If There Were No Antis What Gun Laws Would You Have?

[Justin]

You can cite sources for your statement?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Sure. Which state's assault definition would you like me to post a link to?

Actually, come to think of it, a mortar would be an even better example. The device itself is totally inert, and would not be pointed at anything but the sky. Once inserted, where the shell might fall is determined by the charge, which you could not know, to look at it from across the street.

 

[qwert65]

To me it is more the increased risk of accidental death, and spur of the moment psychos, ie my best friends father years agohad a nd with a .380 the bullet passed 3in above my best freinds head(he also somehow managed to shoot himself in the hand at the same time) now even if it was a 50bmg the risk of inadvertenly killing someone is small(but obvisouly still there) This guy has tons of guns, also lots of other stuff. he's crashed 2 planes, sank a raft and been in numerous car accidents. He also used to just dump bp down his muzzleloader to "see how much it could take" Now it's his right under 2a to bear arms, however, I really don't think he should be able to go down to the store and pick up heavy ordance.
My point with this tying it into assault is that with the right weapons he could do way more damage then he already has in is 55 years without specifically pointing it at anyone in paticular. I'm no expert but how far does artillery travel?

 

[Kind of Blued]

The depressed mohammedean is not assaulting you by pointing his submachinegun at your house. He very well may be committing assault if he points it at your children -- but that crime likely would be impossible of proof. You could call the cops ten times, and it would be the same thing -- he'd deny pointing the gun at your kid.

Here's another crime that is impossible to prove; that you murdered him when he didn't actually point a gun at your kid. So impossible to prove, in fact, that it might be wise to shoot the fellow the next time he points a gun at your kid.

This is how it would work if there were no gun laws, and as a matter of fact, this is how it works now, with 291-some Federal gun laws.

The guy should have learned that it isn't smart to do drugs, go outside with guns, and point them at children. He had the freedom to have the tools necessary to be this stupid, the fact that he followed through with it got him justifiably killed.

An armed society is a polite society, unless you're an idiot and step on the toes of other peoples' freedoms.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Pointing a howitzer at your house is not assaulting you.

It is, because if it hits my house my house will probably collapse and kill me.

 

[expvideo]

Actually, come to think of it, a mortar would be an even better example.

yeah. No sh**. It would be a much better example. Since your original example is retarded.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Kind of Blued, you are essentially correct.

But some of us do not wish to live and raise children in such an uncivilized society. Which is why SOME controls are desirable. Far fewer controls than we have now, to be sure. But not "none." Believe me, in a world of "none", I'd have a lot, and I mean a lot, of "fun."

It's what I get off on. Years ago, Maryland had no open container law. So of COURSE I drank a beer while driving. Maryland also had no such legal thing as a moped. Only bicycles and motorcycles. And if your moped had pedals, it was a bicycle. So of COURSE I powered my moped through parks, schoolyards, malls, etc. Terrorized Montgomery County for a year, until I finally could get my motorcycle license and things calmed down.

None is TOO fun.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

JI: "It is, because if it hits my house my house will probably collapse and kill me."

Not necessarily. In fact, probably not.

 

[expvideo]

Kind of Blued, you are essentially correct.

But some of us do not wish to live and raise children in such an uncivilized society. Which is why SOME controls are desirable. Far fewer controls than we have now, to be sure. But not "none." Believe me, in a world of "none", I'd have a lot, and I mean a lot, of "fun."

It's what I get off on. Years ago, Maryland had no open container law. So of COURSE I drank a beer while driving. Maryland also had no such legal thing as a moped. Only bicycles and motorcycles. And if your moped had pedals, it was a bicycle. So of COURSE I powered my moped through parks, schoolyards, malls, etc. Terrorized Montgomery County for a year, until I finally could get my motorcycle license and things calmed down.

None is TOO fun.

Some people believe in holding people responsible for their actions rather than attempting to prevent them from doing something by restricting the rest of us.

Not necessarily. In fact, probably not.

Wow. You're not only a lawyer who doesn't understand the law very well, but you're also an expert on howitzers. Somebody give this guy a medal.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Justin: "If what I have described is not commonly considered to be assault in jurisdictions in the United States, I'm certainly open to being educated as to what the proper term is for laws that actually do cover such situations where a reasonable person would perceive that they are being threatened."

In my state, possibly the crime of "reckless conduct" would apply, IF it was an active howitzer, loaded, pointed at your house, and I left it that way for someone to fire off, and IF a few other things were true. If a mortar, probably not, UNLESS it was loaded and the shell would fall on your house if the thing was tripped by a passing kid. But merely loading the mortar or howitzer while it's pointed at your house likely is NOT reckless conduct, by itself.

 

[expvideo]

In my state, possibly the crime of "reckless conduct" would apply, IF it was an active howitzer, loaded, pointed at your house, and I left it that way for someone to fire off, and IF a few other things were true. If a mortar, probably not, UNLESS it was loaded and the shell would fall on your house if the thing was tripped by a passing kid. But merely loading the mortar or howitzer while it's pointed at your house likely is NOT reckless conduct, by itself.

How is "reckless conduct" a gun control law?

 

[Kind of Blued]

Kind of Blued, you are essentially correct.

But some of us do not wish to live and raise children in such an uncivilized society.

You don't have a point. My scenario is the same whether we have ZERO gun laws or if we have every gun law that we have today.

Shooting someone in self-defense is not uncivilized. The unruly drug-addict with no respect for human life is uncivilized.

I'm not sure how having a life or death problem, and having a 12 oz. tool which can immediately, perfectly, and permanently fix such a huge problem could be considered "uncivilized".

Until you can come up with a method to stop crime outright, kids will have to see "bad", "uncivilized" things. Whether they can solve those problems or not may depend on if they have the right to own a gun, such as in the scenario you created, which I solved.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

It isn't, kiddo. Justin asked what crime might be implicated in the situation of a howitzer pointed at his house.

R e a d i n g is fundamental.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Blued: "Whether they can solve those problems or not may depend on if they have the right to own a gun, such as in the scenario you created, which I solved."

You didn't solve it. The mohammedean's nephew kills you for killing the mohammedean. Problem solved?

 

[expvideo]

It isn't, kiddo. Justin asked what crime might be implicated in the situation of a howitzer pointed at his house.

R e a d i n g is fundamental.

And you said:

If you really mean no restrictions at all, then YES that means I can aim my WWI howitzer directly at your bedroom window, load it up, and flip you off as you dial 911 -- because it's legal.

SO... What gun regulation is it that prevents you from doing this now?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

For one thing, live howitzer ammunition and howitzers are controlled devices. Getting ahold of either is practically impossible for most people.

For another thing, local law probably prohibits assembling the device and arming it in your yard without certain permits unlikely to be granted.

 

[expvideo]

For one thing, live ammunition and howitzers are controlled devices. Getting ahold of either is practically impossible for most people.

Don't change the subject. What part of POINTING IT AT ME through my window, is prevented by a gun regulation?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

It isn't changing the subject, kiddo. Regulations prevent the whole situation, not just the pointing of one specifically at your house.

The homicide statutes of my state do not say, "It is a crime to stab expvideo with a pitchfork in the testicles until he bleeds out." It says it's a crime to kill someone.

 

[jerkface11]

Pointing a field piece at someone would be no more illegal than pointing a .22 revolver at them. And that isn't a gun law so it's not exactly relevant to the discussion.

 

[expvideo]

It isn't changing the subject, kiddo. Regulations prevent the whole situation, not just the pointing of one specifically at your house.

The homicide statutes of my state do not say, "It is a crime to stab expvideo with a pitchfork in the testicles until he bleeds out." It says it's a crime to kill someone.

It's still a crime. You take away all of the restrictions, and pointing a gun at me, no matter how small or big in this case, is still illegal. The point is that taking away the restrictions on guns does not make it legal for you to use them in crimes.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

expvideo: "It's still a crime. You take away all of the restrictions, and pointing a gun at me, no matter how small or big in this case, is still illegal. The point is that taking away the restrictions on guns does not make it legal for you to use them in crimes."

You haven't been paying attention in class.

The point of the howitzer example is that pointing a howitzer at your house probably is NOT a crime. Regulations governing howitzers, shells and their storage and placement in residential neighborhoods are a way of dealing with the howitzer problem, as the crime of assault does not apply, and indeed probably no common law crimes apply to the pointing of a howitzer at your house.

 

[expvideo]

The point of the howitzer example is that pointing a howitzer at your house probably is NOT a crime. Regulations governing howitzers, shells and their storage and placement in residential neighborhoods are a way of dealing with the howitzer problem, as the crime of assault does not apply, and indeed probably no common law crimes apply to the pointing of a howitzer at your house.

Well that may be the case, but we're not talking about pointing a howitzer at my house. We are talking about through my window, loading it and flipping me off.

directly at your bedroom window, load it up, and flip you off as you dial 911 -- because it's legal.

 

[Golden Hound]

I just want to say something here and I hope everyone listens:

This is a good thread to have. It is very good. It contains viewpoints that are being contested and debated. This is a GOOD THING. We need debating practice. We need opportunities to argue about things like this, if the arguments are thought out in a focused way and not personal insults.

Far, far too much of this forum is just us preaching to the choir. It's great to have a little controversy now and then, and some opposing viewpoints.

I just hope that this thread does not degenerate into name calling and get closed.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

expvideo: "Well that may be the case, but we're not talking about pointing a howitzer at my house. We are talking about through my window, loading it and flipping me off."

And as we went through earlier, it might be assault if you were in that window and I traversed the gun onto you. But pointing it at your window while you scream at me from your front steps as I flip you off? No, probably not an assault. Well, maybe if it was a 155mm.

 

[SuperNaut]

I just hope that this thread does not degenerate into name calling and get closed.

Well it already did, but to most everyone's credit they just moved on.