Jump to content

Gun Laws in Puerto Rico


Recommended Posts

Puerto Rico has very strict gun laws by US standards. A 5 round magazine is "high capacity." You have to get a couple of fellow citizens to vouch for the idea that you're a suitable person to exercise your rights. They limit ammunition sales and prohibit use of ammo outside of gun clubs for the most part. They're very clear that any public carrying of weapons shall be concealed only.

The laws are here:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20080725/puerto-rico-firearms-laws

Yeah, I know, evil NRA link, but all they had to say on the subject was this:

Quote

The National Rifle Association does not publish a summary-of-laws brochure dealing specifically with the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. We have included below the law text of the section dealing with Puerto Rico`s firearm laws as found in the Firearms State Laws and Published Ordinances, 2008 edition

In other words, "they don't vote so here's the rules. Figure them out."

The homicide rate in Puerto Rico is higher than any state.

The gun ownership rate is lower.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't notice that BJ hasn't visited the official Randumb Mocking Thread?

He won't visit this one either. Puerto Rico is not a happy place for those who think gun control works.

Works about as well as any other Prohibition program we've tried, for many of the same reasons. That's also why so many drug war/gun war court cases track and rely on each other.

Along those lines...

http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/02/how-could-anyone-deny-the-need-for-tough

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Hey BJ - since you're supposedly ignoring Tom - I would like to address this to your "island of strict gun laws" comment in the other thread.

PR is literally an island with some of the strictest gun laws in the US.  And because they are surrounded by water and 1000 miles from the US mainland - they don't suffer from the same issues that Chicago does where its easy to drive a few hours, buy a gun and drive back.  PR does pretty much everything the gun grabbers in the US demand - i.e. registration, limits on ammo, mag capacity limits, restricted to gun clubs, ettc.  Yet the homicide rate is higher than any other state.  Any thoughts on how this can be?

Although the two are related, this thread is not a response to BJ's comment about an island of gun control.

I actually researched those PR gun laws early yesterday morning. The reason was because I knew PR had strict gun control and knew it had a high crime rate but knew little else. Except that mass violence hasn't broken out over there as far as I can tell. People are confident that society will be rebuilt. People get nasty when that confidence fails.

It's one reason I have cited for not liking strict gun control.

So I wondered how strict PR gun control actually is and went looking. I was going to start this thread yesterday morning but didn't finish reading the law before I had to leave.

The thread is a reaction to the Puerto Rico situation, not the Vegas shooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The fact that our various Prohibition programs don't work is one of the things that connects them, Meli.

What? so you reckon if you derestricted the guns in PR..the drugs would stop coming in and the poverty rate would all go away?

Maybe if you just cut the anchor and let it float a 1000k north that would work too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

What? so you reckon if you derestricted the guns in PR..the drugs would stop coming in and the poverty rate would all go away?

...

No. You pointed out that PR is a drug xchange point. To me, that reads Drug War Failure Point.

PR is also an island of gun control failure. They succeeded in part, having a very low gun ownership rate. The big fail is the homicide rate.

It's also an island of gun control success. The gun ownership rate measures legally owned guns and estimates illegal ones. Any estimate is really as good as the next, but it's safe to say there are "some" illegal guns. Most likely in the hands of the last people who should have guns. And few of their potential victims are armed. The situation is grim down there, but I see nothing indicating general lawlessness/breakdown of social order.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No. You pointed out that PR is a drug xchange point. To me, that reads Drug War Failure Point.

PR is also an island of gun control failure. They succeeded in part, having a very low gun ownership rate. The big fail is the homicide rate.

It's also an island of gun control success. The gun ownership rate measures legally owned guns and estimates illegal ones. Any estimate is really as good as the next, but it's safe to say there are "some" illegal guns. Most likely in the hands of the last people who should have guns. And few of their potential victims are armed. The situation is grim down there, but I see nothing indicating general lawlessness/breakdown of social order.

You're an idiot 

Crime rate comparison Puerto Rico vs United States

  Puerto Rico United States
  Improve Data Improve Data
Level of crime
 
High 74.42
 
Moderate 55.24
Crime increasing in the past 3 years
 
High 74.61
 
High 65.69
Worries home broken and things stolen
 
High 63.57
 
Moderate 47.05
Worries being mugged or robbed
 
High 66.83
 
Moderate 44.02
Worries car stolen
 
Moderate 57.92
 
Moderate 40.90
Worries things from car stolen
 
High 71.71
 
Moderate 55.38
Worries attacked
 
Moderate 56.30
 
Moderate 42.50
Worries being insulted
 
Moderate 48.64
 
Moderate 45.27
Worries being subject to a physical attack because of your skin colour, ethnic origin or religion
 
Low 21.72
 
Low 32.76
Problem people using or dealing drugs
 
High 79.38
 
High 61.60
Problem property crimes such as vandalism and theft
 
High 71.32
 
Moderate 57.60
Problem violent crimes such as assault and armed robbery
 
High 71.41
 
Moderate 50.52
Problem corruption and bribery
 
High 75.30
 
Moderate 44.23
Contributors:
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

You're an idiot 

That assumes that he was actually unaware of the falsehood stated. Tom long ago lost the benefit of the doubt when it comes to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You two - Tom and Jeff - are sick obsessive fucks.

Because they point out the fallacy of "banning guns will solve the violence problem"?   The problem of violence has a myriad of causal factors, yet, all anyone wants to talk about is gun control.  Serious question Jiblets, why do you think that is? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Because they point out the fallacy of "banning guns will solve the violence problem"?   The problem of violence has a myriad of causal factors, yet, all anyone wants to talk about is gun control.  Serious question Jiblets, why do you think that is? 

It's amazing how often that projection is played out as if it actually undermines the actual argument behind gun control.

As the gun nuts like to point out, people that want to be violent will be violent. If you ban everything such that people are walking around naked, people with a mind to be violent will use their fists. The issue with guns is they greatly multiply the effectiveness of that violence. It is a generally accepted fact (amongst those not dishonestly arguing to keep their guns) that:

  • A man with access to just his fists does less damage than...
  • a man with access to large sharp rocks does less damage than...
  • a man with access to a machete does less damage than...
  • a man with access to a hand gun does less damage than...
  • a man with access to an AR-15 does less damage than...
  • a man with access to chemical weapons does less damage than...
  • a man with access to nuclear weapons.

The same logic that applies to keeping people from access to nuclear and chemical weapons applies to each step back along the chain. The issue is what level of freedom one chooses to sacrifice for the good of all. There is always a tipping point between the death to innocents a society is willing to accept and the tools they are willing to sacrifice to prevent those deaths. That the US chooses to accept more innocent deaths than other first world countries doesn't negate the underlying fact that the access to those tools makes those deaths more likely. 

No-one has solved the violence in humanity problem. The vast majority of the first world has done much better in solving the problem of minimising the impact of that violence. The US refuses to do so because they value the lives of those lost in mass shootings less than they do the freedom to possess lethal weapons. To be frank, I find any other argument made in light of that fact besides the "Fuck You, Second Amendment. Why should I?" to be of varying shades of dishonest.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

It's amazing how often that projection is played out as if it actually undermines the actual argument behind gun control.

As the gun nuts like to point out, people that want to be violent will be violent. If you ban everything such that people are walking around naked, people with a mind to be violent will use their fists. The issue with guns is they greatly multiply the effectiveness of that violence. It is a generally accepted fact (amongst those not dishonestly arguing to keep their guns) that:

  • A man with access to just his fists does less damage than...
  • a man with access to large sharp rocks does less damage than...
  • a man with access to a machete does less damage than...
  • a man with access to a hand gun does less damage than...
  • a man with access to an AR-15 does less damage than...
  • a man with access to chemical weapons does less damage than...
  • a man with access to nuclear weapons.

The same logic that applies to keeping people from access to nuclear and chemical weapons applies to each step back along the chain. The issue is what level of freedom one chooses to sacrifice for the good of all. There is always a tipping point between the death to innocents a society is willing to accept and the tools they are willing to sacrifice to prevent those deaths. That the US chooses to accept more innocent deaths than other first world countries doesn't negate the underlying fact that the access to those tools makes those deaths more likely. 

No-one has solved the violence in humanity problem. The vast majority of the first world has done much better in solving the problem of minimising the impact of that violence. The US refuses to do so because they value the lives of those lost in mass shootings less than they do the freedom to possess lethal weapons. To be frank, I find any other argument made in light of that fact besides the "Fuck You, Second Amendment. Why should I?" to be of varying shades of dishonest.

 

The real solution then is to control the violent guy, it appears from your logic that someone gets hurt or killed either way.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

It's amazing how often that projection is played out as if it actually undermines the actual argument behind gun control.

As the gun nuts like to point out, people that want to be violent will be violent. If you ban everything such that people are walking around naked, people with a mind to be violent will use their fists. The issue with guns is they greatly multiply the effectiveness of that violence. It is a generally accepted fact (amongst those not dishonestly arguing to keep their guns) that:

  • A man with access to just his fists does less damage than...
  • a man with access to large sharp rocks does less damage than...
  • a man with access to a machete does less damage than...
  • a man with access to a hand gun does less damage than...
  • a man with access to an AR-15 does less damage than...
  • a man with access to chemical weapons does less damage than...
  • a man with access to nuclear weapons.

The same logic that applies to keeping people from access to nuclear and chemical weapons applies to each step back along the chain. The issue is what level of freedom one chooses to sacrifice for the good of all. There is always a tipping point between the death to innocents a society is willing to accept and the tools they are willing to sacrifice to prevent those deaths. That the US chooses to accept more innocent deaths than other first world countries doesn't negate the underlying fact that the access to those tools makes those deaths more likely. 

No-one has solved the violence in humanity problem. The vast majority of the first world has done much better in solving the problem of minimising the impact of that violence. The US refuses to do so because they value the lives of those lost in mass shootings less than they do the freedom to possess lethal weapons. To be frank, I find any other argument made in light of that fact besides the "Fuck You, Second Amendment. Why should I?" to be of varying shades of dishonest.

 

I can respect this opinion, Bent - but, would suggest that a large part of the problem is that while we do treasure our freedoms, I think that in the past couple generations, that many people seem to be conveniently ignoring the part of the equation that stipulates that with the exercise of those freedoms, comes the responsibility to do so in a manner that doesn't infringe upon others. 

We seem to have, within the span of a few generations, indeed gotten to the " Fuck You" portion of the exercise of every freedom, and the gun discussion, IMHO, is the emotional hook upon which we hang all the crap that's come from the abdication of the idea that personal constraint and consideration for others is as important, often even more important, than our own exercise of the freedoms that are provided to citizens of this country.  

With that said - that inconsideration applies to those who advocate firearms eradication as an approach to mitigating the impacts of violence.  Those individuals adhere to the idea that "no gun is a good gun, and anyone who has one is a bad person", and attempt at every opportunity to impose in-efficacious restrictions designed to further their progress towards that objective.  It's this attitude, and it's regularly reinforced by many of our elected officials, that has resulted in the intractable opposition to discussing any "reasonable" changes to laws that effect access to firearms.  Additionally, our courts and enforcement agencies have demonstrated a propensity to stretch the application of any statute or precedent that they think will help them achieve their cause du jour.  Given this, I think that everyone who cares about any of the rights that provide our legal protection from overzealous enforcement should be cautious in their suggestions for any infringement.  

I, and most reasonable people that I know, are perfectly willing to discuss any idea that may help reduce the impact of violence.  That discussion needs to include individual protections from over-zealous enforcement (read Tom's confiscation threads for an example of what I mean), and needs to also include means to intervene in individual circumstances before something tragic like Newtown, Columbine, et al, happen.  I hope that we're getting close to the point of realizing that a rational, national discussion on violence is needed.  Reducing access to guns for troubled individuals indeed does need to be a facet of that discussion - but, it can't be the only facet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Tom- and the NRA - successfully argued that adults deemed incompetent by the state should have access to firearms. There is no rational conversation with a loon like Tom or the NRA.

Amusingly it's the Republicans who've gone full loon on the gun issue - in the past decade they've gone basically single view on guns. Dems haven't.

You're going to have to provide a cite for this assertion - as it's completely opposite everything that I've heard Tom and the NRA espouse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Because they point out the fallacy of "banning guns will solve the violence problem"?   The problem of violence has a myriad of causal factors, yet, all anyone wants to talk about is gun control.  Serious question Jiblets, why do you think that is? 

 

How do they point out "the fallacy of "banning guns will solve the violence problem"?

By posting Straw man arguments? 

Of cause violence has a myriad of causes..but tell me this..in a country with strict gun controls..will reducing those controls increase or reduce our domestic violence deaths?

Will reducing those gun control increase or reduce mass shootings

Will reducing those gun controls reduce crime, reduce poverty, reduce domestic violence or general ignorance.

 

Work it backwards.

If all sides tried for a little honesty in this debate instead of posting cherry pickings and bullshit, it might actually get to a mutually acceptable outcome.

Now I'm putting my "It's Your Country, Shoot it if YOU want to" hat back on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly haven’t been paying attention then. There was an Obama era rule that had the SSA put in the names of people determined to be unable to legally manage their SS affairs, in a database that restricted gun purchases. NRA got congress to overturn. Tom was happy. So 75,000 people deemed mentally unfit to handle a bank account, are able to buy guns.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/senate-does-nras-bidding-lets-75000-mentally-ill-people-buy-guns

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're going to have to provide a cite for this assertion - as it's completely opposite everything that I've heard Tom and the NRA espouse. 

I think he is talking about opposition to automatically including anyone on SS or SSDI who has someone managing their finances on the prohibited list. Towards the end of the Obama admin, they started expanding what constituted being found mentally incompetent, and ended up including a lot of folks, some of whom may have something to gripe about, and a lot who probably don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

How do they point out "the fallacy of "banning guns will solve the violence problem"?

By posting Straw man arguments? 

Of cause violence has a myriad of causes..but tell me this..in a country with strict gun controls..will reducing those controls increase or reduce our domestic violence deaths?

Will reducing those gun control increase or reduce mass shootings

Will reducing those gun controls reduce crime, reduce poverty, reduce domestic violence or general ignorance.

 

Work it backwards.

If all sides tried for a little honesty in this debate instead of posting cherry pickings and bullshit, it might actually get to a mutually acceptable outcome.

Now I'm putting my "It's Your Country, Shoot it if YOU want to" hat back on.

Time to ignore those blatant untruths. Tom and Jeff are wrong on this. Guns increase lethality. Hell, it’s what they’re designed to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're going to have to provide a cite for this assertion - as it's completely opposite everything that I've heard Tom and the NRA espouse. 

He's making shit up again.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

If you aren't capable of managing your money without the help of someone recognized by the government, you aren't capable of ending someones life.

There isn't much argument about not selling rifles or ammunition for them to those under 18, is there?

You mean like the box to tick if you hired H&R Block or someone to do your taxes?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The real solution then is to control the violent guy, it appears from your logic that someone gets hurt or killed either way.

And when you find a solution to identifying and "controlling" these guys BEFORE they shoot up a school full of kids, a concert full of music fans, etc - you get back to me.

It's just as trite (& full of shit) to claim "just solve the violence issue and the guns are fine" as it is to say "eradicate all guns and the violence issue is solved". You're not better than the people you complain about, with the exception they're looking to save lives at the cost of free access to a tool and you're looking to preserve free access to the tool at the cost of lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I can respect this opinion, Bent - but, would suggest that a large part of the problem is that while we do treasure our freedoms, I think that in the past couple generations, that many people seem to be conveniently ignoring the part of the equation that stipulates that with the exercise of those freedoms, comes the responsibility to do so in a manner that doesn't infringe upon others. 

We seem to have, within the span of a few generations, indeed gotten to the " Fuck You" portion of the exercise of every freedom, and the gun discussion, IMHO, is the emotional hook upon which we hang all the crap that's come from the abdication of the idea that personal constraint and consideration for others is as important, often even more important, than our own exercise of the freedoms that are provided to citizens of this country.  

With that said - that inconsideration applies to those who advocate firearms eradication as an approach to mitigating the impacts of violence.  Those individuals adhere to the idea that "no gun is a good gun, and anyone who has one is a bad person", and attempt at every opportunity to impose in-efficacious restrictions designed to further their progress towards that objective.  It's this attitude, and it's regularly reinforced by many of our elected officials, that has resulted in the intractable opposition to discussing any "reasonable" changes to laws that effect access to firearms.  Additionally, our courts and enforcement agencies have demonstrated a propensity to stretch the application of any statute or precedent that they think will help them achieve their cause du jour.  Given this, I think that everyone who cares about any of the rights that provide our legal protection from overzealous enforcement should be cautious in their suggestions for any infringement.  

I, and most reasonable people that I know, are perfectly willing to discuss any idea that may help reduce the impact of violence.  That discussion needs to include individual protections from over-zealous enforcement (read Tom's confiscation threads for an example of what I mean), and needs to also include means to intervene in individual circumstances before something tragic like Newtown, Columbine, et al, happen.  I hope that we're getting close to the point of realizing that a rational, national discussion on violence is needed.  Reducing access to guns for troubled individuals indeed does need to be a facet of that discussion - but, it can't be the only facet. 

With all due respect, the vast majority of people that advocate gun control are not of the mind that "no gun is a good gun and anyone that has one is a bad person". Yes, people like that on the gun control side exist, just as your side has flat out disingenuous assholes like Tom that treat any reasonable restriction as the start of a slippery slope to complete confiscation of all firearms. If you want a rational conversation, you need to accept that not everyone is a jocal or a Tom.

And frankly, I'm happy to discuss means of reducing violence but that is a far more intractable problem than reducing the effects of violence. Our countries have very similar levels of violent crime (we're, more often than not, higher than yours). And yet the effects of that violence is still results in over four times LESS homicide (per capita). The victims of our violence live to see justice done. This same result is seen across most of the first world. There is a reason for that, see if you can guess what it is. ;)

As flat out sociopathic as the "Fuck You, Second Amendment" guys are - they are the honest ones in their fight for access to firearms. They are, at least implicitly, accepting that their access to guns is the cause of the extra lives lost compared to the rest of the first world, but argue those statistics are irrelevant cos they have the right to firearms & that's their highest priority. Those that pretend that guns are not a causal factor in escalating the effects of violence in your country to the crazy high level of homicide you have are being dishonest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

If you aren't capable of managing your money without the help of someone recognized by the government, you aren't capable of ending someones life. There isn't much argument about not selling rifles or ammunition for them to those under 18, is there?

the other was some poll I came across, can't find it searching the history atm.

Thanks for clarifying - I wasn't thinking about that at all, but, IIRC there were conditions in which someone who was on SSDI had nothing to do with their mental capacity, and the thought wasn't at all that someone in a reduced mental state should have access to firearms, but, that  SSDI in and of itself wasn't an appropriate determinant. If I'm mistaken, I'd be happy to be corrected. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks for clarifying - I wasn't thinking about that at all, but, IIRC there were conditions in which someone who was on SSDI had nothing to do with their mental capacity, and the thought wasn't at all that someone in a reduced mental state should have access to firearms, but, that  SSDI in and of itself wasn't an appropriate determinant. If I'm mistaken, I'd be happy to be corrected. 

If I am not wrong, it was whether someone else was handling their finances when they were receiving SS or SSDI. One problem is that once you get on the prohibited list, it is nearly impossible to get off. Someone could be in a coma on SSDI and end up on the list, and have an impossible time getting off the list if they recover. The other problem as I understand the law, is that possessing a gun once you are on the list is a crime in and of itself. So someone could become a criminal through an administrative action they are unaware of. There are plenty of people on SSDI who really should not own guns, due to drug addiction or mental disability, however I do think we should have a better process than what was done in this case. People should know they are going on the list, and should have a way to appeal it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LenP said:

If I am not wrong, it was whether someone else was handling their finances when they were receiving SS or SSDI. One problem is that once you get on the prohibited list, it is nearly impossible to get off. Someone could be in a coma on SSDI and end up on the list, and have an impossible time getting off the list if they recover. The other problem as I understand the law, is that possessing a gun once you are on the list is a crime in and of itself. So someone could become a criminal through an administrative action they are unaware of. There are plenty of people on SSDI who really should not own guns, due to drug addiction or mental disability, however I do think we should have a better process than what was done in this case. People should know they are going on the list, and should have a way to appeal it.

Loon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, LenP said:

If I am not wrong, it was whether someone else was handling their finances when they were receiving SS or SSDI. One problem is that once you get on the prohibited list, it is nearly impossible to get off. Someone could be in a coma on SSDI and end up on the list, and have an impossible time getting off the list if they recover. The other problem as I understand the law, is that possessing a gun once you are on the list is a crime in and of itself. So someone could become a criminal through an administrative action they are unaware of. There are plenty of people on SSDI who really should not own guns, due to drug addiction or mental disability, however I do think we should have a better process than what was done in this case. People should know they are going on the list, and should have a way to appeal it.

Thanks Mr. P - appreciate the info.  Kids big & little doin' OK?  Bow season's in this weekend up there, isn't it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2017 at 5:47 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

You didn't notice that BJ hasn't visited the official Randumb Mocking Thread?

He won't visit this one either. Puerto Rico is not a happy place for those who think gun control works.

Works about as well as any other Prohibition program we've tried, for many of the same reasons. That's also why so many drug war/gun war court cases track and rely on each other.

Along those lines...

http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/02/how-could-anyone-deny-the-need-for-tough

Oh, cool - more old white guys talking about shit they know nothing about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks Mr. P - appreciate the info.  Kids big & little doin' OK?  Bow season's in this weekend up there, isn't it? 

Yes and yes. Kids and Marie are all great. The little one is really taking to music. Bow season is opening, but with the new role at work I will be lucky to make it out more than a handful of times this year. Looks like I will be going back to being a meat buyer. Might have to talk to Austin about a road trip to pick up a side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2017 at 10:04 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Oh, cool - more old white guys talking about shit they know nothing about. 

Not really. I've learned a quite a bit over the years about how drug prohibition and gun prohibition are related.

For example, the National Firearms Act followed the trail blazed by the Harrison Narcotics Act. When Miller v US came up, the court noted that Sonzinsky v US had found that the federal taxing authority could be used to regulate what had been state matters and that part of the petition was denied.

When the power to tax was replaced by the commerce power as a justification for federalization, the gun control act of 1968 slightly preceded the controlled substances act of 1970 but again our prohibitions were more or less joined at the hip.

A little over a decade ago, the 9th Circuit decided that a homegrown cannabis plant for personal medical use was not a proper subject for regulation of interstate commerce. (Gonzalez v Raich). Using the same reasoning, they decided that a homegrown machine gun for personal use was not involved in interstate commerce either. The Supreme Court responded by reversing the Raich decision (inspiring what might be Justice Thomas' best dissent) and within a couple of months moved to apply the drug war result to the gun war, sending US v Stewart back to the 9th so they could bring back a result consistent with the Raich case.

This, in turn, inspired what was probably Kozinski's best opinion ever. He did as he was told and continued our long tradition of intertwining drug and gun prohibition, but managed to convey his distaste through his tone.

Just because I never paid someone to tell me to read cases at a law school, don't assume I don't read them anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2017 at 8:40 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I screwed up the link above.

https://samjohnson.house.gov/uploadedfiles/aclu_letter_re_cra_hj_res_37_and_hj_res_40.pdf

In which the ACLU joined the NRA and me in opposing the bill Miscut is referencing. Let's wait and see if he condemns the ACLU for their pro-gun extremism.

Become a Freedom Fighter — Join the ACLU

Support arming the mentally ill!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/3/2017 at 10:12 AM, Bent Sailor said:

It's amazing how often that projection is played out as if it actually undermines the actual argument behind gun control.

As the gun nuts like to point out, people that want to be violent will be violent. If you ban everything such that people are walking around naked, people with a mind to be violent will use their fists. The issue with guns is they greatly multiply the effectiveness of that violence. It is a generally accepted fact (amongst those not dishonestly arguing to keep their guns) that:

  • A man with access to just his fists does less damage than...
  • a man with access to large sharp rocks does less damage than...
  • a man with access to a machete does less damage than...
  • a man with access to a hand gun does less damage than...
  • a man with access to an AR-15 does less damage than...
  • a man with access to chemical weapons does less damage than...
  • a man with access to nuclear weapons.

The same logic that applies to keeping people from access to nuclear and chemical weapons applies to each step back along the chain. The issue is what level of freedom one chooses to sacrifice for the good of all. There is always a tipping point between the death to innocents a society is willing to accept and the tools they are willing to sacrifice to prevent those deaths. That the US chooses to accept more innocent deaths than other first world countries doesn't negate the underlying fact that the access to those tools makes those deaths more likely. 

No-one has solved the violence in humanity problem. The vast majority of the first world has done much better in solving the problem of minimising the impact of that violence. The US refuses to do so because they value the lives of those lost in mass shootings less than they do the freedom to possess lethal weapons. To be frank, I find any other argument made in light of that fact besides the "Fuck You, Second Amendment. Why should I?" to be of varying shades of dishonest.

 

Access to guns is very restricted in PR by US standards.

Despite the TSA's 95% failure rate, it's not all that easy to just drive a gun there from another state.

Judging by the violent crime rates, I guess access needs to be restricted even more, huh? Did you read the laws there? Any suggestions on how to restrict access even more?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Already dealt with that one Tom. Just because you get off going over (& over & over) the same arguments, doesn't mean the rest of us share your fetish.

Just pay for your weird porn like all the other sickos and stop trying to get freebies from folks here in PA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2017 at 6:04 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

Oh, cool - more old white guys talking about shit they know nothing about. 

Clean, you DO get that YOU are also an old white guy who talks about shit you know nothing about at times, right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Tom's sweeping conclusions about gun control in Puerto Rico are better than some of his other views:

  • what Tom teaches about suicides in Japan,
  • what he claims about gun utopia in Vermont,
  • how the SAF was the principle force behind Heller,
  • how the Miller case grants guns to The People,
  • that guns don't increase suicide RATES in the USA
  • how federal gun research is not blocked in Congress,
  • how AW's are constitutionally protected for militia use out of the home,
  • how the founding fathers employed no gun confiscation,
  • how Peruta experienced a procedural speed bump, 
  • how there is no reason for a ban on machine guns,
  • etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
16 hours ago, sail611 said:

Why don't we TRY limiting magazine capacities to 5 rounds for high powered, semi automatic rifle?


We did.

And we tried it in a place where it's impossible to simply drive to a neighboring state.

A place with extremely low gun ownership rates compared to the mainland.

You might want to check the violent crime and murder rates in this paradise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

It's pointless when they can simply go to Idaho or Nevada and buy all the guns they want.

Only national laws will have any real effect otherwise any controls will simply bump up business in other jurisdictions.


Puerto Ricans can't simply drive to the next state. Getting a gun there is very difficult and expensive and few have them.

But, as always, the few assholes in every society will get weapons even if the vast majority of people can't/won't.

So PR, with its strict gun laws and isolation, manages to have pretty terrible crime stats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
9 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

The problem arises when you get what I'll call "Gun Leakage"

When ownership of guns becomes so great and so unregulated that like too much of any good thing, it spills over and becomes a menace.

The whole "you can just drive to the next county/state and get a gun" kind of breaks down here. It's not so easy to get a gun into PR and the gun laws make California's and Australia's look lax. And yet, the few people who want to commit violent crimes can still apparently get them easily enough...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The whole "you can just drive to the next county/state and get a gun" kind of breaks down here. It's not so easy to get a gun into PR and the gun laws make California's and Australia's look lax. And yet, the few people who want to commit violent crimes can still apparently get them easily enough...

Really Tom? you need to pinch 2 year old quotes from different threads ?..I'll take it as a compliment to my common sense and civility though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

Really Tom? you need to pinch 2 year old quotes from different threads ?..I'll take it as a compliment to my common sense and civility though.

No, I thought I'd bring your current comment to a thread showing why it's nonsense. The fact that it's been nonsense for a long time is true but irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminals have guns, but citizens dont, therefore crime is high in Puerto Rico.

Tom, I suggest that you don't know jack about what is generating the crime in Puerto Rico. I don't, either, but the logic you are tossing out is lousy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Criminals have guns, but citizens dont, therefore crime is high in Puerto Rico.

Tom, I suggest that you don't know jack about what is generating the crime in Puerto Rico. I don't, either, but the logic you are tossing out is lousy.

 

I know thing is for certain...... the crime and murder rate is not due to lax gun laws there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I know thing is for certain...... the crime and murder rate is not due to lax gun laws there.

Pee Wee Herman and others find that you are an intellectual powerhouse.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And so it begins:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-are-new-zealands-gun-laws-changing

 

they just effectively banned almost ALL semi-auto rifles, shotguns and pistols. There are very few made that hold less than 5 rounds. Congrats NZ, you’ve just joined the world of hysteria and knee jerk overreaction. 


New Zealand may soon enjoy the low crime rates of Puerto Rico, where 5 rounds is also the limit for American citizens.

Of course, lots of Uncooperative citizens just drive to a neighboring state with weak gun laws...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crisis In Puerto Rico

I think that's one step from an Emergency. They might need a stupid seawall.
 

Quote

 

...

In addition to ongoing recovery efforts from the devastation caused by hurricanes Maria and Irma, and a struggling economy, Puerto Rico is experiencing a wave of violence and crime primarily linked to gang activity and drug trafficking. Local authorities have struggled to curb the mounting insecurity.

On Wednesday, the island's Resident Commissioner and non-voting member of Congress Jenniffer González asked the Homeland Security and Justice departments to increase their "law enforcement capabilities and personnel" in Puerto Rico to address a "sense of impunity and lawfulness" among the approximately 3.2 million U.S. citizens in the territory.  

She cited "high levels of absenteeism" among the island's police force and FBI statistics that show Puerto Rico has one of the highest crime rates in the U.S. According to FBI figures, the murder rate on the island in 2017 was about 20 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.

...

He said his office is coordinating with different municipalities to launch a crackdown on violent crime, drug smuggling and human trafficking. The campaign involves requests for more federal resources, increased intelligence sharing with the Department of Justice, the establishment of a new police academy, investment in police stations, additional law enforcement officers on the streets, inter-agency cooperation, off-duty shifts for police officers and community policing by citizens, Roselló said. 

 

"off duty shifts" for absent officers? Vaporcops!

Puerto Rico is experiencing a wave of violence and crime primarily linked to gang activity and drug trafficking? Primarily linked to the stupid drug war, in other words. Portugal is having much better luck with those same problems, along with the problem of addiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2019 at 9:46 PM, Fakenews said:

The OP is a blithering idiot. Puerto Rico is not a state. 

I never said that PR is a state.

The NRA seems supportive of the PR gun law changes
 

Quote

 

...

Puerto Rico’s Weapons Act is an important step forward for law-abiding gun owners in the island territory. While the island’s gun laws are still stricter than the vast majority of the U.S., there are a handful of mainland jurisdictions that could learn from Puerto Rico’s example and work to similarly streamline outdated and onerous gun control laws.

 

It used to cost over a thousand bucks and involve political connections for those few allowed to own a gun in PR.

Quote

The legislation also puts in place a flat $200 initial licensing fee, and a $100 renewal fee.

The new law continues to restrict legal ownership to those able to come up with the fees. Although the fee is much lower now, it still recognizes that poor people shouldn't have just any constitutional right they might want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Constitutional right" is hyperbolic in this situation  That's kinda like bullshit these days, IMO. This is why:

  • The first SC gun case is ten years was not exactly apoplectic;
  • The NRA has imploded, in about three different ways; (Cox is gone; the NRA's non-profit status is openly challenged, and Russian ties to money remain unexplored by Mr. Barr)
  • Ollie North waterboarded Wayne, with many financial details, according to Wayne;
  • Ollie is now co-operating with the several of the seven investigations of the NRA
  • The legal bills were running 100K/day...for a Texan counsel to attack the PR firm, the one which had all the skeletons in the closets
  • Hmmm, after Fergusen, the  year 2017 held the worst gun violence numbers in decades;
  • while identified gun violence epidemics rack several inner cities;
  • Grade schoolers and high schoolers now study and learn in fear?
  • Active shooter drills for all these non-Libertarian kids?
  • Oh no, wimmen like Feinstein, Watts, Letitia. and Pelosi are now whoopin[' on yer fanny.
  • On PA, we find that the Heller scholarship has been thoroughly debunked by a unified field of scholars, at least four of them English.

If you want direct, meaningful discussion, and have dogballs, you will find confiscation issues being discussed elsewhere, with your Virginia Boating Felons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...