Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bumber]

... honestly, I don't feel like Gun Owners "Won" the Supreme Court case. We're arguably worse off than before.

If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled as it did, they could deny you a permit for not counting jellybeans in a jar having a specific need or having wealthy connections.

[TamerVirus]

Instead they'll ask for your social media account and deny you based off a silly minions meme you posted on facebook in 2012

You want gun in NY? Time for a social media review!

Edit: speaking of social media: Elon Musk is backing out of his Twitter acquisition plan citing 'material breaches' (the whole bot thing)
I guess it was stock market manipulation all along!

[Bumber]

Instead they'll ask for your social media account and deny you based off a silly minions meme you posted on facebook in 2012

That could end up back in the Supreme Court, depending on what is meant by "character and conduct".

[hector13]

Note: A DWI now disqualifies someone from getting, at a minimum, a concealed carry permit.
... considering how common DWI convictions are, it effectively disarms a lot of people.
Correction: Conviction in Past Five years disqualifies.
... honestly, I don't feel like Gun Owners "Won" the Supreme Court case. We're arguably worse off than before.

One might suggest if you are stupid enough to drive while intoxicated, you’re not sensible enough to own a weapon.

[Starver]

Out of interest, this is the latest I (easily) found about Sealed Knot musket use. Interesting reading, I found, if a diversion from the main questions at hand.

(Though someone born after its publication date might now be just old enough to abide by its rules, I think that there haven't been many causes for revision since then. Cumbria (2010) and Plymouth (2021) being the main 'mass shootings', anywhere comparable to Dunblaine and Hungerford of the '80s, or any of the many more terrorism incidents that were necessarily done without firearms.)

[Frumple]

"A 2013 National Research Council report found that studies looking at the effectiveness of different self-protective strategies had consistently found that victims who used guns defensively had lower injury rates than did victims who used other strategies."

And the direct paragraph after the one that references in the report being cited:

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

The paragraph immediately after in the wiki page was

A 2015 study by Solnick and Hemenway which analyzed NCVS data reported "little evidence that [DGU] is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss."[35]

Disarming law abiding citizens while criminals have illegal guns won't help things.

Considering where a lot of those illegal guns come from, it pretty certainly would, actually. Can't steal the gun that's not there to steal.

Instead they'll ask for your social media account and deny you based off a silly minions meme you posted on facebook in 2012

You want gun in NY? Time for a social media review!

Man, imagine having to go through as much shit to get a gun as you do to get employed. The tantrum 2A cultists would throw over that would be impressive.

Good joke from the sheriff association guy saying it'd be a constitutional violation of privacy, though. SCOTUS just pissed on that this year

E: See what the rest of the law in question is trying, though? Hours of mandatory training, proficiency check, character witnesses and personal interviews. It actually is getting pretty close to an employment process, ha.

[Criptfeind]

Maybe we can access it from here.

I read this article and section 4 of S51001 (which seemed like the most likely place for the provision that you are talking about to be) but I couldn't find anything in either one about it being a Felony to carry a firearm in a group of more than 15 people. Which section of S51001 is it in? Or if it's in a different one, which one?

[syvarris]

"A 2013 National Research Council report found that studies looking at the effectiveness of different self-protective strategies had consistently found that victims who used guns defensively had lower injury rates than did victims who used other strategies."

And the direct paragraph after the one that references in the report being cited:

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

It should also be pointed out that guns very much do increase rates of suicide.  That's not in question, despite lobbying attempting to shut down research on the health effects of firearms.

Also, the firearms industry just generally has an upsetting among of influence and power.  They're selling a product, and they lobby to defend and reinforce that product.  Firearms companies do not have the public's best interest in mind.

Not that the political left is really effective itself.  Most gun control is absolutely stupid bullshit that I can't see helping much of anything.  It's still shockingly easy to obtain what amounts to an easily concealable semiauto M4 even in California.   And all manner of pistols, which should just be straight up illegal from a utilitarian perspective.  But eh.  Doesn't matter to me nearly as much as global warming, since at least Americans are mostly just shooting Americans, while GW kinda fucks over everyone.

Slinks back to the RTD board

[delphonso]

There's no reasonable, utilitarian or pragmatic argument for the gun situation in the US now. Honestly you can find research to vaguely point at whatever you want. However, the overwhelming body of evidence is simply: less guns available, less gun deaths. This means any amount of gun control will save lives. Even foolish and easily dodged Dem-written laws probably saved a few handfuls of lives. This also means the more the NRA push 'the need to have guns', they're certainly getting people dead.

Really, the argument from the pro-gun side is that the number of deaths from guns is worth it, because it's factually wrong to say more guns means less gun deaths. Suicide is a great example. Access to firearms greatly improves success rates in suicide.

[hector13]

Arizona hates free speech, at least as it pertains to monitoring the police.

[Micro102]

Didn't Australia yeet all their guns and then experience a drop in deaths?

[MaxTheFox]

Yeah, pistols should probably be more regulated than long guns. Easier to conceal, still more than enough to do a mass shooting. I don't want to completely yeet them, but it should be harder to get a pistol permit.

[delphonso]

Didn't Australia yeet all their guns and then experience a drop in deaths?

Yeah but that's different because they're an island

/sarcasm

[scriver]

Eight feet is such a strange limit though. Completely nonsensical unless it's to illegalise people recording themselves being beat up somehow or if the police approach bystanders to get them to stop filming because when the police close in it turns into a crime.

There's like no reason for it to be eight feet. Who films closer than eight feet if they can avoid it.

[dragdeler]

If it weren't the USA we could assume it's for the protection of both parties: at 8ft stuff should be plenty visible while giving the officer ample room to perform his favourite wrestling tricks without feeling crummed.