General Political Thread

[LouieB]

 

Not sure why those subjects were mentioned in a discussion about gun control,

Because the total nutballs on your side of the argument want us to believe that the government is coming for us and we have to defend ourselves against the tyrants.  Well in a sense they already did (but not as badly as the wacko Libertarians or the militia nut cases would have you believe.)  Selectively the right wing has decided that certain things must be legistlated even when the resulting crimes don't hurt anyone or should be left to individuals to make their own personal decisions.  The gun lobby, which you are part of by default, uses this argument endlessly and convinces millions of people, while at the same time some folks can't exersise rights that seem fairly obvious. 

 

If you have a right to "bear arms", which MAY actually end up serverly hurting someone, how come others can't do what won't harm a soul?

 

LouieB

[JUDE]

Has anyone actually ever been a proponent of the current laws on drug use or the status of gay marriage in this country on this board?

 

I can't recall that actually ever being the case but I may be mistaken.  We wako, gun-clinging, tea baggers aren't known for having great memories.

[LouieB]

I didn't know we could only discuss the opinions discussed here.  I didn't know VC had the same rules of evidence as a courtroom.

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

Because the total nutballs on your side of the argument  ... wacko Libertarians ...  militia nut cases ... right wing

 

If you have a right to "bear arms", which MAY actually end up serverly hurting someone, how come others can't do what won't harm a soul?

Let's remember that there are plenty of kooks on both sides of the issue. Neither side has a monopoly on them, but they're really nothing more than background noise used as fodder for political actions.

 

As for "not severely hurting anyone", take a look at how many people have died in the pursuit of manufacturing, selling and using drugs and then ask yourself how more legislation will solve the problem. Then think ask yourself how more gun laws will solve the problem.

[LouieB]

I think I already stipulated that more gun laws probably won't solve anything. 

 

LouieB

[NoJ]

 

I can't recall that actually ever being the case but I may be mistaken.  We wako, gun-clinging, tea baggers aren't known for having great memories.

 

Drink more green tea. That'll put the lead in your pencil m'boy!

[bleedorange]

I've heard a lot about it because I live in San Antonio. This morning's news also had a piece about a guy in a nice neighborhood a mile away from me who shot 2 guys who were breaking into his car. As far as I'm concerned, they knew the risks and got what was coming to them.

 

I grew up in San Antonio. Great town.

[Hixter]

I think I already stipulated that more gun laws probably won't solve anything. 

Well, since we all agree that gun laws, drug laws and marriage laws are oppressive to law-abiding citizens and should be reduced rather than increased, I guess there's not much more to say about the subject(s).

[JUDE]

I didn't know we could only discuss the opinions discussed here.  I didn't know VC had the same rules of evidence as a courtroom.

 

LouieB

 

You can discuss whatever you like.

 

I guess I'd better go protest Planned Parenthood since that's what people like me do.

[LouieB]

I guess no one noticed, the convo is pretty much the 3 of us anyway. 

 

LouieB

[Winston Legthigh]

Netherlands.

 

Restrictive gun laws (no right to private gun ownership).

Low gun homicide rate (0.2 per 100,000 people in 2010)

Marijuana decriminalized.

 

Seems like a practical model.

[Tweedling]

No right to private gun ownership?

Hahahaha

[Winston Legthigh]

Did I word it wrongly?

[Tweedling]

No. I think you nailed it. But could you imagine Washington ever trying to iliminate private gun ownership? That's humorous to think about.

Meanwhile in the country that has made owning a gun privately a criminal offense:

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/gunman-runs-amok-dutch-town

 

It doesn't matter if it's illegal...bad guys will always find a way to get guns.

[ih8music]

No. I think you nailed it. But could you imagine Washington ever trying to iliminate private gun ownership? That's humorous to think about.

Meanwhile in the country that has made owning a gun privately a criminal offense:

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/gunman-runs-amok-dutch-town

 

It doesn't matter if it's illegal...bad guys will always find a way to get guns.

 

And people still speed and drive drunk and run stop signs, yet we don't talk about abolishing those laws because we know they help to ensure the rest of us will act responsibly -- or face the consequences if we don't.  Just because there will always be some people who act outside the law doesn't mean that the laws themselves are useless.

[Winston Legthigh]

It doesn't matter if it's illegal...bad guys will always find a way to get guns.

 

Right.

 

We're just waiting for the good guys with guns to catch up to them. And by good guys, I mean citizens, not off-duty sheriff deputies who are working security, like the San Antonio story you referenced earlier.

 

Where are the good citizens with conceal and carry weapons - when will they stop the shooting sprees?

[Hixter]

And people still speed and drive drunk and run stop signs, yet we don't talk about abolishing those laws

A better analogy would be the enactment of prohibition in order to save the nation from the evils of drink, just like bans on "assault" rifles and magazines are designed to save us from spree killers. It simply won't work.

[Tweedling]

Right.

 

We're just waiting for the good guys with guns to catch up to them. And by good guys, I mean citizens, not off-duty sheriff deputies who are working security, like the San Antonio story you referenced earlier.

 

Where are the good citizens with conceal and carry weapons - when will they stop the shooting sprees?

Come to Texas.... There are quite a few.

 

And people still speed and drive drunk and run stop signs, yet we don't talk about abolishing those laws because we know they help to ensure the rest of us will act responsibly -- or face the consequences if we don't.  Just because there will always be some people who act outside the law doesn't mean that the laws themselves are useless.

Yes, you are right. We don't need anymore laws restrictng gun ownership. Just enforce the ones we have.

[Hixter]

Where are the good citizens with conceal and carry weapons - when will they stop the shooting sprees?

From what I've read, every mass shooting in the U.S. other than the one that wounded Gabby Giffords has taken place in a location where civilians were not allowed to carry concealed handguns.

 

But why the focus on spree shootings and "assault" rifles when they make up less than 1% of the nation's murders?

[Winston Legthigh]

From what I've read, every mass shooting in the U.S. other than the one that wounded Gabby Giffords has taken place in a location where civilians were not allowed to carry concealed handguns.

 

But why the focus on spree shootings and "assault" rifles when they make up less than 1% of the nation's murders?

Ok, let's focus on murder via firearms, which accounted for 2/3s of homicides in 2011.

[Hixter]

Ok, let's focus on murder via firearms, which accounted for 2/3s of homicides in 2011.

Ok, show me the breakdown of murders by firearm in the United States. It'll get uncomfortable when it comes to touchy areas like race, the legality of the murderers' possession of a firearm, the murderers' criminal history and things like gang affiliation and drug use, but then again it's a touchy subject in general.

 

When all is said and done, I'm fairly confident that the stats will show that law-abiding Americans are just that, while gangsters and convicts and drug dealers are ignoring any and all gun laws while murdering people at an alarming rate.

[lost highway]

I've heard a lot about it because I live in San Antonio. This morning's news also had a piece about a guy in a nice neighborhood a mile away from me who shot 2 guys who were breaking into his car. As far as I'm concerned, they knew the risks and got what was coming to them.

 

Now that's some callous bullshit.  I've had two cars broken into, if someone would have shot the person doing it I'd call them a murderer.  When I was in high school I was in an immature egging, tp'ing, vandalism battle with some other kids.  One of my buddies must have crossed a line when he let the air out of one of their tires.  A week later my family woke up to the sound of a boulder going through my windshield out front.  Years later one of the dudes confessed (we're more or less friends now) to me at a bar.  He said the guys were drunk and riled up- they really crossed the line.

 

I guess what I'm saying is I'm glad there wasn't a 'guy with a gun' in my parents nice neighborhood that night.  In fact I would vote to take that guy's gun away.

[uncool2pillow]

I am not for a total ban of hand guns like they have in the UK. But one cannot question it's effectiveness in bringing down the murder rate. They apparently have higher crime rates in some areas, probably because criminals feel emboldened knowing their victims do not have guns.

 

I think it's a fair (and tough to answer) question how much freedom we sacrifice to save lives. I have no problem with banning big magazines, (some) assault rifles, getting rid of the STUPID gun show loophole, and lots of other restrictions. But I also like the idea of conceal & carry laws. I doubt I'd ever carry, but I kind of like the idea criminals having to ask themselves if I am carrying.

[Hixter]

Now that's some callous bullshit.  I've had two cars broken into, if someone would have shot the person doing it I'd call them a murderer.

He was well within his rights under Texas law.

 

 

 

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

 

Sec. 9.41.  PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(a )  A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1)  the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2)  the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

Sec. 9.42.  DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B )  to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3)  he reasonably believes that:

(A)  the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B )  the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

Sec. 9.43.  PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1)  the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2)  the actor reasonably believes that:

(A)  the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B )  he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

©  the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

Sec. 9.44.  USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1)  the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2)  use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[lost highway]

I think adequate human ethics have often been able to see their way around law.  There have been many legal situations in the history of law that would excuse things most reasonable people would find unjust and despicable.