously flagged (how? and do you see no feasible way to appeal an incorrect flag?) would be no more than "Perhaps 10 people per year "

I'm not trying to be nasty or sarcastic. Just working the ideas through.

DrVino
12-10-2012, 10:08 AM
That's the incorrect use of statistics. As an MD (I assume), you should know that not understanding the difference between correlation and causation have caused more damage than any other misinterpretation of science. Witness early IQ test, eugenics and connect the dots all the way to the last century Europe.

If you want to counter the "correlation" argument, just correlate our murder rate to the inner city minorities, and by extension to the urban black population. Now your correlation argument becomes "blacks shouldn't have guns" and you're back to the roots of gun control. Now you have a politically unpleasant situation where "it's not guns, it's (pick your favorite recurring villain)".

I'm well aware of how "statistics" can be manipulated - if only their interpretation. Curious to compare Australian statistics to ours. They are said to have a strong gun culture.

I do believe there may be a *coincidental* finding rather than a causation or correlation. This is probably multifactorial and much of it is due to the American culture - and all its components as your last paragraph illustrates.

DrVino
12-10-2012, 10:12 AM
This thread took off while I was at work. I'll answer because you had asked me many replies ago. I'm probably already saying what has already been said in some fashion (I didn't read through all of the replies either), but:

The actual verification happens very quickly. It doesn't take 10 or 11 days to run the check. In CA, the ten 24-hour periods are a "cooling off period." "It's for the kids and puppies." If I already own firearms, what am I going to do with the next...handgun let's say, that I can't do with the one I already own or a CCW'er is already carrying, loaded, on their person at that very instant and even minutes, hours and days before they purchase the next? It's quite silly, IMO. Besides, most every other state doesn't have a wait and I'm not seeing daily rampages because someone did what you are describing. Perhaps I'm a bit un-educated on that aspect, but I have a feeling that would be rather big news if it happened as often as Big Brother wants you to think it does so you support these "life-saving laws."

As for the list that limits what I can buy: the only thing on the list that is banned that I am personally interested in would be certain ARs. Problem? No. OLLs are readily available for $100. Would having the same thing but with a banned name be any better? Realistically, no. Maybe it's an AK thing...dunno. I'm not on the up-and-up on what makes it different from an AR when it comes to buying/building/assembling one.

I'm not looking to get more technical than that, or try and catch up on the rest of this thread right now, so that's my reply for the night :)

Thanks for following up and giving me your thoughts.

kcbrown
12-10-2012, 10:18 AM
I sure hope that one of my kids is not one of those 10...

And yet, do you not also hope that one of your kids isn't the one improperly denied the means to effective self-defense when they find they need it?

You can't have your utopian society. You just can't. It's a fantasy. It will never exist. There will always be something that puts the lives of your kids in danger. The question is, and has always been, this: would you prefer that your kids be capable of responding to that danger, or not?

Do you prefer the fresh air of liberty, or the suffocating air of control? Both present danger to your kids. If your kids are going to be faced with danger to their lives anyway, why wouldn't you choose the path that gives them the power to respond to that danger effectively? Why wouldn't you choose liberty?

DrVino
12-10-2012, 10:19 AM
You need to start running through the Uniform Crime Reports at the FBI site.

For example http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01a.xls

But you can get the data quicker at http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm - they've done the work, 1960 - 2011.

Copy the data, drop it into Excel, plot the rates for each crime individually and violent crime aggregated. See what you get.

And remember, not once during that span, nor for any year in the 20th or 21st centuries, did the number of firearms in civilian hands decrease in the US. http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj284/Librarian_bucket/gunstock.jpg

Thanks for those resources.

IVC
12-10-2012, 10:20 AM
I'm well aware of how "statistics" can be manipulated - if only their interpretation.

Statistics are not manipulated. Statistics are just properties of a data set - numbers. What is manipulated is the scientific inference method. Statistics cannot be used to "prove" anything - they are a useful starting point in research, but that's where it ends. Causality must be proven independently and the proof cannot use correlation since it's the consequence of causality.

Too bad human brain is wired for accepting statistics as a proof and too few people are willing to look into this. In short, you cannot fix an argument if it's based on invalid science.

Try to argue this one: "the more teenagers engage in french kissing, the more unwanted pregnancies are there, therefore we must ban french kissing."

kcbrown
12-10-2012, 10:24 AM
Statistics are not manipulated. Statistics are just properties of a data set - numbers. What is manipulated is the scientific inference method. Statistics cannot be used to "prove" anything - they are a useful starting point in research, but that's where it ends.


They cannot be used to prove anything, but they can most certainly be used to disprove things.

Causation invariably results in correlation. While correlation cannot be used to determine causation (though it can, as you note, be used as a guide to what to look at), lack of correlation does prove lack of causation.

DrVino
12-10-2012, 10:26 AM
And yet, do you not also hope that one of your kids isn't the one improperly denied the means to effective self-defense when they find they need it?

How would you envision such an improper flagging to happen? As a miscoding error at the DMV because he needs glasses? Or a fluke a-la the movie Brazil?

You can't have your utopian society. You just can't. It's a fantasy. It will never exist. There will always be something that puts the lives of your kids in danger. The question is, and has always been, this: would you prefer that your kids be capable of responding to that danger, or not?

Not looking for utopia. We left that idea 9000 miles behind us in 1980.
I do wonder, however, if there are practical improvements in screening out high-risk individuals possible.

fresh air of liberty

ummm, and where exactly is it that you find that? New Hampshire? ;)

I like where I live and I know why I'm here and not an ex-pat. But we are not as free as we like to think...... Not in CA.

DrVino
12-10-2012, 10:30 AM
Statistics are not manipulated.

YES, their interpretation is frequently manipulated (which is what I said originally). Ex:

Drug A is effective in 4 out of 100 people vs Drug B which is effective in 2 out of 100 people. Thus, Drug A is advertised as being "twice as effective". Still useless as a drug, but.....

kcbrown
12-10-2012, 10:34 AM
How would you envision such an improper flagging to happen? As a miscoding error at the DMV because he needs glasses? Or a fluke a-la the movie Brazil?


The flagging you speak of is kicked off by a human being, is it not? People make mistakes, it's as simple as that. Worse, you were arguing in favor of dispensing with due process for this, thus making the "no guns" list similar in nature to the "no fly" list the TSA runs.

All it takes is the person who has the power to flag another making a mistake or, worse, abusing his power. It is guaranteed that both will happen. You cannot stop it, because such things are human nature.



Not looking for utopia. We left that idea 9000 miles behind us in 1980.
I do wonder, however, if there are practical improvements in screening out high-risk individuals possible.


There may exist such improvements, but the point here is that such improvements have costs attached that you're simply not accounting for. And we're talking about the most fundamental human right in existence here, not some (relative) convenience like driving is. Attempts to control it must be done with the greatest of care, with the greatest of safeguards.



ummm, and where exactly is it that you find that? New Hampshire? ;)


It's a spectrum, a continuum. The choices we make as to how to go about doing things determine how much of it we have. There is almost certainly more liberty to be found in New Hampshire than here.


I like where I live and I know why I'm here and not an ex-pat. But we are not as free as we like to think...... Not in CA.

Then why would you suggest doing anything that would have the effect of removing even more liberty? Haven't we lost enough already?

DrVino
12-10-2012, 10:45 AM
...you were arguing in favor of dispensing with due process for this, thus making the "no guns" list similar in nature to the "no fly" list the TSA runs....

....for high-risk individuals who display specific psychiatric clinical features.

Attempts to control it must be done with the greatest of care, with the greatest of safeguards.

See above


Then why would you suggest doing anything that would have the effect of removing even more liberty? Haven't we lost enough already?

We (you and I and likely the others on this forum) are not psychotic.


Anyway, this horse is starting to stink.


In other news:
Robert Parker sold controlling interests in the Wine Advocate to some young Turks in Singapore today (after vehemently denying he would do any such thing just last week). This not only removes him as editor-in-chief, but rudely slams the door in the face of his heir-apparent, Antonio Galloni.

[[Oh. and I'm not the same DrVino who publishes a wine blog with that title .... he's just a PhD.... ;) ]].

IVC
12-10-2012, 11:01 AM
YES, their interpretation is frequently manipulated (which is what I said originally). Ex:

You are still missing the point. There is no such thing as "interpreting the statistics." It's unscientific. There is nothing to interpret.

There is a hypothesis, in this case that "guns cause violence." To disprove it, all one has to do is look at a *single instance* where it's not true and the hypothesis is invalidated.

Here are few instances where the hypothesis fails: Farmers. Hunters. Switzerland. Suburban gun owners. Also, one can do easy bracketing by race, location, wealth, social status, etc. and see that the hypothesis doesn't hold.

In medical field, it would be akin to claiming that there is a drug that cures a disease, but the cure rate is completely different based on where the person lives and their social status. How seriously would a drug manufacturer with such a claim be taken in the medical community?

m03
12-10-2012, 11:13 AM
Since it's been mentioned, have fun with these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_per_capita
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf

There was a thread on a similar subject a couple of months ago where I dug up some information on recent mass shootings in European countries...don't really have time to get back into that right now though.

bwiese
12-10-2012, 11:14 AM
Gene beat me.

I will add there are some limited reasons why not going after Roberti-Roos and leaving it stand could be helpful (on the political side) on taking down SB23 features ban.

DrVino
12-10-2012, 11:23 AM
Since it's been mentioned, have fun with these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_per_capita
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf

There was a thread on a similar subject a couple of months ago where I dug up some information on recent mass shootings in European countries...don't really have time to get back into that right now though.

Thanks for posting this.

IVC
12-10-2012, 11:41 AM
There are some very basic and easily ascertained elements of patient history and clinical signs that could be set as "triggers" which would obligate the physician to refer a patient for specialty evaluation.

You forget or ignore that most "common sense gun laws" are used as a gateway to curtailing what is perceived as a "politically incorrect right." Your suggestion would work only until anti gun groups figured out the way to lower the "trigger" level to "have you ever seen a mental health professional."

Here is a real life example: "Domestic violence misdemeanor life prohibition is to ensure wife beaters cannot possess guns." In real life, if you push your spouse aside to get out of the house in order to *avoid* confrontation and argument, you will get a mandatory DV conviction and be banned for life. Courtesy of "reasonable gun laws" Senator Lautenberg.

kcbrown
12-10-2012, 11:57 AM
....for high-risk individuals who display specific psychiatric clinical features.


No. For people whom the gatekeepers you would appoint claim display specific psychiatric clinical features. And it gets worse: the science upon which this is all based is not the hard science of physics, but the softer sciences of clinical psychiatry and psychology. The rules change over time. No exercise of any fundamental right, much less the one that is necessary to protect our very right to live, should be subject to the claims of any science less rigorous than that of physics.

The bottom line is this: there exists a class of people whom you would trust to make the decision for us as to whether or not any given individual may retain their most precious right: the right to defend their own life effectively. That alone is cause for grave alarm. Nobody should have the power to unilaterally declare someone else's rights null and void, most especially those rights that are the most fundamental to our humanity, without at the very least due process being involved at the most fundamental levels.

There is wisdom in the Constitution that you are apparently failing to see.



We (you and I and likely the others on this forum) are not psychotic.


And yet, it is you and I that you would place at risk of improper loss of our ability to defend ourselves effectively through the scheme you propose. It is not the rights of the psychotics that I am attempting to defend here, it is the rights of all of us.

12voltguy
12-10-2012, 12:07 PM
.




And yet, it is you and I that you would place at risk of improper loss of our ability to defend ourselves effectively through the scheme you propose. It
don't worry, nothing he says has any power, same as you & I.
this ain't going nowhere;)

curtisfong
12-10-2012, 12:11 PM
We (you and I and likely the others on this forum) are not psychotic.


Put me in the right class of people with the appropriate amount of "authority" and you (or anybody else) could easily be judged psychotic if I wanted you (or anybody else) to be judged psychotic.

Odds are, whatever regulation scheme you are cooking up can also be gamed to prevent me from getting any kind of 3rd party or "objective" oversight.

Are you sure you want to go down that path?

curtisfong
12-10-2012, 12:13 PM
don't worry, nothing he says has any power, same as you & I.
this ain't going nowhere;)

The problem is that even pro-gun advocates don't seem to understand what strict scrutiny is.

And those advocates are quite apt to throw everybody under the bus if a gun grabber presents something as passing strict scrutiny when it can barely pass rational basis.

Wrangler John
12-10-2012, 12:32 PM
Curious if anyone with the legal qualifications can answer this one:

If You can buy a WASR, a Polish Underfolder, a Saiga (converted to AK config) in CA, what are the chances of getting the "named" ban reversed?

I'm thinking of the Polytech/Norinco AKS formats.



res ipsa loquitur:

As you can see there is no answer to your question here. You would do better to call the Psychic Hotline for an answer. Even people with legal qualifications are not prescient enough to foretell the intellection process of jackasses (the ones with long ears), judges, girl or boy fiends, or even the dog that just stole the pork chop off their unattended dinner plate. Past what has actually occurred, everything is guesswork based on personal desire, or as the latest prospectus I received mentioned: "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." :)

Fortunately Pandora stoppered the jar before Hope fled. All that can be said is that nothing changes without constant effort.

Meplat
12-10-2012, 12:36 PM
I'm well aware of how "statistics" can be manipulated - if only their interpretation. Curious to compare Australian statistics to ours. They are said to have a strong gun culture.

I do believe there may be a *coincidental* finding rather than a causation or correlation. This is probably multifactorial and much of it is due to the American culture - and all its components as your last paragraph illustrates.

Australians were all but totally disarmed over a decade ago. It is very difficult to own a gun in Australia now. Australian society is very homogeneous. They are surrounded be ocean and their immigration laws are extremely strict. You have to have skills that Australia needs and have enough resources to support yourself for a good long time to be allowed in. For these and other reasons they have a very small underclass. Itís apples and oranges.