STOP EXTREME GUN CONTROL BILL H.R. 127

[Belk]

since 2020 carjackings have gone up, and some of them fatal

If everyone starts packing heat that will go up. While I am very much in favor of guns for personal protection the idea that you should use one to stop a car jacking is rather foolish. Weapons should only come into play when there is no other alternative.

 

[Jamdoc]

If everyone starts packing heat that will go up. While I am very much in favor of guns for personal protection the idea that you should use one to stop a car jacking is rather foolish. Weapons should only come into play when there is no other alternative.

If someone is car jacking you that is a threat to your life. No, sometimes people turn over the keys and get killed anyway.
People get mugged and then murdered when they are only carrying $20 on them and nothing valuable.
So yes, a robbery is a threat to your life.
Don't assume that if you just give them what they want you'll come away unharmed.

 

[Desk trauma]

Is the bill scheduled to go anywhere? Has it got a cosponsor yet? Has the comity taken it out of the drawer it which it is gathering dust?

 

[Belk]

If someone is car jacking you that is a threat to your life. No, sometimes people turn over the keys and get killed anyway.
People get mugged and then murdered when they are only carrying $20 on them and nothing valuable.
So yes, a robbery is a threat to your life.
Don't assume that if you just give them what they want you'll come away unharmed.

Not in any state of the union. If you shot someone for robbing you instead of a threat to your life you will be charged with murder.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Meanwhile the homicide rate in Australia sits at around 0.9. We continually hear that easy availability of guns will prevent crime and yet the statistics simply don't back this up.

Surely there comes a point where you have to stop doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The US managed to introduce a whole raft of security measures after 9/11 killed 3,000 people, yet more children than that are killed by guns each year and the response is always "nope - too hard, can't do anything about it"

Well, I think many fall in the trap of selectively choosing the locale (with a low murder rate) that happens to have the model of gun control they prefer, and comparing to an area with a high murder rate, and gun laws they don't like.

IE: people who don't like guns often do a US vs. UK/Australia comparison, people who really love guns will often use some sort example involving comparing a relatively safe city in the US (in a gun friendly state) to Chicago.

The question of "gun control vs. no gun control" is really to broad to be meaningful.

It's really the type of controls that matter.

The reality is, you can't try to overlay the strategy of a country that doesn't have a gun culture onto one that does, and expect it to work the same way.

In order for the US to solve our gun issues, we need to rely on looking for example of other countries that do have a gun culture like we do (with a strong desire for firearms for self-defense), but that can still boast a low murder rate.

The shining example country that I always prop up for that is the Czech Republic. They're a country that still lets you own most of the types of guns people are interested in, they offer concealed carry permits (Both us and the Czech Republic have about 3% of the population with a license to carry).

Their gun stores even look a lot like ours

(apart from the fact that in my local gun store, I don't recall ever seeing an attractive woman in a sundress holding an AR, it's usually a bunch of dudes)

Yet, we have a homicide rate of 4.96
Czech Republic has a rate of 0.6

For perspective, that puts them here on the list as having a lower murder rate than places like S. Korea, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, France, and the UK.

Gun law in the Czech Republic - Wikipedia

If I were a policy maker, I'd be looking to the Czech Republic with regards to how to have a country with a gun culture, but still remain safe.

 

[Jamdoc]

Not in any state of the union. If you shot someone for robbing you instead of a threat to your life you will be charged with murder.

armed robbery is a threat to your life.
That is the basis of an armed robbery. The person is saying "give me something or I will kill you" Being that they are armed, even if you give them something they still may kill you.
Hence, it is a threat to your life.

 

[Belk]

armed robbery is a threat to your life.
That is the basis of an armed robbery. The person is saying "give me something or I will kill you" Being that they are armed, even if you give them something they still may kill you.
Hence, it is a threat to your life.

This is why I support the idea of requiring training prior to allowing CCW. To many people who do not understand when lethal force is proper.

 

[Jamdoc]

This is why I support the idea of requiring training prior to allowing CCW. To many people who do not understand when lethal force is proper.

Are you really claiming, that an armed robbery, is not a threat to someone's life?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is why I support the idea of requiring training prior to allowing CCW. To many people who do not understand when lethal force is proper.

"Proper" isn't a centralized set of rules and tends to vary a lot state by state.

Some states have wide-open "Stand Your Ground Laws" that grant the CCW holder much more leeway both on and off their own property.

Others have a "Castle Laws" where a person has no duty to retreat within their own home, but that doesn't extend beyond one's private residence.

Others locales don't have any such law, like New York, where a person still has a "duty to retreat" even in their own home.

So what a state's law dictates as "proper" is going to be very different.

For instance, if you catch someone breaking in your house at night, and heading toward your kid's room and shoot them... It's going to be a very different outcome (legally speaking) if you lived in NYC vs. Houston.

 

[Belk]

"Proper" isn't a centralized set of rules and tends to vary a lot state by state.

Some states have wide-open "Stand Your Ground Laws" that grant the CCW holder much more leeway both on and off their own property.

Others have a "Castle Laws" where a person has no duty to retreat within their own home, but that doesn't extend beyond one's private residence.

Others locales don't have any such law, like New York, where a person still has a "duty to retreat" even in their own home.

So what a state's law dictates as "proper" is going to be very different.

For instance, if you catch someone breaking in your house at night, and heading toward your kid's room and shoot them... It's going to be a very different outcome (legally speaking) if you lived in NYC vs. Houston.

Which is why the training should be local in order to differentiate. However there are some very good generalized training courses that could apply in any state. For instance I'm not aware of any state in which it is legal to entrap people into an action and then shoot them.

The basics of self defense remain the same no matter the local laws. Do not escalate the situation and never draw your weapon unless you are prepared to kill someone.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

For instance I'm not aware of any state in which it is legal to entrap people into an action and then shoot them.

The basics of self defense remain the same no matter the local laws. Do not escalate the situation and never draw your weapon unless you are prepared to kill someone.

Sure, there's the common sense stuff like "treat every firearm like it's loaded", "keep your guns stored safely". etc...

However,
Even laws and court rulings around escalation tend be very murky.

For instance, is the person who's "looking for trouble" guilty of the escalation?, or is escalation isolated to whichever party escalated things to actual physicality?.

Based on how the laws are written and interpreted by courts, the same case can have two very different outcomes.

The Zimmerman/Martin shooting is a good example of that.

If the "escalation" is simply following and/or verbally confronting someone, then Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

If the "escalation" is whoever first escalated thing to physicality, then the jury was correct in how handled it as Martin was the first to escalate things to physicality.

Both present some unique challenges...

With the former, simply having an argument with someone else that makes them really mad and pull a gun on you can be misconstrued as escalation...

With the latter, a person (who's just looking for an excuse), can go verbally taunt someone and provoke them until they come at them, then shoot them...

That's why I don't envy judges and juries that have to make that call.

 

[Vylo]

This bill does nothing to help in regards to control and gun violence. It steps on people's right and parts of it outright put people in danger. Whether you are for or against gun ownership, keeping the rules and regulation as simple and effective as possible should be the goal. Subverting gun ownership through underhanded complex regulation is more dangerous than nothing at all, as it simply keeps guns out of the hands of responsible people.

We need to streamline the laws we have so that people are stumbling over themselves not to inadvertently violate some esoteric and/or nonsense regulation, nor going broke just to adhere to all the rules.

- Background checks
- cooldown periods
- increased punishment for crimes using a gun
- charging those who lend guns to those who commit crimes

That's just about all we need right there.

 

[7thKeeper]

Like the right to bear arms?

And I'll escort myself out...

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not in any state of the union. If you shot someone for robbing you instead of a threat to your life you will be charged with murder.

Not no more. Stand Your Ground has changed things.

Florida man avoids charges in fatal shooting due to Stand Your Ground Law

A Miami Beach car wash customer will not face charges for fatally shooting a thief trying to make off with a Mercedes — despite a new video showing the SUV turning away from the man — because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, reports say.

 

[Belk]

Not no more. Stand Your Ground has changed things.

Florida man avoids charges in fatal shooting due to Stand Your Ground Law

A Miami Beach car wash customer will not face charges for fatally shooting a thief trying to make off with a Mercedes — despite a new video showing the SUV turning away from the man — because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, reports say.

<Sigh> Florida. <Shakes head>

 

[Erik Nelson]

"We don't let them have ideas, why would we let them have guns?" -- Joseph Stalin

 

[Desk trauma]

"We don't let them have ideas, why would we let them have guns?" -- Joseph Stalin

Misquoting a quote of dubious, at best, origin. Very persuasive.

The quote, prior to this latest mutation trying to emphasize guns over ideas, goes:

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Worth nothing, there is not one single contemporary source quoting Stalin as having said this.

 

[Erik Nelson]

(1) Live Q&A: Biden Calls for Gun Restrictions; Trump Speaks After Beating Impeachment | Crossroads - YouTube

 

[Erik Nelson]

Misquoting

Acknowledged -- Stalin hated "ideas even more than guns" (not "guns more than ideas")

 

[Desk trauma]

Acknowledged -- Stalin hated "ideas even more than guns" (not "guns more than ideas")

We have no contemporary source attributing that quote to him, is that going to be acknowledged as well?