The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control
- Thread starter Lemon Merchant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- all guns suck
Case by case is theoretically ideal for everything... problem is that case by case often ends up with certain kinds of people ending up on the losing end a disproportionate/inconsistent amount of the time... because things, including people's sensibilities, biases, etc., aren't theoretically ideal.
New York Loses Bid To Disband The NRA
BY MARK MAREMONT
A state court judge dismissed the New York Attorney General’s attempt to dissolve the National Rifle Association, ruling that the state’s allegations of corruption and mismanagement by NRA top officials fell short of the public harm required to impose the “corporate death penalty” on the nonprofit group. Wednesday’s ruling by New York Supreme Court Judge Joel M. Cohen represented a big win for the NRA, even as it allowed the bulk of the New York attorney general’s case to go forward against the group and four of its top current and former officials.
The decision comes 18 months after New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against the NRA and its top officials, alleging that they violated the state’s nonprofit laws by illegally diverting tens of millions of dollars from the group through excessive expenses and contracts that benefited relatives or close associates. The NRA and its officers deny the claims. The NRA has charged that the suit by Ms. James, a Democrat, is politically motivated, which she has denied. The NRA, a New York nonprofit since its founding more than 150 years ago, falls under Ms. James’s regulatory authority. If the attorney general’s allegations are proved, they could be addressed through less intrusive measures, the judge ruled, and dissolving the NRA “could impinge, at least indirectly, on the free speech and assembly rights” of the group’s members.
Ms. James said she was disappointed that the judge ruled against the dismissal portion of the case and said the AG’s office is considering its legal options. She welcomed the court’s decision on the other counts, which she said affirmed her office’s right to pursue claims that “fraud, abuse and greed permeate through the NRA.”
“We applaud the court’s recognition that dissolution is neither appropriate nor justified,” said William A. Brewer III, an outside attorney for the NRA. “We look forward to continuing the defense of the NRA—and proving that it acts in the best interests of its members and the Second Amendment freedoms in which they believe.”
Last year, the NRA attempted an end-around the New York action by filing for bankruptcy in Texas, but a federal bankruptcy judge dismissed the petition.
BY MARK MAREMONT
A state court judge dismissed the New York Attorney General’s attempt to dissolve the National Rifle Association, ruling that the state’s allegations of corruption and mismanagement by NRA top officials fell short of the public harm required to impose the “corporate death penalty” on the nonprofit group. Wednesday’s ruling by New York Supreme Court Judge Joel M. Cohen represented a big win for the NRA, even as it allowed the bulk of the New York attorney general’s case to go forward against the group and four of its top current and former officials.
The decision comes 18 months after New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against the NRA and its top officials, alleging that they violated the state’s nonprofit laws by illegally diverting tens of millions of dollars from the group through excessive expenses and contracts that benefited relatives or close associates. The NRA and its officers deny the claims. The NRA has charged that the suit by Ms. James, a Democrat, is politically motivated, which she has denied. The NRA, a New York nonprofit since its founding more than 150 years ago, falls under Ms. James’s regulatory authority. If the attorney general’s allegations are proved, they could be addressed through less intrusive measures, the judge ruled, and dissolving the NRA “could impinge, at least indirectly, on the free speech and assembly rights” of the group’s members.
Ms. James said she was disappointed that the judge ruled against the dismissal portion of the case and said the AG’s office is considering its legal options. She welcomed the court’s decision on the other counts, which she said affirmed her office’s right to pursue claims that “fraud, abuse and greed permeate through the NRA.”
“We applaud the court’s recognition that dissolution is neither appropriate nor justified,” said William A. Brewer III, an outside attorney for the NRA. “We look forward to continuing the defense of the NRA—and proving that it acts in the best interests of its members and the Second Amendment freedoms in which they believe.”
Last year, the NRA attempted an end-around the New York action by filing for bankruptcy in Texas, but a federal bankruptcy judge dismissed the petition.
So presumably it is much worse for someone an organisation being dissolved and going bankrupt. I do not know how that works, but it seems there must be something wrong with the bankruptcy system that something valuable is being left for the current owners.
When I hear this I wonder if she should not just come out and say that it is. I do not really know, but I guess had this been a charity helping cute puppies and kittens there is a very good chance that no one would have looked closely enough at it to see the graft. I think something similar when trump calls his legal troubles a witch hunt.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...pc=U531&cvid=ed45a5bd271742feb30ad801dadbb602
Sheer madness. Holding a 10 year old child criminally responsible for a shooting. Her mother is obviously not a fit parent, throw the book at her, but a 10 year old child isn't mature enough to be held responsible if she was able to get access to a gun.
Sheer madness. Holding a 10 year old child criminally responsible for a shooting. Her mother is obviously not a fit parent, throw the book at her, but a 10 year old child isn't mature enough to be held responsible if she was able to get access to a gun.
Woah that's insane. How can they legally do this!?
Correct me if I am wrong, but would the same not happen here in the UK? The age of criminal responsibility is 10 in the UK, after all. There is no age of criminal responsibility in Florida. Theoretically you could charge a toddler. In either the Florida system or the UK though its far too young IMO. Criminal responsibility should be more like 14. Not sure I would quite go to 16 or even 18. And there should still be significant consequences for any child (and parent) if they did break the law below the age of criminal responsibility. It used to be the case that the police would do nothing if a child was a serial shoplifter in the UK. Not sure that’s the case now. At the very least the parents should be prosecuted.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
According to a quick Google search, 33 U.S. states have no minimum age for criminal prosecution. The Federal minimum age is 11, for serious crimes. Florida's minimum age - 7 - was only implemented last year. I assume the age at which a minor can be charged as an adult is much higher. I have no idea what happens to a minor convicted of a homicide in Florida. I imagine you wouldn't want to put a child this young into a facility with even adolescents.
Ages of Criminal Responsibility worldwide, according to Wikipedia...
Countries that have no minimum age of criminal responsibility, for serious crimes: Mauritius.
Countries where the minimum age of criminal responsibility for serious crimes is the same as Florida's - 7 years (which is the lowest, above "none"): Belize, Brunei, India, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Myanmar, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, UAE, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
A bunch of countries put the age at which children can be charged with serious crimes at 8-10 years.
A bunch more countries are in the 12-14 yrs range. Some are 15 or 16. Only Luxembourg puts its age at 18. (Again, for serious crimes.)
The Wikipedia list doesn't show at what age a minor could be charged as an adult.
EDIT: Actually, I'm seeing articles about a bill in the Florida legislature last year implementing a minimum age of 7. I can't tell whether it's been signed into law yet.
Yes, 10 here also (since 1998), the lowest in Europe. In Scotland its 8 but a bill has been passed to raise it to 12.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
The Science of Gun Policy: A Critical Synthesis of Research Evidence on the Effects of Gun Policies in the United States, Second Edition. Multiple authors. Published by the RAND Corporation, April 2020.
The entire 410-page book is available as a free .pdf. I haven't read it. The website has a list of Key Findings and Recommendations that isn't too long, but when I tried to paste those here the formatting got all f'd up and I don't feel like figuring it out right now. I've just printed myself a copy of pages i-xxxiii, the preface, table of contents, and summary, which I hope to skim over at lunch.
The entire 410-page book is available as a free .pdf. I haven't read it. The website has a list of Key Findings and Recommendations that isn't too long, but when I tried to paste those here the formatting got all f'd up and I don't feel like figuring it out right now. I've just printed myself a copy of pages i-xxxiii, the preface, table of contents, and summary, which I hope to skim over at lunch.
RAND Corp. said:
I am not knocking their work here, I have come across their stuff on gun control before and it seems to make sense. But the RAND corporation is a hard right think tank that was mostly about promoting the cold war. That even they are on the gun control side of the argument makes me even more confused about the electoral coalition that keeps guns so available when most people are pro-gun control.
Spoiler A graph showing most people are pro-gun control :
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
Yes, the RAND Corp was founded by Douglas Aircraft after the war specifically to provide research data to the U.S. military. One of its founders was Curtis LeMay. Clearly a bunch of long-haired peaceniks who hate America and want to take everyone's guns.I am not knocking their work here, I have come across their stuff on gun control before and it seems to make sense. But the RAND corporation is a hard right think tank that was mostly about promoting the cold war. That even they are on the gun control side of the argument makes me even more confused about the electoral coalition that keeps guns so available when most people are pro-gun control.
Spoiler A graph showing most people are pro-gun control :
As for being confused, don't feel bad, we can't explain it, either.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
i would at least like to know the details of exactly how this happened before making judgments. the article talks about a fight between the mother and the person who was shot. i can conceive of both a situation whereby the mother and the girl were completely reckless/killed someone needlessly, and another where the girl gained access to the weapon due to the altercation itself and acted to save her mother from serious harm. more information would rule one or both of these out, but the information in that article linked isn't sufficient to do so.
though it's not good process to say that 10 year olds can't be criminals, generally. i have heard of multiple examples, and observed one, where kids are willing to attempt to seriously harm or kill people. even younger than that. it is not necessarily a reflection of the parenting. i get that people have a desire to blame/point fingers when they're not in the situation, but it's not completely unreasonable to hold children accountable in some cases. there has to be at least some room for law enforcement when a kid repeatedly makes serious threats...and then acts precisely on those threats.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Some people get used to assembling just enough opinion to extend rights, and then they think they should get similar amounts of power when they then seek to truncate the rights of others.
Roughly. ish.
In 2020 various events had a lot of various minority folk buying guns for the first time. Though I'd guess their wanting to ban 'assault weapons' and such is probably unchanged.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bu...skyrocket-amid-fears-bloody-election-n1243510
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
hence criticisms of the fake terminology "assault weapon" continue to be relevant. it's been an effective propaganda tool. too effective considering it's more or less a meme in terms of being meaningful otherwise.
It's more like "The Republican party is a coalition of a bunch of single-issue voters, one of which is gun control, who really don't care at all about what other things the Republicans are doing as long as they get lower taxes/no gun control/restrictive abortion laws"
If memory serves, the minimum age in Canada is 12.
16 or 18 is too high, given that there are teens who have willfully and deliberately murdered people. One of the most famous cases here is the murder of Reena Virk, who was drowned during a swarm attack by several other students. Two of the students got lengthy prison sentences, and the girl (Kelly Allard) was tried multiple times.
All that for an argument over a boyfriend, though I've sometimes wondered if it could have also been a hate crime due to the victim not being white.
16 or 18 is too high, given that there are teens who have willfully and deliberately murdered people. One of the most famous cases here is the murder of Reena Virk, who was drowned during a swarm attack by several other students. Two of the students got lengthy prison sentences, and the girl (Kelly Allard) was tried multiple times.
All that for an argument over a boyfriend, though I've sometimes wondered if it could have also been a hate crime due to the victim not being white.
Similar threads
- Poll
