The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Lexicus]

Some states, I'm not sure how many, are experimenting with these "red flag" laws. I'm not sure how well they're working yet, but I think they're a worthy experiment. For me, someone wanting a gun for self-defense or for home-defense in the absence of any demonstrable threat should constitute a "red flag" all by itself. A person who is experiencing some kind of generalized anxiety, so much so that they feel they need to be ready to shoot someone, without any reasonable threat should be the last person to have a gun. It could even be at the level of a diagnosable disorder that they need treatment for. In these two instances, it's not being reported that either shooter had a history of being attacked, or of their home being broken into, or that they lived in a violent neighborhood. And yet this 84-year-old man answered a knock at his door with a gun in his hand. That's not normal. Even if he hadn't fired, the mere fact that he had the gun is a sign of something, to me: Either his neighborhood looked like a Walter Hill movie, or he believed that it did.

My understanding is that unless they are worded carefully to prevent it, as @JollyRoger said somewhere recently the SYG laws do in fact apply a subjective test (ie, if someone sincerely felt they were in danger then the law has to treat that feeling as valid).

The problem with SYG as I see it (and perhaps I am misunderstanding in some way, please correct me if I'm wrong) is taking away the duty to retreat, to say (and provide evidence) that you exhausted your nonviolent options before applying deadly force. What this creates is an incentive to kill the other person so they cannot challenge whatever story you concoct to make your subjective feeling of danger appear reasonable.

We see this over and over with some support from posters on these boards: very foolish individuals making a series of decisions that puts them in dangerous situations, then shooting as a first resort rather than trying to retreat or de-escalate the situation in any way.

Egon has just posted while I was typing this and yeah, not at all surprised by the data there given that SYG laws basically function as an incentive to kill; they perversely make it less likely that you will face legal consequences for murder since the other person is dead and cannot defend themselves, whereas if they are alive to dispute your story then your case for self-defense might not be as strong.

 

[Lexicus]

It seems important to me, that in this particular situation, folks don't overlook the fact that the shooter's behavior was an unacceptable response to the situation, but without trying to excuse his actions as a result of some sort of mental infirmity. So "crazy" in the colloquial sense... that he shouldn't remotely be responding in that way... and "crazy" in the colloquial sense... that he either should be trying to move past/set aside the kind of sentiments that caused him to answer his door in that fashion, or at a minimum, shouldn't be acting on whatever unreasonable emotions led him to act that way... but not "crazy" in the clinical/medical sense... where his actions get excused/dismissed/diminished as the unfortunate, but unavoidable result of mental illness. His actions indicate that his mind was certainly "troubled", but not because he is old or otherwise mentally handicapped, but rather, because his mental response to the situation was unreasonable, unacceptable, and inexcusable.

I agree and hope my use of the word "psycho" was not interpreted as an insinuation that the shooter did not know exactly what he was doing.

 

[Kyriakos]

They have psychiatrists for actual evaluations. I am sure they look beyond the surface.
Old people are far more likely to be senile too.

Sad for the 20-year old girl. She seemed to have so much going for her, and it's ended in a second.

 

[Sommerswerd]

My understanding is that unless they are worded carefully to prevent it, as @JollyRoger said somewhere recently the SYG laws do in fact apply a subjective test (ie, if someone sincerely felt they were in danger then the law has to treat that feeling as valid).

The problem with SYG as I see it (and perhaps I am misunderstanding in some way, please correct me if I'm wrong) is taking away the duty to retreat, to say (and provide evidence) that you exhausted your nonviolent options before applying deadly force. What this creates is an incentive to kill the other person so they cannot challenge whatever story you concoct to make your subjective feeling of danger appear reasonable.

We see this over and over with some support from posters on these boards: very foolish individuals making a series of decisions that puts them in dangerous situations, then shooting as a first resort rather than trying to retreat or de-escalate the situation in any way.

Egon has just posted while I was typing this and yeah, not at all surprised by the data there given that SYG laws basically function as an incentive to kill; they perversely make it less likely that you will face legal consequences for murder since the other person is dead and cannot defend themselves, whereas if they are alive to dispute your story then your case for self-defense might not be as strong.

I hadn't really put much thought into that second part... that a person would first have the intention to use the SYG defense and then, having decided to shoot someone, would then actively choose to shoot-to-kill, with the specific intention of eliminating the possibility that the survivor of the shooting would be able to dispute their SYG defense. In some ways, that seems to be dancing around the edge of premeditated murder. I'll have to think more about that. The other thing, is that since the SYG defense depends on subjective belief, rather than actual risk/threat, it doesn't matter as much what the person who got shot says about the shooter's SYG defense. It mostly matters what the shooter thought/felt/perceived.

Which dovetails into another problem with that outlook/intention, is the first part, which I had put some thought into, and regard as the most potentially problematic aspect of SYG laws... the subjective belief aspect regarding the presence of danger ie "reasonable belief" element. I don't care so much for the notion that people can claim that they felt in their heart/mind that they were in danger, whether they actually were or not, and this constitutes a defense to them killing, even when they were not in actual danger. The "reasonableness" requirement helps some, because at least their subjective belief, however genuine it may have been, is subjected to an inquiry/analysis of whether the belief was reasonable. Still, I think the reasonableness test is lacking, in that it does not require their subjective belief that they were in danger to be accurate, only that it was reasonable under the circumstances. My concern is the varying degree of factors with which a jury would evaluate whether their belief was reasonable and the inconsistent way this might be applied depending on the persons and/or situations involved.

Another problem that jumps out at me, as you already point out is the elimination of the requirement/concept of retreat/withdrawing/de-escalation. Taking this recent shooting in Kansas City for example... the shooter was inside his own home and the boy he shot was outside, the home on his front steps. All he had to do is not answer the door, or yell "Go away!" and go back to sleeping, watching TV, or whatever he was doing. I'm not satisfied with the notion that shooting the person at his front door has a defense, ostensibly based solely on his subjective fear of the person at the door. He probably shouldn't even be able to raise that as a defense.

The third issue you mention is another separate problem that has to do more with self-defense laws in general, not just SYG laws, although I can see how a SYG law could exacerbate the problem by emboldening people to enter/create/remain in situations that lead to shootings. The Trayvon Martin shooting was a good example of this. Zimmerman takes his gun and stalks Martin, and then when Martin attacks Zimmerman for stalking him, Zimmerman successfully uses a claim of self-defense as an excuse to shoot and kill Martin, despite the fact that he, Zimmerman, created the very situation that led to the shooting.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The GOP, NRA, and conservative talk radio have been promoting having guns and needing them as a part of daily life. The bottom line culprit is Talk Radio's ongoing, hours every day, propagation of gun love and political hate. More guns has not made anyone any safer.

 

[Lexicus]

The third issue you mention is another separate problem that has to do more with self-defense laws in general, not just SYG laws, although I can see how a SYG law could exacerbate the problem by emboldening people to enter/create/remain in situations that lead to shootings. The Trayvon Martin shooting was a good example of this. Zimmerman takes his gun and stalks Martin, and then when Martin attacks Zimmerman for stalking him, Zimmerman successfully uses a claim of self-defense as an excuse to shoot and kill Martin, despite the fact that he, Zimmerman, created the very situation that led to the shooting.

Indeed, one of our self-defense advocates on this forum (whose name rhymes with "dabeeinbeam") has stated outright that you do not lose the right to self-defense while committing actual crimes, which is just kinda flabbergasting to me in a lot of ways.

I guess I tend to think situations where violence is not clearly necessary, where the identies of the aggressor and the victim are not at all clear-cut, vastly outnumber situations where it is "dead to rights" that shooting someone was both necessary and justified. I come down on the side of people who kill other people having to explain themselves even if that sometimes means trouble or inconvenience for people who genuinely did nothing wrong in applying deadly force, as opposed to the current situation where it seems like we have a lot of people getting shot dead under dubious circumstances and the killers getting away clean. Some of these instances are genuinely terrifying because if the person has been shot dead and there are no witnesses, there is nothing to stop the shooter/killer from just completely lying about what happened.

One incident that I remember in particular strikes me as illustrative of this: the FL state senator who was shot dead a few years ago. Witnesses claim that he instigated a confrontation, crashed his car into the other guy's car and trapped it in a parking lot, and opened fire with his own pistol (which apparently had a tacticool laser sight - much good it did the dead man) before the other guy domed the FL state senator with one shot.
I understand the state senator's wife still claimed on social media that her husband had been the victim of an "assassination", which to my mind just kind of underscores how stupid it is to be resolving disputes with gunfire in the first place. It just seems quite obvious to me that we'd all be better off without so many guns around, then we wouldn't have every other argument or road rage incident turning into a life-or-death situation.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's a shame the Castle Doctrine gave way to SYG. People inside their home have effectively nowhere else to flee, and a couple flashy cases where they were sued successfully by injured intruders once upon a time gave way to "no duty to retreat from a fight you picked on the sidewalk" SYG laws in reaction. That makes the sidewalk every schmuck's castle.

 

[Kyriakos]

Indeed, one of our self-defense advocates on this forum (whose name rhymes with "dabeeinbeam") has stated outright that you do not lose the right to self-defense while committing actual crimes, which is just kinda flabbergasting to me in a lot of ways.

If you lost the right to self-defense while committing a crime, it would mean the attacker-turned-victim is free game to be up to killed. The victim-turned-attacker can abuse this, likewise for the other way around, but without the right to self-defense the attacker is pretty much cattle if the other party can damage them.
=>taking away the right to self defense, when a crime was committed by you, creates far more problems.

 

[Lexicus]

If you lost the right to self-defense while committing a crime, it would mean the attacker-turned-victim is free game to be up to killed. The victim-turned-attacker can abuse this, likewise for the other way around, but without the right to self-defense the attacker is pretty much cattle if the other party can damage them.
=>taking away the right to self defense, when a crime was committed by you, creates far more problems.

So I break into your home to steal your computer, you fire shots at me, I return those shots and kill you because you, by firing, threatened my life. In the US and I assume most sane jurisdictions this would result in murder charges for me rather than a justifiable homicide. Do you think I should be charged with murder in this situation or just with stealing your computer?

 

[Kyriakos]

Laws are made for the general case, not highly in favor of one scale specific cases.
If someone breaks into another person's house, the other person tries to shoot them down and the first person really does feel they may die (while they can be shown to not have intended to kill prior to facing death), I see no issue with the verdict not being first degree murder.
Now, how you arrived at the conclusion they would be charged only with trying to steal, instead of primarily lesser degrees of manslaughter, is strange.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think Lex has the gist of it for American law. We'd probably give that felony murder in the states. If somebody dies because of a felony you are currently engaged in, even if it's the police killing one of your co-perpetrators, that criminal liability is on you. Seems like it'd be 2nd degree, or 'depraved heart' rather than premeditated in the first degree, murder in the common law space.

 

[uppi]

For me, someone wanting a gun for self-defense or for home-defense in the absence of any demonstrable threat should constitute a "red flag" all by itself. A person who is experiencing some kind of generalized anxiety, so much so that they feel they need to be ready to shoot someone, without any reasonable threat should be the last person to have a gun.

If you go down that road, you end up at European-style gun control laws, where you need to demonstrate a reason to be allowed to own a gun. Depending on the laws, those reasons might be quite flimsy, but you do need them.

Personally, I think this is a very sensible approach, but I don't think that would ever fly in the US. I gather that the American gets a gun, because he wants a gun and the government would needs to find a specific reason to prohibit an individual from owning a gun. Turning this around to have an individual justify why they would need a gun seems to be nearly impossible in the near future.

 

[IglooDame]

The "demonstrate your need to own a gun" has been a thing in several states/jurisdictions - Mass for one, NYC I think for another - for a good long time, generally under "May Issue" laws, until SCOTUS nuked May Issue entirely recently. I get how it'd be considered a good idea in principle, though in practice some people (typically town police chiefs, in Mass at least) have widely varying standards as to what constitutes a need. And it would not be terribly surprising that the 80yr old retiree who happens to be cisgender and white is declared legally needful by the police chief, and the young black starving artist or the *ahem* visibly-trans woman has inadequate need. There's plenty of stories about how one's need in NYC was greatly increased by being well-connected, rich, or famous.

 

[Spidernova]

If you go down that road, you end up at European-style gun control laws, where you need to demonstrate a reason to be allowed to own a gun. Depending on the laws, those reasons might be quite flimsy, but you do need them.

Personally, I think this is a very sensible approach, but I don't think that would ever fly in the US. I gather that the American gets a gun, because he wants a gun and the government would needs to find a specific reason to prohibit an individual from owning a gun. Turning this around to have an individual justify why they would need a gun seems to be nearly impossible in the near future.

It depends on the state too. That was what the bruen vs new york decision was about, at least as far as I understand it. A lot of us here in the states do not trust our governments at all, and they have a long history of abusing their power for all sorts of reasons. Let's say you need to get local law enforcement to sign off on your pistol permit. Even if you do jump through their hoops, it might help you if you donate to their reelection campaign, etc. And there are all sorts of ways to keep "undesirable" folks from getting gun permits too, have the office only open from 8-5 weekdays, or in some weird location 60 miles away from urban centers, or have the application fee be hundreds of dollars.
If its easier for Donald Trump to prove need for a concealed carry pistol license than a pizza guy, something has gone horribly wrong.
But yes, you've nailed it. The assumption is that anyone who passes a background check, and any other local regulations is legally able to own/purchase a firearm.

 

[Colonel]

Why does one need a gun?

It is a utopian idea but if all guns currently in circulation could be removed it would make nearly all arguments in favor of them die on the vine. Additionally, the activism of the far right's gun lobby is what has made gun rights a fundamental of that side of the political spectrum. If we strip away the supreme court cases enshrining personal possession of a firearm and look solely at the 2nd Amendment itself, it does not say nor was it intended to imply that a regular citizen could have/own a firearm. It was an instrument of the individual states to ensure they had a readily available militia to stand against potential invasion by a foreign power or tyrannical federal government, the amendment was never intended to be disfigured in the manner which the current far right has done so.

The American public is slowly moving away from the notion that guns are a fundamental right, as the generations pass to the younger the collective political opinion of general populace will eventually reach a point where we can seriously discuss gun reform, until such time countless thousands will continue to die in senseless slaughter at the hands of an ultra conservative dwindling minority.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sometimes when you assess what a right is, you can just look at what the right has nearly always been. And that is a personal right to own and possess a firearm. Don't worry, they'll come for the hicks with long guns long before they come for the pocket pewpews, city people own those, and the numbers just lie. We know who the problems are.

 

[Arwon]

The "demonstrate your need to own a gun" has been a thing in several states/jurisdictions - Mass for one, NYC I think for another - for a good long time, generally under "May Issue" laws, until SCOTUS nuked May Issue entirely recently. I get how it'd be considered a good idea in principle, though in practice some people (typically town police chiefs, in Mass at least) have widely varying standards as to what constitutes a need. And it would not be terribly surprising that the 80yr old retiree who happens to be cisgender and white is declared legally needful by the police chief, and the young black starving artist or the *ahem* visibly-trans woman has inadequatorneed. There's plenty of stories about how one's need in NYC was greatly increased by being well-connected, rich, or famous.

It's a core part of firearms regulation in this country - the purpose helps determine what licence class, and the licence class determines what types of weapon are permitted.

Ordinary rifles and shotguns, semi automatic rifles and handguns have different rules. Handguns are pretty much just for work related reasons or sport shooting. Rifles are for most primary producers and hunters including kangaroo cull marksmen. Semi automatic only for some specialised professional hunting and clay shooting.

Notably, self defence isn't a reason, and given the storage requirements, that wouldn't make much sense anyway.

Obviously as you note, it's all in the willingness to apply criteria thoroughly and fairly. Most purposes under these rules are tied to their own documentation - hunting permits, employment records, sport shooting club registrations, ownership of rural land.

 

[EgonSpengler]

If you go down that road, you end up at European-style gun control laws, where you need to demonstrate a reason to be allowed to own a gun. Depending on the laws, those reasons might be quite flimsy, but you do need them.

Yes, this is more or less what I would envision for "my" country, if I were some kind of benevolent despot.

Personally, I think this is a very sensible approach, but I don't think that would ever fly in the US. I gather that the American gets a gun, because he wants a gun and the government would needs to find a specific reason to prohibit an individual from owning a gun. Turning this around to have an individual justify why they would need a gun seems to be nearly impossible in the near future.

It is impossible, yes. Even moderate gun control laws can be found unconstitutional by a Supreme Court predisposed to lean in that direction, as soon as a case comes before them. As long as we have the 2nd Amendment, there can't really be any common-sense gun laws or compromises, and I don't think we're within shouting distance of repealing it. I think gun violence in this country is going to continue to get worse. (I'd like to say, "It's going to get worse before it gets better", but I don't know if it's going to get better, it may just get worse and stay there.)

The "demonstrate your need to own a gun" has been a thing in several states/jurisdictions - Mass for one, NYC I think for another - for a good long time, generally under "May Issue" laws, until SCOTUS nuked May Issue entirely recently. I get how it'd be considered a good idea in principle, though in practice some people (typically town police chiefs, in Mass at least) have widely varying standards as to what constitutes a need. And it would not be terribly surprising that the 80yr old retiree who happens to be cisgender and white is declared legally needful by the police chief, and the young black starving artist or the *ahem* visibly-trans woman has inadequate need. There's plenty of stories about how one's need in NYC was greatly increased by being well-connected, rich, or famous.

Yeah, I'm not aware that gun licenses are being denied to people who have a genuine need, but I guess I'm not surprised to hear it. That said, I don't think the answer to discrimination or violence against certain groups is to make gun ownership easier. I still question the value of guns in self-defense or home-defense, but that would only be in the forefront of my mind if the consequences of widespread gun ownership seemed to be otherwise neutral. I don't have a problem with people wearing crystals to balance the color of their aura, but not because I think it works. If owning a gun was just some harmless little quirk or hobby, we wouldn't be having these conversations. So far, it seems like the more we learn about what guns do to our country, the worse and worse it gets. You may find it a slog to convince me that among the problems facing young, Black, starving artists today is that they aren't properly armed, but take a swing at it, if you feel like.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Don't worry, they'll come for the hicks with long guns long before they come for the pocket pewpews, city people own those, and the numbers just lie.

D.C. v Heller was exclusively about city people being denied their pocket pewpews. Going way back to the 1930s, the gun control debate was about sawed-off shotguns and Tommy Guns being used by organized crime (which of course was not exclusively an urban problem, but do we think it would have been so heavily targeted if it was purely a rural problem?). The aforementioned Mulford Act in California in the 1960s was about people with long guns, yes, but it was city people with long guns. City people of a certain persuasion, specifically. I'm just guessing, but I'd be surprised if a single California hunter, farmer or rancher had his rifle seized as a result of the Mulford Act. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if "hicks with long guns" have ever been primarily targeted or affected by gun control efforts.


EDIT: Ah, found it. It was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was challenged in United States v Miller in 1939. (Ironically, Jack Miller, the defendant, and a bank robber and moonshiner, was killed in a gunfight before the Court's decision was released.)

 

[Farm Boy]

It's just a who tends to own what. And new restrictions are usually on sale, not on region you live in.

But you're right. Handguns are specifically pulled out be recend SCOTUS precedent, specifically. All the long tools, even of obsolete era, aren't so much. I really do hate handguns, fwiw. But it's always assault rifle this and assault weapon that.