What will it take to make America want reasonable gun laws?

[Tanasi]

From the article:
"A woman walking her dogs near her western New York home was fatally shot Wednesday by a man who told police he mistook her for a deer."

How the flying fuck do you mistake a human for a deer???

For a fairly new hunter it's not hard and if the hunter has "buck fever" even more so, but that's no excuse to not make positive of your target.
What caught my eye in this article is the hunter took a 200 yard shot with a single shot pistol. That's a long freaking shot, even with a rifle caliber round in a 14 inch barrel that's way too far to make an ethical shot.

[Talon]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/us/new...ter/index.html

Because America still can't be responsible with guns.

From the article:
"A woman walking her dogs near her western New York home was fatally shot Wednesday by a man who told police he mistook her for a deer."

How the flying fuck do you mistake a human for a deer???

[Greenday]

You can be though -- right?

Yes, because I know not to shoot at stuff near someone's house because bullets go through walls. Also I don't shoot humans.

But since too many people are irresponsible, they ruin it for all.

[mjr]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/us/new...ter/index.html

Because America still can't be responsible with guns.

You can be though -- right?

[Greenday]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/us/new...ter/index.html

Because America still can't be responsible with guns.

[Gravekeeper]

Considering the vast ratio of domestic violence to homicide victims among women in the US (4.7 million to 2,700) - no, I don't see that as a common thread.

And can you quote those statistics you mention?

I'm not saying its a common thread among homicide victims. I'm saying its a common thread with gun violence and mass shooters.

I'm quoting statistics from the article which sources them if you want to look them up.

I'm still not convinced that being convicted of a misdemeanor should be cause to have your property confiscated. Example: according to California criminal law, domestic violence is any "crime against a roommate, spouse, a parent to a defendant’s child, people who are dating, people that used to date and family members as a violation under certain circumstances."

We're in the exact murky legal territory that is kind of the problem we're talking about. The disconnect between federal and state law is what's causing the loopholes in question. The loophole is federal and 35 states have a patch of one sort or another over it. The states shouldn't need to be patching the system in the first place.

As for when your property is confiscated I am completely okay with people who are charged with violent crimes ( not mere battery ) losing access to lethal weapons. Shoving your room mate during an argument, no. Beating him half to death during an argument, yes.

I'm sorry that happened to you. And yes: all statistics point to the fact that anybody living in a household with guns has a higher chance of getting shot than someone living without. Which is the whole idea behind gun control in the first place: those things are frickin' dangerous.

The only reason my mother is alive is because my father only had his hands to work with.

[Canarr]

If over half the women shot in the US are the result of domestic violence and 57% of mass shooters are domestic abusers you don't think that looks like a common thread? It's statistically proven that closing the loopholes there leads to a reduction in gun violence for the States that have stepped in to do so.

Considering the vast ratio of domestic violence to homicide victims among women in the US (4.7 million to 2,700) - no, I don't see that as a common thread.

And can you quote those statistics you mention?

Spotty enforcement is certainly a problem but there's likewise outright holes in the laws. Under Federal law a convicted stalker or abusive partner you don't live / have a kid with can still buy firearms. That category represents 25% of all mass shooters by itself.

Again, can you provide that statistic?

Likewise, most States don't stop people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions or restraining orders from having firearms either. Sure, the accusation shouldn't be enough. The charge should certainly make the cops check on someone's armory though just so they're aware at least.

I'm still not convinced that being convicted of a misdemeanor should be cause to have your property confiscated. Example: according to California criminal law, domestic violence is any "crime against a roommate, spouse, a parent to a defendant’s child, people who are dating, people that used to date and family members as a violation under certain circumstances."

Under that Penal Code, getting into an argument with your college roommate during which you shove him, or kick an object that hits him, would fulfill the criteria for misdemeanor battery. Is that something you should lose your property over?

As a victim of domestic violence myself I can tell you with 100% utter certainty that had there been a gun in the house my mom would be dead. Possibly two cops as well.

I'm sorry that happened to you. And yes: all statistics point to the fact that anybody living in a household with guns has a higher chance of getting shot than someone living without. Which is the whole idea behind gun control in the first place: those things are frickin' dangerous.

[Gravekeeper]

Maybe I should rephrase my question: why do you consider this issue a particularly relevant "common thread" with regards to new gun laws? the percentage of domestic violence victims that end up being shot is so miniscule, it's not even a staticstical anomaly.

If over half the women shot in the US are the result of domestic violence and 57% of mass shooters are domestic abusers you don't think that looks like a common thread? It's statistically proven that closing the loopholes there leads to a reduction in gun violence for the States that have stepped in to do so.

Spotty enforcement is certainly a problem but there's likewise outright holes in the laws. Under Federal law a convicted stalker or abusive partner you don't live / have a kid with can still buy firearms. That category represents 25% of all mass shooters by itself.

Likewise, most States don't stop people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions or restraining orders from having firearms either. Sure, the accusation shouldn't be enough. The charge should certainly make the cops check on someone's armory though just so they're aware at least.

As a victim of domestic violence myself I can tell you with 100% utter certainty that had there been a gun in the house my mom would be dead. Possibly two cops as well.

[Greenday]

The anti-constitution crowd are really showing their "intelligence." Now they're going after muzzle-loading rifles because of the "devastating" .50 caliber bullet they can fire. I wonder if they're trying to equate the .50 BMG round with this?

LOL Anti-Constitution. There's a reason we call it a living document. And it needs to be updated because clearly people are abusing the openness of the Second Amendment to justify having arsenals and wiping out innocents.

[Canarr]

...I did link you a video that explained the loopholes and weaknesses in the current system?

Maybe an article would be better:

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womeninth...-womens-lives/

I just skimmed through the video; Bee's style doesn't really agree with me.

Maybe I should rephrase my question: why do you consider this issue a particularly relevant "common thread" with regards to new gun laws? the percentage of domestic violence victims that end up being shot is so miniscule, it's not even a staticstical anomaly.

Most of the higher risks that the article lists for women are the same for everybody living in a household with guns - like a higher risk of being shot; and that people in the US have a higher risk of being shot than in other industrial countries isn't really news to anyone here, is it? A lot of the issue seems to be spotty background checks, which would have to be fixed, anyway.

Whether or not it is an appropriate measure to deprive people of their guns due to a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence - or, as the article seems to suggest, anyone charged with domestic violence before their hearing - I don't know. While I don't own any guns, the idea of having to give up any kind of my property merely after being accused of a crime doesn't feel right to me.

[Gravekeeper]

The anti-constitution crowd are really showing their "intelligence." Now they're going after muzzle-loading rifles because of the "devastating" .50 caliber bullet they can fire. I wonder if they're trying to equate the .50 BMG round with this?

1) Don't start with "anti-Constitution" because we all know what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was before it evolved through legal expansion to the modern version.

2) No, they aren't. Muzzle loading rifles were highlighted in the report because they're largely exempt from regulation as antique firearms. A loophole being used to sell rifles while skirting the law on silencers. Of which the most egregious example was a new .50 cal silencer that went on sale last summer. Creating this new fad:

Clearly, this is not an antique firearm and it's silence can get around some regulations because of a legal technically: A muzzleloader is not technically considered a firearm and a silencer is only considered a silencer if its attached to a firearm. So viola, you get a .50 silencer + rifle combo under "antique firearm".

And that's not me talking, that's the FAQ for the product itself:

WHY DON’T I NEED A TAX STAMP?
The BATFE defines a silencer as a “device for
silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a
portable firearm...” *By that definition, a silencer is
only a silencer if it can attach to a firearm.
The Maxim 50 is built on the base of a Traditions™
Vortek Strikerfire Muzzleloader. Muzzleloaders are
not considered firearms by the BATFE, but are
instead antique firearms, a definition and difference
that is very distinct.
Because of this, a moderator that is permanently
affixed to a muzzleloader is not legally defined as a
silencer, since it does not attach to a firearm.

GUN CONTROL ACT
Muzzleloaders are classified as antiques or replicas
by the ATF, and are therefore excluded from the
GCA (Gun Control Act), which prohibits the sale of
firearms through the mail without a background
check.

DO I HAVE TO SHIP THROUGH A DEALER?
The muzzleloader, as an antique firearm, can be
shipped directly to the consumer in most cases.

[Tanasi]

The anti-constitution crowd are really showing their "intelligence." Now they're going after muzzle-loading rifles because of the "devastating" .50 caliber bullet they can fire. I wonder if they're trying to equate the .50 BMG round with this?

[Gravekeeper]

Still not following you, I'm afraid. Aren't people convicted of a felony - such as domestic violence - not already banned from owning guns in most states?

...I did link you a video that explained the loopholes and weaknesses in the current system?

Maybe an article would be better:

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womeninth...-womens-lives/

The loopholes that appear between state and federal laws are complicated. According to research compiled by Everytown, in 35 states, state law allows those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes (or those subject to restraining orders) to buy and use guns, even though federal law says otherwise. Meanwhile, the federal definition of “domestic violence” leaves some women, like sisters and girlfriends, unprotected from men who assault them by allowing the assailant to keep and buy guns, even after a conviction.

[Canarr]

Not quite what I meant. Perhaps I should have said "red flag" instead of predictor. As in its one of the more prominent common threads we have to work with when formulating gun laws.

Still not following you, I'm afraid. Aren't people convicted of a felony - such as domestic violence - not already banned from owning guns in most states?

[Gravekeeper]

No... not really. Bee is putting forward that 54% of the women shot to death by their partner were also beaten by him before that. Not exactly surprising, that someone who'd shoot their partner would also beat them. But as a predictor?

Not quite what I meant. Perhaps I should have said "red flag" instead of predictor. As in its one of the more prominent common threads we have to work with when formulating gun laws.