I'll join you in a bit. It's okay if you don't have anything else to add from your last comments in the other thread, I plan to respond to those when I have enough time/interest to do so.
[ December 14, 2012, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Let me just be clear: this is an issue to be discussed whether you like it or not. Arguing we should keep the status quo is just as political as saying we should change it.
I won't be posting in here again until you change the thread title.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
What would you like me to change it to?
What a paradox!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not to worry. Gun rights activists and favoring politicians (mostly but hardly only Republicans and conservatives) will be expending considerable time, money, and oxygen to explain to us why this *isn't* the time to turn this into a gun rights debate.
But to answer your question in the other thread-absolutely that's the question right now! Properly sensitive mourning and commiseration is all well and good, but I think you can guess how many deaths it has ever prevented unless tied to something that motivates action and discussion, whatever the issue is.
Politically I do sympathize with gun rights proponents, because if there's ever a time they *wouldn't* want to discuss the topic, it's when there are over a dozen dead children-not just adolescents but children-looming over everything. Well, I don't know, maybe if the teachers or janitors had been strapped this wouldn't have happened, or something-widespread concealed carry being one common 'suggestion'. Politically it's a disastrous time to consider the question for proponents.
Hopefully the response of gun control politicians will be 'tough!'. I'm past sick of the same organizations and politicians (looking at you, NRA) who lobby for fewer controls and more guns, or at the very least resist kicking and screaming efforts at regulation, hiding behind the notion of 'respect' to avoid talking about it. This is the time it needs to be talked about, because once again the question of gun control has inserted itself on the front of the political stage...though in fact it's always there, but usually ignored...since the NRA is a scary organization.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: What would you like me to change it to?
What a paradox!
I don't think you meant it this way (or at least...well, not overtly), but the title clearly reads as a sharp criticism for those who do want to discuss gun control-as though they are being rude, or disrespectful to the dead and families, by wanting to do so. I've though for a few minutes about other interpretations, but your remarks in the other thread make it difficult to read it another way. The title of the thread itself is an attack.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I'm not getting involved here yet, as thinking about this is making me cry.
But if you want a history lesson on gun control and massacred kindergarteners, this is probably useful to read. It hasn't happened again since.
And with that, I'm out until at least tomorrow.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: What would you like me to change it to?
What a paradox!
I don't think you meant it this way (or at least...well, not overtly), but the title clearly reads as a sharp criticism for those who do want to discuss gun control-as though they are being rude, or disrespectful to the dead and families, by wanting to do so. I've though for a few minutes about other interpretations, but your remarks in the other thread make it difficult to read it another way. The title of the thread itself is an attack.
Yeah, I totally see that. It wasn't intentional, really.
Or more specifically, it was meant as a self-deprecating attack that also tagged Lyrhawn, since I'm as guilty as anyone. I didn't need to argue with Lyr the moment he brought up gun rights. And in the Trayvon Martin thread I was behind many, many pages of gun-rights argument.
I see in hindsight that it could look like I was just trying to dig at Lyr or whatever, but I wasn't.
Actually, if anything, it was self-serving: I think it's far, far more likely that anything that I say in a gun rights debate is going to be seen as offensive or insensitive to the victims, at least by most on Hatrack.
I didn't want to do that. I guessed most people in the thread would find it offensive and offputting in a way they aren't bothered by someone saying "we need more gun control."
So I started a new thread, selfishly, so that I could argue with Lyr and whoever else and not be seen as the callous insensitive jerkbag who doesn't care that a classroom full of kindergarteners was just murdered. Ugh. Just typing that is depressing.
Anyway, I honestly don't know what Lyr would like me to change the title to. I hope he comes back and sees this and understands it wasn't meant as an attack against him, though. If he still prefers a new title, I'm happy to hear suggestions.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Politically I do sympathize with gun rights proponents, because if there's ever a time they *wouldn't* want to discuss the topic, it's when there are over a dozen dead children-not just adolescents but children-looming over everything. Well, I don't know, maybe if the teachers or janitors had been strapped this wouldn't have happened, or something-widespread concealed carry being one common 'suggestion'. Politically it's a disastrous time to consider the question for proponents.
I think I explained in the other post that I'm actually fine with this discussion, now that we're out of the other thread. I don't think it's bad to bring it up.
I do think the whole premise is foolish, though. I mean, you sarcastically suggest a way better solution!
quote:Well, I don't know, maybe if the teachers or janitors had been strapped this wouldn't have happened, or something-widespread concealed carry being one common 'suggestion'.
One of the problems with trying to prevent events like this, as Lyr said he wants to do in the other thread, is that if we really could reliably predict who would do things like this, keeping a gun out of their hands is about the weakest, most timid action you could take. Why not go Minority Report on their ass.
But we can't. So we don't. We can guess who might be more or less likely to do something like this, but we're wrong a lot. People are complicated, and hard to predict.
So I think any preventative measure that relies primarily on prediction is seriously flawed. Strapping up all the school teachers takes advantage of the fact that, accurate predictions or not, most teachers aren't psychopaths.
So we'd have, overall, a net increase in decent people who could take preventative measures in the moment of crisis, rather than guessing when and how a crisis might happen in order to forestall it.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
I'm interested to know how proponents of a law requiring some kind of mental evaluation before purchasing a gun envision the law being drafted and enforced.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Difficultly.
But doing nothing hasn't kept anyone from y'know... opening fire on a crowd at a political rally with a thirty round hand-gun.
In some respects it would have been easier to implement thirty years ago, in other ways it will be more difficult thirty years from now. Either way sick people have suffered little to no hindrance when they arm themselves for mass murder.
quote: Strapping up all the school teachers takes advantage of the fact that, accurate predictions or not, most teachers aren't psychopaths.
We clearly attended very different kinds of schools.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So we'd have, overall, a net increase in decent people who could take preventative measures in the moment of crisis, rather than guessing when and how a crisis might happen in order to forestall it.
What you are describing is pretty much the opposite of a preventative measure. It's reactionary.
I hate that the discussion is being framed as a very exclusive either-or: take guns away from crazy people who will go on shooting sprees, which is impossible because we can't predict the future, or give more people guns so they can shoot the shooter. I guess it's completely unthinkable to try to limit access to guns generally.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Yeah this thread is awesome and the title is totally totally mature and situationally appropriate and definitely makes me want to argue gun rights in good faith
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So we'd have, overall, a net increase in decent people who could take preventative measures in the moment of crisis, rather than guessing when and how a crisis might happen in order to forestall it.
What you are describing is pretty much the opposite of a preventative measure. It's reactionary.
Can you explain a little more about what you mean?
I can think of at least one or two ways it is very straightforwardly "reactionary," but they apply to any step that might be taken as a result of a high profile shooting. Because any such measure would be, well, a reaction to the shooting.
If you mean something beyond that, I didn't understand.
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I hate that the discussion is being framed as a very exclusive either-or: take guns away from crazy people who will go on shooting sprees, which is impossible because we can't predict the future, or give more people guns so they can shoot the shooter. I guess it's completely unthinkable to try to limit access to guns generally.
I'm not sure how it's an either/or. Limiting access to guns broadly is a goal shared by lots of people. It would seem to me that taking guns away from crazy people who will go on shooting sprees is far less extreme (notwithstanding the fact that it's impossible) than simply limiting access to guns, period.
I think, at its base, the more traditional argument is "limit access to guns" vs. "make access to guns easier."
I tend to think the focus on limiting guns just for crazy people who will go on shooting sprees is sort of an attempt at finding an equitable middle ground. I'm just not sure how effective or reasonable it is.
Parkour: It's okay, I've never seen you argue anything in good faith anyway. If you want to try, though, feel free!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Yeah, dan. Double down on your flippancy. Also tell us that the teachers should be strapped.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm confused. Are you still trying to shame me into not talking about this because I'm being insensitive?
First of all, I made a new thread for that very reason. You, Rakeesh, Lyr, etc. had a point about the title. It's no good to make a new thread for this discussion if the title itself is going to be seen as offensive. Defeats the whole purpose.
But now that we're in the thread, where anyone too shellshocked by the tragedy to want to deal with frank arguments knows they probably shouldn't wander in, I don't see the point in... well, I'm not sure what you'd even suggest, really, as you haven't said it.
Some form of treading more lightly than I have been, I assume? Or just rolling over and conceding that yes, mass killings only happen because of guns, and if we just got rid of the guns then this sort of thing wouldn't happen anymore? That would probably be best, right? Disagreeing with gun control in the light of such a tragedy is really just hideously inappropriate.
I'm not going to do that, sorry.
... And did you seriously just try to scold me with the fact that I repeated Rakeesh's flippant, sarcastic quote? Like it was some really bad word choice I decided to introduce to the conversation? I used his language to make my point.
Do you have a problem with the language, or with my point? If the language, shouldn't you also be deriding Rakeesh for saying such an insensitive comment?
And if it's that you disagree with my point, and have no objection to the language used, then I think you did a poor job conveying that.
I think that you disagree with my point, but actually arguing about it didn't sound as much fun to you as trying to find ways of making me seem like a monstrous, insensitive troll. So you harped on the language I used. Feel free to play that game all you want, man. The people I'm interested in having a discussion with already know to what extent, if any, that's an accurate characterization of me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Don't worry Dan, you already gave more of a response then Parkour deserves.
More on this subject later.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm in a tough bind here, on one hand I feel guns should not just belong to whoever whatever willy nilly and some effort should be made to work towards prevention.
On the other hand I want to eventually collect fully working vintage WWII era weapons for use in my 3-4 acres of swampland at ceramic targets because its cool.
edit: forgot a very important word
[ December 14, 2012, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Treating these incidents like a force of nature that we just have to weather rather than prevent in the future is a big part of the problem. School massacres aren't hurricanes.
I've sort of lost my desire to talk about this much more, I've already exhausted most of my energy on Facebook, and I'm too tired and too sick of it.
And what's the point? Nothing will be done. Our gun control "laws" are a joke. You can order thousands of rounds of ammo in bulk with no checks. You can buy a gun in a story with a simple felony check or at at gun show with absolutely no checks at all. And yet gun rights advocates still bitch every day about how oppressed they are by some imagined police state they live in. It's bullshit and I'm sick of it.
We make people go through weeks of tests before they can drive, we make people go through months of tests before they can fly, we make people go through years of school before they can be pharmacists, all because these are inherently dangerous activities that can kill people. But they aren't meant to kill people. Guns are meant to kill people, but we don't have any sort of structure in place to make sure people handle them responsibly. The heart of that juxtaposition is the problem, and I'm done trying to argue with people about it. This nation is seriously messed up, and no body count will ever change the minds of those who don't see the problem for what it is.
So I give up.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
If you want a hint at my second response, its because you said you've never seen me argue in good faith. Ok, bro! I can see how much you've taken from our prior interaction, I just feel that more enthusiastic about this!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Lyrhawn: dont give up. This is the exact time to press. This is it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Lyrhawn: dont give up. This is the exact time to press. This is it.
The NRA won. Democrats don't have the balls to bring it up.
Obama today gave me a little hope. I think his emotional press address was genuine, and I think he's sick of it. He's had to give this speech a half dozen times now and it's the exact speech every time, but nothing ever changes, and nothing ever will. It's like the Les Mis song.
But I think come tomorrow he'll shut up, even though he has nothing to lose politically. This will get put into a drawer until the next shooting, and we'll do this dance all over again.
I'm sad. I'm a little heartened by the fact that, after all of these events, I still have the capacity to be sad, but the type of sadness has changed. It used to be a militant sadness, now its a hopeless one.
This country is broken on the issue of violence, and I don't think it will ever be fixed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm hopeful that, as this shooting doesn't just involve so many people but most of them very young children, perhaps Democrats will approach this fight with something *near* the seriousness that the NRA and Republicans will...if the fight happens.
----
Dan, before I reply-how serious were you about armed teachers being a good idea?
Anyway, as to not being able to predict...well that's a tough question. With an enormously powerful lobbying organization, as well as nearly half of our political system, resisting nearly any effort to actually attempt *to* predict, as well as make it more difficult to get weapons and ammunition if the prediction fails...
Well. I think it's something to throw up your hands and say there's nothing to be done. Perhaps if the anaconda would loosen its coils *just a little*, we might begin to get an idea of what could be done.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: I'm interested to know how proponents of a law requiring some kind of mental evaluation before purchasing a gun envision the law being drafted and enforced.
I would make it a federal license, like Safety and Physiological Firearms Purchasing License, and have two written tests, two hands on tests, one being for safe handling of a firearm, the other for mental stability. And proof of ownership of a safe storage device, be it a lock on a gun case, a trigger lock or a safe.
When I applied to for an armed security job at my local Navy base, they had a written phyc eval, that had multiple questions dispersed through out like "I am always angry" "I am often angry" "I am rarely angry" "I am never angry", and I suspect they were checking for too hot and too cold answers. I answered "rarely" and passed...so a similar type of written test designed by psychologists and then a half our sit down with a psychologist where they discuss why you want a gun, how you feel about violence, etc.
The one thing that I'm not sure at all how it would work is this: firearms can be passed up and down family trees with ZERO paperwork, legally. My father can give me one his legally registered guns, and it is mine, with no background check or registration necessary...and I could give one to my son (in 15 or 18 years depending on if it is a long gun or a pistol).
I would think that the costs of this program should largely be shouldered by those seeking to purchase firearms, but not to the point that the cost becomes restrictive in and of itself.
I would also say that for those who already own firearms, they would have a full calendar year to come and get certified (at no cost) or turn in their weapons for auction or destruction, or risk making their guns federal crimes, likely I'd say a misdemeanor, but possibly a felony.
To Lyr: Don't give up bro, not all of us gun guys are in favor of NRA style, oppose all restriction, black and white thinking. This country is constantly growing and changing and the more tragedies like this shine a spot light into the clear and definite lack of proper regulation.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Stone_Wolf_, a few follow-up questions:
Do you think a federal licensing system as you've outlined would be ruled constitutional?
How frequently must your proposed license be renewed, and at what expense?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The second amendment says
quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And screening for safety and sanity in my book falls under concept of "well regulated".
As to renewal...how about every ten years? At the cost of the applicant.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: If you want a hint at my second response, its because you said you've never seen me argue in good faith. Ok, bro! I can see how much you've taken from our prior interaction, I just feel that more enthusiastic about this!
I won't have much time to properly reply till later. But from my phone I just wanted to say:
Honestly, mostly I remember you specializing in drive-by snark. HOWEVER: I sometimes get you confused with Sam. Sam does both lots of drive by snark and actual arguments. So, it's totally possible I've seen you argue substantively in good faith, and just gave Sam credit for your remarks.
If so, I'm sorry. I retract my remark about never seeing you argue in good faith, regardless, because I no longer trust my memory on the subject.
I'll be back to talk about guns and rights and stuff later tonight or tomorrow.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The gubermint already wastes 900 billion$ a year on a military you don't need, why draw the line at mandatory psychops?
Whether or not such a ruling is constitutional (it probably is given various gun laws never seemed to be seriously challenged by the courts) is kinda irrelevant. That's up to the courts to decide as long as it passes a vague common sense test.
You probably thought the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional but it is [constitutional].
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:The gubermint already wastes 900 billion$ a year on a military you don't need...
quote:What would happen if the USA stopped trying to "police the world"?...
...The short answer is that many countries which most people cannot find on a map would return to slaughtering each other and the Americans would be blamed for not doing anything about it, again. World economies would struggle as dozens of economic powerhouses would now have to secure their own defenses and world economies would collapse as the world shipping and trade lanes would now be unprotected and open to piracy, terrorism or control by hostile nations.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Can you explain a little more about what you mean?
I can think of at least one or two ways it is very straightforwardly "reactionary," but they apply to any step that might be taken as a result of a high profile shooting. Because any such measure would be, well, a reaction to the shooting.
If you mean something beyond that, I didn't understand.
You're talking about giving teachers guns so that they can take down shooters. This is not preventative, because it doesn't stop someone from walking into a school and opening fire. At best it allows someone to react quickly after the first shots have been fired. Perhaps "reactionary" was the wrong choice of word on my part, but what you're describing certainly isn't preventative.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I'm not sure how it's an either/or. Limiting access to guns broadly is a goal shared by lots of people. It would seem to me that taking guns away from crazy people who will go on shooting sprees is far less extreme (notwithstanding the fact that it's impossible) than simply limiting access to guns, period.
I think, at its base, the more traditional argument is "limit access to guns" vs. "make access to guns easier."
I tend to think the focus on limiting guns just for crazy people who will go on shooting sprees is sort of an attempt at finding an equitable middle ground. I'm just not sure how effective or reasonable it is.
I think I missed that you were just responding to Rakeesh. I thought you were essentially saying, "Since predicting who will go on a shooting spree won't work, we should rely on concealed-weapons carriers to solve the problem." If that's not what you meant, I apologize.
[ December 15, 2012, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:The gubermint already wastes 900 billion$ a year on a military you don't need...
quote:What would happen if the USA stopped trying to "police the world"?...
...The short answer is that many countries which most people cannot find on a map would return to slaughtering each other and the Americans would be blamed for not doing anything about it, again. World economies would struggle as dozens of economic powerhouses would now have to secure their own defenses and world economies would collapse as the world shipping and trade lanes would now be unprotected and open to piracy, terrorism or control by hostile nations.
Stone, no one is arguing to disband their military, cease peace keeping or stop promoting freedom of navigation. But the Royal Navy didn't spend nearly as much relative to other nations, two power standard not withstanding.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:You're talking about giving teachers guns so that they can take down shooters. This is not preventative, because it doesn't stop someone from walking into a school and opening fire. At best it allows someone to react quickly after the first shots have been fired. Perhaps "reactionary" was the wrong choice of word on my part, but what you're describing certainly isn't preventative.
I think reactive is a better word than reactionary, because is prescribes a behavior that reacts to a given situation.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Blayne, various gun laws never seemed to be seriously challenged by the courts? An appeals court just recently overturned an Illinois state ban on concealed carry. This ruling was based on a previous Supreme Court decision. Bills restricting gun rights have frequently and repeatedly been overturned in the courts. There is enormous precedent. In this country - a constitutional republic - the Constitution is always relevant, especially when crafting legislation. Seeking to pass laws to curb gun violence while ignoring this fact wouldn't be productive.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
SCOTUS, or at least the half that approved overturning the ban, is wrong.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
capaxinfiniti...you have asked some good questions but have yet to comment...so, what do you think of the idea I'm suggesting?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Blayne, various gun laws never seemed to be seriously challenged by the courts? An appeals court just recently overturned an Illinois state ban on concealed carry. This ruling was based on a previous Supreme Court decision. Bills restricting gun rights have frequently and repeatedly been overturned in the courts. There is enormous precedent. In this country - a constitutional republic - the Constitution is always relevant, especially when crafting legislation. Seeking to pass laws to curb gun violence while ignoring this fact wouldn't be productive.
Maybe, but it still isn't relevant given US history. The US during the Civil War for instance, suspended habeus corpus, additionally the Emancipation Proclamation was also not going to hold up to scrutiny. Killing that dude in Yemen, an American citizen, was certainly unconstitutional. The "is it constitutional" rhetorical question you ask, is of no value.
Also, even if it weren't, its a problem that can be fixed. Just as slavery was fixed (by a margin of two votes!)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The gubermint already wastes 900 billion$ a year on a military you don't need...
quote:Stone, no one is arguing to disband their military, cease peace keeping or stop promoting freedom of navigation.
So, how much does it cost to have global military presence for peace keeping and freedom of navigation as 900 billion is "not needed"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Can we shut up about global military presences and talk about gun control and the fact that a bunch of K through 4 kids barely even have their bullet-ridden bodies cold and already people are trying to make sure that we don't dare use this incident to dare in any way reform gun laws thanks.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I'm in moderate support for stricter eligibility laws, but I'm not gonna spend that much effort on it because I don't see it as a solution. This doesn't happen because it's easy, and give me two weeks, and I could come back with an illegally purchased fire-arm with no paper trail linking back to me, or heroine, etc. Advocating it isn't reactionary, but thinking that it's an equalizer is. We make a compromise with freedom, but we'll still wind up frustrated, in my opinion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
just gonna repost this durm and strang here and let everyone get back to whatever worthless runaround is going to keep our hands tied all the way to the next shooting
quote:The tragedy here is well and beyond a thing for the children who died. The families are all but wrecked forever in unimaginable anguish. The survivors and their families will live with this forever and the event will shape and clutch and claw at them in one way or another for the rest of their lives, affecting and likely diminishing them in innumerable ways. The school will live in the shadow of this incident. The district will. The state will. The nation will. We'll all become a little bit more paranoid of incidents like these and our schools will become a little bit more cold and withdrawn and afraid and parents will be too and this weird ugly specter will become just a little bit more of our national character. The world will become a more chilled and afraid and unwelcome place and this fear will seep in and be evermore the environment of socialization for children. None of what will come of this (and sure as Harris and Klebold are still people who forever changed our schools, so too will this shooter be) is worth any of the rights that the reactionaries are already circling the wagons to defend, ceaselessly. It is their goal, and their job, to make sure that we don't Politicize the Event. It is their goal, and their job, to keep the talk in circles and at all costs recycle old outrages and get the entire impetus for change that this event should represent stuck and drowned in a world of talking heads and intransigence. In every last one of these shootings, we can always bitterly talk about how we're just not going to change anything and have to go through this again, and again, and again. Always, the Next Shooting.
And today, the Next Shooting is a man murdering family members, then walking into a K-4 and gunning down children. With a big ol' final score. A nice big one. And the NRA-styled crowd does not and will not and can not look at the final tally and the gross hideousness of such an event and say "maybe it's time to reform things." They only say "wow, this will make it a real chore to distract people away from reform and make sure nothing changes, because guns/second amendment." The entirety of this incident is mangled into perversion in their heads. More than anything I think the world would be served by touching up the code of the universe, swapping some assets here and there, and having them nobly be used as the replacements for the children who were killed. Let them take the place of purely innocent kids. Let them lie in a pool of blood, drowning from a sucking chest wound, gargling their last, watching an insane person coldly murder others around them. Let them fade to black with the unpropitious and morbidly horrifying realization that their body will barely be cold by the time people like them are already trying to make sure that no matter what, we never let things like this incident successfully turn into things that are for preventing this incident.
In short, **** this, **** everyone responsible for the most prosperous nation having gaping, callously neglectful holes in the place of a mental safety network, **** all the people whose first reaction to this is to clutch their guns and spew grassy dogshit about how this could only have been prevented if those good citizens, moviegoers, and kindergarten teachers were allowed to carry their own arsenals, **** every pundit and talking head trying to turn it into a oh we'll just kill each other with knives or rocks, **** everyone clutching their pearls and telling everyone not to politicize the issue when it's already direly political like an arrow through the heart of gun zeitgeist in this nation, **** it all, goodnight.
stop defunding medical care networks stop deprioritizing mental health care support in states reform gun laws kick status-quo out peace
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:A man was dead and a woman critically wounded following a shooting Friday night at the Excalibur.
Las Vegas police responded to the Strip hotel about 8:30 p.m. after gunfire erupted in the front lobby of the Strip resort, officer Laura Meltzer said.
Nope, definitely not the time to talk about gun control.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: capaxinfiniti...you have asked some good questions but have yet to comment...so, what do you think of the idea I'm suggesting?
My follow-up questions were related to the two main concerns I have with your proposal. These are mostly pragmatic concerns, and don't necessarily mean I disagree with you.
Before the District of Columbia v. Heller case it would have been possible for laws governing gun ownership to be enforced under the "well-regulated militia" clause of the Second Amendment, but this decision ensures gun rights outside the context of a militia.
It will be very difficult to create preconditions, such as a federal license, to gun ownership. Because the right to bear arms is an enumerated right, not a privilege, any obstruction to the free exercise of that right will be highly scrutinized by the Court. Every step in the licensing process - the psychological evaluation/screening and gun registration and all associated costs, for example - decreases the chance of the Court allowing such regulations to stand. I know you don't consider the process you detailed to be overly burdensome, but such a system would would be prohibitively difficult for those with limited means, especially if one must undergo such a test at each renewal.
The psychological evaluation itself poses significant concerns. Essentially, it constitutes a mini-trial. A medical professional would have to conduct the test. More probable still, it would have to be multiple qualified medical professionals. I doubt a constitutional right would be made void based on the medical opinion of one person, especially given the nature of psychology. It's not like seeing the tumor on a mammogram. And in cases of test failure, an appeals process would have to be provided, or else allow for a re-test after a reasonable amount of time has passed (considerably less time than that of renewal.) Ultimately, I find it unlikely that the Supreme Court would allow a entire classification of people, who have broken no law, to be denied a right guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Currently, the only citizens who lose gun rights are felons.
Ten years between renewal sounds like an arbitrary number (perhaps you have a reason for choosing 10) but it too poses certain problems. It's too infrequent to be useful - in that it provides the protections desired by the system - but more frequent tests wouldn't be practical. When you look at the objective of this system - keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally derange, distraught or otherwise mentally unfit - so much occurs in the 10 year span of a life, a person could be 100 percent fit to own a gun at the time of the test then commit a murder/suicide 7 years later, well before the mandatory renewal.
Sorry if this was a short treatment of what you proposed. Those are my main concerns. I wanted to get the broad ideas out there before I retired for the night so it doesn't exactly flow.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
There is no "time" to talk about gun control. Every day is a day to talk about gun control. Turning a tragedy into a rhetorical victory is annoying, even though I'm a proponent of the basic eligibility-law argument.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...the fact that a bunch of K through 4 kids barely even have their bullet-ridden bodies cold ...
I didn't think even you would stoop this low...my God man, what the hell?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Capax, people regularly lose the right to vote if you commit a crime, a right far more important than the right to bear arms. I don't find your argument convincing.
Also Capax didn't you support the exact same system for voting registration? Which has the exact same difficulties for people of limited means to acquire id to exercise a fundamental right and a universal human right?
quote: So, how much does it cost to have global military presence for peace keeping and freedom of navigation as 900 billion is "not needed"?
You do not need 900 billion to accomplish those goals, this is not a difficult proposition to imagine, but one that very likely involves increased cooperation with the other UNSC members.
Much of that budget is due to waste and procuement costs, which could with the political will be streamlined. Secondly you have something well above and beyond the 2 power standard, you have 12 or more super carriers. France only has 1, Britain only has maybe 2. While Russia and China possess carriers they aren't super carriers along the size of the Nimitz or Gerald Ford class.
Things get foggier with the airforce and land army but honestly I feel the marines and special forces units are all you need; while the national guard and a much smaller federal army suitable for homeland defence. As long as you have a draft to keep a core of your population trained and able at all times you can readily reexpand it in an emergency scenario.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
It's a long post and I wrote it on a mobile device. Sorry for any typos.
I think the problem with this discussion,more than anything, is that people are so locked into their opinions that they no longer listen to what the other people have to say. I think this is an issue because there are good points being made by people on all sides that deserve to be listened to. I'm not someone who says each person deserves to have their opinions treated with equal respect, far from it. But I do think that good ideas deserve to be heard regardless of from whom they originate.
The first thing I'd say is that I believe the advocates of gun rights are correct in their argument that no amount of gun control legislation--even well enforced--will stop these tragedies from happening. If changes in gun control laws wouldn't solve this problem, then bringing it up every time an instance of gun-related crime happens does seem to be making political hay out of a tragedy.
As much as I dislike the NRA there is some truth to their claim that guns don't kill people, people do. These are severely disturbed people who believe that heinous violence will bring them some sort of favorable consequence. Be it media fame, correcting some injustice against them, proving a point, whatever. I don't want to speculate on what makes these folks tick. But I will say that the thought of gun violence being the solution to their ails is not entirely spontaneous.
I remember going through this song and dance on Hatrack when former Congresswoman Giffords was shot. I argued (and still believe) that a lot of our problem is that we glorify violence in our society. We use violence as escapist entertainment, and for those who can distinguish between reality and fantasy that's not really a problem. But the people who commit these atrocities lack the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality--or at the very least, use rational judgement. And these people are culturally inundated with a violence loving society.
Yet I'm not going to say we need to remove all instances of violence in our pop culture. I play violent video games. I watch violent movies. I am a huge batman fan. But I'm not about to go out and be a vigilante crime fighter because I am capable of recognizing that Batman is a fantasy.
What I will say is that we need to change the way we think of our mentally ill. Our cultural problem is our bootstraps mentality that if you need help you are a moocher and weak. We need to remove the stigma of treating mental illness as well as encouraging treatment of those who need it. Even as I write this, I know I ought see therapists for my own issues. But I hate talking about them because of the social norms I feel like I'm violating. It shouldn't be that way.
The biggest solution to these tragedies, I think, is to have a system in place that can help those who need help before they do something atrocious. That is very abstract, I know, but I think it's a point that is often lost on those who ardently support gun control legislation.
All of that being said, to quote Eddie Izzard, while people may kill other people, I think the gun helps. It is absolutely ridiculous to me how accessible guns are. While I don't think that gun control legislation would prevent these tragedies, I think they would help.
The best analogue I can think of to a gun are cars. We are required to insure them-- and if not our car at least the liability our cars are accountable for when we get into an accident. If we want to use them, we need to be licensed in their use proving that we are competent of the rules of the road, know how to use the car, and we are capable of driving. We also have strict rules on the maintenance and registration of our vehicles. Why do we have so many rules on our cars? Because they are extremely dangerous metal beasts that when put in the wrong hands pose a major risk to our communities. But our cars serve an integral part of our lives. They are necessary for us to commute when our public transportation systems are completely useless(I'm looking at you western Washington). So we go through the pains of the DMV to use them.
My question is this: why don't we take a similar approach to guns? A car's purpose is to transport people, but they have the side effect of posing a great deal of risk that you might harm someone. A gun's purpose IS that it poses a risk of harm. Yet these weapons are less tightly regulated than our cars? That just seems absurd to me.
If you want to have a gun, you should prove that you know how to use it and be subject to evaluation as to whether you ought be allowed to have it in the first place. If you want to say that my opinion is unconstitutional, then so be it. If we can't introduce sane gun regulations, then I want to change the second amendment. Gun ownership shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilege. If you want to say you have a right to self-defense, I'll agree with you. But I'll say you're only allowed to defend yourself with a gun if you've proven yourself as deserving the privilege of owning a gun.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: It's a long post and I wrote it on a mobile device. Sorry for any typos.I remember going through this song and dance on Hatrack when former Congresswoman Giffords was shot. I argued (and still believe) that a lot of our problem is that we glorify violence in our society. We use violence as escapist entertainment, and for those who can distinguish between reality and fantasy that's not really a problem. But the people who commit these atrocities lack the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality--or at the very least, use rational judgement. And these people are culturally inundated with a violence loving society.
Just on this point I want to say I disagree. Nearly every country in the world imports American entertainment en masse. We watch your movies, play your video games, and listen to your music, but gun deaths are a fraction of the amount they are in the US.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Regarding constitutionality, what the court rules one day is by what they will rule another. Sodomy laws for example have one case saying yes, another saying no. At least one of the same justices was in the majority opinion both times. Times change, people- even justices- change. In the abortion debate, people are always talking about overruling roe v wade. The increase in gun violence may very well change the minds of the court.
People kill not guns is a great mantra but if you have an unarmed man coming in, his death toll might be one maybe two. The crazy man in china who attacked with a knife this week killed no one. People choose to pull the trigger, but without the gun, a whole lot less people would die. Speed and efficiency drastically effect the death toll. Denying that is just plain foolish. Also, making it harder for people to get a gun legally offers more opportunities for some one to be stopped. I don't have any illegal gun connections right now so if the laws weren't so simple, I would have to make some, during which time someone might intervene. It makes a shooting a preplanned event. Maybe the preplanned part wouldn't have mattered yesterday, but for a lot of shootings, it would.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I'm not sure people living in the US who haven't lived in other countries can actually comprehend how alien the gun culture there is.
For most other countries, the idea of being able to shop for a gun at a mall the same way you would shop for clothes is inconceivable. Guns are available, legally, in the US like they are nowhere else in the world.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I know you don't consider the process you detailed to be overly burdensome, but such a system would would be prohibitively difficult for those with limited means...
Hey, remind me: how do you feel about Voter ID laws?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No fair Tom, I called him out on that first Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
A lot of time people will say that even if guns were (mostly) outlawed, you could still always get them from the black market, if you wanted to kill someone.
I'm sure this is true for criminals - They have the means and connections to acquire an illegal gun.
But for people with no criminal connections, it would be much harder. And that would include most of these mass shooters - They are typically people with no notable criminal records, or criminal connections.
Most wannabe mass killers wouldn't have any idea where to find professional, illegal gun-dealers. Where do you start? Ask from random thugs on the bad part of the town? Trust their word? Follow them to a back alley with 1500 dollars in your wallet, to make a deal?
Most people have no idea how to deal with professional criminals. Especially when everyone knows that a lot of low-leverl criminals are very untrustworthy towards outsiders.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wouldn't have a clue how to get a black market gun today. Drugs, sure, in a heartbeat.
I assume that would change if the law did, but, I have no idea how. Guns aren't the same thing as drugs.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...the fact that a bunch of K through 4 kids barely even have their bullet-ridden bodies cold ...
I didn't think even you would stoop this low...my God man, what the hell?
What the hell what? What did It do, get to the heart of what's going on here?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I wouldn't have a clue how to get a black market gun today. Drugs, sure, in a heartbeat."
Classified ads, CraigsList, any gun show, any "right to arms" group, any survivalist group, any "militia" group, the "black helicopter" folks, etc. From the number of gun thefts reported, illegal gun dealing hasta be way up near the top of the blackmarket, cash-wise.
Don't know of any CocaineList or marijuana show.
Besides the point anyways. Of the 62 gun-use mass murders in the US (4-or-more deaths per incident) within the past 30years, over 80% of the weapons were traceable to legal sales to the shooter. Of the rest, a large fraction were legally sold to their family members.
[ December 15, 2012, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Capax, people regularly lose the right to vote if you commit a crime, a right far more important than the right to bear arms. I don't find your argument convincing.
Also Capax didn't you support the exact same system for voting registration? Which has the exact same difficulties for people of limited means to acquire id to exercise a fundamental right and a universal human right?
I'm not sure what point you're making in the first paragraph but if you replace "argument" with "assessment" it would be much more accurate.
The two proposed ID laws aren't comparable. I was assessing the practicality of Stone_Wolf's proposal and my comment was made specifically, though not explicitly, with regard to the likelihood that the Supreme Court would uphold such a law. We're discussing pragmatic solutions to a perceived problem.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wouldn't have a clue how to get a black market gun today. Drugs, sure, in a heartbeat.
I assume that would change if the law did, but, I have no idea how. Guns aren't the same thing as drugs.
If you go to the people selling drugs, ask how, or if they know someone who would know, I'm willing to conject that I would have at least an okay chance of buying an illegal firearm.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...the fact that a bunch of K through 4 kids barely even have their bullet-ridden bodies cold ...
I didn't think even you would stoop this low...my God man, what the hell?
What the hell what? What did It do, get to the heart of what's going on here?
God forbid Blayne and I discuss anything but what Samp deems important...so much so he must bludgeon us to silence with images of dead toddlers. I've come to grips that Hatrack has (more then?) its fair share of right fighters, but that is this is bullsh*t.
Thread drift is not disrespectful to the victims of this tragedy and implying so is utter crap.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
what the heck are you even talking about. how dare we have images of dead toddlers who are real, and very much so dead, because they were murdered by a gun-wielding lunatic. how dare we address what actually happened.
also, thread drift isn't disrespectful to the victims of the tragedy (thanks for shoving words in my mouth broseph) but the derail to american military size is dumb and should be abandoned in favor of talking about guns again thanks.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Deleted cuz the comment was stupid
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You don't get to decide what can and can not talk about, or what is "dumb" or not.
And you -did- imply that talking about anything else us disrespectful.
If you don't like side discussions, THEN DON'T PARTICIPATE IN THEM!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Sorry, Samprimary, I shoulda gone back to read your original statement. Revise that to: Until we can revive the dead, trying to figure out how to prevent future killings is the only way to meaningfully honor the victims.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You don't get to decide what can and can not talk about,
Take your own advice, tiger. Read your own words and figure out that they say that you, likewise, don't get to decide that I can't comment on how I think a given derail is dumb and that I want people to abandon it and go back to things I think are more relevant.
quote:Sorry, Samprimary, I shoulda gone back to read your original statement. Revise that to: Until we can revive the dead, trying to figure out how to prevent future killings is the only way to meaningfully honor the victims.
Agreed.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"So I think any preventative measure that relies primarily on prediction is seriously flawed. Strapping up all the school teachers takes advantage of the fact that, accurate predictions or not, most teachers aren't psychopaths."
Predictable argument after every mass murder. Better yet, arm the kindergardners.
The guns were owned by the psychopath's mother, who was a teacher at the school; the fact that the gatekeeper recognised the him as the son of a teacher also being why the shooter was buzzed thru the school's locked doors without a second's thought.
[ December 15, 2012, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: The guns were owned by the psychopath's mother, who was a teacher at the school; the fact that the gatekeeper recognised the him as the son of a teacher also being why the shooter was buzzed thru the school's locked doors without a second's thought.
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: ... no amount of gun control legislation--even well enforced--will stop these tragedies from happening.
Well, let's examine this. Of course zero is difficult, you can just look at the world list of homicides by firearms and the countries with a zero in the "Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop" column. There aren't many places at zero, places like Hong Kong and Iceland have reached it but this is of course difficult But you can also see many places like Japan, many places in Europe, and Canada which top out at 0.5 gun homicides per year per 100,000.
The thing to realize is that there is a big gap between these countries and the US at 2.97/100,000. In other words, the thing to do is not to raise your hands and give up saying that the current state of affairs is inevitable, but to realize that the current state of things is a policy choice. For whatever reason, whether the constitution, resistance to a tyrannical government, whatever, Americans have chosen to live with a system that produces more firearm deaths than places like the Gaza+West Bank (2.95), Sierra Leone (2.28), or the Congo (1.56).
Zero? Reasonable people can agree that this is difficult. Lower than pretty disreputable developing countries and near-war zones? Should be reasonable for a country which "[chose] to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I think it would be ideal if all schools had a small police station like many (community) colleges, but logistics y'know?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:A federal law enforcement official said the three guns recovered at the school — Glock and Sig Sauer pistols and an M4 .223-caliber Carbine — were bought legally by the gunman’s mother and registered in her name.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
anybody who is standing firm on the idea that it is unrealistic to regulate firearms at least as institutionally well and complete as we regulate cars is selling the old know-nothing tripe.
they may be selling the idea that it is difficult, but it is difficult only because of them. it was not difficult anywhere else and the end result has not been ~tyranny~, it has been not having an insanely unreasonable and indefensible level of gun violence and killings in countries not even half as prosperous as ours.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's a free country, eh Sport? So feel free to act out in any way you see fit, proving to yourself your moral superiority by acting like a jerk "for the right reasons" Champ. I'm certain that you get to feel twice as good for it!
Bleh!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's a free country, eh Sport? So feel free to act out in any way you see fit, proving to yourself your moral superiority by acting like a jerk "for the right reasons" Champ. I'm certain that you get to feel twice as good for it!
you demonstrate it WITH YOUR VERY WORDS.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm rubber and your glue, whatever say bounces off of me and stick on to you! Nanny nanny billy goat!
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Jebus and Mucus, I suggest looking at my post in its full context.
Jebus, I don't blame violence loving media in isolation for creating the Jolene atrocities. I argue that we have a culture which discourages people getting help when they're having problems. I love my Batman comics, and I'm not about to argue we need to stop the production of Batman because they're violent. I'm capable of distinguishing between reality and fiction. Others aren't. And if we don't have a system that can helps people with that problem, what fiction do they have? We glorify our action heroes and do full media exposes on those who commit the atrocities. I'm not saying we need to get rid of the violent media or even saying that the violent media is what causes these people to become violent. I'm saying that when a person struggles with distinguishing fact from fiction, we need to make sure we can identify those folks because the fictions we love most are violent. For those who can tell the difference, I think there's no problem with enjoying violent media.
Mucus, my point is that gun control alone won't stop these mass shootings. My argument is that gun control advocates who argue that gun control is the solution often ignore other contributing factors. (A culture that gives no solution to the mentally ill other than violent entertainment and a media that gives full coverage of the killer).
I support gun control. I support very strong gun control. I think gun control helps decrease homicide. But my point is that gun control debates need to be a broader discussion than just the guns themselves in the wake of mass shootings. When I see the reports of these shootings, my first thought isn't "now's the time to talk about gun control, because gun control would have prevented this."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I wonder, is it as simple a matter that these people "need help" and didn't get it, and couldn't delineate fact from fantasy.
I mean, I'm not suggesting these are fully functional people who are just evil, but I don't think that they simply needed help, or for that matter, simply anything. I think they are incredibly complicated and troubled, and that we do ourselves no favor by simplifying their motivations into what we, the sane, can grasp.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
A common thread I see in these mass shootings is that they came from people who had a long history of troubling behavior that was ignored. Mental illness carries huge stigmas so I understand the hesitation of both seeking help or saying a person needs to get help. Don't be me wrong, I also believe there are genuinely evil people and people who commit heinous acts out of an act of passion. Mental health faculties won't help in those cases.
But when we have a mass shooting, if we only talk about gun control I believe the opponents to gun control legislation are correct in saying that we advocates are simply politicizing a tragedy. We need the discussion to be extensive and also cover mental health and other factors that contribute to these mass killings.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
They deserve both our hatred and our compassion, and were responsible for dealing out plenty of both. This was a crime that seems to come out of spontaneity, and I think someone could have saved him by providing him better guidance, empathy, and awareness. This guy wanted to kill someone, and whether he succeeds or not, that's something we should have protected him from. We failed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: But when we have a mass shooting, if we only talk about gun control I believe the opponents to gun control legislation are correct in saying that we advocates are simply politicizing a tragedy. We need the discussion to be extensive and also cover mental health and other factors that contribute to these mass killings.
When phrased like that it makes perfect sense. Well said.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: ... (A culture that gives no solution to the mentally ill other than violent entertainment and a media that gives full coverage of the killer).
I think you overstate the influence of media.
Cross-referencing something like movie body counts and the previous statistics, you can quickly see that Hong Kong's movies are pretty much some of the most violent around in terms of guns. Hard Boiled, A Bullet to the Head, A Better Tomorrow II were all massively popular in Hong Kong. But Hong Kong, as I said is pulling in a zero gun deaths/100,000. You also have Canada which is saturated with American media and news, yet only has 1/6th the rate of gun deaths.
About the only argument in there that carries any weight with me is that universal healthcare may lead to better treatment of mentally ill individuals.
Universal healthcare, well. I'm agreed that you guys should tackle that one too, when is that coming up for debate?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
when there's less than 40 republicans in the senate.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote: The day before the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre the National Rifle Association celebrated a milestone: It had accumulated 1.7 million fans on Facebook. It even tweeted a joyful graphic.
A day after the killings, however, the NRA's Facebook went missing in action. It cannot be found on the social network.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Some thoughts.
When I heard President Obama's speech I seriously considered buying stock in any ammunition manufacturing company I could think of. Why? Because while I don't see any possibility of Gun Control legislation getting anywhere, the reactionaries and "Muslim Commie Obama Hussein" crowd will go out and buy up every bullet they can find for fear that the President is about to outlaw them. Yeah, right.
The idea of arming teachers is too dangerous to take seriously. If you have 100 armed teachers in a large school, and someone starts shooting, or even a chair falls onto the floor with a loud bang, guns will come out and people will be looking for a shooter to shoot before getting shot. Basically, it would be Europe in 1912--every country ready to automatically open fire under the slightest pretext. Once a spark is lit friendly fire will kill teachers, and poor gun control will result in many innocent bystanders getting shot, even teachers accidentally shooting themselves. Teachers are not Police Officers. Police Officers go through a lot of training to know whom and how to use their weapons in the safest way possible.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Not to mention terrifying the kids. Seriously, probably more a few of us have had nutty teachers. I had one when I was seven who used to tell us stories about how her dad abused her, the terrible things he did and how we all deserved stuff like that to happen to us when we were bad.
I would have been even more scared of her if she'd had a gun.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't speak for Dan, but I don't think he was seriously suggesting that arming teachers was a good idea...more, it's a better idea then outlawing guns.
Correct me if I'm wrong here Dan.
Regardless of Dan, arming teachers is a horrible idea.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: The day before the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre the National Rifle Association celebrated a milestone: It had accumulated 1.7 million fans on Facebook. It even tweeted a joyful graphic.
A day after the killings, however, the NRA's Facebook went missing in action. It cannot be found on the social network.
No Responsibility Accepted
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Not that I think that Switzerland is an ideal sample on which to base U.S. policy, but I find it interesting how a country with a strong gun-owning culture can manage to have sensible regulation on said guns, and low instances of gun crime.
I've been watching the back and forth for the last two days. A lot of the arguments devolve into tick-for-tac discussion of details. I'm good with details - my job revolves around them. The argument - moral, political, spiritual (?) - is more fundamental. We need to agree on a change as a society. I think it's necessary. From my Facebook post:
quote: I don't pretend to think that banning guns would stop all such incidents. But we can, as a country, make some practical changes to help limit the damage. We can make some changes to adjust our glorification of weapons and violence.
As a parent, I restrict the "rights" of my children to do certain things: play with knives, cross the street unaided, jump off of the furniture. These restrictions do not hinder their freedom in an unhealthy way. In fact, these restrictions encourage them to pursue avenues that are fruitful and foward-thinking.
As a society, we restrict the "rights" of drivers. Requiring written & physical tests and insurance. We restrict access to certain chemicals - you can construct more dangerous substances from individual components easily available, but we don't make them available wholesale, easily. We restrict a great many things on the basis of practicality and general good sense.
Let us be clear: guns are a destructive tool. You can hunt with them, but you destroy the animal's life. You can defend yourself with them, but you destroy the attacker's life. These events are sometimes necessary, but they are not a good argument for legalization of instruments for extreme use of force.
We don't need to ban all guns. We don't need to lock up everyone with a mental illness. We certainly do not need to - should not - arm all teachers or employees of public settings. We can and SHOULD limit access to assault weapons, make mental healthcare readily available, work to remove the stigma of asking for help for those who need counseling, and put other practical and reasonable ideas into action.
Accidents and intentional violence will never be eradicated by laws or even good intentions. But I want my children to grow up appreciating tools of creation more than tools of destruction.
[ December 15, 2012, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Godric 2.0 ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Why are people so mad for "assault weapons"? Any modern firearm is potentially deadly on the same scale, but the buzz word of "assault weapon" just makes people think that these are inherently different (and more dangerous) then other guns.
What exactly do you think an "assault weapon" is?
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why are people so mad for "assault weapons"? Any modern firearm is potentially deadly on the same scale, but the buzz word of "assault weapon" just makes people think that these are inherently different (and more dangerous) then other guns.
What exactly do you think an "assault weapon" is?
I'm not a "gun person" in the same way I'm not a "car person" so I'm welcome to correction and instruction in the area, but this definition (from Wikipedia) fits what I am referring to: firearms designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range. I guess I would add I wouldn't be for a general ban on handguns even if they're automatic. But I think a clear line can be drawn between rifles with clips that can hold what? 50, 60 rounds and a handgun that can hold less than a dozen.
But this is a detail. I'll use a term I recently heard in another discussion on another board: there are "bright lines." I'll let those who know more about guns work out that detail. I see a bright line between a "standard" gun and one that is built to sustain a hail of fire. And I think that is a purely reasonable place to put some restrictions.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Certain assault weapons, fire a kind of rounds that shatter on impact on most surfaces and have limited stopping power. Which is ideal for living spaces where the risk of accidentily shooting a flatmate or neighbour is high and generally survivable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why are people so mad for "assault weapons"? Any modern firearm is potentially deadly on the same scale, but the buzz word of "assault weapon" just makes people think that these are inherently different (and more dangerous) then other guns.
What exactly do you think an "assault weapon" is?
I'm not a "gun person" in the same way I'm not a "car person" so I'm welcome to correction and instruction in the area, but this definition (from Wikipedia) fits what I am referring to: firearms designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range. I guess I would add I wouldn't be for a general ban on handguns even if they're automatic. But I think a clear line can be drawn between rifles with clips that can hold what? 50, 60 rounds and a handgun that can hold less than a dozen.
But this is a detail. I'll use a term I recently heard in another discussion on another board: there are "bright lines." I'll let those who know more about guns work out that detail. I see a bright line between a "standard" gun and one that is built to sustain a hail of fire. And I think that is a purely reasonable place to put some restrictions.
Well, in many situations-mass shootings or regular individual homicides-there are plenty of variables that might have more impact than the type of firearm-even some where having a larger, more powerful weapon would be a liability. Many more where it wouldn't be an issue because the would be killer couldn't get one into the area he wanted to.
But 'assault weapons' (which does cast a wide net) are more powerful, with larger capacity for ammunition, and they fire more rapidly. The powerful bit is important since it means the bullet can pierce through obstacles many wouldn't consider-such as an inner wall in a house across the street, or through the bed of a room in the floor above, so on and so forth.
I think you're right to perceive a bright line-there's a reason that SWAT goes to a job with something other than a pistol as their primary weapon.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Just so you know, an "assault weapon" is a political term and has nothing to do with...anything.
It's utter crap.
quote:...the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher.
(also from wikipedia)
Any semi-automatic rifle that can take a box magazine (most) is exactly as dangerous as an "assault weapon".
Telescopic stocks and pistol grips are just to make the gun more ergonomic, flash suppressors are basically useless outside of night combat (blinding the shooter and easily identifying their location), a bayonet mount is for adding a knife on the end of your gun, and grenades are -very had to come by-. None of this stuff makes a lick of difference.
Not. One. Bit.
Most modern semi auto rifles magazines hold 30 rounds. Most pistols hold about 15. Both can be quickly reloaded and pose a genuine threat to groups of people if used as a tool for mass murder.
Banning assault weapons accomplished nothing.
Re-banning them will accomplish...nothing.
And even if we did have my proposed idea about requiring a psychological/safety testing, it would have done -nothing- to prevent this tragedy, as he didn't buy them, he just took them from his mother.
Unless she had had a safe, which he could not have accessed that is. Although it seems reasonable to have your adult children knowing the combo to your gun safe.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would argue any effort to make it LESS EASY to kill people is a good step in the right direction.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think you're right to perceive a bright line-there's a reason that SWAT goes to a job with something other than a pistol as their primary weapon.
Thanks. This.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Most modern semi auto rifles magazines hold 30 rounds. Most pistols hold about 15. Both can be quickly reloaded and pose a genuine threat to groups of people if used as a tool for mass murder.
Thank you, seriously. Most of what you posted I did not know. I would draw the line then at anything semi-automatic - pistols included.
But I'll requote myself. We need to enact change (through laws if need be):
quote:We can make some changes to adjust our glorification of weapons and violence. Accidents and intentional violence will never be eradicated by laws or even good intentions. We can and SHOULD limit access to assault weapons [automatic or semi-automatic if that's a better definition], make mental healthcare readily available, work to remove the stigma of asking for help for those who need counseling, and put other practical and reasonable ideas into action. I want my children to grow up appreciating tools of creation more than tools of destruction.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I would argue any effort to make it LESS EASY to kill people is a good step in the right direction.
Oh if only points were rewarded for effort!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: Thank you, seriously. Most of what you posted I did not know.
Welcome.
quote:I would draw the line then at anything semi-automatic - pistols included.
That would be A LOT of guns which are fully legal currently to be rounded up...I don't think that would happen.
quote:Semi-automatic firearms were introduced more than a century ago. They account for about 15 percent of the 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.
So, if this is accurate, that's 37,500,000 semi-automatic weapons in this country. Seems low to me. Heck I own four myself.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:I would draw the line then at anything semi-automatic - pistols included.
That would be A LOT of guns which are fully legal currently to be rounded up...I don't think that would happen.
Probably not. And I'm not even saying they should. Such a ban should begin with the idea of moving forward: those who own such weapons already have a right to keep them... Maybe institute a re-registration at some point. Future sales would be banned. We need to change the underlying glorification of weapons.
When and how do you use your semi-automatic weapons? What practical purpose do they serve? Would you be so hindered in your freedoms were such weapons only be allowed to be rented and shot at gun ranges?
And don't say you need them for defense. On a basic level, even if you're armed, even if you have training, you can be too slow to react or you can miss - and then what? the other party can kill you anyway. If you bring up the straw man of needing the weapon to defend against your attacker, I can just as easily bring up the straw man of him being a better shot than you. If we need them to defend against the government, we've got a lot bigger issues than gun rights to contend with at that point. But while the US government is big and powerful and oversteps it's boundaries - it's not about to become a tyranny. It can't even stand up to banks.
Like I said, imposing regulations won't solve the problem, but it will help mitigate damage. And hopefully begin to shift some focus from "gun worship."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:When and how do you use your semi-automatic weapons? What practical purpose do they serve? Would you be so hindered in your freedoms were such weapons only be allowed to be rented and shot at gun ranges?
Well, three are handguns, which sit, unloaded in my large gun safe. And the third is a registered assault weapon, an AR-15. I owned prior to the California state assault weapon ban, so I registered it, paid for the police to take my finger prints, etc, so I can still own it in a state where other's can't. It also sits in my safe unloaded.
I do shoot at the range every now and again. But I like to have them for just in case, riots, end of the world as we know it, kind of things. That sounds pretty silly, I guess, but I lived in L.A. during the Rodney King riots...so it isn't so far fetched to me.
I actually keep a revolver as my home defense gun (different safe), but for because you can leave it loaded and it doesn't hurt the gun (semi-autos have springs in their magazines which shouldn't be left loaded for extended lengths of time, as it will likely cause the spring to over compress and malfunction).
I'm sorry that you think home defense is a straw man. Just last month I heard a shot not a block away from my house (in a very nice neighborhood) and put hands on iron after sending my kids and wife upstairs.
I'm a big proponent of training...I have worked at three shooting ranges as a younger man, teaching people how to shoot, and am myself a marksman. I am also currently registered with the state of California as an armed guard.
Guns are important to have. But they are -very- dangerous and as much as I am a champion of "gun rights" I am more a proponent of gun safety training. People -should- have the right to protect themselves, that is, they should have the right to prove they can handle the responsibility of owning a gun safely. Owning a gun in my mind shouldn't be a right in and of itself. They are far too dangerous in untrained hands.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would be curious why you came to this conclusion. What metric are you using to determine the effects of a ban?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone Wolf, exactly what use was it to "put hands on iron"? When have you actually needed those weapons?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone Wolf, exactly what use was it to "put hands on iron"? When have you actually needed those weapons?
Perhaps more importantly-why was the shot heard in the first place? Was someone with a legally owned and safely stored firearm shooting to repel an intruder, or did that same gun owner get dumped and drunk and decide it was time to settle some scores? Or perhaps a drug dealer firing on a sketchy figure creeping behind some vacant lots, with an illegally owned firearm gotten through the ill-controlled interstate gun trades?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm sorry that you think home defense is a straw man. Just last month I heard a shot not a block away from my house (in a very nice neighborhood) and put hands on iron after sending my kids and wife upstairs.
I would be curious why you came to this conclusion. What metric are you using to determine the effects of a ban?
quote:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[6] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[7]
The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[8]
That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets had reduced gun murders.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone Wolf, exactly what use was it to "put hands on iron"? When have you actually needed those weapons?
In case I needed to defend my family from the source of that shot. Instead of my family just huddling in a corner in fear, I was able to -do- something to make everyone feel safe. I also put hands on a cell phone and called the cops. Because I'm not a cop, or a vigilante, and only wanted to be prepared in case it was needful.
As I mentioned, I'm a certified armed guard, so I "need" those weapons to make a living...I've also hunted, and that put a lot of food on the table, but if you are asking if I have ever had to defend myself with a firearm, no I have not, thankfully. My father had to, twice, during the riots (I was 12).
Cops are wonderful, I love the police! But they can't be everywhere all the time. And when someone decides to come and take your things or kill you or rape you or your loved ones, the police show up after the fact and draw little white lines around your cooling body and try and figure out "who done it".
So, I hope to high heaven I never have to "use" my guns, but if the situation arises, I'll be ready, because there are things I'm not willing to give up. And when you -need- a gun, there are very few substitutes (of which I own most).
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Unless she had had a safe, which he could not have accessed that is. Although it seems reasonable to have your adult children knowing the combo to your gun safe.
This is something I'm very interested in to be honest. Though she was worried about his mental health, there doesn't seem to any indication that she was concerned that her son might turn violent. Maybe she had no reason to be, and felt comfortable giving him the combination to the safe. Or, maybe she didn't have one.
On the other hand, at least a few townspeople say that they thought they saw AL try to purchase weapons earlier in the week. If that turns out to be true, it would suggest the guns in the home weren't readily available to him.
Regardless, I'm curious as to what protections (if any) she'd have wanted in place to prevent an unauthorized person from gaining access to her weapons, and if they failed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Before the District of Columbia v. Heller case it would have been possible for laws governing gun ownership to be enforced under the "well-regulated militia" clause of the Second Amendment, but this decision ensures gun rights outside the context of a militia.
It will be very difficult to create preconditions, such as a federal license, to gun ownership. Because the right to bear arms is an enumerated right, not a privilege, any obstruction to the free exercise of that right will be highly scrutinized by the Court. Every step in the licensing process - the psychological evaluation/screening and gun registration and all associated costs, for example - decreases the chance of the Court allowing such regulations to stand. I know you don't consider the process you detailed to be overly burdensome, but such a system would would be prohibitively difficult for those with limited means, especially if one must undergo such a test at each renewal.
Then perhaps it is time to clarify the second amendment. It was a change to original constitution anyway, and our founding father designed the system to be able to be changed. While I am a huge proponent of citizens being able to own firearms, simply not having screwed up before (non-felon) is not a good enough standard to allow the responsibility of such dangerous tools.
quote:The psychological evaluation itself poses significant concerns. Essentially, it constitutes a mini-trial. A medical professional would have to conduct the test. More probable still, it would have to be multiple qualified medical professionals. I doubt a constitutional right would be made void based on the medical opinion of one person, especially given the nature of psychology. It's not like seeing the tumor on a mammogram. And in cases of test failure, an appeals process would have to be provided, or else allow for a re-test after a reasonable amount of time has passed (considerably less time than that of renewal.) Ultimately, I find it unlikely that the Supreme Court would allow a entire classification of people, who have broken no law, to be denied a right guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Currently, the only citizens who lose gun rights are felons.
I would imagine that one psychologist could say yes, but it would take more then one to say "no", i.e. if someone raised red flags with the test or the interview they would have to speak to another psychologist.
quote:Ten years between renewal sounds like an arbitrary number (perhaps you have a reason for choosing 10) but it too poses certain problems. It's too infrequent to be useful - in that it provides the protections desired by the system - but more frequent tests wouldn't be practical. When you look at the objective of this system - keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally derange, distraught or otherwise mentally unfit - so much occurs in the 10 year span of a life, a person could be 100 percent fit to own a gun at the time of the test then commit a murder/suicide 7 years later, well before the mandatory renewal.
Ten years seemed like a good number, although I just made it up, because I feel like people are considerably different from themselves a decade ago, but you could easily change that number to 5 or 7 or whichever.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I'm sorry that you think home defense is a straw man. Just last month I heard a shot not a block away from my house (in a very nice neighborhood) and put hands on iron after sending my kids and wife upstairs.
Why?
w-w-why
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes
Well, that's just stupid. Because here's the thing: mass murders are a tiny fraction of gun crimes. But mass murders are almost always committed by someone who brought an "assault rifle" with him. So, yeah, you wouldn't expect a statistical decrease in overall gun crime; you should be looking for a statistical decrease in mass murder.
quote:I also put hands on a cell phone and called the cops
I assume you have four hands. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* The phrasing has some masculine chest-thumping to it, but this is the Internet and text is unreliable for that sort of thing sometimes. If one hears gunfire, one can easily and without reproach wish to be armed themselves. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
That said, it doesn't have any bearing on the true problem with implementing the sorts of 'responsible, reasonable reforms' we hear about from gun rights advocates who aren't of the 'cold dead hands' and 'they're coming for my guns!' sort. That problem being that the impediment to the sorts of reforms we're discussing, the biggest roadblock, isn't the vagaries of psychiatry, or the nuances of constitutional law-it's the NRA. That is a house that it seems won't be cleaned by external pressure. So until responsible gun owners elect-figuratively and literally-to stop having their side of the aisle represented by fanatics, well, I doubt anything productive will happen. It won't be enough by itself, but it won't happen without a seriour change to the NRA either.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes
Well, that's just stupid. Because here's the thing: mass murders are a tiny fraction of gun crimes. But mass murders are almost always committed by someone who brought an "assault rifle" with him. So, yeah, you wouldn't expect a statistical decrease in overall gun crime; you should be looking for a statistical decrease in mass murder.
Seems anything you don't agree with is stupid.
"Almost always" isn't even half-way accurate. Mother Jones compiled this data on mass shootings that indicates the weapons the perpetrator had in their possession at the time of the shooting. Handguns are used most frequently, followed by a handgun/"assault weapon" combination. The number of individuals that were shot with each weapon isn't indicated.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
And mother jones counted Ryan Lanza as using one, even though he left it in his car, so...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* A mass murderer brought it with him on a premeditated effort to murder over a dozen children. Are we to quibble and say, "Well he didn't get the chance to *use* it," (actually, he used his AR-15 to shoot his way in-I believe it was the shotgun that was left outside, according to CNN) and consider assault weapons off the table?
If he had left it in his car, why should that change anything?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Because it's being held up as a weapon of mass murder, when frankly a pistol or two can be used to the same basic effect.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Because it's being held up as a weapon of mass murder, when frankly a pistol or two can be used to the same basic effect.
I'm happy to adjust my position at this point to argue banning ALL guns across the board.
After this if we as a society can sit back, light a few candles and shake our heads without agreeing to do SOMETHING - including making some compromises in gun "rights," we're bloody (quite literally) idiots.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If he had left it in his car, why should that change anything?
It's important when discussing the lethality of such weapons.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Because it's being held up as a weapon of mass murder, when frankly a pistol or two can be used to the same basic effect.
I'm happy to adjust my position at this point to argue banning ALL guns across the board.
After this if we as a society can sit back, light a few candles and shake our heads without agreeing to do SOMETHING - including making some compromises in gun "rights," we're bloody (quite literally) idiots.
Our Founding Fathers kept slaves. They didn't allow women to vote. They had any number of assbackwards ideas. It is past time to admit that letting everyone and their crazy uncle have access to firearms in the manner that we're pathetically defending now .. is another antiquated idea.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So far, just about every detail of the connecticut murders has been changed at one time or another. So, I think waiting a few days before classifying anything is a good idea.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: So far, just about every detail of the connecticut murders has been changed at one time or another. So, I think waiting a few days before classifying anything is a good idea.
He wasn't using knives or darts. He was using guns. That hasn't changed.
As I said, we need to 1) change our culture of gun worship, 2) we need to improve the way we provide mental healthcare and 3) we need to make some immediate compromises in gun rights.
If I see one more suggestion we arm teachers to "solve" this problem, I'm gonna explode.
But now I'm just beginning to ramble, so...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If he had left it in his car, why should that change anything?
It's important when discussing the lethality of such weapons.
Why? Note that e *didn't* leave it in his trunk, but anyway same question. Had it been left in the car, that would mean...what, we would need to wait until a mass shooting where response was slow, he went out and got it, and killed more with it before we deemed the particularly lethal?
-------
quote:Because it's being held up as a weapon of mass murder, when frankly a pistol or two can be used to the same basic effect.
First of all, they simply are weapons of mass killing-not necessarily murder. It isn't that pistols are just as dangerous. In prison, a shiv is going to kill more than a hand grenade, but we don't kid ourselves and say it's maybe time to lighten up explosives regulation in prison, do we?
Second, the reason handguns are so much more commonly deadly surely has a lot to do with the fact that when seen, they attract attention-and in situations where they are most to be feared, they are likeliest to be seen. Easy to sneak a pistol into a movie theater, rather harder a rifle.
I fail to see why this should add up to a reason to believe we exaggerate the dangerousness of those weapons-one of the chief reasons they're less commonly used is because of how dangererous we feel they are!
(Did you answer my question about armed teachers? May have missed it.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah well, at least the misinformation permeating every iota of this national tragedy will result in the grim amusement of watching the pretzeling and handwringing that will occur when pretty inevitably we find out that the shooter did indeed use the assault rifle to march into the school and systematically murder children with it. there will, of course, be a new, fresh, and different argument about why it was ultimately irrelevant that this premeditated slaying used the assault rifle after all, and that we should think no differently about the issue and still not ban the weapon type as much as we weren't banning the weapon type before when people were insisting he only used pistols.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sam, you're right insofar as I don't actually think it matters a whole lot what kind of gun he used. For example, if he only used pistols, I wouldn't actually think that was a good reason to ban pistols.
Rakeesh: Yeah, I hadn't answered your question yet. It was about whether or not I'd legitimately like to see teachers armed, right? The comment was mostly a sarcastic response to your sarcasm, but overall it's a good question.
One problem I have with answering it is that I'm not really in favor of forcing kids to go to prisons where they're beaten down for 8 or so hours every day. I think schools are pretty awful, for the most part. And yeah, plenty of teachers (that we inflict on kids) aren't stable enough that I'd be in favor of any sort of "Teachers have to be armed" initiative.
So in that sense, I didn't mean it.
But in general, I'm opposed to the idea of making schools "gun-free zones," yeah. If a teacher is licensed to concealed carry, I wouldn't have a problem with them carrying on their job. And especially if we're talking about voluntary schools (i.e. universities), I'm definitely not opposed to either teachers or students being armed.
There have been several low-profile incidents of armed people stopping school shootings, so it's not really out of left field. And no instances, that I've heard of, where an armed victim tried to stop a school shooting and somehow made things worse than any given school massacre.
But that's sort of an addendum, not the core of my reasoning. Because I don't think it makes sense to try and legislate around ridiculous edge cases like these in the first place. Planning laws and public policy around edge cases doesn't generally work out well, in my opinion (see: TSA).
One other thing: in this thread people have bandied around the general murder rate in the US, but we're also focused on these edge case massacres. The two have little in common. Massacre-deaths don't make up a statistically significant number of the gun deaths in our country. They're different beasts entirely.
I get that the people who want total gun bans see their solution as solving both problems, of course. But I'm not convinced that's a good idea.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone Wolf, exactly what use was it to "put hands on iron"? When have you actually needed those weapons?
Exactly what use is it to buckle your seatbelt in every car trip where you are not involved in a car crash?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If he had left it in his car, why should that change anything?
It's important when discussing the lethality of such weapons.
Why? Note that he *didn't* leave it in his trunk, but anyway same question. Had it been left in the car, that would mean...what, we would need to wait until a mass shooting where response was slow, he went out and got it, and killed more with it before we deemed the particularly lethal?
It's important to have accurate data, such as how frequently a certain type of weapon is used, and to what effect. Informed arguments are the most productive kind.
I've noted that Lanza did indeed use the .233 and left the shotgun in the vehicle. I don't believe Dan can be faulted for thinking otherwise. Information about this incident is being updated constantly. What was reported this morning might not be so accurate now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:you're right insofar as I don't actually think it matters a whole lot what kind of gun he used
This is a good thing, as the story currently is that he shot his way through the outer doors with the assault rifle, then killed six people with it before tossing it aside after emptying three magazines.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Samp, I was not pointing out the misinformation to say we should not change gun laws. It was that saying well, this case didn't include this weapon so it's all good because at this point we dont know anything. However, even ignoring Connecticut, there is no question we have a mental health issue in the us, as well as a gun crazy society. The fact is, this is one more data point, which is kinda terrifying. Tragedies like this should not be frequent enough that we can discuss trends and patterns.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Tragedies like this should not be frequent enough that we can discuss trends and patterns.
Well... we can't, really. For one thing, because again, statistical analysis of this sort of event requires a level of predictive capability that we don't have. But more importantly, there have been nowhere near enough massacres like this to actually provide enough raw data for really serious statistical analysis.
How often do you think tragedies like this occur?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
[quore]It's important to have accurate data, such as how frequently a certain type of weapon is used, and to what effect. Informed arguments are the most productive kind.[/quote]
If an informed argument is the most productive kind, you're quick to say 'if he didn't get a chance to use it, it shouldn't be as relevant'. Had he left it at home, that would be one thing.
-------
Something I've heard more than once is that one usual, cultural change that would help is if we mitigated the notoriety that came with these events-not reporting their name, not saying it, trying for a world where people like this don't attain, alive or dead, the national and global name recognition and hype that is so often a motive. I suspect there's something to that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, if the issue is "What weapons have been used most commonly to commit murder" then all we need to criminalize is unregistered, illegally obtained handguns...
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:you're right insofar as I don't actually think it matters a whole lot what kind of gun he used
This is a good thing, as the story currently is that he shot his way through the outer doors with the assault rifle, then killed six people with it before tossing it aside after emptying three magazines.
It's fun to watch you work.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yeah, if the issue is "What weapons have been used most commonly to commit murder" then all we need to criminalize is unregistered, illegally obtained handguns...
Also driving and alcohol. And probably organized religion, depending on how you define 'weapon'.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I mean. Come on. It absolutely matters what gun he used. Why would someone disregard this data from the onset, and what does it tell you about them?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I mean. Come on. It absolutely matters what gun he used. Why would someone disregard this data from the onset, and what does it tell you about them?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That's a bizarre double post! An hour apart? Weird.
Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean, so if you want to elaborate, that'd be great. Or not. Up to you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Anyone call Capax on his claim that his stance for voter ID is 'completely different' from proposed mandatory psych screenings for guns is not at all hypocritical Because. Or did we just decide to ignore the objective lack of credible objectivity?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Because... They're two different issues?
I'm confused.
I mean, you don't think it's contradictory to hold the opposite opinion of him on both issues, right? Why not?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Anyone call Capax on his claim that his stance for voter ID is 'completely different' from proposed mandatory psych screenings for guns is not at all hypocritical Because. Or did we just decide to ignore the objective lack of credible objectivity?
"Aren't comparable" were the words I used. That claim is completely different than the one you've accused me of making.
And see Dan's post.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Because... They're two different issues?
I'm confused.
I mean, you don't think it's contradictory to hold the opposite opinion of him on both issues, right? Why not?
They are, but there's a larger principle involved.
Pro voter ID people are arguing that the higher purpose of makings sure every is who they say they are is worth the incredible burden such a system would place on voters, and is also worth the possibility that millions would likely be stopped from exercising their right to vote.
But when you say to those people, hey, maybe we should enact some filters in our system to make it harder for the wrong people to get guns, and maybe to ban the deadliest kind of guns, those same people say that's an undue burden and robs them of part of their rights.
It's an incredibly hypocritical double standard. It's not perfectly analogous, but it's close enough to recognize the problematic disconnect.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yeah, if the issue is "What weapons have been used most commonly to commit murder" then all we need to criminalize is unregistered, illegally obtained handguns...
Because, of course, those are the only guns used to committ crimes-those which entered the food chain as it were illegally-and there are no enforcement efforts which can be applied that would *begin* to decrease the supply and use of guns for crime in this country?
Or is the answer 'well, too many guns, we can't do it!' That is a *guarantee* the problem will never, ever get better! It is also a huge part of how we arrived in this predicament in the first place-generations of people resisting any efforts to rein in our gun culture with the specter that it's already here, and once it's here you're screwed forever.
Odd, isn't it, that this reasoning is one of the surest ways to defeat the proposition it starts out by claiming can't be done? "We can't take serious efforts at reining in our gun culture because *we have to maintain our gun culture.*"
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But when you say to those people, hey, maybe we should enact some filters in our system to make it harder for the wrong people to get guns, and maybe to ban the deadliest kind of guns, those same people say that's an undue burden and robs them of part of their rights.
Who are these people? Surely none one here is making that argument.
And for the record, the most deadly kind of guns ARE banned, you know, heavy machine guns, light machine guns, submachine guns, rocket propelled grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, flame throwers, etc, ad nausium.
Also, for the record, capaxinfiniti specifically said he didn't disagree with the concept, just was pointing out the hurtles that any idea like the one I'm presenting would face if it was attempted to be put into law. And I appreciate it, it helps the cause to know the potential pitfalls.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Because... They're two different issues?
I'm confused.
I mean, you don't think it's contradictory to hold the opposite opinion of him on both issues, right? Why not?
They are, but there's a larger principle involved.
Pro voter ID people are arguing that the higher purpose of makings sure every is who they say they are is worth the incredible burden such a system would place on voters, and is also worth the possibility that millions would likely be stopped from exercising their right to vote.
But when you say to those people, hey, maybe we should enact some filters in our system to make it harder for the wrong people to get guns, and maybe to ban the deadliest kind of guns, those same people say that's an undue burden and robs them of part of their rights.
It's an incredibly hypocritical double standard. It's not perfectly analogous, but it's close enough to recognize the problematic disconnect.
The analogy isn't just imperfect. It's deeply flawed, and basically only looks insightful if you already agree with the conclusions.
Again, can you explain why the inverse is not just as hypocritical?
Or, let me put it another way, with two completely different issues:
Some people are in favor of stricter government regulations on business practices, because they think such regulations are worth the incredible burden they would put on businesses. And they think it's also worth the possibility that many individuals would likely be stopped from exercising their right to start a business in the pursuit of success.
But when you say to those people, hey, maybe we should enact some filters in our system to make it harder for terrorists to move about freely, like maybe allowing warrantless wiretapping and domestic drone surveillance and racial profiling, those same people say that's an undue burden and robs them of part of their rights.
Is that a hypocritical double standard?
I'm pretty sure that virtually every political position includes thinking that some government force is worth it to accomplish whatever one thinks the government ought to accomplish. And yet when they don't think the government is approaching the problem the right way, they oppose additional government rules.
It's only fundamentally hypocritical if you're a pure anarchist or a pure statist. You're neither, though, Lyr. I get that it looks like a double standard to you, but you're reading too much into it.
You disagree with both positions Capax is taking, but neither he nor I are going to accuse you of being a hypocrite.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yeah, if the issue is "What weapons have been used most commonly to commit murder" then all we need to criminalize is unregistered, illegally obtained handguns...
Because, of course, those are the only guns used to committ crimes-those which entered the food chain as it were illegally-and there are no enforcement efforts which can be applied that would *begin* to decrease the supply and use of guns for crime in this country?
I didn't say that at all. I just said that that's the type most commonly used in run-of-the-mill gun homicides.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So it was just a pithy statement, completely devoid of any larger argument, Dan? If you say it was, I'll take you at your word, but it didn't sound like that at all. Particularly given how extremely common precisely that short, pithy argument is as though it were decisive.
-----
As for who is saying things people are objecting to, that no one *here* is one of the tyranny/cold dead hands types, well sure. Perfectly true. But what is also true is that the single organization most responsible for impeding progress towards these sorts of reforms is firmly, adamantly, proudly on y'all's side of the aisle. If anyone wants serious reform even *attempted*, then one of two things *has* to happen: either the NRA changes its political activism and support, or suddenly other people stop toeing their line.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As to those who are saying that no one here is a green terrorist, well sure. Perfectly true. But it is also true that the people who murder people for not recycling are on the same side of the aisle as you all environmentalists...
As to those who are saying that no one here has committed a hate crime against homosexuals, well sure. Perfectly true. But it is also true that the people who beat up and kill gays are on the same side of the aisle as you all religious people...
Similarity is not the same thing as association.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I would be interested in Dan backing up claim with a source actually. I thought that the majority of gun related crimes were committed with legal weapons. I could be wrong but I would want some proof before I accept that as fact.
Eta-I am thinking violence not crimes. So including like suicides and accidents. I
[ December 17, 2012, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: scholarette ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone Wolf, exactly what use was it to "put hands on iron"? When have you actually needed those weapons?
Exactly what use is it to buckle your seatbelt in every car trip where you are not involved in a car crash?
If people used seat belts to cause car crashes, that analogy would make sense.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone Wolf, exactly what use was it to "put hands on iron"? When have you actually needed those weapons?
Exactly what use is it to buckle your seatbelt in every car trip where you are not involved in a car crash?
If people used seat belts to cause car crashes, that analogy would make sense.
For anyone interested in crashing their car into someone, a seat belt would be a pretty invaluable tool, though, wouldn't it?
But I'm just being snarky. You've misunderstood JT's point. While driving, it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt even though it's unlikely you'll get in a crash. Because a seat belt can protect you in a crash, and if there's no crash, no harm done.
And when you hear a gunshot outside your house, or hear some other noise that worries you, it's a good idea to ready a gun. Even though it's unlikely you'll get attacked. Because a gun can protect you if you do get attacked, and if you don't, no harm done.
Scholarette: I'll look for a cite some time soon. A cursory google search confirms it but I haven't found a nice meaty study to link. Also, I was definitely referring to crimes, specifically, not suicides and accidents. Since suicides and accidents are just as likely to happen to law-abiding citizens as they are to criminals, I imagine lots of legally owned guns are involved in those two instances.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I understood the point. I am saying that his point has very little basis in reality and ignores the actual situation.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
But you didn't say that. You made a crack about seatbelts causing car crashes.
So, there's a certain irony in that the best defense we currently have against a gun is another gun, rather than, say, a personal force field or something.
So in that sense, an analogy to seat belts or condoms or whatever has a key difference. But you're seeing that key difference and saying that therefore the whole analogy fails, and guns don't really protect you from guns the way seat belts protect from crashes.
But they do. The fact that they're also the crash doesn't invalidate this. Until we get personal force fields, they're the best defense we've got. Dismissing that out of hand makes no sense.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:guns don't really protect you from guns the way seat belts protect from crashes.
But they do.
No, they don't.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I have a solution, which I firmly believe would considerably lessen the chances of mass shootings like this.
Make it illegal to publish the name, picture, or any other personal information about the shooter. The press can cover the incident otherwise as much as they want, but they are not allowed to give out personal information about the shooter. No name. No picture. No personal information beyond his age, sex and occupation. Most definitely no video. He would never get a chance to give a public statement about the killings.
If the shooter would have published anything on the internet, it would be immediately deleted the by law enforcement. If any internet site would publish his name or picture, it would be censored immediately. Sites such as Facebook and Youtube have automated functions for this kind of work.
More than anything else, mass shooters want recognition. If you deny them that recognition, they are much less likely to do a mass shooting.
Of course, all the aforementioned would mean compromising the freedom of speech. To many people freedom of speech is so important, that it can't be compromised even to prevent mass shootings of children.
This is understandable. But to many people the freedom to carry arms is just as important as the freedom of speech. Regardless of my own attitudes towards gun control, I think it's fairly easy to argue on moral and philosophical grounds, why people should have a freedom to carry arms.
To people who want to make restrictions to the freedom to carry arms: Are you equally willing to make legal restrictions to the freedom of speech?
If not, then why not?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So, there's a certain irony in that the best defense we currently have against a gun is another gun, rather than, say, a personal force field or something.
So in that sense, an analogy to seat belts or condoms or whatever has a key difference. But you're seeing that key difference and saying that therefore the whole analogy fails, and guns don't really protect you from guns the way seat belts protect from crashes.
But they do. The fact that they're also the crash doesn't invalidate this. Until we get personal force fields, they're the best defense we've got. Dismissing that out of hand makes no sense.
Got any evidence that people with guns are safer than those without guns?
And still you ignoring the rather important point that wearing seat belts does not cause car crashes. There is no downside to everyone having seatbelts.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:guns don't really protect you from guns the way seat belts protect from crashes.
But they do.
No, they don't.
That isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: More than anything else, mass shooters want recognition. If you deny them that recognition, they are much less likely to do a mass shooting.
Are you certain about this? The shooter in CT didn't even leave a note.
quote: To people who want to make restrictions to the freedom to carry arms: Are you equally willing to make legal restrictions to the freedom of speech?
If not, then why not?
We already have reasonable limits on freedom of speech.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.
Could you be more specific?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sorry, this thread is booming!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: Make it illegal to publish the name, picture, or any other personal information about the shooter.
nope, never do this.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
On another sad note, a mad man in China stabbed 22 children in an elementary school on Friday as well.
Apparently it is fairly common there. Knives aren't as deadly as guns, but it just shows that if guns aren't available, these crazies will find another way to cause terror.
Gun control laws are a strange topic for me. On one hand I believe in the right to own a gun. On the other hand I believe that more than just your own state of mind should be taken into account when applying for a firearms license. I think that if you have anyone in your family with mental illness, that should be taken into consideration when you obtain a license to own or carry a firearm.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* Okay, fine. Guns do not protect people from guns in the same way that seatbelts protect people from crashes.
How seatbelts protect the user: 1) Minimize effects of violent impact; 2) Keep the user inside the vehicle.
How guns protect from other guns: 1) Scare shooters out of firing; 2) Kill or incapacitate shooters.
In order for seatbelts to protect from crashes in the same way that guns protect from other guns, seatbelts would have to have the ability to lash out and disable other cars at range if the driver felt that the other car posed a threat, and all drivers would have to know that any car equipped with seatbelts could force them off the road with a flap of terrible fabric if that car's driver felt like it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: On another sad note, a mad man in China stabbed 22 children in an elementary school on Friday as well.
Good thing he didn't have a gun or the children in China would likely be dead. Like ours.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: On another sad note, a mad man in China stabbed 22 children in an elementary school on Friday as well.
Kill count: zero.
Odds that the CT shooter would have been able to force his way into the school's security zone with a knife instead of guns: practically zilch
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In order for seatbelts to protect from crashes in the same way that guns protect from other guns, seatbelts would have to have the ability to lash out and disable other cars at range if the driver felt that the other car posed a threat, and all drivers would have to know that any car equipped with seatbelts could force them off the road with a flap of terrible fabric if that car's driver felt like it.
And let's just imagine the arguments in favor of seatbelts if this were the case; would people say that seatbelted highways are polite highways? Or would we be discussing the potential ban of assault seatbelts following yet another 20+ casualties with a mass seatbelt killing when someone snapped and used their seatbelts to murder a school bus load of children?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:
quote:quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: In order for seatbelts to protect from crashes in the same way that guns protect from other guns, seatbelts would have to have the ability to lash out and disable other cars at range if the driver felt that the other car posed a threat, and all drivers would have to know that any car equipped with seatbelts could force them off the road with a flap of terrible fabric if that car's driver felt like it.
And let's just imagine the arguments in favor of seatbelts if this were the case; would people say that seatbelted highways are polite highways? Or would we be discussing the potential ban of assault seatbelts following yet another 20+ casualties with a mass seatbelt killing when someone snapped and used their seatbelts to murder a school bus load of children?
Are we then assuming that in this world the right to bear seat belts is also guaranteed by the constitution?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We already place limitations on constitutional rights. You do not, for example, have the right to own bombs. Freedom of speech is limited as are many other first amendment rights. Human sacrifice would be a restriction of religious freedom.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
So are we arguing for limitations or a ban?
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: More than anything else, mass shooters want recognition. If you deny them that recognition, they are much less likely to do a mass shooting.
Are you certain about this? The shooter in CT didn't even leave a note.
quote: To people who want to make restrictions to the freedom to carry arms: Are you equally willing to make legal restrictions to the freedom of speech?
If not, then why not?
We already have reasonable limits on freedom of speech.
The shooter in CT didn't need to leave a note. The bodies are the note. And every single detail of his life will be made public - He knew that.
Yes, I'm rather convinced a morbid desire for recognition - even after death - is a driving motivation.
If these people only wanted to kill, but not get recognition, then they would try to *avoid getting caught*. Getting caught - Or committing suicide on the scene - means they can't continue killing. So obviously the mere desire to kill isn't the main motivation.
As for revenge as motivation - I'm sure it plays always a part. There must be a heavy amount of bitterness towards the surrounding world. It goes hand in hand with the desire for recognition. Notice how these mass murderers are usually introvert outsiders, to whom nobody pays much attention to?
But even revenge doesn't work as main motivation, because mass murderers typically kill people they have no personal relationship with, people they have never spoken to, people they have never even met before. They rarely kill people who actually wronged them. A person who would be *primarily* driven by revenge, would make sure to primarily kill people who have wronged him. Not just blast away everyone who happens to walk by.
And anyway, if you are driven primarily by revenge, you don't want to be caught. Just kill the people you want to kill, and continue with your life. Bomb your school anonymously, instead of shooting everyone in public.
But these people want to get caught. They want to see the scared looks on the faces of their victims. They want to be recognized by their victims. They are on a power trip. They are making a STATEMENT - To the whole world. It's the extreme version of "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!".
Sometimes they don't want to leave a physical note, because they already made their note - By killing dozens of people.
Right now, because the media is covering the CT killer 24/7, there are a few people around USA, who are seeing a chance for once in their lives to be recognized. They can manifest their hatred to the WHOLE WORLD, and everyone is guaranteed to watch.
That's tempting.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: Make it illegal to publish the name, picture, or any other personal information about the shooter.
nope, never do this.
Why not?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: So are we arguing for limitations or a ban?
Depends on what you are asking. Limitations on the right to bear arms is a ban on some types of weapons.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka:
But these people want to get caught. They want to see the scared looks on the faces of their victims. They want to be recognized by their victims. They are on a power trip. They are making a STATEMENT - To the whole world. It's the extreme version of "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!".
Sometimes they don't want to leave a physical note, because they already made their note - By killing dozens of people.
They get that regardless of the press. I think that you need to show some evidence of your theory.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Let's use logic on prevention and outcome: - Restrictions on firearms: likely outcome is firearm theft and similar occurrence. - Ban on firearms: likely outcome is another method, such as improvised explosive device. - Arming teachers: likely outcome is reduced mortality rate.
Flaws?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Let's use logic on prevention and outcome: - Restrictions on firearms: likely outcome is firearm theft and similar occurrence. - Ban on firearms: likely outcome is another method, such as improvised explosive device. - Arming teachers: likely outcome is reduced mortality rate.
Flaws?
Gosh yes. None of those things are true. All of it is flaw.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: So are we arguing for limitations or a ban?
I think it depends on which gun control advocate you're asking.
But if I believe in a right we have, that the general population deserves, like the right to bear arms, and I think freedom is a little more valuable than safety, then no tragedy ever changes that.
The form of gun control I wouldn't begrudge though, is a further standard of eligibility, but even that is a compromise with freedom and possibly a form of discrimination. Whatever path we go on, something sucks.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Living with other people is all about balancing things that suck.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: ... Right now, because the media is covering the CT killer 24/7, there are a few people around USA, who are seeing a chance for once in their lives to be recognized. They can manifest their hatred to the WHOLE WORLD, and everyone is guaranteed to watch.
If an argument seeks to explain the exceedingly high homicide rate in the US (with or without guns), it has to find a dividing line between the US and the rest of the developed world. Or as Geraine pointed out, even developing countries such as China which are developing but have extremely low homicide rates.
The media is not one of these dividing lines. The media outside of the US can be just as sensational, reveal just as many personal details about a criminal, etc. If anything, I would say that British tabloids (or their inspired Hong Kong counterparts) can be even more sensational.
Especially in the Internet age, when they "[are manifesting] their hatred to the WHOLE WORLD", it is doubly worth taking on why Americans are disproportionately listening and able to pull the trigger rather than go on some quest to censor the media for the entire world.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: On another sad note, a mad man in China stabbed 22 children in an elementary school on Friday as well.
Good thing he didn't have a gun or the children in China would likely be dead. Like ours.
Jokes been made by netizens in China that if they had the same gun policies as the US, they probably wouldn't have the one child policy
Also,
quote:It takes a lot to make China’s government—beset, as it is, by corruption and opacity and the paralyzing effects of special interests—look good, by comparison, in the eyes of its people these days. But we’ve done it. When Chinese viewers looked at the two attacks side by side, more than a few of them concluded, as this one did that, “from the look of it, there’s no difference between a ‘developed’ country and a ‘developing’ country. And there’s no such thing as human rights. People are the most violent creatures on earth, and China, with its ban on guns, is doing pretty well!”
It is a strange fact that in refusing to allow rational gun policies in America, the N.R.A. and its acolytes have damaged precisely the treasure they purport to hold so dear: the moral charisma of American liberty.
- Restrictions on firearms: likely outcome is firearm theft and similar occurrence.
This assumes that the ratio of people who would use a legal gun to do their nefarious act and people who without access to a legal gun would then steal a gun to perform their nefarious act is 1 to 1. That is quite the assumption.
- Ban on firearms: likely outcome is another method, such as improvised explosive device.
This also assumes that the people who without access to firearms would build a bomb, and that the death ratio of bomb vs gun is 1 to 1. I don't think that's a valid assumption.
- Arming teachers: likely outcome is reduced mortality rate.
Assumption is that there will be no accidental shootings from teachers, disarming of teachers by someone, and no rage killings by teachers. Your assumption that the death count per incident would decrease but I'm going to throw in an assumption that the number of incidences will increase and the over all death rate will actually increase while the number of massacres decreases.
*Minor change to wording for clarity.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Kate, I didn't say people with guns were safer than people without guns.
I said people with guns are safer when being attacked by someone else with a gun.
That's a really big difference.
Edit: also there's apparently a new page. This is in response to what you said at the end of the previous page.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure that even that much is true.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure that even that much is true.
Could you be more specific?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm pretty sure she is replying to me.
That is, she isn't sure that having a gun makes you any safer when faced with someone attacking you with a gun.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure that even that much is true.
Um, how can that be in question? I mean, Bob attacks Larry with a gun. Larry is unarmed. Larry dies.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed, and now has at least a chance to defend himself and possibly escapes unharmed.
Where is the ambiguity?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Bob attacks Larry with a gun. Larry misses. Larry dies.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun. Larry starts to draw provoking Bob into firing when he mightn't have otherwise.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun. Larry shoots bystander. Larry dies. SO does bystander.
Bob shoots Larry non-lethally. Police arrive on scene and shoot both of them.
...
Show me some data.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure that even that much is true.
Um, how can that be in question? I mean, Bob attacks Larry with a gun. Larry is unarmed. Larry dies.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed, and now has at least a chance to defend himself and possibly escapes unharmed.
Where is the ambiguity?
Bob holds up a bank. Larry is a customer, unarmed and stays on the ground with his hands visible. Bob escapes the bank without having killed anyone.
Bob holds up a bank. Larry is a customer and is armed. He reaches for his gun and Larry shoots him.
Bob meets Larry on the street. Bob demands Larry's cash. Larry gives cash and Bob runs away.
Bob meets Larry on the street. Bob demands Larry's cash. As Larry reaches for his gun instead of wallet, the glint of metal makes Bob shoot Larry before Larry even has time to switch off the safety.
These situations are purposefully baked such that having a gun ends up being a more negative consequence. The point is not whether these situations would in fact happen, but that they are plausible alternatives to the rosier pictures of guns as tools of self-defense.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Living with other people is all about balancing things that suck.
ya. I'm just demonstrating that I would accept eligibility reform, but I would feel like a jerk for doing so. I'm effectively telling people, if they've ever been unstable, I/we get to tell you when you're a full person again. Sorry. ------------------------
Passing idea I want a second opinion on. Any first gun has to be relatively simple. Handgun. Low magazine. Or however you want to micromanage it. But any purchase of something more dangerous would require that you've handled a firearm for a certain ammount of time with restraint and responsability, and you move up tiers based on the ammount of time you've safely posessed each weapon.
For all I know something like that might be in place, but eh?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
IIRC there's only one example that can be shown to be a data-driven conclusion wherein ownership of a gun makes you safer, and it's in a very limited subset of home invasion situations.
As it is, anyone who wants to make the case that gun ownership actually makes you safer in the event of a shooting is welcome to provide those data points for analysis. Note that in the one case so far when a person was armed during a shooting and had time to respond to it (Loughner's killing spree) they only almost ended up shooting additional innocent people and the situation only barely avoided that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Note that in the one case so far when a person was armed during a shooting and had time to respond to it (Loughner's killing spree) they only almost ended up shooting additional innocent people and the situation only barely avoided that.
Are... Are you kidding? Or are you really this ignorant of the issue you're making strident assertions about?
You're genuinely asserting that the guy at the Loughner shooting was the "one time" an armed (non) victim responded to a shooting? I mean, really? Truly? Or is this just Sam Sarcasm or something?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
we're talking about america's recent intensifying shooting sprees, right?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
We're talking about shooting sprees in America, certainly. What's your definition of "recent," though? Are you just thinking of like the last couple years, or what? If so... Why? If not, yeah, you're very wrong.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To Vadon and boots: We need to clarify some language here. Threatening someone with a gun is pointing a gun at someone, and not firing. Attacking someone with a gun requires firing.
So, let's run those again, and remember, we are talking about being attacked by someone with a gun, not threatened.
So basically you only have a few different ways this plays out:
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is unarmed. Larry dies. (most likely)
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is unarmed. Larry is wounded but lives. (also a possibility)
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is unarmed. Larry runs away because Bob can't hit the broad side of a barn. (not as likely)
OR
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed. Larry dies without drawing his weapon because Bob had the element of surprise.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed. Larry shoots Bob, who dies. Larry is a hero and Bob's murder spree is put to an end.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed. Larry shoots Bob, who dies, but Bob mortally wounds Larry before he dies. Larry dies a hero and Bob's murder spree is put to an end.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed. Larry shoots Bob, who dies, and an innocent bystander. Larry is much less of a hero and but Bob's murder spree is never the less put to an end.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed. Larry misses Bob, and hits an innocent bystander. Larry is then killed by Bob, who continues his murder spree. What a jerk.
I say we are better with Larry packing heat personally. I bet Larry would agree with me.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
You have to talk about both to assess that possessing a gun makes you safer in general.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure, but let's not confuse the two and let's do it one at a time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In all of those, Larry is, by definition already shot regardless of whether he is armed or not. Or Bob misses. Assuming Bob isn't using an automatic or semi-automatic, Larry may have the chance to shoot Bob (or an innocent bystander).
SO not remotely better with Larry being armed. Even for Larry.
You also need to take into account, the fact (and it is a fact) that armed people are more likely to get into armed confrontations.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Fair enough. But I think it gives you a rhetorical when you decide to just discuss the attacks first.
The threats have, probably, the likeliest outcome when guns don't make you safer, when you're threatened and reaction escalates the situation.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In all of those, Larry is, by definition already shot regardless of whether he is armed or not. Or Bob misses. Assuming Bob isn't using an automatic or semi-automatic, Larry may have the chance to shoot Bob (or an innocent bystander).
SO not remotely better with Larry being armed. Even for Larry.
You also need to take into account, the fact (and it is a fact) that armed people are more likely to get into armed confrontations.
Right, but lets say Larry's sister is in the next room.
I realize the language some of us are making is "makes you safer", but still, that can be symbolic for "you and you're family", or "you and whatever you're part of".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots: What definition? Being shot at doesn't mean you get hit.
IIRC, statistically in a shoot out 14 rounds are exchanged before one hits it's target.
Let's say Bob is shooting people in the hall of a school...and Larry is not in sight yet, draws his weapon and prepares to fire when Bob comes into view...kills Bob, ending the spree and saving everyone else in that school that would have been massacred. Is that better for Larry and everyone else. Hell yes it is.
quote:Originally posted by boots: You also need to take into account, the fact (and it is a fact) that armed people are more likely to get into armed confrontations.
Citations?
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Fair enough. But I think it gives you a rhetorical when you decide to just discuss the attacks first.
Consider what sparked off this discussion...
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I'm not calling you out. I'm just bringing the next thing back quickly for the sake of perception checking.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Seem like we are comparing stupid Larry with a gun (Who tries to draw even though he has no chance) vs. smart Larry without a gun, who acts in a manner to maximize his chances of living.
Does the fact that Larry is now armed make his IQ go down?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by boots: You also need to take into account, the fact (and it is a fact) that armed people are more likely to get into armed confrontations.
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Seem like we are comparing stupid Larry with a gun (Who tries to draw even though he has no chance) vs. smart Larry without a gun, who acts in a manner to maximize his chances of living.
Does the fact that Larry is now armed make his IQ go down?
If Larry doesn't draw, how is his gun helpful?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Seem like we are comparing stupid Larry with a gun (Who tries to draw even though he has no chance) vs. smart Larry without a gun, who acts in a manner to maximize his chances of living.
Does the fact that Larry is now armed make his IQ go down?
If Larry doesn't draw, how is his gun helpful?
In the situation you've catered specifically where a gun wouldn't be helpful it isn't helpful. But that situation can't be used as a blanket situation to show that guns don't make you safer.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not the one "catering" situations.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Does the fact that Larry is now armed make his IQ go down?
It's my understanding that the answer to this question is "yes."
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not the one "catering" situations.
Your situation shows Larry when Bob has the element of surprise or for some other reason Larry doesn't have his gun out and has to draw. His gun doesn't give much advantage in this situation
In Stone_Wolf's situation Bob doesn't have the element of surprise and there is an advantage in having a gun.
Both are catered to prove your points. How is yours not catered?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Does the fact that Larry is now armed make his IQ go down?
It's my understanding that the answer to this question is "yes."
Hardy har har.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not the one "catering" situations.
Your situation shows Larry when Bob has the element of surprise or for some other reason Larry doesn't have his gun out and has to draw. His gun doesn't give much advantage in this situation
In Stone_Wolf's situation Bob doesn't have the element of surprise and there is an advantage in having a gun.
Both are catered to prove your points. How is yours not catered?
My examples were the ones where Bob has the element of surprise and Larry must draw. I explicitly said they were catered to be ones where having a gun is not an advantage. Calling me out on something I say openly seems strange.
My point with my situations is not that having a gun in these situations would make things worse for Larry, but that it plausibly could be worse than if he didn't have a gun.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone Wolf is the one that insisted that Bob has attacked (shot at) Larry not just threatened.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I was calling out kmbboots who claimed not to have catered her situation.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone Wolf is the one that insisted that Bob has attacked (shot at) Larry not just threatened.
And that proves that your situation isn't catered how?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That I wasn't the one setting the parameters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Does the fact that Larry is now armed make his IQ go down?
It's my understanding that the answer to this question is "yes."
Hardy har har.
He isn't joking.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Since i hardly have any time to do more than a driveby on that, the explanation on that is that there's a series of well studied effects about thin slicing, conflict management, and the effect of being armed on stressful and nonstressful situations in which conflict is possible or assured.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Bob attacks Larry with a gun. Larry misses. Larry dies.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun. Larry starts to draw provoking Bob into firing when he mightn't have otherwise.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun. Larry shoots bystander. Larry dies. SO does bystander.
Bob shoots Larry non-lethally. Police arrive on scene and shoot both of them.
...
Show me some data.
OK, I see in your first and third points Larry has an opportunity to draw. I'm not sure how the 4 situation could work out in any way. It doesn't make sense.
For completeness I'll complete your scenarios.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry doesn't draw. Larry lives
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry doesn't draw but gets shot anyway. Larry dies.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry shoots Bob. Larry lives.
Bob shoots Larry non-lethally, Larry shoots Bob before he can try again. Larry lives.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun. There is a standoff until the police arrive. Larry lives.
With out a gun Larry does nothing and either lives or dies depending on what the attacker does. Two situations. I suppose he could try to attack by hand.
With a gun I count 5 lives scenarios and 5 dies scenarios (I counted 2 for the one where he killed a bystander but didn't count the police scenario). 1 of the scenarios where Larry dies could have been avoided by not drawing.
So it looks like depending on your assumptions there may or may not be a slight increase in safety. Having a gun definitely increases your options though and gives you some more control.
*Edited for capitalization.
[ December 17, 2012, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: stilesbn ]
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
I thought arming teachers was the worst idea of all I've seen proposed over the last few days. But this one takes the cake:
quote: It [sic] what can only be seen as a malicious plot by Newsweek’s editors to ensure Megan McArdle’s reputation does not outlive its print magazine, the magazine has published a 4,000 word essay by its new hire on how to stop massacres like last Friday’s.
...
This is what McArdle comes up with:
quote:I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once.
[ December 17, 2012, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Godric 2.0 ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
*Cringe*
Unless those bodies are those of small children.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
well they probably should have gang rushed the chinese guy atleast.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Anyone call Capax on his claim that his stance for voter ID is 'completely different' from proposed mandatory psych screenings for guns is not at all hypocritical Because. Or did we just decide to ignore the objective lack of credible objectivity?
The proposals are different in scope, degree, cost, objective, implementation, effectiveness, practicality, and likelihood of being upheld by the Supreme Court. But to score points you try to draw some absurd amount of equivalence and magnify the so-called "double standard" by exaggerating the burden of one and minimizing the burden of the other when the only precondition to a voter ID is being a citizen and the only significant burden would be getting to the nearest government building and (possibly) paying a service fee. As far as I can infer, you justify supporting one but not the other because you don't recognizing gun ownership as a right, therefor it's open to regulations that are considerably more burdensome and restrictive. It would be hypocritical if you took an ideological stand against one proposal but not the other.
If you're going to solicit the help of someone else to make an argument against me, don't. If you think this is a good time and place to talk about voter ID, it's not. If you would prefer that I dismiss your arguments and not engage you in discussion, keep making baseless accusations using flimsy logic and poor grammar.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
f-f-false equivalency.
(I'm just trolling right now, and I don't feel like I know the context enough to make a serious post, and trolling Blayne makes me happy)
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That's a bizarre double post! An hour apart? Weird.
Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean, so if you want to elaborate, that'd be great. Or not. Up to you.
It clears up the fact that the person saying it is uninterested in additional regulation of any firearms, and the particulars of the violent event do not matter to that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Okay, thanks!
Can you explain why the particular gun used in a single violent event would be a good reason to regulate that firearm?
Seems really silly. A classic pointless, reactionary gesture.
Do you think the TSA policies, and its approach to policies, is worth emulating? (As far as I can tell, whenever someone gets past the TSA, they add another random, arbitrary rule that with the vague intent of preventing that exact method of getting past them.)
If not, can you explain what the difference is between what you're advocating here and what they do?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Can you explain why the particular gun used in a single violent event would be a good reason to regulate that
Does it matter? Do you support literally any additional regulation? Would this event have changed that stance AT ALL?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Think we could use a new law, All guns not currently in the possession of the person they are registered for should be locked in a safe.
This would solve only a handful of small children accidentally shooting another child, but it's not too invasive and makes sense.
Also put an RFID chip in the safe, in case a criminal were to steal it you could track it... or we can do that with the guns :3, but then the government knows where your gun is.. and we can't have that..nono. also looking at the other side of that seems helpful in certain situations but can be turned against the population and used to disarm them of all their weapons. _____________________________
In recent news, they're giving heavy thoughts to letting teachers keep firearms on their persons... pretty sweet ._. , but just like all the people in the world.. some people shouldn't have a gun, and I am sure there's teachers out there that shouldn't.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Can you explain why the particular gun used in a single violent event would be a good reason to regulate that
Does it matter? Do you support literally any additional regulation? Would this event have changed that stance AT ALL?
Why would one non-unique edge case change my stance on something? What's the wisdom in that? What did we actually learn from this edge case, that would necessitate a changed stance?
To answer your other question: I haven't seen much in the way of regulations that make sense to me. But I'm not inherently opposed to any change in regulation.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Think we could use a new law, All guns not currently in the possession of the person they are registered for should be locked in a safe.
What on earth does this even mean? How would it be implemented?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I like the idea of regulating bullets.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The guns self destruct if they're outside the safe for 48 hours.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I like the idea of regulating bullets.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I like the idea of regulating bullets.
Could you expound a little more on that? _______________________________________________
It seems like every radio program in the nation is now all about programs on gun restrictions. UCLA law professor Adam Winkler was on the Diane Rehm Show today. He said something pertinent to the discussion of laws restricting guns:
quote:[T]he assault weapons law that was passed in 1994 was an example of one of those laws that was predictably ineffective... [I]t barred certain kinds of rifles that were not even as lethal as other kinds of rifles that were allowed and focused on - too much on superficial characteristics - the way a weapon looked and what kinds of features it had, like a bayonet lug, which last I checked, there weren't a lot of bayoneting incidents. So we do need to have laws that are more effective and well drafted than the '94 assault weapons law was.
With a population - this includes politicians - under-educated about guns, "more effective and well drafted" is beginning to look like a tall order. So far a large portion of those proposing stricter gun laws are heavy on restrictions and thin on specifics. We need gun law proponents to propose a law, their reasoning for it, what they hope it will accomplish, and address the implementation and consequences of the law. What should be discouraging to anyone seeking an effective gun law is the emotion-driven rhetoric inhibiting real discussion. Most pernicious is the fallacious "guilt by association" charges against gun owners and the NRA. Also the blatant stereotyping and demonizing coming from as low down as blog-post comments all the way up to elected officials. Even when you filter out the most shrill comments the amount of animosity is startling. If this settles into us-vs-them posturing, it's going to be a '94 weapons ban situation all over again.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Right, demonizing gun orders is the problem. Clearly not the people defending them under paper thin rationalization.
quote: (I'm just trolling right now, and I don't feel like I know the context enough to make a serious post, and trolling Blayne makes me happy)
Good to know dozens of dead massacred children makes you happy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Anyone call Capax on his claim that his stance for voter ID is 'completely different' from proposed mandatory psych screenings for guns is not at all hypocritical Because. Or did we just decide to ignore the objective lack of credible objectivity?
The proposals are different in scope, degree, cost, objective, implementation, effectiveness, practicality, and likelihood of being upheld by the Supreme Court. But to score points you try to draw some absurd amount of equivalence and magnify the so-called "double standard" by exaggerating the burden of one and minimizing the burden of the other when the only precondition to a voter ID is being a citizen and the only significant burden would be getting to the nearest government building and (possibly) paying a service fee. As far as I can infer, you justify supporting one but not the other because you don't recognizing gun ownership as a right, therefor it's open to regulations that are considerably more burdensome and restrictive. It would be hypocritical if you took an ideological stand against one proposal but not the other.
If you're going to solicit the help of someone else to make an argument against me, don't. If you think this is a good time and place to talk about voter ID, it's not. If you would prefer that I dismiss your arguments and not engage you in discussion, keep making baseless accusations using flimsy logic and poor grammar.
Q.E.D
The arguments are virtually identical, you supported regulation of the right to vote based on flimsy evidence but not the regulation of gun control based on substantial evidence despite the key variable being identical "that people of limited means would find their right infringed."
Which is the key point, not the how, the way of it or anything else but the end result that the 'right is infringed.' It isn't hypocritical to point out to you that under your previous reasoning you are the hypocritical one.
Since after all it is your reasoning.
But of course you are willing to bend over backwards and leap through every single hoop in existence, along with willing into existence other hoops to jump through so long as it lets you keep your precious gerns you poor oppressed outnumbered yockel.
Also, words-in-mouth, when did I ever make an opinion as to whether I consider the 'right to bear arms' a right or not as having any bearing? Objection! Ad hominem!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:With a population - this includes politicians - under-educated about guns, "more effective and well drafted" is beginning to look like a tall order. So far a large portion of those proposing stricter gun laws are heavy on restrictions and thin on specifics. We need gun law proponents to propose a law, their reasoning for it, what they hope it will accomplish, and address the implementation and consequences of the law. What should be discouraging to anyone seeking an effective gun law is the emotion-driven rhetoric inhibiting real discussion. Most pernicious is the fallacious "guilt by association" charges against gun owners and the NRA. Also the blatant stereotyping and demonizing coming from as low down as blog-post comments all the way up to elected officials. Even when you filter out the most shrill comments the amount of animosity is startling. If this settles into us-vs-them posturing, it's going to be a '94 weapons ban situation all over again.
First of all, as the largest and most powerful organization in the country supporting gun rights, it is considerably more than 'guilt by association'-they claim to speak for you (that is, gun owners), and derive substantial political capital from doing so. But even if that weren't true, it would still be true that its political power will only likely be diminished from within or at least from its own side of the aisle-not without.
Second, you make a good case with your talk of details. But where your bias is revealed, where your partisanship plainly shows itself, is that you label the *most* pernicious influence as that of those attempting to increase gun control. I don't know how anyone after only a brief survey of American politics would conclude that the most powerful organization in the discussion wasn't the NRA-which *routinely* decries all sorts of gun control legislative efforts, both vague and clear and effective (a flat 'no' is the starting point), and regularly stokes stupid, reactionary fears about tyranny and guns for defense of liberty.
Stick with advocating for clear laws and better laws, capaxinfinti, but please don't treat us like we're idiots and try to sell that the biggest problem isn't the NRA, but its critics.
It's a tough sell. Cold, dead hands and all that.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:With a population - this includes politicians - under-educated about guns, "more effective and well drafted" is beginning to look like a tall order. So far a large portion of those proposing stricter gun laws are heavy on restrictions and thin on specifics. We need gun law proponents to propose a law, their reasoning for it, what they hope it will accomplish, and address the implementation and consequences of the law. What should be discouraging to anyone seeking an effective gun law is the emotion-driven rhetoric inhibiting real discussion. Most pernicious is the fallacious "guilt by association" charges against gun owners and the NRA. Also the blatant stereotyping and demonizing coming from as low down as blog-post comments all the way up to elected officials. Even when you filter out the most shrill comments the amount of animosity is startling. If this settles into us-vs-them posturing, it's going to be a '94 weapons ban situation all over again.
First of all, as the largest and most powerful organization in the country supporting gun rights, it is considerably more than 'guilt by association'-they claim to speak for you (that is, gun owners), and derive substantial political capital from doing so.
The NRA is not an advocate for gun owners, it is an advocate for gun manufacturers. If it were a body interested in the rights of gun owners under the 2nd amendment, it would be advocating for regulations along with freedom to own weapons. It's a step beyond "guilty by association."
ETA: Sorry, I should add, I do actually agree with all this:
quote: With a population - this includes politicians - under-educated about guns, "more effective and well drafted" is beginning to look like a tall order. So far a large portion of those proposing stricter gun laws are heavy on restrictions and thin on specifics. We need gun law proponents to propose a law, their reasoning for it, what they hope it will accomplish, and address the implementation and consequences of the law. What should be discouraging to anyone seeking an effective gun law is the emotion-driven rhetoric inhibiting real discussion.
[ December 18, 2012, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Godric 2.0 ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That last sentence though sounds like the Fox News apologia however of "We shouldn't be discussing this during a tragedy" and thus not ever discuss it ever.
And secondly, that something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Good to know dozens of dead massacred children makes you happy.
He clearly stated that trolling -you- made him happy...and with responses like the above, I can see why.
quote:...you poor oppressed outnumbered yockel.
First off, it's spelled yokel. Not really a word you want to misspell. Second, this is name calling and against the TOS, and more importantly, just not cool man.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:What should be discouraging to anyone seeking an effective gun law is the emotion-driven rhetoric inhibiting real discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That last sentence though sounds like the Fox News apologia however of "We shouldn't be discussing this during a tragedy" and thus not ever discuss it ever.
I disagree vehemently Blayne. I'd say he is clearly saying that making this about the emotional reaction to the tragedy is -detracting- from any serious discussions which might actually lead to positive change and not at all suggesting that we shouldn't be having the discourse in the in the first place on some flimsy excuse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The NRA is not an advocate for gun owners, it is an advocate for gun manufacturers. If it were a body interested in the rights of gun owners under the 2nd amendment, it would be advocating for regulations along with freedom to own weapons. It's a step beyond "guilty by association."
Except they don't claim to speak for manufacturers, their rolls aren't filled with manufacturers, and politicians don't concern themselves with their NRA grade because of the (not inconsiderable) power manufacturer lobbies provide. I agree they don't actually have the best interest of the people in mind, which was one of the points.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: you label the *most* pernicious influence as that of those attempting to increase gun control.
I said most pernicious is the tactic of attempting to make gun owners feel guilty after mass-shootings if they opposed gun legislation they believed infringes on their right. Someone can advocate more strict gun legislation and not use this highly provocative, unjustified accusation.
My position on this issue isn't vague; I believe it's a right to own firearms. I'm not an NRA member, I don't own or plan to own a military style rifle, I don't carry a gun on me - openly or concealed, and to me personally, hunting is the second best way to ruin a good nature walk. But that is my relationship with guns and I feel that we - as a nation - haven't thoroughly and critically analyzed this issue enough to define the relationship other citizens will have with their right to own guns. I wouldn't consider that a biased view.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: you label the *most* pernicious influence as that of those attempting to increase gun control.
I said most pernicious is the tactic of attempting to make gun owners feel guilty after mass-shootings if they opposed gun legislation they believed infringes on their right. Someone can advocate more strict gun legislation and not use this highly provocative, unjustified accusation.
My position on this issue isn't vague; I believe it's a right to own firearms. I'm not an NRA member, I don't own or plan to own a military style rifle, I don't carry a gun on me - openly or concealed, and to me personally, hunting is the second best way to ruin a good nature walk. But that is my relationship with guns and I feel that we - as a nation - haven't thoroughly and critically analyzed this issue enough to define the relationship other citizens will have with their right to own guns. I wouldn't consider that a biased view.
Again-it is absurd to suggest that the most pernicious *anything* is something other than what is put out by the far and away most powerful political organization in this issue-not on one side or another, but in the discussion, period. That is what is biased about your view-that you look at the situation, and the most pernicious 'tactic' is what people say about gun owners...
Except that whenever, anywhere, someone proposes or is even *likely* to propose...or considered likely to propose (gun sales before and shortly after Obama's election)...gun control legislation, it is as guaranteed as the sunrise that the most powerful political group in the field will step forward with outraged, breathless talk of conspiracy and tyranny.
Or maybe you can name me a group that wields as much influence as the NRA on gun control questions in this country? I'll wait.
As for your personal gun ownership practices, good for you. Seriously. But you know who's stopping policies such as yours from being enacted? It ain't from this side of the aisle. It's from the group that claims-whether it does or not-to speak in your interest, and reaps huge political capital from doing so.
When it prevents legislation you deem ill considered and vague, it's a good thing but when it kicks up a fuss about cold dead hands well then suddenly they're not any responsibility of yours. If moderates in a group don't wish to be embarrassed by their extreme elements, then they should be at the front rather than the rear of those criticizing them.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Good to know dozens of dead massacred children makes you happy.
He clearly stated that trolling -you- made him happy...and with responses like the above, I can see why.
If its enjoyable to "troll" me, and thus acceptable than he nor you should complain when the shoe is placed on the other foot. As you didn't speak a sound when he decided to go that direction. I wouldn't have said anything if even one person had said "You know that's not very nice."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I had to register my car, demonstrate my ability to drive, yearly show the car is in good repair and I have to follow all sorts of rules while driving. I see no reason why a car, designed for transportation, has more regulation than a product designed to kill (killing animals counts as killing). In ten states there are more gun deaths than driving deaths. Regulation things that kill that many people is a good idea. There are also a bunch of safety items that could be implemented in guns but since you cant sue gun companies, the companies don't bother. For example, the gun James bond uses that will only fire for him is actually available, but gun companies won't implement it. Gun companies have no accountability right now and that is a problem.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Had a delightful conversation with someone last night prompted by the Connecticut killings, who expounded proudly (condemning the hubris of modern society) that 'the Constitution wasn't meant to be changed'.
Having even a slight familiarity with the Constitution, I pointed out the many Amendments, which for some reason didn't count. They didn't change 'the' Constitution, but were somehow in a class by themselves. Alright, I mentioned, if the Constitution wasn't meant to be changed, why did its authors include instructions on how to change any part of it the people might like?
That didn't count either, for some unknowable reason. He then proudly proclaimed that the Founding Fathers had the best intentions for everyone, and reacted with irritation when I inquired about blacks, women, Native Americans, and white men without property. For some reason none of THAT counted, either.
What did count was that the 2nd Amendment was included by these saintly Founders and shouldn't be changed, because that's what's wrong with society-people thinking they know better and trying to change things.
Another favorite was how if some way could be found to reduce the number of guns in this country by, say, half, it would have no impact on violence in this country. I pointed out that, alright, people could well be just as violent but they wouldn't be as good at it without firearms. Somehow that didn't matter either, and wasn't true anyway-the violence was what mattered.
If someone says that it doesn't matter if the guns are the problem, people have a right to them...I'll think that's dangerous nonsense, perhaps, but it will at least be consistent with itself. But it is amusing and disheartening the extent to which so many conservatives seem willing to go to in order to not say that the number of guns in our country may have something to do with the amount of gun violence.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Capax: when the only precondition to a voter ID is being a citizen and the only significant burden would be getting to the nearest government building and (possibly) paying a service fee.
Otherwise known as a poll tax? You love the constitution so much. Tell us all about how that's okay.
Or you just like the parts you like, and not the other parts, that you don't like. What a shock.
Argue the merits of constitutional interpretations, please. Tell us why the 2nd amendment should be read the way you want it to be, tell us why Harper V. Board of Elections somehow doesn't matter. Go ahead. I'd love to hear that. Because you're just talking about what you think is reasonable and, essentially, what you *want*. Well that isn't relevant to the law, is it?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If its enjoyable to "troll" me, and thus acceptable than he nor you should complain when the shoe is placed on the other foot.
I didn't complain, nor was the shoe anywhere near my foot. I'm just saying, when someone is trolling (even going so far as to openly admit it) -don't respond-.
Trolling is trying to get people to over react in response. Which you did, in spades.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I had to register my car, demonstrate my ability to drive, yearly show the car is in good repair and I have to follow all sorts of rules while driving. I see no reason why a car, designed for transportation, has more regulation than a product designed to kill (killing animals counts as killing). In ten states there are more gun deaths than driving deaths. Regulation things that kill that many people is a good idea. There are also a bunch of safety items that could be implemented in guns but since you cant sue gun companies, the companies don't bother. For example, the gun James bond uses that will only fire for him is actually available, but gun companies won't implement it. Gun companies have no accountability right now and that is a problem.
biometric inhibitors are pretty complicated and fickle, usually.
but everything else is the truth of the matter. The "right to bear arms" is subject to much restriction. Out of common necessity, some arms are now restricted. Some more will doubtlessly be. It's insane to have guns less regulated than cars. It's telling that you have more of a right to your gun than your car, despite a car being an infinitely more important a privilege in this world.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"Assault weapon" is a stupid misleading weasel word phrase that I have generally avoided making a big deal over so far.
But now you're compounding that by outright lying.
"Assault weapon" =/= "assault rifle"
An "assault weapon" is a stupid poorly defined legislative term meant to fearmonger, and it includes things like semi-automatic rifles. Realistically, every weapon but pump action or single shot shotguns, bolt action rifles, and single action revolvers could be defined as "assault weapons," based on their firing rate. Except that there are even stupider criteria than firing rate, such as bayonet mounts or ergonomic grips, that also make something an "assault weapon."
An "assault rifle" is none of that, though. To be an assault rifle a weapon must be capable of automatic or burst fire. Such weapons are illegal to the public and have been for many decades. Since the thirties, if I remember right.
It really speaks poorly of your position when you have to resort to such dishonest fearmongering. Ugh.
Edit: I don't think your lying image was the first instance of that lie in this thread, really. Just the straw, camel's back, all that.
[ December 19, 2012, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
who's compounding what?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
wow dan i don't think you get that image at all. ignoring that burst fire rifles can be legally owned in america, replace "assault rifle" with "a gun" if it's really what you need to feel better about the actual point of the picture. Or, at least, presumably not miss it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You're compounding the misleading "assault weapons" definition... Which is itself pretty close to a lie... With an outright lie about "assault rifles."
Sorry, was that not clear?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Imagine for a second that the image really has pretty much nothing to do with the debate over the legality of assault rifles/weapons (it doesn't). Now, see if that makes the issue clearly brought up in the image evident for you.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, I know what the point of the image is.
It's predicated on the idea that we should keep guns out of the hands of people we think might be violent.
Righties think: some union members are violent and they are defended by other union members, so they're all thugs.
Lefties think: guns are dangerous and we need to protect everyone from everything as much as possible. So anyone who might have a propensity for violence should be banned from having a gun.
And then lefties wonder why the right doesn't want to ban union workers from having guns, I guess?
Except that sort of guilt-by-association, preemptive punishment attitude about guns isn't real popular on the right, so the whole thing falls apart.
I think they'd rather the union thugs have guns if they want, and yet know that their potential victims might have guns too, and so restrain themselves.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not at all sure that was the point.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I suspect the point might merely be that the initial attack-teachers as thugs-was profoundly stupid and offensive.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah okay I guess I should address the teacher angle specifically?
So are right wingers actually saying we should force teachers to carry guns? Or just saying that teachers should be allowed to do so? I've seen the latter, not the former. Big difference, and if if the latter, my above post applies.
Also, I bet right wingers woukd agree that even a union thug would try to defend some innocent kids. I mean, come on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I bet right wingers woukd agree that even a union thug would try to defend some innocent kids.
No. They'd make some joke about it not being part of the negotiated contract.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... burst fire rifles can be legally owned in america, ...
They can? This is news to me.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Stone Wolf: Technically I think Sam is correct. But you need special permission from the ATF and it doesn't apply to guns made after... Some time. Thirty or forty years ago, I think. So the gun has to already have been made and registered before then.
It's basically an exception put in to appease gun collectors, as far as I can recall. To this extent, I spoke sloppily. My bad.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I bet right wingers woukd agree that even a union thug would try to defend some innocent kids.
No. They'd make some joke about it not being part of the negotiated contract.
And while that would be a pretty funny joke (I chortled)... It doesn't invalidate what I said.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Come on, generally speaking automatic (burst fire) weapons are illegal to own. There may be some weird old exceptions floating around, but as a common rule of law, it fires more then once per trigger pull = felony.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It's also a states issue. You're in CA like me, where they're just categorically illegal.
The stuff I mentioned above does apply in many other states, though.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
And ironically the federal assault weapons ban we had didn't effect it one way or the other!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I suspect the point might merely be that the initial attack-teachers as thugs-was profoundly stupid and offensive.
Especially considering that coming right off of the heels of well-established right wing assaults of teachers as overpaid members of thuggish tax-sucking teachers unions and that they need to be cut down to size or held more accountable blahblah merit pay blahblah (countdown to people saying this was totally not a common right-wing sentiment, 3, 2, 1), turning around and saying that teachers should now also have any expectation from them in any sense to play armed security on account of our kids to account for our little Murica!™ mass school shooting spree problem is just eyeroll territory at its finest.
This is literally the only place I have seen the message misinterpreted at all, to say nothing of it being misinterpreted so severely, which is weird given the profound conservatism of some of the places I'm at.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Come on, generally speaking automatic (burst fire) weapons are illegal to own.
Superficial statement. Generally speaking, a semi is illegal to drive. It, like owning burst mode weapons, requires a specific permit and ~states ritez~ your mileage may vary ~states ritez~
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
If you see a burst fire or machine gun in a movie, then it's legal to own in the U.S. Yes you need a federal license, and I imagine they're hard to get, but yes you can own one. Even in CA.
I know this because my friend Scott Buckwald is a property master in Hollywood, and has such a license. He also has many funny stories about being pulled over by police with a truck full of machine guns and ammunition (including explosives). Before he got the license on his own he relied on gun hobbyists who had similar licenses.
Also, if you go to Las Vegas, you'll see lots of advertising for gun shops where you can go and fire a machine gun, apparently for free, as a promotional tool.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sam, if it helps you understand: my initial response wasn't based on a misinterpretation.
I was objecting to the language used, and ignoring the message of the picture. I got it, I was just more interested in ranting about assault weapon misinformation.
Sorry for the confusion!
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Otherwise known as a poll tax? You love the constitution so much. Tell us all about how that's okay.
This isn't the proper thread to discuss voting issues. And if you have a problem with constitutional interpretations, take it up with the Supreme Court.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I had to register my car, demonstrate my ability to drive, yearly show the car is in good repair and I have to follow all sorts of rules while driving. I see no reason why a car, designed for transportation, has more regulation than a product designed to kill (killing animals counts as killing). In ten states there are more gun deaths than driving deaths. Regulation things that kill that many people is a good idea. There are also a bunch of safety items that could be implemented in guns but since you cant sue gun companies, the companies don't bother. For example, the gun James bond uses that will only fire for him is actually available, but gun companies won't implement it. Gun companies have no accountability right now and that is a problem.
That would be a persuasive argument except cars don't have a constitutional amendment protecting their possession and use. If one doesn't think the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is what the founding fathers intended, that't fine, but current laws reflect the view of the highest judicial authority in our nation.
Regarding your other point, which safety measures do you want gun manufacturers to be forced to implement? And for what do you want them to be accountable?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: An "assault rifle" is none of that, though. To be an assault rifle a weapon must be capable of automatic or burst fire. Such weapons are illegal to the public and have been for many decades. Since the thirties, if I remember right.
I know of no such federal law. The GCA of 1986 banned new assault weapons from being distributed, not owned. I don't know where you get this business about the 30's. It is not illegal, full stop, to own an assault rifle in the US- though it illegal to buy a new one.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Come on, generally speaking automatic (burst fire) weapons are illegal to own.
Superficial statement. Generally speaking, a semi is illegal to drive. It, like owning burst mode weapons, requires a specific permit and ~states ritez~ your mileage may vary ~states ritez~
Because semi trucks are just as common as legal automatic weapons...I repeat, automatic weapons are commonly illegal in the US.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004. It is once again legal to buy them, as well as high capacity magazines. Which is why Nancy Lanza was able to own both.
BTW, there is no automatic or burst fire capability required for a weapon to be considered an Assault Weapon.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Even though Dan and I have tried to make this clear in the past, let's just get all the confusion removed:
quote:An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.
quote: In the United States, there are a variety of statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws that define them by a set of characteristics they possess, sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.[2] Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[3] A common usage is to interchange the term with assault rifle, but unlike that term, "assault weapon" has no consistent or specific definition and so is subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that include common non-military-style firearms.
Assault rifle = one thing and one thing only. A rifle with selective fire chambered in a shortened full rifle round.
Assault weapon = political term meant to elicit an emotional reaction for the purposes of gathering support for gun control.
[ December 19, 2012, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
See the confusion between, e.g. Orincoro and Glenn's posts for why the asinine "assault weapons" legislature is so confusing and obfuscating.
Glenn is referring to "assault weapons," i.e. semi automatic weapons. Not only did the assault weapons ban not require guns be automatic (i.e. that they be assault rifles), I don't think there were even any provisions for automatic weapons. To my knowledge the language focused entirely on semi autos.
Orincoro is referring to fully automatic assault rifles (not assault weapons) and machine guns. Orincoro, I was thinking I the NFA of the 1930s, but it didn't ban machine guns outright, that's true. As I already clarified to Stone Wolf, I was oversimplifying when I said that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sam, if it helps you understand: my initial response wasn't based on a misinterpretation.
Even when I asked you to consider it without the apparently triggering language, you still didn't get what it was about.
quote:I was objecting to the language used, and ignoring the message of the picture. I got it, I was just more interested in ranting about assault weapon misinformation.
Evidently.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Come on, generally speaking automatic (burst fire) weapons are illegal to own.
Superficial statement. Generally speaking, a semi is illegal to drive. It, like owning burst mode weapons, requires a specific permit and ~states ritez~ your mileage may vary ~states ritez~
Because semi trucks are just as common as legal automatic weapons...I repeat, automatic weapons are commonly illegal in the US.
You're wrong. You can own an automatic firearm in most of the united states. Automatic firearms are only illegal in about 9 states. Just adjust to the fact that the prior belief that automatic weapons were illegal in the united states was incorrect and move on.
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Otherwise known as a poll tax? You love the constitution so much. Tell us all about how that's okay.
This isn't the proper thread to discuss voting issues.
That's why you were talking about them in the quote orincoro is responding to here, right?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's why you were talking about them in the quote orincoro is responding to here, right?
You're having trouble following the exchange of posts. That's why you don't understand what's being said.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Contrary to popular belief, fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal. They are however HIGHLY regulated. Full auto weapons have been regulated with three different pieces of legislation. The first was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Gun Control Act of 1968, and finally the Hughes Amendment in 1986. In essence, what these three laws have done is to say respectfully that fully automatic firearms must be taxed and regulated, cannot be imported from outside the United States, and can no longer manufacture and/or register new/existing full auto weapons with the federal government (BATFE).
In order to legally own one, you must first find one that you wish to buy. For it to be legal, it must have been made and registered with the BATFE prior to 19 May 1986. These are what are known as transferrable NFA or Class III items.
Your next step will be to negotiate a price with the buyer. Most buyers have their prices set pretty firm and the going rate for a M16 varies by condition and model (M16A1, A2, AR-15 conversion, etc). A brand new, unfired, factory Colt M16A2 is going to run you about $18,000+ while a used AR-15 conversion will run you about $9,500-$13,000+. You will just have to shop around and look for the best deal out there.
Once you find one and negotiate a price you will need to pay the seller. Depending on if you are buying the item from out of state or not, you may also need to find a local Class III FFL/SOT to handle the transfer. NFA/Class III items CANNOT be shipped or carried across state lines without the proper prior approved paperwork. If buying out of state, you would need to have it transferred to a local seller who would then transfer it to you. Once you have found a FFL/SOT if needed, you will need to pay the seller. Unlike with other firearms where you can often do installment payments for years or put it on a credit card, most NFA sellers want full funds up front although some are willing to work with you and do half now, half when the paperwork comes back. At best, you are looking at half up front before he will even start the paperwork.
Once the seller is satisfied with the payment plan and has his funds, he will begin the paperwork. This requires a little bit of work on your end. You will need to get a few things in order for the process to be complete. You will need to get two sets of fingerprint cards done, two passport photos, and fill out a Form 4 (to include the signature of the CLEO of the area you live in) and write a check to the Department of the Treasury for the $200 transfer tax. It is this special tax that will allow you to legally own the weapon. Once you have all this together along with the required paperwork from the seller, you will ship it all to the BATFE who will then have one of their 10 or so inspectors sit down and review it. Any little error will cause it to be rejected and sent back. This is where the frustration begins as the wait starts. It generally takes anywhere from 50-90 days for them to process an application. The main thing that they will be doing is running an extensive background check on you through the FBI criminal database using all your information as well as your fingerprints.
Once the paperwork finally comes back, the seller can then legally ship/transfer the weapon to you. You CANNOT take posession of it before this time or it will be the same as being in possession of an unregistered machine gun which carries a stiff penalty in federal prison.
And that is all there is to it. Once you receive the tax stamp, always makes sure you keep a COPY with the weapon at all times no matter where it goes. Also, remember to keep the original in a SAFE place where nothing will happen to it as the BATFE does not replace lost, stolen, or destroyed tax stamps.
The above advice assumes you are buying in state. If buying out of state, the process is the same, except that you will be required to do two to three transfers. One from the seller to a Class III FFL/SOT if he is not already one, then one from the FFL/SOT in his state to an FFL/SOT in your state, and then from your local FFL/SOT to you. There is no wait time or transfer tax between FFL/SOT's. This means that you will basically only be waiting on the time it takes for two transfers if buying out of state.
With a sign off by the commanding law enforcement officer in your city/county, at least $10,000+, after an extensive background check and 90 days...in about 80% of the US you too can own a legal full auto firearm. I'm still going with "full auto firearms are commonly illegal", but I'll add the caveat that "With enough money and effort one can get one legally."
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sam, if it helps you understand: my initial response wasn't based on a misinterpretation.
Even when I asked you to consider it without the apparently triggering language, you still didn't get what it was about.
I'm not sure which response you're referring to here. There was some cross posting between us, so you asked me to do that once, I continued posting not having seen that, you asked me to do so again, and then I did. I think? Maybe you disagree.
Not sure how important that is though, regardless. I get the point of the image, and I disagree both with its intended point and the implicit assumption it made.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok then, what's the intended point and the implicit assumption it made?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I... I already tried to do this.
The implicit assumption is in the word choice, which does matter, that I reacted to already. The "trigger."
The point I tried to explain in two posts, bottom of last page and top of this one. I totally may have missed something, that's just the point I gleaned from it.
If I missed it, though, spell out exactly how and why you think so, though. Don't do a drive by on that, unless you intend to signal that you have zero interest in actually discussing it with me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I already spelled it out, miss my post? The right wing moved from well-established assaults of teachers as overpaid members of thuggish unions that need to be cut down to size or held more accountable, then after this incident you get a disconcertingly large amount of "these teachers are heroes, we should let them be armed!" The attitude that teachers usually get from the right results in this kind of eyerolling "gee, glad to know you care" sentiment. The right wing in a lot of this country engages in consistently denigrating public teachers and now after six of them get shot, they move to saying that in the wake of this tragedy we should in any sense saddle them with the additional potential obligation of being armed security for the kids, but don't expect that to be paired with the right-wing offering them anything more in the way of benefits or pay. The picture is these 'unionized teacher thugs' are mocking the shallow advocacy offered for them by the same people that call them thugs.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's why you were talking about them in the quote orincoro is responding to here, right?
You're having trouble following the exchange of posts. That's why you don't understand what's being said.
yeah, capax. Let's just remember why your opinion on voter ID laws was brought up in the first place.
Posted by Stand Watie (Member # 12895) on :
quote:...With a sign off by the commanding law enforcement officer in your city/county,...
This right here is the rub that prevents most people from the ability to legally aquire class III weapons without moving someplace rural and very pro-gun (If they have 20k and a clean background). The chief L.E.O.'s in the counties where the vast majority of the U.S. population lives simply won't sign off unless you are one of the special people. I imagine these hurdles might be minor for a rich politically connected type, but they're not for joe sixpack.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's why you were talking about them in the quote orincoro is responding to here, right?
You're having trouble following the exchange of posts. That's why you don't understand what's being said.
yeah, capax. Let's just remember why your opinion on voter ID laws was brought up in the first place.
Because he said a previously proposed gun regulation proposal would be heavily scrutinzed by the courts, since the right to bear arms is an enumerated right. And so if it was burdensome or cost prohibitive for many people, it probably wouldn't fly.
Then Blayne tried to score rhetorical points by likening the regulation (which he would presumably agree with) to voter ID (which he presumably disagrees with...). Except voting is apparently a universal human right and gun ownership is just a not-very important sort of right.
Capax ignored him, so then Tom repeated Blayne's hypocritical accusation, but he kept it pithy and without as many head scratching assertions.
And now here we are! It was a hypocritical, spurious, "gotcha" to begin with, and it's no different now. I think Capax is right to ignore it, frankly.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Tell me Dan, where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is "the right to bear arms" listed? Which article? Thus, the right to bear arms is not a universal right, nor even a negative right.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't think you even get what that 'hypocritical association' was either, but you could ask tom.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Tell me Dan, where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is "the right to bear arms" listed? Which article? Thus, the right to bear arms is not a universal right, nor even a negative right.
It didn't occur to me that you were referencing an irrelevant UN document in a discussion of American gun control.
Something being enumerated there doesn't actually make it a universal right, though, Blayne. Sorry.
Sam: no? Okay. Never mind that I've already responded to it, twice now, lets play this game. But why ask Tom? You understood it, right? So you can explain it too. So go for it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And give up the drive by snark? Unlikely!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
How is it a right than Dan? What makes gun ownership a right? Should it be by international consensus? We afterall accept UN standards for a large variety of matters so why not gun control? What makes gun control a universal right? Because if it isn't universal and self evident, than I do not see the ultimate relevance of discussing rights or why you should feel it is important to discuss outside of a more vague but more easily regulated notion of property rights, which IS enumerated.
Also I think I will agree with your other point, if something being enumerated does not make it a right, than right to bear arms is not a right regardless of its constitutional status.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne, it's difficult to credit this is a genuine misunderstanding on your part. I am fairly certain you know that the (qualified) right to bear arms is directly mentioned in our Bill of Rights. There aren't many things that are so mentioned (plenty are included by not-mentioning them to the states and people) in the first edition of our original and current governing document.
Maybe you don't understand why they wrote it that way, or why we haven't changed it, but in an American context 'why is gun ownership a right?' is a beginner's level question.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And give up the drive by snark? Unlikely!
- Stone_Wolf, in a post which was drive-by snark
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Also I think I will agree with your other point, if something being enumerated does not make it a right, than right to bear arms is not a right regardless of its constitutional status.
Yeah, so just throw out this whole "constitution" thing? What are you even talking about?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I learned it from watching you Dad!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: How is it a right than Dan? What makes gun ownership a right?
Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, they are rights that the Constitution guarantees each citizen possesses. The federal and state governments are controlled by what the Constitution allows them to do.
Since the Second Amendment specifically states that militias are necessary, therefore citizens have a basic right to keep and bear arms.
The UN is a fine institution, and I wish it well in what it does. But its charter does not hold a candle to our Constitution when we are discussing law enforcement in the US.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Some background information on the Second Amendment that you might find interesting.
quote: Except voting is apparently a universal human right and gun ownership is just a not-very important sort of right.
The quote from Dan, where I do not feel he understands what exactly constitutes a right and not at all mentioning the constitution.
Thus "why do you consider gun control a right" is a very important question because the constitutionality of the question is irrelevant. Practically the courts will rule however they will, and in the context of discussion whether or not its a right is something that should be able to consistently stand on its own two feet, and demonstably so rather than rely on a piece of paper.
Or we could just fall back on how apparently my pointing out capax's hypocrisy is apparently 'gotcha' journalism.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It's no kind of journalism, that's for damned sure.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne, you're all over the place. You're speaking about an American event and what 'rights' should mean to Americans. You can't reasonably just insist the Constitution is irrelevant to that question. The gotcha attempt was yours, I'm afraid.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [QUOTE]Thus "why do you consider gun control a right" is a very important question because the constitutionality of the question is irrelevant.
The constitutionality of guns and literally the entire second amendment is irrelevant as to why any american would consider gun ownership a right?
This is like saying the first amendment is irrelevant to an american considering free speech a right, or irrelevant to the issue of free speech as a right at all.
You're completely wrong and you need to own up to it and move on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Saying that last week's mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., could have been prevented or stopped if there had been armed, trained security personnel on site, officials of the National Rifle Association on Friday called for Congress to appropriate funds to put police officers in every American school.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA's executive vice president.
The NRA also said it is launching a "National School Shield" training program to help — at no cost — schools train security personnel and develop security plans.
And, NRA officials blamed the news media for focusing on what they view as the wrong issue — guns — rather than violent video games and the nation's mental health care programs.
The event was briefly interrupted twice by individuals who stood up with banners and shouted that the NRA has "blood on its hands" and is "killing our kids."
It was the organization's first lengthy response to the attack that left 20 school children and six adults dead at Newtown's Sandy Hook Elementary School, which has reignited a national debate over whether gun laws need to be tightened. LaPierre and others who spoke gave no indication they favor any such actions.
Ladies and gentlemen, the NRA.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote: Except voting is apparently a universal human right and gun ownership is just a not-very important sort of right.
The quote from Dan, where I do not feel he understands what exactly constitutes a right and not at all mentioning the constitution.
What's especially bizarre about this the extent to which you're proving unable to follow this conversation.
The post above, wherein I do "not at all [mention] the constitution," was me summarizing some events on the first page of this thread. Specifically, you attacking Capax because he referred to the right to bear arms as an "enumerated right," that is, enumerated in the US Constitution.
Your response to him, at the time, was to pshaw the right to bear arms as irrelevant, and point out that Capax had different standards when it came to the "universal" right to vote.
Even back then, you were still trying to pretend that a freaking UN charter is more relevant to a discussion of American gun control than the US Constitution.
It was preposterous then, but, as I said, nobody paid attention to it then. Tom restated your attack in a more pithy manner that excised the most absurd elements of it.
It's still preposterous now.
Trying to flip it around and say I don't know what rights are is just grasping at straws, man. Ironically, I think I'm one of the few people here who would be happy to have a purely theoretical, abstract discussion with you about what ought to be rights and what oughtn't, largely leaving the Constitution out of it. And yet you're accusing me of... something. It's hard to parse exactly what. Ignorance and incompetence, at minimum. Charming.
Oh, and if you're going to keep accusing Capax of hypocrisy, you really ought to get around to explaining why your inverted belief system isn't just as hypocritical.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: It's no kind of journalism, that's for damned sure.
At first I thought this was a response, not to Blayne, but to this:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Some background information on the Second Amendment that you might find interesting.
Then I realized Blayne mentioned "gotcha journalism" in his post.
But yeah, the quote sums up my opinion of that article.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:AMERICA'S HUNTERS --- Pretty Amazing!
The world's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this...A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000
Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
More men under arms than in Iran .
More than France and Germany combined.
These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.
The point?
America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.
Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.
That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.
Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain... What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens???
My grandmother sent me this.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Except any modern military with sufficient mobility based firepower would decimate any such opposition as the flotsam they are. The process of doing so was perfected in 1945.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:officials of the National Rifle Association on Friday called for Congress to appropriate funds to put police officers in every American school.
The mind boggles at the sheer number of people required, let alone the cost.
[ December 21, 2012, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE]officials of the National Rifle Association on Friday called for Congress to appropriate funds to put police officers in every American school.
The mind boggles at the sheer number of people required, let alone the cost.
Did anyone else laugh at the fact that the NRA's solution to keeping America free from government tyranny was to have the government create a private army of hundreds of thousands of armed guards?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm too tired of this stupid conversation to find the NRA funny anymore. They're a threat to the country.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I laughed at how the NRA's completely brain-dead response is literally the plot to kindergarten cop
I laughed at their solution being having guns around, despite the fact Columbine had an armed police officer on duty on campus, and VA tech had an entire group of them on campus, and ft. hood was literally a military base.
I laughed at them being an organization that says we can't have future regulatory things done to guns but a national mental illness registry is an awesome idea.
Anyway a crazed american gunman went and shot and killed multiple people literally while the NRA conference was taking place so laughter on hold.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I laughed at their solution being having guns around...
Here's the thing: it's not funny because they genuinely believe it. These are people who bring guns with them to Kmart because they don't believe that they're safe at Kmart without a gun.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm too tired of this stupid conversation to find the NRA funny anymore. They're a threat to the country.
Yeah, well, at least I came into this conversation recognizing that it was going to be stupid. Immensely stupid. Gun debate is still driven fundamentally by the circle-the-wagons mentality of people who seriously own guns in part because they expect that having them is nationally important on some level to be able to shoot government goons or foreign slant-eyed invaders and safeguard liberty from tyrrany.
But to you and anyone who recognizes the NRA as a threat, take heart. This press conference was so bad — so bad — that they're getting a place on the jump the shark significant potential for impending irrelevancy list. They have turned into an onion parody of themselves, especially the point at which they propose the fulfillment of this 'more guns in school' solution through the use of volunteers. Not officers of the law. Just people who have been apparently vetted as knowing how to use guns to some degree.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I laughed at their solution being having guns around...
Here's the thing: it's not funny because they genuinely believe it. These are people who bring guns with them to Kmart because they don't believe that they're safe at Kmart without a gun.
Then I realized Blayne mentioned "gotcha journalism" in his post.
But yeah, the quote sums up my opinion of that article.
Is it incorrect about the text of George Mason's draft or the Virgina Declaration of Right?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [QUOTE]Thus "why do you consider gun control a right" is a very important question because the constitutionality of the question is irrelevant.
The constitutionality of guns and literally the entire second amendment is irrelevant as to why any american would consider gun ownership a right?
This is like saying the first amendment is irrelevant to an american considering free speech a right, or irrelevant to the issue of free speech as a right at all.
You're completely wrong and you need to own up to it and move on.
When you have someone literally saying that there shouldn't by any regulation or additional cost because people of limited means cannot exercise their second amendment rights in one breath, but on the other say its perfectly alright to restrict voting and damn to the consequences of whomever will have financial difficulties in doing so; and sees these things as entirely difference and distinct because. Then I believe it to be a legitimate question to consider whether or not the second amendment has any relevance in order to press the point that their understanding of the constitution is woefully inadequate.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Kate: Not to my knowledge, no. That would be inexcusably bad, though, wouldn't it? To screw up a quote of text? Yikes! Even people who agree with the axe they're grinding would take exception to a basic factual inaccuracy like that.
That's not what I was getting at, though. I was reacting to the histrionic and insulting tone of the piece. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [QUOTE]Thus "why do you consider gun control a right" is a very important question because the constitutionality of the question is irrelevant.
The constitutionality of guns and literally the entire second amendment is irrelevant as to why any american would consider gun ownership a right?
This is like saying the first amendment is irrelevant to an american considering free speech a right, or irrelevant to the issue of free speech as a right at all.
You're completely wrong and you need to own up to it and move on.
When you have someone literally saying that there shouldn't by any regulation or additional cost because people of limited means cannot exercise their second amendment rights in one breath, but on the other say its perfectly alright to restrict voting and damn to the consequences of whomever will have financial difficulties in doing so; and sees these things as entirely difference and distinct because. Then I believe it to be a legitimate question to consider whether or not the second amendment has any relevance in order to press the point that their understanding of the constitution is woefully inadequate.
What?
Who are you even talking about at this point?
Seriously, man, proofread your freaking posts. Add some white space. Re-read your sentences. This is such a hash of stream-of-consciousness ranting, and I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Kate: Not to my knowledge, no. That would be inexcusably bad, though, wouldn't it? To screw up a quote of text? Yikes! Even people who agree with the axe they're grinding would take exception to a basic factual inaccuracy like that.
That's not what I was getting at, though. I was reacting to the histrionic and insulting tone of the piece.
So the background information (which is what I was providing) was correct. Yes?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Kate: Not to my knowledge, no. That would be inexcusably bad, though, wouldn't it? To screw up a quote of text? Yikes! Even people who agree with the axe they're grinding would take exception to a basic factual inaccuracy like that.
That's not what I was getting at, though. I was reacting to the histrionic and insulting tone of the piece.
So the background information (which is what I was providing) was correct. Yes?
Ah, I see.
I didn't realize you were only linking it for the text of the old amendments. I thought you were also linking it for the explanation the article gives of that text, and what it means, and what it's implications are.
I disagree with the article on all those points, and I think it did a lousy job actually arguing them. I saw the whole article as "background" because they're trying to spin the historical facts to support their conclusions.
But if you were just linking it for the facts in the beginning, and not the conclusions, then I misunderstood! Sorry about that! I do think that the facts in the beginning of the article are valuable things to know, for what it's worth. So now that I understand your intent better, I appreciate you sharing. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you think that the information fails to give some clue as to the intent of the framers? And what right they meant to enumerate?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think the full text explains they had multiple intents in mind. I think there was a right they were enumerating as well as a broad policy statement that they were endorsing. The right made it into the US constitution; the broader policy was pretty thoroughly muddled.
I don't think the conclusions drawn by the article-writer make much sense.
Particularly, the idea that one of the intents was not that ordinary American citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms... well, I think that's pretty ludicrous. Just read the first sentence before the semicolon.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
DO you think that what comes before and after the semicolon are in the paragraph coincidentally?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't understand your question.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Don't you think that the whole paragraph shed some light on the reason we have the right to bear arms and that ship sailed once we had a standing army anyway? There is nothing in there about self-defense or hunting or sport.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ah. No, I think that the right to keep and bear arms is clearly listed distinct from the passage about the militia. And, if anything, the latter parts of the paragraph support the second-amendment defense that Tom and others have mocked here: that one of the reasons lawful citizens should bear arms is in case they are needed to defend against foreign or domestic threats.
I'm not sure I personally agree with that as a major issue, but I think it's a logical reading of the passage. And congruent with the attitudes of the framers at the time.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh, and thanks for clarifying the question! I appreciated it. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And, if anything, the latter parts of the paragraph support the second-amendment defense that Tom and others have mocked here: that one of the reasons lawful citizens should bear arms is in case they are needed to defend against foreign or domestic threats.
I haven't mocked it at all. It is, as far as I can tell, the only sensible rationale for the Second Amendment's existence. Which is why I'm asking how many of you guys who own guns have contingency plans for shooting cops when you're called upon to defend our liberty.
That said....
quote:No, I think that the right to keep and bear arms is clearly listed distinct from the passage about the militia.
I disagree entirely. That's like saying that in the sentence, "Sandwiches being needed to satiate the hungry, every man shall carry on his person a loaf of sliced bread at all times," the need to satiate the hungry has nothing to do with the bread requirement. Any assertion that the militia component is not an absolute requirement of the text as written is, I submit, a misreading. To my mind, the clear intent of the amendment is to ensure that each state be able to rally an army to defend itself from other states.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Tom, they're semicolon separated, not comma separated.
"That the People have a Right to carry and to eat Bread; that a well made Sandwich, composed of various fixings between two slices of Bread, is the proper, natural, and safe Food of a free State; that Standing Restaurants in Time of plenty are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, Restaurants should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power."
Each semicolon denotes that now we're discussing a new right. Related, but distinct.
There's stuff in there about not having restaurants, and stuff about making sandwiches for people, but also stuff about having the specific right to carry your own bread. They're distinct rights.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
A lesson in law and english. Well done, Dan.
edit: typo
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote: I received a note a couple of days ago from a gentleman concerned about the placement of commas in the various drafts of the Second Amendment. And today, at The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin writes that "the text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical."
Well, The New Yorker may not be the best place to go for instruction on grammar and usage. The Founders (it's a little vexing to have to keep explaining this) loved Latinate constructions, one of which is the absolute, a phrase modifying a whole clause, often consisting of a noun and a participle. The Second Amendment opens with just such an absolute: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Modifying the succeeding clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it puts the right in the context of the establishment and operation of a militia.
Commas don't much enter into it. Eighteenth-century writers like to insert a comma between subject and verb, though we don't follow such a convention any longer. The comma in the Second Amendment merely sets off the absolute.
We still have absolute phrases in English, and we typically set them off with commas, viz., The point having been made repeatedly, further discussion would seem idle.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
No question that the NRA isn't exactly on the right track here, or most places. Yikes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends. SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!
It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~
My father-in-law posted this on FB.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Your poor wife.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dan, this is the text of the Second Amendment, as printed in my little copy of the Constitution, recorded as ratified by the States, and as verified on the Internet:
quote:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don't see a single semicolon.
capax may be impressed by the "lesson," but you appear to be reading a different document than the one that was ratified. The grammar here is completely clear and unambiguous: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Keeping and bearing arms in some way that does not contribute to or dovetail with a well-regulated militia falls completely outside of the provided justification internal to the amendment.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: My father-in-law posted this on FB.
And hopefully you recognize that it's utterly ridiculous, correct?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I wouldn't go so far as to say banning guns caused those deaths, but I also wouldn't go so far as to say it's utterly ridiculous either.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: On even the English, we would disagree. John E. McIntyre:
quote: I received a note a couple of days ago from a gentleman concerned about the placement of commas in the various drafts of the Second Amendment. And today, at The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin writes that "the text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical."
Well, The New Yorker may not be the best place to go for instruction on grammar and usage. The Founders (it's a little vexing to have to keep explaining this) loved Latinate constructions, one of which is the absolute, a phrase modifying a whole clause, often consisting of a noun and a participle. The Second Amendment opens with just such an absolute: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Modifying the succeeding clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it puts the right in the context of the establishment and operation of a militia.
Commas don't much enter into it. Eighteenth-century writers like to insert a comma between subject and verb, though we don't follow such a convention any longer. The comma in the Second Amendment merely sets off the absolute.
We still have absolute phrases in English, and we typically set them off with commas, viz., The point having been made repeatedly, further discussion would seem idle.
I'm going to address this below, when I respond to Tom.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Dan, this is the text of the Second Amendment, as printed in my little copy of the Constitution, recorded as ratified by the States, and as verified on the Internet:
quote:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don't see a single semicolon.
capax may be impressed by the "lesson," but you appear to be reading a different document than the one that was ratified. The grammar here is completely clear and unambiguous: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Keeping and bearing arms in some way that does not contribute to or dovetail with a well-regulated militia falls completely outside of the provided justification internal to the amendment.
I advise following the conversation more closely. I tried to think of a more polite way to put this, but I can't. You're arguing with me, you should at least pay attention to what I'm saying before you argue against it.
When you quoted me, I was talking to Kate. As evidenced, I think, by the numerous posts above the one you quoted. And Kate linked to an article (Here it is) which quotes George Mason's original draft of the 2nd Amendment. The article tries to argue that, in the original draft, it's clear the right has nothing to do with bearing arms personally, and only has to do with a militia.
Except it doesn't. It proves the exact opposite, as evidenced by my explanation above.
You and Godric are right that what actually ended up in the Constitution has comma-separated values, and is far more ambiguous. But that's not at all what I was addressing. I was taking down a very specific point Kate brought up in the article she linked.
Clear now?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You and Godric are right that what actually ended up in the Constitution has comma-separated values, and is far more ambiguous.
No, it's not remotely ambiguous. It is completely unambiguous. That is the point I am making: that the text, as discussed and ratified, is unambiguously asserting a right to bear arms in furtherance of a well-regulated militia. It's not possible to be confused on this point if you understand English grammar.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Are you asserting there's no other possible justification for the second clause than the first one?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Language Log recently weighed in on the Second Amendment too. The post also has a lot of links to previous posts. The main point is that the Second Amendment is not really ambiguous as written, though you could argue that it's (probably intentionally) vague. Reading it according to modern norms of grammar and punctuation is a mistake, I think.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It really doesn't matter. Tom is aware, I am quite sure, that the basis of our interpretation of the constitution is a long history of precedent set by the supreme court. The fact that we *interpret* the 2nd ammendment to mean that we have a nearly fundamental, basic right to bear arms is clear. We do interpret it that way (most of the time).
I think what Tom is asserting is that the amendment in itself, regardless of later precedents set (and influenced by the need to maintain status quos in a changing technological world), is quite unambiguous about its purpose being to allow private citizens to bear arms in a militia. That is the intention of the opening phrase: to explain the purpose of the amendment. You'll notice: not every amendment bears such an explanation- particularly when enumerating a right that is seen as more focused on individual liberties. The amendment used this wording to preclude, quite adroitly, any state or local law which had as its intent to weaken the national government's ability to raise armies. No state could pass a law saying its people couldn't be armed, and so no state had a legal justification for neutrality in national conflicts. In addition, the federal government was precluded from limiting the ability of states to defend themselves.
Granted: this is the sticky wicket. The amendment was worded with the intention of *not* limiting the right to bear arms *only* in a militia, because the object was to preclude regulation of arms, in the hope that states or the federal government would not be able to then regulate away the feasibility of a militia. It is a legally defensive strategy: if you write: "shall not be infringe when serving in a militia," well, a lawyer then, as now, would grasp instantaneously that there is a weakness in the law, because the definition of a militia is subject to change- and the right is dependent on that definition. And anyway, you don't want to afford people a *right* to serve in the militia, nor do you want to provide a *right* for a militia to exist. You want to make it impossible *not* to allow a militia to be formed. This is how you do it. Which is why the mention of a militia is a throwaway clause at the beginning that only *explains* the purpose of the actual right, but doesn't form a basis *for* that right. They did not foresee what 250 years of precedent would do to that particular choice of wording, clever though it was.
This was a time in which such concerns were serious. England had (in their view) abused its power to tax the colonies, and was continually abusing its ironclad lock on international trade through taxes. The second amendment guaranteed that no prohibitive tax or regulation would weaken the individual states.
The amendment had little to do with individual gun ownership, largely because at the time of its inclusion in the constitution, individual gun ownership was * synonymous* with national military service. The rifled barrel itself, and the practicality of using guns to hunt for food were still relatively new. The notion of a handgun that could fire with an interval over twice a minute was unheard. Technology was just *way* different then. As was the concept of war, of a militia, etc. The basic terms of the 2nd amendment now refer to things that no longer exist, but apply to things which are the basis of our modern concepts of weapons, and the military.
[ December 22, 2012, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Great post Orincoro!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Thanks I try.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You and Godric are right that what actually ended up in the Constitution has comma-separated values, and is far more ambiguous.
No, it's not remotely ambiguous. It is completely unambiguous. That is the point I am making: that the text, as discussed and ratified, is unambiguously asserting a right to bear arms in furtherance of a well-regulated militia. It's not possible to be confused on this point if you understand English grammar.
Not even gonna acknowledge the rest of my post, huh? Good God, Tom, show a little bit of integrity. The "point you are making" has nothing to do with what I had said, what you were ostensibly replying to/arguing against.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Dan, does the second amendment have a semicolon in it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't understand, Sam. I've said already that it doesn't. Why ask again?
What part of this is confusing you?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The article tries to argue that, in the original draft, it's clear the right has nothing to do with bearing arms personally, and only has to do with a militia.
Except it doesn't. It proves the exact opposite, as evidenced by my explanation above.
Are you actually under the impression that a previous draft of the constitution, unsigned and unratified, as the slightest bearing on how we should interpret the final draft?
Does it occur to you, in this, merely perhaps out of a sense of defensiveness, to consider that you are arguing the case of an interpretation, favored by you, using as evidence of that interpretation, material which is not included in the work being interpreted? Material which was purposefully *edited* and *changed*, ostensibly because it was *not satisfactory* to the signers?
The constitution is not intended as a work of art (as such). Our interpretations of it have legal consequences. We have to base those interpretations on very specific things. Previous drafts, whatever they contain, are not an element involved.
Here's where I think you are getting lost: When we talk about intent, we are *not* talking about what a particular person or a group of people wanted, in their heart of hearts, on some cool day in the fall of 1881 (or whenever). We are talking about the document that all those people, their various intents expressed in a process of drafting and passing a written constitution and later a bill of rights to add to it, wrote. That document, itself, communicates. It is not a message to us from the founders about *what they wanted*. We cannot use it as a means of devising their personal intentions. Intent is interpreted from the document itself- it is a representation of a democratic process, and represents the individual will or authority of exactly *no one*. That is the entire basis of the concept (a novel one at the time), that this document formed in itself, a complete guide to our definition of government, upon which all the laws of the land could be based. What a nice man in a tricorner hat *intended* on that day is not material here- nor is any previous draft, nor any subsequent statement- these are all based on individual will and intention- not a collective process. That is *exactly* why the constitution was written.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't understand, Sam. I've said already that it doesn't. Why ask again?
What part of this is confusing you?
He's not confused. He's teasing you for ignoring that you were called out on missing a basic fact, which rather indicates that you haven't, in this conversation, referred to the actual text very closely.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Orincoro, Kate brought up the previous draft, not me. She did so to try and make a point.
It didn't make the point she wanted it to make. That's all I was ever saying. Your post is basically arguing the same thing I was saying (that th old draft is irrelevant) only you're using a different approach. Fine. But don't act like you're correcting me, dude. Talk to Kate.
I'm seriously boggled that you guys somehow missed this. Am I the only one actually reading every post in this thread, or what?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Exactly. He gave you an important, salient correction to your interpretation of the text. He's repeated exactly what his point was and why it was relevant to the claims you were making in this thread. The part he responded to was wherein you persisted with your own confusion and he stayed on target with his correction.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You're still taking the wrong approach. I am correcting your approach- as long as you keep taking it, I'll keep correcting it. You may as well be wrong about both, if your understanding of the way the constitution works is the same as hers. Arguing in her terms is helping her, really, not doing any good- her terms are the problem, even more than her arguments.
If more people had a deeper understanding of how the constitution actually works- what it actually *is* beyond the canned textbook description, this kind of stuff wouldn't have to be discussed so much. As it is, you're getting a lecture because you have *basic* disconnects with the concepts at play. And you don't like it. Sorry, that's a tough one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But don't act like you're correcting me, dude.
quote:Tom, they're semicolon separated, not comma separated.
Tom can be by extention also correcting kate. He is also correcting you.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't understand, Sam. I've said already that it doesn't. Why ask again?
What part of this is confusing you?
He's not confused. He's teasing you for ignoring that you were called out on missing a basic fact, which rather indicates that you haven't, in this conversation, referred to the actual text very closely.
Oh for ****'s sake, seriously?
I was responding to Kate. The text she linked had semicolons. Clearly I'm the only one who actually followed her link. Fine, but don't tell me I missed something when I'm the only one who even paid attention to what she'd said.
When I was talking to Tom, I assumed he was referring to he same text she'd linked, since he was jumping in on something I said to her about said text. That he was oblivious to the context and was referring to the 2nd amendment didn't become clear until later.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:But don't act like you're correcting me, dude.
quote:Tom, they're semicolon separated, not comma separated.
Tom can be by extention also correcting kate. He is also correcting you.
How is he correcting me?
In context, I was referring to the document Kate linked. I was 100% correct.
Where's the correction?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Maybe you should check your sources then? Seems like a good way of not looking foolish. Seem to recall you making a similar suggestion here and there. Or I don't know, carry around a copy of the constitution that you trust on a smart phone, or something. I do that. And I use it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
And it doesn't have a semicolon. And it doesn't make it more ambiguous, like you asserted, it makes it less ambiguous.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: In context, I was referring to the document Kate linked. I was 100% correct.
WHOOAAAAAAAA..... Bull**** 12 o'clock. You made a mistake and trusted a poorly edited source. Your problem. Don't compound your mistake now by weaseling out of it behind that. Just admit it was a mistake, and think about why you made it.
If you actually expect us only to ever argue with you based on specific *typo ridden* versions of official documents, you're insane.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: And it doesn't have a semicolon. And it doesn't make it more ambiguous, like you asserted, it makes it less ambiguous.
Dan wasn't addressing the ratified Amendment. How are you not seeing that?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Holy crap, guys, this is surreal.
Orincoro, I know what the 2nd Amendment says. But, once again, Tom quoted me wherein I was talking to Kate about the original draft and what it meant. So I thought he was, you know, responding to what I had said there. About the original draft. And what it meant.
Sam, how ambiguous the actual 2nd Amendment is is the subject of many debates in the courts and elsewhere. I did eventually assert that it is ambiguous, but now you're glossing over the posts about the semicolon. Tom was already "correcting" me before I made that assertion.
And yet, when I was talking about semicolons, I wasn't talking about the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So because lots of people disagree about something means there is no right answer?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: In context, I was referring to the document Kate linked. I was 100% correct.
WHOOAAAAAAAA..... Bull**** 12 o'clock. You made a mistake and trusted a poorly edited source. Your problem. Don't compound your mistake now by weaseling out of it behind that. Just admit it was a mistake, and think about why you made it.
If you actually expect us only to ever argue with you based on specific *typo ridden* versions of official documents, you're insane.
Orincoro... I'm going to try to explain this, one last time.
Scroll up. Kate linked to an article, about the original draft of the 2nd Amendment, before it was ratified. It talked about what light that draft might shed on the ultimately ratified 2nd Amendment. It had some conclusions I disagreed with.
It wasn't typo-ridden. It was and is, to my knowledge, the accurate text of George Mason's original draft.
I argued with the points the article was trying to make. Points Kate agreed with, I believe, which is why she posted the article in the first place.
The fact that the source she linked wasn't the second amendment is not some shocking surprise. It was clearly spelled out from the beginning.
Do you understand now?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: So because lots of people disagree about something means there is no right answer?
No, Blayne, the point is that by the time I made that assertion Tom had already grossly misunderstood me, and wasn't "correcting" jack ****.
The lack of intellectual integrity on display here is really staggering, guys. The conversation is right up there for you to see, as is the article I was referring to. And yet you keep not referencing it, and making all sorts of ridiculous assertions. Yikes.
Disappointed.
[ December 22, 2012, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No I meant when you said that the phrase was ambiguous and argued a lot by the courts and others.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm going to try one more time to make my point clear:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You and Godric are right that what actually ended up in the Constitution has comma-separated values, and is far more ambiguous.
No, it's not remotely ambiguous. It is completely unambiguous. That is the point I am making: that the text, as discussed and ratified, is unambiguously asserting a right to bear arms in furtherance of a well-regulated militia. It's not possible to be confused on this point if you understand English grammar.
Not even gonna acknowledge the rest of my post, huh? Good God, Tom, show a little bit of integrity. The "point you are making" has nothing to do with what I had said, what you were ostensibly replying to/arguing against.
A comma separated value is not more ambiguous. It's less ambiguous. He's talking about that, and the actual ratified document, not other ones you may or may not have been talking about before. If you think it makes it more ambiguous, you're wrong, and that's what you're getting harped on for here.
Among other things, I guess, but I don't care all that much? Continue to be disappointed in our lack of intellectual integrity or whatever. You were really unclear earlier.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Right.
By the time he'd said that, Sam, he'd already taken what I said out of context. Badly. But you go on not caring.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This thread makes it easy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah I went back and reread it a few times, I get what you're getting at now re: semicolon versus ratified comma
note: it is not the result of intellectual dishonesty that you got implicated in all this bs, it was something that could be easily mistaken
anyway, second amendment doesn't have a semicolon and is hopelessly outdated anyway, so I expect it to get continually chipped away at
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I suppose it would be too much to ask, for everyone to forget the discussion of the semicolon amendment-both in defense and attack-and ask the question of the actual amendment, with a comma: doesn't its wording make it quite clear that the right to bear arms *isn't* an absolute right, that it is always a qualified right? Because in the very amendment that grants it, is also the context in which the right exists?
I'm not talking about what the Founders initially intended, which to me has always seemed a profoundly stupid way to examine the Constitution-it does to everyone, actually. I'm not talking either about what past Supreme Courts have made of it-I'm asking where we should go from here. Pretend for a moment the 2nd Amendment didn't make it-SHOULD there exist an absolute right for private citizens to be able to own firearms? Or should they be tools which the state, from the start, has some right to regulate?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the federal government has an obligation to allow a militia to be formed under the auspices of the state governments. The fear in the amendment was of a standing army, which since WW2 has been a reality, and the various Militia Acts have subborned locally controlled militias with national guard units that have a sort of joint control structure. People have no individual right to own weapons outside of militia service. Historically this interpretation is only a couple decades old.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm not talking about what the Founders initially intended, which to me has always seemed a profoundly stupid way to examine the Constitution
Well, why not? That way the second amendment only necessarily defends the right to own smoothbore flintlocks and we can get rid of all these weapons the founders would not ever have known of. What is this "magazine fed" weapon you speak of, sir? Are they to defend our lands against indians not taxed?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
dan don't be like that i'm sorry
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
DAN
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah I went back and reread it a few times, I get what you're getting at now re: semicolon versus ratified comma
note: it is not the result of intellectual dishonesty that you got implicated in all this bs, it was something that could be easily mistaken
anyway, second amendment doesn't have a semicolon and is hopelessly outdated anyway, so I expect it to get continually chipped away at
Thanks, Sam.
And I shouldn't have attributed it to dishonesty, you're right. That was an unfair assumption on my part. Maybe a little laziness, but nothing worse than that.
Anyway, I think there are some compelling arguments for why the 2nd Amendment isn't just about militias. Even if there aren't any semicolons!
But, even if we're going by a strict constitutionalist perspective (which, to be clear, I don't specifically advocate), it certainly does allude to regulation. And we certainly regulate the extent to which the other rights in the bill of rights actually get to be exercised.
Setting aside constitutional issues, though... I'm not specifically opposed to reasonable regulation of firearms, in case that hasn't been clear. Particularly some sort of simple competency test, akin to driver licenses, so long as it isn't overly burdensome.
I'd prefer a few more regulations on the "keeping" of arms, if we loosened regulations on the "bearing," frankly.
PS: Sam, why just smoothbore? The Framers loved rifled flintlocks too. They may have been more specialized, but they still had their uses.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But, even if we're going by a strict constitutionalist perspective (which, to be clear, I don't specifically advocate), it certainly does allude to regulation. And we certainly regulate the extent to which the other rights in the bill of rights actually get to be exercised.
Setting aside constitutional issues, though... I'm not specifically opposed to reasonable regulation of firearms, in case that hasn't been clear. Particularly some sort of simple competency test, akin to driver licenses, so long as it isn't overly burdensome.
Alright, some starting points from someone further to the right on this issue. Ok. I agree with all of what you've said. What would you describe is the first thing that needs to happen before these sorts of things can take place, and what is likeliest to inhibit that process? What compromises are you willing to make, and what compromises do you think we should be willing to make? So on and so forth.
This is obviously a trick question, so feel free to fast forward to the trick if you like. Bottom line is: if you and I agree, heck if the entire Democratic party is still not in favor of demolishing or even sharply weakening the 2nd Amendment, then there must some person, group, or phenomena which explains why this meeting of the minds isn't yet reflected in our laws.
*What is that* inhibitor, and what can we do about it?
---------
The trick:
Obviously the single biggest inhibitor to this sort of meeting of the minds would be the NRA-not the only, but easily the biggest. Or would you disagree, Dan? They are such an impediment and so tone deaf they cough up the ball doing the usual (that is to say, oft-repeated) post-massacre media event, spending time pleading victimization at the hands of the media and blaming violent video games.
If you agree that this is the first, major stumbling block-what can be done about it? Who can do it? If not, why not?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In other fun cognitive dissonance news: if the NRA and hard conservatives would have us believe that you cannot prevent this sort of tragedy by screening out for crazies such as this shooter...why are we to suppose that dramatically increasing the amount of armed personnel in schools wouldn't miss quite a few of them, too?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What compromises are you willing to make, and what compromises do you think we should be willing to make? So on and so forth.
You're welcome to start that exchange. I'm wary of re-entering a conversation that was seriously degraded by a couple of bad actors, though I'm really interested in examining legislative proposals on gun control, how they would be effective, and how they would be implemented. I realize you believe the NRA to be a large inhibitor to progress on this issue but having a concise and effective plan of action is going to be the best way to circumvent the NRA.
(Anyone who has previously called this conversation "stupid" won't be considered a good-faith participant. So feel free to sit out this round if you have.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'll be sure to go sit in time-out until noted social architect and thread police capaxinfiniti thinks i'm a good-faith poster again
alternate answer: nah!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I say let's cut even further to the case: how should the second amendment be clarified and updated?
I'm on my phone or I might take a crack at it...and will take a swing when next in front of a real keyboard.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:PS: Sam, why just smoothbore? The Framers loved rifled flintlocks too. They may have been more specialized, but they still had their uses.
I wouldn't call them 'loved.' they were nightmares.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:PS: Sam, why just smoothbore? The Framers loved rifled flintlocks too. They may have been more specialized, but they still had their uses.
I wouldn't call them 'loved.' they were nightmares.
What, just 'cause they took seven years to reload? Pshaw!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You're welcome to start that exchange. I'm wary of re-entering a conversation that was seriously degraded by a couple of bad actors, though I'm really interested in examining legislative proposals on gun control, how they would be effective, and how they would be implemented. I realize you believe the NRA to be a large inhibitor to progress on this issue but having a concise and effective plan of action is going to be the best way to circumvent the NRA.
To be clear, then, you think the NRA isn't? It sounds like you think they stand in the way of bad laws, but wouldn't be an impediment to good laws.
Anyway, alright, here's one: make illegal (lots of questions of detail, here, but I'm putting this out there as a goal) any assumption of ownership of a firearm that isn't tied to a criminal and mental health background check. Any. Whether it's gun shows, a gift of a gun, private sale of a gun between two individuals, or inheriting of a gun.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm pretty sure rifled guns (for sharpshooters) didn't come into prominence until the Napeolonic wars, I don't think they would be widely used in the America's.
I would probably make an exemption for old vintage hunting rifles, if you live clearly in a rural area.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Rak, I think I'd support something like what you propose, but only for the purchase of semi-automatic weapons (including pistols). And some other restrictions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just to be clear, that would exclude weapons such as hunting rifles and shotguns?
I know rifles are very rare in street crime, but I'm less certain about shotguns-also in terms of, hmm, domestic crime? But for the interests of compromise, I would say semi-automatics and pistols would be a requirement, given how favored they are in gun violence.
That said, why would you oppose criminal and mental health background checks in the case of those other weapons? That's a seeking clarification question, not a gotcha question.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Rak, I think I'd support something like what you propose, but only for the purchase of semi-automatic weapons (including pistols). And some other restrictions.
Me too.
Non semi autos don't really pose a threat to groups of people because of their low capacity and high reload time (leavor action, revolvers, pump action, bolt action, etc).
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just to be clear, that would exclude weapons such as hunting rifles and shotguns?
I know rifles are very rare in street crime, but I'm less certain about shotguns-also in terms of, hmm, domestic crime? But for the interests of compromise, I would say semi-automatics and pistols would be a requirement, given how favored they are in gun violence.
There are semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns, actually. So it would only exclude bolt and lever action rifles, as well as pump and double barrel shotguns (either over/under or side by side).
quote:That said, why would you oppose criminal and mental health background checks in the case of those other weapons? That's a seeking clarification question, not a gotcha question.
I'm just giving my first take impression on this one, but in general it's because I don't favor restricting constitutional rights any more than is necessary. If we agree that gun violence is a major problem in American society, but also agree that the ability to possess a firearm is an integral part of our Bill of Rights, then I think restricting/licensing semi-autos is an OUTSTANDING first step. Make a significant, but manageable change, and then step back and take ten years to look at the data to see whether or not it's enough of a change.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
All citizens in good standing have the right to show themselves safe to keep and bear arms and upon doing so shall not have the right of reasonable firearm possession be infringed upon.
Well, I know it's not great, but it is a jumping off point.
Thoughts?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
What is a citizen in good standing?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Non-felon, no open warrants, appropriate age, not currently committed to a psychological facility, no history of domestic abuse, proof of residency in state of purchase...um, that's all I can think of at the moment.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
AND DENY CRIMINALS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Um, just not currently committed to a psychological facility? People who are currently committed can't exactly run down to the gun shop anyway.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I'm pretty sure rifled guns (for sharpshooters) didn't come into prominence until the Napeolonic wars, I don't think they would be widely used in the America's.
Rifles were used during the revolutionary period, primarily by militia, because these were often the types guns that militia members had or could get. They played a decisive role in a few cases, but were not the factor that firing lines continued to be for another several decades. And of course by the American civil war, grouped firing became a catastrophic tactic, partly due to the changes made in technology in the intervening 80 years.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, even in the Revolutionary war plenty of guerrilla militia forces used rifles. They were a minority of American forces, but they were still an important minority.
By the Civil War they had the Minie ball and percussion caps. So using rifles became a lot more viable. Loading them was no longer the gigantic pain in the ass it was in 1777.
(And of course, later in the Civil War they had things like metal cartridges and guns you could load on Sunday and shoot all week.)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Um, just not currently committed to a psychological facility? People who are currently committed can't exactly run down to the gun shop anyway.
Escaped ones ...do you think having been in one in the past should exclude you from buying a gun, and if so for how long? Life? One year?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not that it makes it right, but it can be all but impossible to *vote* if one has been convicted of even non-violent felonies. We certainly have no problem as a nation prohibiting constitutional rights indefinitely on the basis of past crimes.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Question: had a mass shooting of kids happened in a church's Sunday school class, would the NRA's recommendation be armed guards at every church? Would gun enthusiasts be asking for every clergyman, deacon, elder and Sunday school teacher to carry a weapon?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sounds rhetorical.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: Question: had a mass shooting of kids happened in a church's Sunday school class, would the NRA's recommendation be armed guards at every church? Would gun enthusiasts be asking for every clergyman, deacon, elder and Sunday school teacher to carry a weapon?
We have had mass church shootings (one in the past year), but perhaps some of them weren't of the proper sect or stripe to get the NRA much concerned. I suspect, too, that they might object to the very thing they claim to wish for unless of course it were extremely privatized training and arming.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Really? Didn't mean it to be. I think the answer could have something to say both politically and theologically. As a Christian (one that leans liberal politically), I sometimes have a hard time defining where I come down on social issues. In other words, I often hold a political view (for the best interest of society) that contradicts a spritual view (for the best interest of a Christian). For example, I support legal abortion, but argue against it in practically every one-on-one conversation.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: We have had mass church shootings (one in the past year), but perhaps some of them weren't of the proper sect or stripe to get the NRA much concerned.
Yeah, I'm aware. But I'm happy to answer one question at a time here.
quote:I suspect, too, that they might object to the very thing they claim to wish for unless of course it were extremely privatized training and arming.
Yeah, I see an inherent contradiction among many "hard right" lobbyists in this argument: arm teachers (teachers are state employees). Also, police state = evil. Of course, my own opinions (see above post) tend to get a lot of flack from fellow Christians especially.
But all that said, I'm genuinely interested in the answer anyone here would give.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: We have had mass church shootings (one in the past year), but perhaps some of them weren't of the proper sect or stripe to get the NRA much concerned.
Yeah, I'm aware. But I'm happy to answer one question at a time here.
quote:I suspect, too, that they might object to the very thing they claim to wish for unless of course it were extremely privatized training and arming.
Yeah, I see an inherent contradiction among many "hard right" lobbyists in this argument: arm teachers (teachers are state employees). Also, police state = evil. Of course, my own opinions (see above post) tend to get a lot of flack from fellow Christians especially.
But all that said, I'm genuinely interested in the answer anyone here would give.
Many (Most? All?) calls to "arm teachers" are not "let's force teachers to carry guns/let's make teachers into cops."
They're saying "allow teachers who have concealed carry permits to carry in schools if they so choose." Some states already have this policy, by the way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, the NRA's press conference called for several things not limited to existed concealed carry teachers/guards. An indirect call to slash the foreign aid budget to pay for cops in every school (as though it would be nearly enough), heavy implied attacks on the First Amendment, overt call for Congress to put cops in every school, to the NSSERP.
As the single most powerful lobbying group in the discussion, I don't think their calls can be dismissed as some sort of outlier or non-representative. Gun rights advocates are calling for a hell of a lot more than merely utilizing civilian resources as you suggest, Dan.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh: Did the NRA advocate mandating that teacher's go armed?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
I've pieced together some thoughts and ideas regarding gun control. They aren't incredibly well-stated or fully-developed but they could prompt discussion. These are restrictions to reduce, not stop, the unlawful use of firearms and are hopefully balanced enough that the right of the 2nd Amendment won't get swallowed up in fees and exhaustive restrictions. A well-crafted law shouldn't breed a massive, bureaucratic mess or tie up the courts for years. If, in a few years, any new law has become a burdensome formality for the overwhelming majority of lawful gun owners, and hasn't proven successful at limiting gun crime, it should be replaced.
To start, I could support background checks for all firearm purchases if it was accompanied by a system such as this:
Any legal citizen with a clean background could obtain an official certificate of some sort that one must renew yearly. The certificate would only be for purchasing handguns, revolvers, hunting rifles, and shotguns, and would not be required for possession of these firearms (concealed-carry permits would still be necessary where required). This certificate should cost no more than 20 dollars for the first one, 10 dollars for renewal, and take no longer to acquire than 2 weeks from the date of application. The background check requirement would be limited to monetary transactions only and wouldn't apply to gifts/inheritance. Additionally, current laws requiring background checks would remain in place. Meaning, if you don't intend to purchase multiple guns in a year, or one while at a gun show, or one from another citizen, you can request a background check at the time of purchase from an authorized dealer and receive the gun when your background clears. A background check in this instance wouldn't result in a certificate being issued, but would be a one-time deal, costing no more than 10 dollars. This proposal would, in part, address the so-call gun show loophole.
In addition to the background check certificate, I would modify and expand the scope of the National Firearms Act, essentially reworking the entire act to create a citizens category. Anything outside handguns, revolvers, hunting rifles, and shotguns would fall under the new NFA regulations. Fees for acquiring a Federal Firearms License for regular citizens would be greatly reduced (nowhere near where they are now), with the focus being on alerting local law enforcement, etc. that you have passed a background check and are registered and authorized to purchase, own, and use NFA firearms and accessories. The FFL must be on the person of anyone possessing, using, or transporting NFA firearms - basically anytime the firearms aren't securely stored in a fixed location. Any felony conviction would result in forfeiture of both background certificates and Federal Firearms Licenses.
One point missing in this plan is the language necessary to identify "hunting rifles and shotguns" from the other NFA-controlled firearms. It would have take into account certain features like barrel length, etc. (much like the current NFA does) but in the end it would also come down to ergonomic features and aesthetics. Some firearm types are more suited for hunting and, frankly, people with little firearm education are afraid of guns which look "menacing," regardless of the actual threat they pose. This method wouldn't be an incredibly accurate or effective way to classify firearms but it would allow for a workable system. Any current use of the word "assault" or words similar wouldn't be found anywhere in the law. "Assault weapon" is a misnomer, as it implies purpose. Firearms have no purpose, they have a function. A bat used for baseball becomes a weapon of assault if it's use to assault someone. Avoiding this kind of language would greatly increase the possibility of bipartisan support.
Many, I'm sure, will take issue with my proposal as it relates to handguns, but this is my reasoning: Semi-automatic handguns are the firearm type most critical to personal self-defense. I don't think covering these firearms under the new NFA regulations I've proposed would be a concession gun-rights proponents would make. Given the 2nd Amendment, the relevant Supreme Court rulings, and the fact that these firearms are part of the core of the non-sporting, non-hunting gun-rights ideology, placing substantial restrictions on handguns would be a non-starter. A background check alone should be all that is required to own and use these firearms.
In addition to certain type of firearms, a Federal Firearms License would be required for purchasing large quantities of frequently misused bullet types. This would only really impact someone trying to buy a thousand 9mm, 7.62×39mm, or 7.62×51mm rounds all in one go. Someone buying 30 rounds for their concealed-carry firearm or .308 hunting rifle wouldn't be affected. This would do more to stop a North Hollywood style shootout and not smaller shootings but it's an effort. As an additional restriction, magazines with capacities between 15 and 30 rounds would be considered accessory items not critical to the function of the firearm. As such they will be regulated under the NFA. Anything over 30 round capacity would require a higher level of NFA licensing (ATF permission, practically) and would be accompanied by very strict usage guidelines (such as exclusively within controlled environments like firing ranges and gun clubs).
A few final thoughts: I'm not fully behind registering firearms. I understand it would be useful to track gun ownership as a way to fight crime so this would likely be a point where I could make a concession (registering handguns... possibly). I'm even further from supporting mandatory psych evaluations. Earlier in the thread I outlined the negatives of such evaluations. In short, psychological evaluations would be too costly, restrictive, invasive, and flat-out too arbitrary to be levied against the right to bear arms. Also, I intentionally avoided the "grandfathering" can of worms.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan: Nope. But then you did convey two contradictory messages: they certainly didn't suggest merely that we make use of existing permits. It went much much further than that.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: We have had mass church shootings (one in the past year), but perhaps some of them weren't of the proper sect or stripe to get the NRA much concerned.
Yeah, I'm aware. But I'm happy to answer one question at a time here.
quote:I suspect, too, that they might object to the very thing they claim to wish for unless of course it were extremely privatized training and arming.
Yeah, I see an inherent contradiction among many "hard right" lobbyists in this argument: arm teachers (teachers are state employees). Also, police state = evil. Of course, my own opinions (see above post) tend to get a lot of flack from fellow Christians especially.
But all that said, I'm genuinely interested in the answer anyone here would give.
Many (Most? All?) calls to "arm teachers" are not "let's force teachers to carry guns/let's make teachers into cops."
They're saying "allow teachers who have concealed carry permits to carry in schools if they so choose." Some states already have this policy, by the way.
Understood and didn't say they were. Again, the question I pose is: had a mass shooting of kids happened in a church's Sunday school class, would the NRA's recommendation be armed guards at every church? Would gun enthusiasts be asking for every clergyman, deacon, elder and Sunday school teacher to carry a weapon?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Probably, since they work for the gun manufacturers who would sell a lot of guns that way.
Virginia Tech has a police force. Columbine had an armed guard. Ft. Hood was a military base. It is possible that "good guys" with guns slowed down those mass shootings (though that is suspect); the sure as heck didn't prevent them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The best way to prev-...well, mitigate tragedy is to rely on the unceasing vigilance and lightning reflexes and astute crisis-situation judgment of the population at large.
The trick is, see to it the population at large has more guns and the same process which currently fails to weed out dangerous lunatics will certainly not fail to weed out even more dangerous lunatics, as well as increasing the number of dangerous sane people whose judgment in a split second crisis scenario may not be up to trained police officer on duty snuff.
Best possible plan. God save the Second Amendment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is a great plan if your goal is to get rich by making and selling guns.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
They should change the thread name to "Random whining about how stupid the NRA is."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Capax, I feel your ideas have merit, but lack two major areas of concern: proving safe handling and safe storage.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that the comments are at all random. And I don't for a minute think that the NRA is "stupid". I think that they are quite smart. We just have antithetical goals.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My point is there is no one here representing or defending the NRA, so all these complaints are utterly irrelevant to this thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Are you really complaining that people are talking about the NRA, the most powerful gun lobby, and their statements relevant to the event which precipitated this thread, in a thread about gun rights.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Particularly where the recent conversation was 'the NRA didn't actually say that' and 'well, in fact, they did in their recent press conference'.
Dan-'mandate'? No, though they did say that if we love our children as much as we love sports and money, that is in effect what we should do.
--------
Capaxinfiniti,
First off, I think your standards are unreasonable in some respects. Laws governing the licensing of drivers can be considered a huge bureacratic mess, but that isn't reason to scrap the entire thing. Some bureaucratic mess is unavoidable. Second, on the one hand you offer 'if it proves unreasonably burdensome to lawful gun owners'-a very flexible, nebulous standard; on the other, you desire that unless a new law proves effective within a matter of years...see where I'm going with this?
As for background checks, why wouldn't they need to apply to gifts or inheritance? If the concern over public safety lies with gun ownership, as you appear to agree with, why should there be such a wide open door?
Firearms have a purpose: killing or permitting readiness to do lethal violence to things. Plain and simple. They can of course be crafted to be aesthetically beautiful, and people may use them not to kill things-such as target practice-but we don't say 'you can't say a hammer has a purpose' if someone uses a hammer as a paperweight and not to drive nails into our pull out of wood.
As for handguns, yes, they are most critical for self defense. For the same reason, they're also most used for crime. Proposals which cede the issue entirely to one side or the other on the most important handguns seem to be strange, but perhaps you mean this to be a delay rather than permanent tabling.
As for psych evaluations or even background checks on psychiatric grounds-do you have a proposal, then, for *attempting* to limit the access of guns for the mentally ill? This actually isn't just a concern for mass shootings, but rather also because suicides are the most common form of gun deaths in our country.
How would you feel about measures mandating that if you have living in your home or on your property someone you know to have a criminally violent history (say, a brother who murdered his grandmother and did nearly 20 years for it), and you owned any sort of firearms, you would then be stepped up into a higher degree of regulation?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan: Nope. But then you did convey two contradictory messages: they certainly didn't suggest merely that we make use of existing permits. It went much much further than that.
Rakeesh, that's fine, but I was specifically responding to this:
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: Yeah, I see an inherent contradiction among many "hard right" lobbyists in this argument: arm teachers (teachers are state employees). Also, police state = evil. Of course, my own opinions (see above post) tend to get a lot of flack from fellow Christians especially.
In that context, I clarified that I think this is an unfair characterization of "hard-right" lobbyists.
My original response is here:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Many (Most? All?) calls to "arm teachers" are not "let's force teachers to carry guns/let's make teachers into cops."
They're saying "allow teachers who have concealed carry permits to carry in schools if they so choose." Some states already have this policy, by the way.
Whether or not teachers are federal employees, calls to allow them to concealed carry are based on their status as individual, private citizens.
If the call was to literally "arm teachers," i.e. let's force all teachers to start carrying sidearms, then I think there would actually be the cognitive dissonance Godric perceived.
To my knowledge, the NRA hasn't made that claim. Am I wrong?
Oh, I see you posted on this again....
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Particularly where the recent conversation was 'the NRA didn't actually say that' and 'well, in fact, they did in their recent press conference'.
Dan-'mandate'? No, though they did say that if we love our children as much as we love sports and money, that is in effect what we should do.
What does "in effect" mean, here? Did they say they'd like to require teachers go armed, or not?
I thought they advocated adding armed guards or something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If the NRA expects armed teachers to be a solution to the problem, they must expect that teachers will act as armed body guards.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
They were a bit all over the place, Dan. If you read the release again though, I think even you (by that I mean, even you with your different perspective on the matter rather than 'even you' with a sneer) will see they were advocating for more than just the use of existing school officials with permits.
But even if they were *only* suggesting what you say, there would still be an enormous dissonance because, after all, one of the chief gun rights complaints is how difficult, onerous, and unreliable it is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics...which *necessarily* means they are advocating that the best solution is to throw an unknown number of both, armed, directly into our schools with the hopes that whatever whiz-bang training they will offer to the other teachers, janitors, cafeteria workers, and administrators will be enough.
Except there is *no reason* to suppose it will be enough. It is an absurd, offensive, stupid suggestion. They talk of banks. I wonder if the one or two armed guards in a given bank is the deterrent, or if maybe just maybe the deterrent is the certainty of a rapid and overwhelming police response tied to carefully limited (in terms of the whole bank) amounts of cash? They talk of mass shootings. How many of these end up as mass-murder/suicides? They *go into* these scenarios expecting, hoping to die. Is the possibility of death at the hands of a fellow employee (who will in no way be killed first, of course) supposed to be a deterrent?
So on and so forth. There's every reason to react to the NRA's proposal (essentially, bring it on) with scorn and rejection.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I find the NRA to be as frustratingly, mind numbingly one sided as the Braidy anti-gun folk. Neither side is willing to compromise or discuss in good faith, and as far as I am concerned, both extremes are equally corrosive to actually getting positive change initiated.
So when discussions here just repetitive bad mouthing the NRA, I find it frustrating...it's like slamming cannibals or Michael Vick...yea, we know.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the NRA was definitely advocating armed teachers as part of the nra solution
of course they were also advocating a volunteer system for armed school protection by just basically having people who am good at shooting sign up as school watchdogs
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If the NRA expects armed teachers to be a solution to the problem, they must expect that teachers will act as armed body guards.
There's a difference between expecting teachers to act as armed body guards and expecting that many teachers will want to defend the children in their class.
For one thing, Kate, your assertion that any person who might choose to risk their life to save innocents is equivalent to an "armed body guard" is pretty grotesque. I think it cheapens their good motives.
Unless you think "armed body guard" is a positive appellation, and I've misread you. In which case I apologize.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: the NRA was definitely advocating armed teachers as part of the nra solution
of course they were also advocating a volunteer system for armed school protection by just basically having people who am good at shooting sign up as school watchdogs
Not only that, but as a group that has much, much power than any gun control lobbying group, their dangerous, toxic rhetoric and policy suggestions are much likelier to be listened to than the nearly no one anywhere in American politics as far from the center in the other direction as the NRA.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
"Definitely advocating armed teachers" doesn't answer my question, does it?
I get that they advocated armed teachers. What were the specifics? Did they say teachers should be required to go armed? Or that they should be allowed to?
Big difference there, in my opinion. Maybe you don't think that difference matters?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is a great plan if your goal is to get rich by making and selling guns.
hush with your sweet nonsense.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I find the NRA to be as frustratingly, mind numbingly one sided as the Braidy anti-gun folk. Neither side is willing to compromise or discuss in good faith, and as far as I am concerned, both extremes are equally corrosive to actually getting positive change initiated.
So when discussions here just repetitive bad mouthing the NRA, I find it frustrating...it's like slamming cannibals or Michael Vick...yea, we know.
Just as long as you always make sure, when trashing ANYONE for any sort of behavior, no matter how bad, THE OTHER SIDE IS JUST AS BAD. There is not such thing as a worse side. That is clearly out of the question. Let us not consider it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: "Definitely advocating armed teachers" doesn't answer my question, does it?
I get that they advocated armed teachers. What were the specifics? Did they say teachers should be required to go armed? Or that they should be allowed to?
Big difference there, in my opinion. Maybe you don't think that difference matters?
You're assuming "arm teachers," has a meaning beyond the knee-jerk pro-gun lobby reaction to almost anything. Teacher got shot? Arm teachers. Librarian shot? Arm librarians. The idea is not really to present a plan, per se, but to react forcefully with the idea that the solution to gun violence is a greater ubiquity of guns.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If the NRA expects armed teachers to be a solution to the problem, they must expect that teachers will act as armed body guards.
There's a difference between expecting teachers to act as armed body guards and expecting that many teachers will want to defend the children in their class.
For one thing, Kate, your assertion that any person who might choose to risk their life to save innocents is equivalent to an "armed body guard" is pretty grotesque. I think it cheapens their good motives.
Unless you think "armed body guard" is a positive appellation, and I've misread you. In which case I apologize.
I think that being an armed guard is a perfectly honorable thing to be if you are qualified to do the job, if that is what you signed up for, and are being paid to do. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If the NRA expects armed teachers to be a solution to the problem, they must expect that teachers will act as armed body guards.
There's a difference between expecting teachers to act as armed body guards and expecting that many teachers will want to defend the children in their class.
For one thing, Kate, your assertion that any person who might choose to risk their life to save innocents is equivalent to an "armed body guard" is pretty grotesque. I think it cheapens their good motives.
Unless you think "armed body guard" is a positive appellation, and I've misread you. In which case I apologize.
I think that being an armed guard is a perfectly honorable thing to be if you are qualified to do the job, if that is what you signed up for, and are being paid to do.
Right. So a private citizen risking their life to defend innocent people around them is acting like an armed guard without proper training, right? So that's bad, in your book. Right?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes! It can be, that's the point. Or why do we bother with all of this expensive training for soldiers and police officers if what is needed is just a private citizen willing to risk their life?
And of course once you've got the private citizen in the school with a gun (well, more than one, actually), there are only two possibilities to be considered: nothing happens in which case the gun is never needed and thus never used, or it is needed in which case it is used in a way that saves lives.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes! It can be, that's the point. Or why do we bother with all of this expensive training for soldiers and police officers if what is needed is just a private citizen willing to risk their life?
I didn't say that "what is needed is just a private citizen willing to risk their life"... but private citizens are there while police are still minutes away. Sometimes that can make a difference.
Especially in the case of deranged shooters, who almost always cave in and kill themselves the moment they encounter any significant threatening resistance (usually in the form of police arriving)
I think that the idea of "No, that's not your responsibility, you shouldn't do anything, leave it for the police to handle," is a totally messed up and prevalent attitude in our society. It's a way of evading responsibility.
We tend to scorn people who take this attitude when it comes to someone having a heart attack or choking to death. Or, god forbid, just having a flat tire.
But it's somehow thought to be okay when people take this attitude around shootings. Not just okay. Encouraged!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If the NRA expects armed teachers to be a solution to the problem, they must expect that teachers will act as armed body guards.
There's a difference between expecting teachers to act as armed body guards and expecting that many teachers will want to defend the children in their class.
For one thing, Kate, your assertion that any person who might choose to risk their life to save innocents is equivalent to an "armed body guard" is pretty grotesque. I think it cheapens their good motives.
Unless you think "armed body guard" is a positive appellation, and I've misread you. In which case I apologize.
I think that being an armed guard is a perfectly honorable thing to be if you are qualified to do the job, if that is what you signed up for, and are being paid to do.
Right. So a private citizen risking their life to defend innocent people around them is acting like an armed guard without proper training, right? So that's bad, in your book. Right?
I seem to remember a case recently involving a young unarmed teenage boy, and a man who thought he was a security guard, but had no proper training or authorization. Things ended badly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I didn't say that "what is needed is just a private citizen willing to risk their life"... but private citizens are there while police are still minutes away. Sometimes that can make a difference.
There's that word again: 'sometimes'. Of course it's perfectly accurate if you don't qualify 'make a difference'.
quote:Especially in the case of deranged shooters, who almost always cave in and kill themselves the moment they encounter any significant threatening resistance (usually in the form of police arriving)
Would a single individual citizen be sufficient to trigger the suicide? Well, maybe. Of course, perhaps not in which case it's then a gunfight in a crowded area, which may or may not be worse than what the lunatic would've been able to manage on their own. Maybe it will give the guy a spine, having successfully murdered a gun wielding teacher, to continue fighting longer. Who knows? I sure don't.
How on Earth do you?
quote:I think that the idea of "No, that's not your responsibility, you shouldn't do anything, leave it for the police to handle," is a totally messed up and prevalent attitude in our society. It's a way of evading responsibility.
Absolutely. I'll keep this in mind when I see someone sick, and they need a complex medical procedure. My CPR classes will certainly be enough, and I know won't make things worse because responsibility.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I think that the idea of "No, that's not your responsibility, you shouldn't do anything, leave it for the police to handle," is a totally messed up and prevalent attitude in our society. It's a way of evading responsibility.
Absolutely. I'll keep this in mind when I see someone sick, and they need a complex medical procedure. My CPR classes will certainly be enough, and I know won't make things worse because responsibility.
Is there any point in conversing with you when you act like this?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, mega snarky. But Dan, I am *certain* you are able to imagine the ways in which 'armed private citizen on the scene' might be a very good thing, or might be a very bad thing.
Except instead of having *that* conversation, the one about how do we decide if this would actually be a good thing (really the first conversation that ought to be had, or high on the list) there is a brief piety about responsibility and some limited talk about making a difference.
All of that, incidentally, is *still* before we have the conversation about what's to be done with all of the dangerous criminals, lunatics, and/or negligent gun owners this idea would unleash because we are already told *now* it is too difficult to attempt to prevent them from having guns. So now they won't even have to assault a school checkpoint (a goddamned school checkpoint), they'll be able to open fire right in the cafeteria line or library reading pit or auditorium or stadium.
Maybe one of the other gun owners will be close enough and capable enough and lucky enough. *Maybe.* But it's not open and shut!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Right. So a private citizen risking their life to defend innocent people around them is acting like an armed guard without proper training, right? So that's bad, in your book. Right?
People who are packing heat in a school with the express purpose of being that school's vanguard against violent invaders had better damned well be officers of the law. No exceptions. None of this garbage proposed by the NRA to collect enthusiastic volunteers. None of this implicit obligation on teachers to keep guns in classrooms.
Even then, officers in schools (greatly depending on the ethical environment and culture of the district) have often ended up being more trouble than they are worth, terrorizing students and acting like goons. Districts will have to weigh the risk of lack of qualification when they consider the noble NRA proposal to have a series of geriatric NRA volunteers play home arsenal hall cowboy, as well as the absolute apocalyptic hell they will catch if an accidental gun discharge or an overzealous confrontation by a geriatric hall cowboy or whoever picked up their neglectfully unsecured gun results in anyone being injured or killed. Or what happens if a heroic armed teacher's gun gets discovered by a student and this results in a serious event, as is infinitely more likely than said gun actually successfully being used to prevent an armed intruder from killing students.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yeah, mega snarky. But Dan, I am *certain* you are able to imagine the ways in which 'armed private citizen on the scene' might be a very good thing, or might be a very bad thing.
Thanks for acknowledging it. I can definitely imagine such scenarios.
But I do think a single, random, crazed armed person is more akin to a guy who could use some basic first aid, CPR, etc. A situation where, yes, a layperson could fail to improve the situation, but nevertheless the right move is for them to try. Because if they do nothing, things will surely keep getting worse and worse.
The analogy for someone with a complex medical problem where any inexperienced intervention could cause disaster is more like a terrorist hostage situation, or something similar. Where they aren't already killing indiscriminately, so there's a strong incentive for a careful, thoughtful, precise response.
I don't see massacre shootings like that. I'm inclined to think any action is worth taking. Because taking no action will just lead to an ever increasing body count, won't it?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: All of that, incidentally, is *still* before we have the conversation about what's to be done with all of the dangerous criminals, lunatics, and/or negligent gun owners this idea would unleash because we are already told *now* it is too difficult to attempt to prevent them from having guns. . .
Isn't the issue more that it's hard to keep guns out of their hands because, e.g. they can take them from their friends and family?
I mean, yes, also some crazies can get past background checks. Okay. But there are way more non-crazies than there are crazies, right? So if lots of people in a school were armed, it's unreasonable to think that only crazies would be the ones armed. Isn't it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think that the idea of "No, that's not your responsibility, you shouldn't do anything, leave it for the police to handle," is a totally messed up and prevalent attitude in our society. It's a way of evading responsibility.
We tend to scorn people who take this attitude when it comes to someone having a heart attack or choking to death. Or, god forbid, just having a flat tire.
But it's somehow thought to be okay when people take this attitude around shootings. Not just okay. Encouraged!
Do you really honestly think that the issue about 'taking responsibility' against armed gunmen in schools is even roughly equivalent to fixing your own flat tire? Like, genuine question. Do you think the concerns about someone performing the Heimlich maneuver on a person choking on food are in any way equivalent to the concerns about what happens when a person whips out a gun in the chaos of some sort of attack? In trying to dislodge food from someone's throat or tending to someone who is presumably having a heart attack, the AED is not going to potentially blow some bystanders' head off if it is used incorrectly as an emergency response in the panic of the moment.
and if it did, there would be no public AED units and the only people allowed to use them would be qualified and tested paramedics. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Also, a choking person isn't going to start choking another person every few seconds. They're analogies. The operative, relevant factor is whether or not it is worth it to do something or to wait passively for experts to arrive and fix everything.
Can you explain how, in the case of a massacre situation, it's actually better to do nothing? How an armed bystander fighting back is actually going to make things worse? Let's say they shoot two innocent people by accident. Okay. Did they actually make that situation worse? Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
If you make the school impenetrable the would-be shooter goes somewhere else. And there's a point in that having a wealth of guns could lead to a bad level of accessibility. You relocate one tragedy and you risk creating another; having a police officer makes more sense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yes, they're analogies -- the issue being that they're so detached from being relevant comparisons that it brings up questions that they are even brought up at all.
quote:Let's say they shoot two innocent people by accident. Okay. Did they actually make that situation worse?
Yes. They shot two innocent people by accident.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
That said, there are armed security present on every Junior College campus I've ever been to, and I've never seen anyone of them terrorize students or act like goons but I'm not sure what that would look like.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, it really depended on where your school was and what your precinct was like. We had police officers on duty every day at my high school and they were great. Combine anecdote from all around the nation, though, and people's school patrol police experiences are filled with reliably terrible stories.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan: are the only two options 'passively do nothing' or 'attack the attacker with gunfire'?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Well then I advocate the outsourcing of all of these posts, to the law officers of my great home, the profound intellectual paradise of Orange County. We have are shit together.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Can you explain how, in the case of a massacre situation, it's actually better to do nothing? How an armed bystander fighting back is actually going to make things worse? Let's say they shoot two innocent people by accident. Okay. Did they actually make that situation worse?
I feel like you're not really trying. I mean seriously?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: That said, there are armed security present on every Junior College campus I've ever been to, and I've never seen anyone of them terrorize students or act like goons but I'm not sure what that would look like.
Junior College != public high school, elementary school, etc.
There are entire police departments on some college campuses. They are dealing with a population of adults.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Can you explain how, in the case of a massacre situation, it's actually better to do nothing? How an armed bystander fighting back is actually going to make things worse? Let's say they shoot two innocent people by accident. Okay. Did they actually make that situation worse?
I feel like you're not really trying. I mean seriously?
"Trying?" I'm being sincere, if that's what you mean.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Let's say they shoot two innocent people by accident. Okay. Did they actually make that situation worse?
Yes. They shot two innocent people by accident.
Did that make things worse? First of all, what if in so doing they also stop the shooter and save X number of further victims?
What if, during the time it took the shooter to engage and kill this person, he would have otherwise killed 4 other victims? Then they saved 2 people.
We can play games like that all day, and in countless scenarios the numbers work one way, or the other. Approaching the scenario from a perspective of numbers is fundamentally flawed for that reason.
Trying to stop the shooter creates more opportunities to stop the violence, though. It's an attempt at a solution. It has the potential to save many lives. If a particular implementation is done imperfectly, and causes collateral damage, that doesn't mean that the idea is flawed.
Hell, what's the substantive moral difference between such a bystander trying to stop a shooter and a cop trying to stop a shooter? Likelihood of success, maybe. But is that a moral difference?
Is it wrong for a fat and out of shape cop to try and stop a shooter, because he's less skilled than a young cop in top fighting trim?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Can you explain how, in the case of a massacre situation, it's actually better to do nothing? How an armed bystander fighting back is actually going to make things worse? Let's say they shoot two innocent people by accident. Okay. Did they actually make that situation worse?
I feel like you're not really trying. I mean seriously?
"Trying?" I'm being sincere, if that's what you mean.
You're not putting forth much an effort from where I'm sitting. If you can't acknowledge the rich shades of grey between a massacre situation and the average tuesday, and then think long and hard about what having guns in people's pockets or around their ankles, in a school, day after day, for years, everywhere, means in practical terms, then you aren't giving this your full attention.
Because a question like that, one in which you define all the terms, for the specific purpose of impeaching an argument against allowing guns in school, *still* reeks of shoddy thinking. Could a bystander with a gun make a massacre situation worse? Yes. They could.
But here's the part where even asking such a dumb question isn't trying very hard: Could a bystander with a gun make the average tuesday worse? Also yes. They could.
Now, what do we know about the statistical likelihood of the latter over the former? Conveniently we are aware that the latter is overwhelmingly more likely. I am aware that is not a fact that the NRA nor you find convenient to your thinking. But it remains so.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Is it wrong for a fat and out of shape cop to try and stop a shooter, because he's less skilled than a young cop in top fighting trim?
No, but that's not really the question at all.
quote:We can play games like that all day, and in countless scenarios the numbers work one way, or the other. Approaching the scenario from a perspective of numbers is fundamentally flawed for that reason.
Then why play games and ask questions like that? You're denouncing your own game after you play it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think we call that an appeal to incredulity based on appeals to anecdote. Basically he's saying the argument is null because the way *he* approaches the argument is flawed. That's very interesting.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sam, by saying that he made the situation worse because his attempt to stop it cost lives, you are playing that game. That's my point.
Or is it also wrong if a bystander tries to stop a shooter and succeeds without killing anyone else?
The reason you said the one scenario is wrong is because you're thinking about the situation the wrong way. That's what I was illustrating above.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think we call that an appeal to incredulity based on appeals to anecdote. Basically he's saying the argument is null because the way *he* approaches the argument is flawed. That's very interesting.
You made ridiculous assertions about me a page ago, and when it was spelled out that you were wrong, you vanished. Now you come back just in time to continue the same tactic. Sigh. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hmm? Oh, no. You got all huffy about having used an incorrectly formatted source as the basis of an interpretation, which was wrong anyway. And then you expected everyone else to look at your source when addressing what you said, to explain why it was wrong. What am I going to do? Make you see how stupid you looked? I thought you didn't want to dwell on it, but I guess you did.
By the way, nice ad hom -you don't want to talk about why your arguments are stupid, so you need to talk about why the person telling you they're stupid is a mean person. I am a mean person, but your arguments would be just as stupid if I weren't the one saying so. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Hmm? Oh, no. You got all huffy about having used an incorrectly formatted source as the basis of an interpretation, which was wrong anyway. And then you expected everyone else to look at your source when addressing what you said, to explain why it was wrong. What am I going to do? Make you see how stupid you looked? I thought you didn't want to dwell on it, but I guess you did.
No, the source was formatted perfectly fine. You still haven't cared enough about the conversation you're participating in to look at readily available facts. You're intellectually lazy.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: By the way, nice ad hom -you don't want to talk about why your arguments are stupid, so you need to talk about why the person telling you they're stupid is a mean person. I am a mean person, but your arguments would be just as stupid if I weren't the one saying so.
Was there something substantive that I didn't respond to?
In my response to Sam I already explained that I wasn't saying what you claimed I was saying. What more response did you want?
It was a meta comment, not ad hominem.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dan...you keep tangling with the most sarcastic, caustic, right fighters the 'rack has to offer and seem to be surprised when they play dirty pool.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
You're right that this is playing games. What you don't appear to recognize, or perhaps rather recognize intermittently, is that just as the objections you're hearing are founded in what-ifs, so too is the initial suggestion of armed teachers, cafeteria workers, administrators, and so on. It's far from a proven point that even if we are *only* to consider mass shootings, and completely ignore the much deadlier and more common ordinary sorts of crime, that having all of these armed people in a situation is likely, overall, to serve as an improvement. It's a faith-based argument on your part, but you're objecting to faith -based rebuttals as 'games'.
I'm not sure why you think this double-standard should pass without remark, since the reasons you explain for why it should are profoundly strange. Responsibility? Flat tires? What the heck? How can one possibly look at gun violence in this country, so much absurdly higher than anywhere else in the developed world, and think that the insights it gives us into American character is that we don't show enough responsibility by trying to intervene in mass shootings? Responsibility? The best, most effective responsibility is proactive and preventative, but in this country it is a bitter political fight that requires dozens of bodies on the ground to even *begin* to *contemplate* more of a preventative approach. Responsibility, indeed.
quote:Trying to stop the shooter creates more opportunities to stop the violence, though. It's an attempt at a solution. It has the potential to save many lives. If a particular implementation is done imperfectly, and causes collateral damage, that doesn't mean that the idea is flawed.
You're speaking as though 'trying to stop the shooter' has only one general outcome: an opportunity to stop the shooter, whether successful or not. There are all sorts of 'games' that can be played with this outlook, but to pivot in a different direction: again, why are the only two courses you're entertaining here 'wait passively and do nothing' or 'attack the shooter'? Why isn't, say, 'break a window and start tossing kids out of it' a possibility? Or 'hide kids in cabinets and make a huge racket in a different direction'? Or 'attempt to use delaying talk'? Or something like that? I'm not suggesting these as ideal, I'm only highlighting just how much you're skipping over that might also, in fact, save lives...without having the dubious virtue of heroically taking down the shooter in one badass swoop. The choices you've put out there, whether you intended them to be inclusive or not, are literally 'apathetic cowering' or 'aggressive self-defense'.
Another thing to note: actual professionals don't generally seem too thrilled at the notion of civilians trying to intervene with violence in armed confrontations. Mass shootings are unique in many ways, but it's something to remember.
All of that aside, you *still* seem to be sidestepping almost entirely-though the conversation is moving fast now, and if I missed it please point me appropriately-the problem of what we're going to do about the higher likelihood of violence all of these extra lethal tools of violence will offer. Or the very real problem of what it means if murderous lunatics have a way to legally carry firearms where they couldn't before, to say nothing of negligence or even tragic accidents that happen in spite of proper diligence.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: That said, there are armed security present on every Junior College campus I've ever been to, and I've never seen anyone of them terrorize students or act like goons but I'm not sure what that would look like.
Junior College != public high school, elementary school, etc.
There are entire police departments on some college campuses. They are dealing with a population of adults.
Don't think that would make a substantial difference, as to whether or not they 'terrorize students'. But that might depend on your interpretation of that term, so...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: All of that aside, you *still* seem to be sidestepping almost entirely-though the conversation is moving fast now, and if I missed it please point me appropriately-the problem of what we're going to do about the higher likelihood of violence all of these extra lethal tools of violence will offer. Or the very real problem of what it means if murderous lunatics have a way to legally carry firearms where they couldn't before, to say nothing of negligence or even tragic accidents that happen in spite of proper diligence.
Can you explain why you think that more people being legally able to carry guns in more situations would result in a higher likelihood of violence?
I don't understand that jump. What are the reasons?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: That said, there are armed security present on every Junior College campus I've ever been to, and I've never seen anyone of them terrorize students or act like goons but I'm not sure what that would look like.
Junior College != public high school, elementary school, etc.
There are entire police departments on some college campuses. They are dealing with a population of adults.
Don't think that would make a substantial difference, as to whether or not they 'terrorize students'. But that might depend on your interpretation of that term, so...
Really? I think it makes a tremendous amount of difference.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Hmm? Oh, no. You got all huffy about having used an incorrectly formatted source as the basis of an interpretation, which was wrong anyway. And then you expected everyone else to look at your source when addressing what you said, to explain why it was wrong. What am I going to do? Make you see how stupid you looked? I thought you didn't want to dwell on it, but I guess you did.
No, the source was formatted perfectly fine. You still haven't cared enough about the conversation you're participating in to look at readily available facts. You're intellectually lazy.
I'm not intellectually lazy. I exercise it every day. It does for me things I wouldn't expect you to even understand.
This is not me being intellectually lazy. This is me being lazy. Not the same thing.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: By the way, nice ad hom -you don't want to talk about why your arguments are stupid, so you need to talk about why the person telling you they're stupid is a mean person. I am a mean person, but your arguments would be just as stupid if I weren't the one saying so.
Was there something substantive that I didn't respond to?
In my response to Sam I already explained that I wasn't saying what you claimed I was saying. What more response did you want?
It was a meta comment, not ad hominem.
No, it was an ad hominem: specifically, attacking me and my motivations (intellectual "laziness," and etc), instead of what I actually say.
As for the rest, as per your usual pattern, when your "arguments," (to use the term loosely), are refuted, you usually make the same claim: "I wasn't saying what you claimed I was saying."
Yes, of course. You were never saying that idiot thing that you seemed to be saying. This is never your fault. Never something you communicated poorly. Of course, I'm not claiming to be surprised that it isn't ever your fault, because it isn't ever actually miscommunication or misreading. You just don't actually like what the things you say mean when people point out to you what they actually mean. And you never like to admit that this isn't because we're just being mean, but because what you've said makes no sense -when and if you actually understand why that is. And when not, no bother -you can well assume, you've been misread.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright, but only if you explain your apparent conviction it won't.
First, I wouldn't go so far as to say I think more guns would equate to more violence-just that I think there is a very good chance, and that before we jump headlong into that risk we ought to have a better understanding of the likelihoods than we do. And to observe that the Second Amendment is not actually a reason why we *should*, rather it's a reason we *could*.
As to why I think there is a high likelihood: first, we already have far more guns and far more violence than other human societies we can compare ourselves to. Such comparisons will never be perfect-but then that never stops Second Amendment advocates from talking about Stalin and Hitler, so I'm afraid we simply must agree that we *can* in fact look to other societies for the beginnings of understanding as to 'what is likely to happen'.
What that examination plainly shows us, it seems to me, is that more guns don't, in fact, equate to a safer less violent society. They simply don't. The only societies we can look to for a positive example-Switzerland being a big one-universally require a substantially more serious stance from the government on insisting on responsible gun ownership from its citizens than Second Amendment advocates here (yes, this is one of the many reasons the NRA comes up repeatedly, because they're *relevant*) are willing to even talk about.
Simply put, the aphorism about armed and polite societies isn't borne out by a glance at ours, but one only has to look abroad for an easy example of societies that are both polite and disarmed.
The other main reason I think there is a high likelihood of increased violence is twofold. One, Second Amendment advocates tell us it is too difficult or unreliable to take the measures necessary to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous lunatics-which begs the question of why on Earth we should believe that openly permitting them in many more places wouldn't necessarily put quite a few guns into the hands of the mentally ill, the criminal, or the negligent. Then there's the whole throwing in of a crapload of kids, along with the observation that we have a hard time paying even excellent teachers really solid wages but now we want them to serve as armed guards as well. So on and so forth.
The other reason being that you *still* have failed to explain why the solution to gun violence needs to be more guns in the hands of more people. Second Amendment advocates haven't actually *made* that argument yet, they've simply presented it as a given and rolled their eyes when questioned on it.
You've skipped an important step-a large part of why I've gotten so friggin' exasperated with you in this discussion. Your suggestion (and the NRA's, again why they come up so often) is simply: this works, it's obvious, and if you can't prove right now that it doesn't to a hostile audience (us), then let us throw a lot more guns at the problem until time shows you that we're right.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: That said, there are armed security present on every Junior College campus I've ever been to, and I've never seen anyone of them terrorize students or act like goons but I'm not sure what that would look like.
Junior College != public high school, elementary school, etc.
There are entire police departments on some college campuses. They are dealing with a population of adults.
Don't think that would make a substantial difference, as to whether or not they 'terrorize students'. But that might depend on your interpretation of that term, so...
Really? I think it makes a tremendous amount of difference.
After thinking about it for a few minutes, I'm probably more conflicted about what I said that when I first said it. But a lot of the security at my schools seem like genuinely great people, and I don't think they would pull a 180 in a highschool setting; it would make a difference, though, sure. They would be more on edge, at least.
And we had security at my highschool. They weren't armed, and it's not a perfect example either, but the most important factor is the capability of the person in question to not be a tool.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ]I'm not intellectually lazy. I exercise it every day. It does for me things I wouldn't expect you to even understand.
This is not me being intellectually lazy. This is me being lazy. Not the same thing.
You're being lazy in a critical discussion. I'd call that intellectual laziness. No?
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: By the way, nice ad hom -you don't want to talk about why your arguments are stupid, so you need to talk about why the person telling you they're stupid is a mean person. I am a mean person, but your arguments would be just as stupid if I weren't the one saying so.
Was there something substantive that I didn't respond to?
In my response to Sam I already explained that I wasn't saying what you claimed I was saying. What more response did you want?
It was a meta comment, not ad hominem.
No, it was an ad hominem: specifically, attacking me and my motivations (intellectual "laziness," and etc), instead of what I actually say.
Again, I'd already addressed what you said, inasmuch as you said anything, when I was speaking to Sam.
An ad hominem would be to say that your argument is bad because you are lazy.
But I'm not dismissing what you've said because you're lazy. I'm pointing out that the reason why what you've said has no bearing on reality is a symptom of your laziness. If you weren't so lazy, you'd have a better chance of contributing meaningfully to the conversation.
Instead, you're crying about ad homs. You sound like Blayne.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: As for the rest, as per your usual pattern, when your "arguments," (to use the term loosely), are refuted, you usually make the same claim: "I wasn't saying what you claimed I was saying."
Yes, of course. You were never saying that idiot thing that you seemed to be saying. This is never your fault. Never something you communicated poorly. Of course, I'm not claiming to be surprised that it isn't ever your fault, because it isn't ever actually miscommunication or misreading. You just don't actually like what the things you say mean when people point out to you what they actually mean. And you never like to admit that this isn't because we're just being mean, but because what you've said makes no sense -when and if you actually understand why that is. And when not, no bother -you can well assume, you've been misread.
What are you even saying here?
Is there any actual content in this paragraph you'd like me to address?
If you actually paid attention, you'd know that it doesn't bother me when people are "mean," dude. But if the person talking to me offers no valuable contribution, what's the point of talking to them? They have nothing to offer me.
Right now, it seems like you have nothing to offer me. If you change your mind later, though, I'll be happy to talk.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Alright, but only if you explain your apparent conviction it won't.
Hm? I don't have "conviction" about anything, Rakeesh. I mean, I'm skeptical of assertions that liberalized gun laws would have a substantial impact one way or the other.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: First, I wouldn't go so far as to say I think more guns would equate to more violence-just that I think there is a very good chance, and that before we jump headlong into that risk we ought to have a better understanding of the likelihoods than we do. And to observe that the Second Amendment is not actually a reason why we *should*, rather it's a reason we *could*.
I agree that the 2nd Amendment could only ever be a reason we could, not a reason we should.
But... That still leaves the question: Why do you think it's very likely to increase violence or murder?
So let's keep reading.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As to why I think there is a high likelihood: first, we already have far more guns and far more violence than other human societies we can compare ourselves to. Such comparisons will never be perfect-but then that never stops Second Amendment advocates from talking about Stalin and Hitler, so I'm afraid we simply must agree that we *can* in fact look to other societies for the beginnings of understanding as to 'what is likely to happen'.
I'd take the opposite stance. Every such comparison I've ever seen took huge leaps of logic and ignored numerous statistical contradictions to their chosen conclusion.
Just because other gun rights advocates use bad arguments based on scientism and narrow interpretations of statistics doesn't mean it's okay for you to do so.
If there's a particularly compelling statistics-based argument you'd like to share, though, I'm open to reading it.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The other main reason I think there is a high likelihood of increased violence is twofold. One, Second Amendment advocates tell us it is too difficult or unreliable to take the measures necessary to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous lunatics-which begs the question of why on Earth we should believe that openly permitting them in many more places wouldn't necessarily put quite a few guns into the hands of the mentally ill, the criminal, or the negligent.
Criminals? Dangerous lunatics? ... Why would changing the laws regarding carrying firearms meaningfully effect the behavior of people who break those laws?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Then there's the whole throwing in of a crapload of kids, along with the observation that we have a hard time paying even excellent teachers really solid wages but now we want them to serve as armed guards as well. So on and so forth.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I already addressed some issues surrounding the "Teachers as armed guards" idea above...
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The other reason being that you *still* have failed to explain why the solution to gun violence needs to be more guns in the hands of more people. Second Amendment advocates haven't actually *made* that argument yet, they've simply presented it as a given and rolled their eyes when questioned on it.
You've skipped an important step-a large part of why I've gotten so friggin' exasperated with you in this discussion. Your suggestion (and the NRA's, again why they come up so often) is simply: this works, it's obvious, and if you can't prove right now that it doesn't to a hostile audience (us), then let us throw a lot more guns at the problem until time shows you that we're right.
Can you explain why you think that's what I'm saying? I don't think any argument is obvious, at all. I'm not asking you to prove anything, I'm asking to explain why you think it.
Finally: you're saying I'm not offering any arguments. Okay... Almost every mass shooting in history occurred in a gun-free zone. So, is that significant? It seems like a plausible explanation for this fact is that people who want to go murder lots of innocent people want to reliably believe that none of their victims will pose a significant threat to them.
Refute away.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Well then I advocate the outsourcing of all of these posts, to the law officers of my great home, the profound intellectual paradise of Orange County. We have are shit together.
Jesse?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Imagine that every single gunman who got shot down was just starting a killing spree and got interrupted, and again imagine that every single killing spree was stopped by armed goodies before they got to more than a couple victims, just how many lives would "gun violence" have saved?
Just to be clear, I do not adhere to the "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" philosophy.
I wonder, why more discussion time hasn't been devoted to non lethal solutions. Sticky nets, tazers, diarrhea gun (causes not shoots), long distance pepper spray, expanding foam, etc as nauseam. Surely non police personnel could be trusted with disabling weapons which pose little to no permanent harm?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Instead, you're crying about ad homs. You sound like Blayne.
Nice ad hom???
Almost every mass shooting in history took place in a gun free zone?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: ?
Was that a no? It didn't really sound like one . . . Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Jesse actually posts here occasionally as The Genuine. I don't think he has any alts.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Instead, you're crying about ad homs. You sound like Blayne.
Nice ad hom???
Almost every mass shooting in history took place in a gun free zone?
Sorry, imprecise use of language.
Almost every mass shooting in US history, since gun free zones became commonplace, has occurred in a gun free zone.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Jesse actually posts here occasionally as The Genuine.
I know.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Finally: you're saying I'm not offering any arguments. Okay... Almost every mass shooting in history occurred in a gun-free zone. So, is that significant? It seems like a plausible explanation for this fact is that people who want to go murder lots of innocent people want to reliably believe that none of their victims will pose a significant threat to them.
First of all, as well have a salt free patch in the middle of the Pacific. Second, if this is so, if we're going to use this 'seems to be', why aren't there just constant mass shootings throughout the Western world? Hell, why aren't there constant shootings just past the Canadian border?
That reads much more like a gotcha question. Did you mean it seriously? Was that intended to be a compelling point?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Instead, you're crying about ad homs. You sound like Blayne.
Nice ad hom???
Almost every mass shooting in history took place in a gun free zone?
Sorry, imprecise use of language.
Almost every mass shooting in US history, since gun free zones became commonplace, has occurred in a gun free zone.
I want you to go through this list and tell us what percentage of these shootings took place in a gun-free zone.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Instead, you're crying about ad homs. You sound like Blayne.
Nice ad hom???
Almost every mass shooting in history took place in a gun free zone?
Sorry, imprecise use of language.
Almost every mass shooting in US history, since gun free zones became commonplace, has occurred in a gun free zone.
I want you to go through this list and tell us what percentage of these shootings took place in a gun-free zone.
If you want to refute my point, shouldn't you do the legwork? Most of the stats I've seen lag (understandably) a couple years, due to, you know, gathering the relevant data and stuff.
Anyway, I'll do a few of them as best I can just with Google. Going down the list...
Clackamas Town Center, Oregon - Yeah, gun free zone. Outside is the sign "No weapons, legal or illegal allowed."
Accent Signage Systems - Hard to find a good source, but I've found a few sources that explicitly claim it was. Is that mistaken? It was a place of business, right? That's pretty common at office buildings. Most offices I've worked at, certainly.
Sikh Temple - Not sure about this one, either. I can't find any explicit info about whether or not they had any posted signs about no guns allowed. Places of worship usually do, though.
Dark Knight Rises - Yeah, not only was it a gun free theater, of the several theaters near the shooter, it was supposedly the only gun-free one in the lot. Go figure.
Cafe Racer - Dunno. Read claims that it was, but can't get sufficient cites.
Tulsa, OK, racial shooting - Dunno.
Oikos University - School in CA, so, yeah. Gun free!
Chardon High School, OH - School. Gun free.
Hair Salon in Seal Beach - Looks like it was a gun free zone too.
IHOP in Carson City - Dunno about gun free status.
Gabby Giffords - I know this one was not in a gun free zone. It was in AZ, after all.
Hartford Beer Distributor - Again, seen claims it was a gun free zone. I don't know how to verify that claim, though.
Fort Hood - Army base, so that's a gun-free zone. (There would've been guns on the premises, in the armory, but you're not allowed to wander the premises of the installation with a sidearm.)
Immigration Center - Once again, seen several claims it was gun free. Seems especially plausible given the location and nature of the business.
Pinelake Nursing Home - Confirmed gun free zone.
Northern IL University Lecture Hall - School in IL. Gun free.
City Hall in Kirkwood, MO - Government building. Gun free.
Westroads Mall - Like many malls, this was definitely a gun free zone.
V-Tech - School. Gun free zone, and infamously so.
I think I'm gonna take a break now.
One thing I've noticed, though... a problem with many of these is that to verify claims of whether or not it's gun-free I basically need to get in touch with someone who lives out there. Unless someone's already verified it for me, which isn't always the case.
"No weapons allowed," or some permutation, is a common policy. And if it appears, then the place in question is a gun free zone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Imagine that every single gunman who got shot down was just starting a killing spree and got interrupted, and again imagine that every single killing spree was stopped by armed goodies before they got to more than a couple victims, just how many lives would "gun violence" have saved?
[/quote We have to imagine it because that isn't what generally happens.[quote]
I wonder, why more discussion time hasn't been devoted to non lethal solutions. Sticky nets, tazers, diarrhea gun (causes not shoots), long distance pepper spray, expanding foam, etc as nauseam. Surely non police personnel could be trusted with disabling weapons which pose little to no permanent harm?
Because the NRA's clients don't sell those things?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
quote:Hm? I don't have "conviction" about anything, Rakeesh. I mean, I'm skeptical of assertions that liberalized gun laws would have a substantial impact one way or the other.
Hrm. There seems to be a skip in the track, so to speak. If you're skeptical that restricting access to guns to people *wouldn't* have an impact, how is it that you can believe that increasing *would* have an impact?
quote:I'd take the opposite stance. Every such comparison I've ever seen took huge leaps of logic and ignored numerous statistical contradictions to their chosen conclusion.
So then there is nothing to learn by examining other societies, as close to ours as we can find in the world, and measuring their numbers of guns and rates of gun violence? America is that exceptional and peerless?
quote:If there's a particularly compelling statistics-based argument you'd like to share, though, I'm open to reading it.
Frankly I have never met a Second Amendment advocate who, when entering a statistics-based discussion, didn't quickly pivot to statistics about prevented crime and that was the only statistic they were ever interested in.
quote:Criminals? Dangerous lunatics? ... Why would changing the laws regarding carrying firearms meaningfully effect the behavior of people who break those laws?
Wait...so now criminals pay no attention to the law? A criminal just breaks every single law all the time? This is one of the things that is so galling about these discussions-the notion that criminals will break the law, period, so there is no use in crafting new or different laws because they won't have an impact on 'the criminals'. By this reasoning, all drug dealers everywhere carry on their persons as much drugs as they like with no concern for the law, because they're criminals.
There's been a suggestion about non-lethal weaponization of employees at schools. If we're going to just toss up our hands as a society and say that there just isn't any way we can be more like our sister societies throughout the world where mass shootings and gun violence aren't as much of a concern-something Second Amendment advocates are so very, very quick to do-then this seems to me to be an excellent idea. Strangely, though, the idea hasn't ever been given much media attention.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If you want to refute my point, shouldn't you do the legwork? Most of the stats I've seen lag (understandably) a couple years, due to, you know, gathering the relevant data and stuff.
Many of those were not gun-free zones. So the issue is, if you didn't know, why were you claiming it as a fact? Where did that fact come from? Where were the stats that "almost every mass shooting" was in a gun-free zone?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Many of them weren't in gun free zones, Sam? What are you basing that assertion on?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan,
quote:Hm? I don't have "conviction" about anything, Rakeesh. I mean, I'm skeptical of assertions that liberalized gun laws would have a substantial impact one way or the other.
Hrm. There seems to be a skip in the track, so to speak. If you're skeptical that restricting access to guns to people *wouldn't* have an impact, how is it that you can believe that increasing *would* have an impact?
quote:I'd take the opposite stance. Every such comparison I've ever seen took huge leaps of logic and ignored numerous statistical contradictions to their chosen conclusion.
So then there is nothing to learn by examining other societies, as close to ours as we can find in the world, and measuring their numbers of guns and rates of gun violence? America is that exceptional and peerless?
quote:If there's a particularly compelling statistics-based argument you'd like to share, though, I'm open to reading it.
Frankly I have never met a Second Amendment advocate who, when entering a statistics-based discussion, didn't quickly pivot to statistics about prevented crime and that was the only statistic they were ever interested in.
quote:Criminals? Dangerous lunatics? ... Why would changing the laws regarding carrying firearms meaningfully effect the behavior of people who break those laws?
Wait...so now criminals pay no attention to the law? A criminal just breaks every single law all the time? This is one of the things that is so galling about these discussions-the notion that criminals will break the law, period, so there is no use in crafting new or different laws because they won't have an impact on 'the criminals'. By this reasoning, all drug dealers everywhere carry on their persons as much drugs as they like with no concern for the law, because they're criminals.
There's been a suggestion about non-lethal weaponization of employees at schools. If we're going to just toss up our hands as a society and say that there just isn't any way we can be more like our sister societies throughout the world where mass shootings and gun violence aren't as much of a concern-something Second Amendment advocates are so very, very quick to do-then this seems to me to be an excellent idea. Strangely, though, the idea hasn't ever been given much media attention.
If the first paragraph is just applied to mass shootings, they're more than likely to be willing a buy a gun illegally. But there's more that it could be applied to, so y'know.
And I 100% agree with the second paragraph.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Wait, a gun free zone now also includes any private land or business where the owners individually decide not to allow guns? It used to be areas legally zoned not to allow guns, period.
And if gun free zones are the problem (they are not, Canada has more but surprisingly doesn't have the same problem with constant shootings) what is the solution, tell private property owners that they aren't allowed to ban guns in their property?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Wait, a gun free zone now also includes any private land or business where the owners individually decide not to allow guns? It used to be areas legally zoned not to allow guns, period.
And if gun free zones are the problem (they are not, Canada has more but surprisingly doesn't have the same problem with constant shootings) what is the solution, tell private property owners that they aren't allowed to ban guns in their property?
Yep, because the best (only?) solution to any problem is more laws.
Non-Snarky Edit: Parkour, if "gun-free zone" is a legislative term, with a specific legal definition, and that's the proper definition, then my mistake. I was definitely using it as a shorthand term for "place in which it is illegal to carry guns." Sorry if that was confusing.
[ December 27, 2012, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Finally: you're saying I'm not offering any arguments. Okay... Almost every mass shooting in history occurred in a gun-free zone. So, is that significant? It seems like a plausible explanation for this fact is that people who want to go murder lots of innocent people want to reliably believe that none of their victims will pose a significant threat to them.
First of all, as well have a salt free patch in the middle of the Pacific.
Yeah, if I'm understanding the sentiment you're expressing here correctly, then I agree. It's ludicrous, and only serves to deter the most responsible gun owners. The crazy, the angry, the incompetent, and the just plain neglectful gun owners will all be able to go right on carrying guns in such places.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Second, if this is so, if we're going to use this 'seems to be', why aren't there just constant mass shootings throughout the Western world? Hell, why aren't there constant shootings just past the Canadian border?
That reads much more like a gotcha question. Did you mean it seriously? Was that intended to be a compelling point?
I didn't mean it as a gotcha (where's the part where I get you?)... and I did mean it seriously... but I don't know how "compelling" it's supposed to be.
I find it interesting. I wonder what's the best explanation for it.
Contrary to what Parkour implies above, I don't think that it's the fundamental problem behind gun violence or whatever. I've said several times now, I don't think that there is a single fundamental problem behind gun violence. Not unless you're talking in really broad terms.
Consequently, I also don't think there is some single great solution to gun violence. My skepticism at other people's ideas for solutions doesn't mean I think I have all the answers.
You made another, longer post I haven't replied to yet. I'll get on that now. Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The most central problem is mental health, second being guns, third being security--it would be difficult, even in a population of many armed, good intending people, to stop someone from killing at least 3-5 people, in my opinion.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan,
quote:Hm? I don't have "conviction" about anything, Rakeesh. I mean, I'm skeptical of assertions that liberalized gun laws would have a substantial impact one way or the other.
Hrm. There seems to be a skip in the track, so to speak. If you're skeptical that restricting access to guns to people *wouldn't* have an impact, how is it that you can believe that increasing *would* have an impact?
Oh, that's easy. I don't! I think it's entirely possible that gun laws would have an overall minimal effect one way or the other.
I'm mostly wary of tightened gun laws on principle, not because I'm certain that "more guns = less crime" (though I do plan to read the book with that title).
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I'd take the opposite stance. Every such comparison I've ever seen took huge leaps of logic and ignored numerous statistical contradictions to their chosen conclusion.
So then there is nothing to learn by examining other societies, as close to ours as we can find in the world, and measuring their numbers of guns and rates of gun violence? America is that exceptional and peerless?
Nothing to learn? No, I'm sure there are some things to learn.
But I do think we're pretty notably different. And I think that a huge flaw in reasoning is revealed just in what you've said here: "measuring their numbers of guns and rates of gun violence."
I know everybody is tired of hearing that correlation =/= causation, but... well... it's true! Especially when you're just looking at specific statistics without considering more context.
A simple example of this is the UK, which has a lower murder rate than the US and more stringent gun laws. Except the murder rate in the UK was lower than ours long before it implemented more stringent gun laws. And the murder rate was increasing in the UK until just a few years ago.
That doesn't mean I think banning guns made things worse, by the way. That's just as simplistic and backwards as the thought process I'm criticizing.
My point is that if you only look at the number of guns and the rate of gun violence, you're not approaching the issue seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If there's a particularly compelling statistics-based argument you'd like to share, though, I'm open to reading it.
Frankly I have never met a Second Amendment advocate who, when entering a statistics-based discussion, didn't quickly pivot to statistics about prevented crime and that was the only statistic they were ever interested in.
I didn't say statistics based discussion, I said statistics based argument.
What I mean by that is: if all you're going to do is cite lots of statistics with no compelling explanation for why they mean what you think they mean, and should be interpreted the way you want, I'm not real interested.
But again, if you know of an argument that looks at some statistics and accurately explains the full context of those statistics and offers a really good explanation... then I'll happily read it, and judge for myself.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Criminals? Dangerous lunatics? ... Why would changing the laws regarding carrying firearms meaningfully effect the behavior of people who break those laws?
Wait...so now criminals pay no attention to the law? A criminal just breaks every single law all the time? This is one of the things that is so galling about these discussions-the notion that criminals will break the law, period, so there is no use in crafting new or different laws because they won't have an impact on 'the criminals'. By this reasoning, all drug dealers everywhere carry on their persons as much drugs as they like with no concern for the law, because they're criminals.
But it's a good argument against any proposed gun law that could be easily circumvented, right?
All drug dealers everywhere carry on their person as much drugs as they feel are necessary to accomplish whatever drug-dealing they want to accomplish. Is that untrue?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: There's been a suggestion about non-lethal weaponization of employees at schools. If we're going to just toss up our hands as a society and say that there just isn't any way we can be more like our sister societies throughout the world where mass shootings and gun violence aren't as much of a concern-something Second Amendment advocates are so very, very quick to do-then this seems to me to be an excellent idea. Strangely, though, the idea hasn't ever been given much media attention.
If we had nonlethal weapons that were actually as effective at stopping people as guns (e.g. star trek phasers), I'd be all for them, and I'd care less about gun control.
The reality is that such weapons don't yet exist, though. Every nonlethal weapon I'm familiar with is vastly inferior in at least one relevant category.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I don't think you think there is a single solution. Its just that many of the seeming issues that get brought up here by you probably unintentionally as a Gotcha style are just of such limited relevance to solutions. Gun free property is here to stay. Lets talk mental illness and gun regulation first and foremost.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dan, would mind elaborating on the short comings you think nonlethal weapons have?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
They're just completely inferior to guns in terms of rendering an attacker incapable of harming you. Completely.
quote:All drug dealers everywhere carry on their person as much drugs as they feel are necessary to accomplish whatever drug-dealing they want to accomplish. Is that untrue?
Yes. Very yes. Many dealers go to great lengths to avoid significant carry. They often limit what they are carrying at any given time to within/below certain charge guidelines, or (more likely than not) they keep it low-stashed nearby if they are street dealing.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: They're just completely inferior to guns in terms of rendering an attacker incapable of harming you. Completely.
Right.
That's all I was getting at. Pick a nonlethal weapon, Stone Wolf, and I'll be happy to be more specific about it's egregious failings.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:All drug dealers everywhere carry on their person as much drugs as they feel are necessary to accomplish whatever drug-dealing they want to accomplish. Is that untrue?
Yes. Very yes. Many dealers go to great lengths to avoid significant carry. They often limit what they are carrying at any given time to within/below certain charge guidelines, or (more likely than not) they keep it low-stashed nearby if they are street dealing.
Huh? How on earth is that a contradiction of what I said? The point is, they carry as much drugs as they think necessary to accomplish their goals. I'm sure some of them carry no drugs at all, ever, and have minions do that.
And you can hire minions to carry your guns for you, too. Regardless, someone intent on shooting lots of people will also carry as many guns as they think are necessary to accomplish their goal.
I'm not saying criminals pay no attention to laws. But they also don't follow them. Fundamentally. That's what makes them criminals.
The part of what I said you didn't quote was: But it's a good argument against any proposed gun law that could be easily circumvented, right?
Because easily circumvented gun laws only hamper people who care a lot about following the law.
Do you disagree?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
"carry on their person" does not jive with what you are saying now.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Why do you all discuss something that is not a matter of opinion, but of facts?
Just look at the statistics to see, the USA is the most violent western industrialized country, and shooting (incidents) play a huge part.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Huh? How on earth is that a contradiction of what I said? The point is, they carry as much drugs as they think necessary to accomplish their goals. I'm sure some of them carry no drugs at all, ever, and have minions do that.
Dan...I do trust that you are expressing your ideas honestly, so this is bafflement, not suspicion, when I say: what the hell, man! You were clearly-still are!-asserting before that criminals pay no heed to the law, for example, drug dealers carrying as much as they'd like.
Except you left off the part where they would carry more with less extra help and trouble needed if not for quite a few laws! That 'is this illegal/when my corner gets searched, can I be hauled in for it?' is obviously a part of 'drug dealing they want to accomplish'?
What is this absurd reality? Is this more pseudo-libertarianism, where criminals pay no attention at all to laws because they're criminals, and we know that's true because criminals pay no attention to laws? You go on to deny that outlook, but it was very much included in your original assertion.
Anyway, as to laws: you're speaking as though laws are only useful as proactive regulation of law abiding citizens. They're not. They can also be useful tools to force those who would otherwise break them to have a more difficult time doing so, and to be able to exact greater punishment when they do.
As for nonlethal weapons....I...yes, they're not as effective at reliably stopping people as the tool designed for lethal violence. Jesus. Apparently that is the *only* consideration to be examined. You're sort of *leaving off* the part where non-lethal can be considered an advantage in the case of negligence, accidents, or poor marksmanship comes into play.
But no. For some baffling, unexplained reason, these sorts of things aren't to be considered when talking about the pros and cons of weapons. The only thing we should think of is stopping power in the event of the incredibly unlikely mass shooting.
--------
I hate, hate the moral cowardice of advocates of the Second Amendment. The answer to any problem involving violence is always, invariably, more tools of violence for everyone. An eternal arms race, with any effort to break that cycle rejected because Second Amendment. Comparisons to societies that live without this arms race rejected out of hand because those other places are just too different. Common sense questions rejected as lacking good statistical backing, but 'common sense' assertions in support (such as 'laws don't work on criminals) accepted as gospel.
There isn't anything we can do except accept a few score thousand gun deaths every year. EVERYTHING that happens is a sign we need more, not fewer or even the same number guns in peoples' hands.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The most surprising thing I have read about gun control was looking at Australia and changed in their laws. When they made gun ownership more difficult, they saw a massive drop in suicide with guns with no increase in suicide through other means. People don't just find another way. Also, you make guns more rare, sure criminals can still get them but it is more work so the need threshold increases. You really have to feel the need to have it to take the time to get it and the riskof going to jail. This may not stop the crazy school shooter Jo has planned for months, buy it will stop a lot of less planned events.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:All drug dealers everywhere carry on their person as much drugs as they feel are necessary to accomplish whatever drug-dealing they want to accomplish. Is that untrue?
Yes. Very yes. Many dealers go to great lengths to avoid significant carry. They often limit what they are carrying at any given time to within/below certain charge guidelines, or (more likely than not) they keep it low-stashed nearby if they are street dealing.
Huh? How on earth is that a contradiction of what I said?
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
you asked if "All drug dealers everywhere carry on their person as much drugs as they feel are necessary to accomplish whatever drug-dealing they want to accomplish" was true or untrue
I explained that it is untrue, dealers usually limit what they are carrying, or specifically don't carry on their person because of the law???
...
i don't get what there is not to get about this??
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There are complex, hand-wringing-worthy problems in our social life: deficits and debts and climate change. Gun violence, and the work of eliminating gun massacres in schools and movie houses and the like, is not one of them. Gun control works on gun violence as surely as antibiotics do on bacterial infections. In Scotland, after Dunblane, in Australia, after Tasmania, in Canada, after the Montreal massacre—in each case the necessary laws were passed to make gun-owning hard, and in each case… well, you will note the absence of massacre-condolence speeches made by the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia, in comparison with our own President.
The laws differ from place to place. In some jurisdictions, like Scotland, it is essentially impossible to own a gun; in others, like Canada, it is merely very, very difficult. The precise legislation that makes gun-owning hard in a certain sense doesn’t really matter—and that should give hope to all of those who feel that, with several hundred million guns in private hands, there’s no point in trying to make America a gun-sane country.
As I wrote last January, the central insight of the modern study of criminal violence is that all crime—even the horrific violent crimes of assault and rape—is at some level opportunistic. Building a low annoying wall against them is almost as effective as building a high impenetrable one. This is the key concept of Franklin Zimring’s amazing work on crime in New York; everyone said that, given the social pressures, the slum pathologies, the profits to be made in drug dealing, the ascending levels of despair, that there was no hope of changing the ever-growing cycle of violence. The right wing insisted that this generation of predators would give way to a new generation of super-predators.
What the New York Police Department found out, through empirical experience and better organization, was that making crime even a little bit harder made it much, much rarer. This is undeniably true of property crime, and common sense and evidence tells you that this is also true even of crimes committed by crazy people (to use the plain English the subject deserves). Those who hold themselves together enough to be capable of killing anyone are subject to the same rules of opportunity as sane people. Even madmen need opportunities to display their madness, and behave in different ways depending on the possibilities at hand. Demand an extraordinary degree of determination and organization from someone intent on committing a violent act, and the odds that the violent act will take place are radically reduced, in many cases to zero.
Look at the Harvard social scientist David Hemenway’s work on gun violence to see how simple it is; the phrase “more guns = more homicide” tolls through it like a grim bell. The more guns there are in a country, the more gun murders and massacres of children there will be. Even within this gun-crazy country, states with strong gun laws have fewer gun murders (and suicides and accidental killings) than states without them. (Hemenway is also the scientist who has shown that the inflated figure of guns used in self-defense every year, running even to a million or two million, is a pure fantasy, even though it’s still cited by pro-gun enthusiasts. Those hundreds of thousands intruders shot by gun owners left no records in emergency wards or morgues; indeed, left no evidentiary trace behind. This is because they did not exist.) Hemenway has discovered, as he explained in this interview with Harvard Magazine, that what is usually presented as a case of self-defense with guns is, in the real world, almost invariably a story about an escalating quarrel. “How often might you appropriately use a gun in self-defense?” Hemenway asks rhetorically. “Answer: zero to once in a lifetime. How about inappropriately—because you were tired, afraid, or drunk in a confrontational situation? There are lots and lots of chances.”
So don’t listen to those who, seeing twenty dead six- and seven-year-olds in ten minutes, their bodies riddled with bullets designed to rip apart bone and organ, say that this is impossibly hard, or even particularly complex, problem. It’s a very easy one. Summoning the political will to make it happen may be hard. But there’s no doubt or ambiguity about what needs to be done, nor that, if it is done, it will work. One would have to believe that Americans are somehow uniquely evil or depraved to think that the same forces that work on the rest of the planet won’t work here. It’s always hard to summon up political will for change, no matter how beneficial the change may obviously be. Summoning the political will to make automobiles safe was difficult; so was summoning the political will to limit and then effectively ban cigarettes from public places. At some point, we will become a gun-safe, and then a gun-sane, and finally a gun-free society. It’s closer than you think. (I’m grateful to my colleague Jeffrey Toobin for showing so well that the idea that the Second Amendment assures individual possession of guns, so far from being deeply rooted in American law, is in truth a new and bizarre reading, one that would have shocked even Warren Burger.)
Gun control is not a panacea, any more than penicillin was. Some violence will always go on. What gun control is good at is controlling guns. Gun control will eliminate gun massacres in America as surely as antibiotics eliminate bacterial infections. As I wrote last week, those who oppose it have made a moral choice: that they would rather have gun massacres of children continue rather than surrender whatever idea of freedom or pleasure they find wrapped up in owning guns or seeing guns owned—just as the faith healers would rather watch the children die than accept the reality of scientific medicine. This is a moral choice; many faith healers make it to this day, and not just in thought experiments. But it is absurd to shake our heads sapiently and say we can’t possibly know what would have saved the lives of Olivia and Jesse.
On gun violence and how to end it, the facts are all in, the evidence is clear, the truth there for all who care to know it—indeed, a global consensus is in place, which, in disbelief and now in disgust, the planet waits for us to us to join. Those who fight against gun control, actively or passively, with a shrug of helplessness, are dooming more kids to horrible deaths and more parents to unspeakable grief just as surely as are those who fight against pediatric medicine or childhood vaccination. It’s really, and inarguably, just as simple as that.
Adam has a number of really great points here; internationally, we have the full body of evidence necessary to show what works and what will inevitably work here once we start catching up (even though you will have the exact same unconvincing and spurious arguments used in the health care debate — which we also have ample international evidence about to show us the clear and easy solution — about some sort of odd american exception: "We're too large!" "We're fundamentally different," "We're not a racially homogeneous country/we're too diverse" or .. whatever) and, as our intransigent conservatism collapses, we will slowly and surely see these changes take place.
Wait a second. Someone is saying that the more tools of easy lethal violence a population has, the more likely it will engage in easy, lethal violence?
Nonsense! We need better statistics, as though statistics work that way-as though you can ever study a single population, measure its behavior with numbers, and reach ironclad conclusions without looking at OTHER groups and making a comparison.
It's impossible. We don't know it would work. Somehow what we DO know, though, is that even more guns in more places will make us safer. There's not at all a glaring, cavernous contradiction here.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Until then, we can sit back, relax, watch the handwringing, and watch the grotesque tally of our country's gun obsession crawl ever higher.
Silly Sam, in each and every one of those cases, the person would have been killed with a sword or knife or something.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's impossible. We don't know it would work. Somehow what we DO know, though, is that even more guns in more places will make us safer. There's not at all a glaring, cavernous contradiction here.
And this sums up how kind of completely ridiculous a lot of people are being right now in this country.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Until then, we can sit back, relax, watch the handwringing, and watch the grotesque tally of our country's gun obsession crawl ever higher.
Silly Sam, in each and every one of those cases, the person would have been killed with a sword or knife or something.
I've had, in all earnestness, exactly that said to me. Everyone everywhere who was ever murdered or attempted to he murdered was done so by a killer who was brutally, resolutely determined to kill and was committed to do whatever it took, apparently, to slake their lust for blood.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
A thought experiment:
Imagine a device that looks like this. You use it by saying a person's name, then pressing the button. When you do so, that person falls over dead. No matter where they are or what they are doing.
Now imagine that you've been in easy possession of this button your whole life. Would you have ever used it? Been really tempted to use it?
Edit: Now imagine someone that doesn't like you very much. Maybe an ex-girlfriend, or a coworker, or your old boss. How comfortable would you feel if they had easy access to such a button.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
(I'm not trying to pretend that I'm especially clever with the above post, I just think its almost self-evident that violent death happens more when its easy to do. Like Rakeesh mentions, it seems to often be a contested point. Probably nobody in this thread has been arguing that viewpoint, I haven't read the whole thing. Just had the thought and wanted to share it.)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Of course, stabbing someone is a whole lot slower and more effort, much more intimate and gives the victim a chance to fight back.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Parkour, Sam, Rakeesh,
I'm trying to figure out how you guys are missing so much context. Not too sure, but I'll try again. I'm quoting Rakeesh, because he responded the most specifically, but I've got all three of you in mind.
I do ask that you try to read the whole post, though.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: what the hell, man! You were clearly-still are!-asserting before that criminals pay no heed to the law, for example, drug dealers carrying as much as they'd like.
Nope! Wasn't asserting that at all.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Except you left off the part where they would carry more with less extra help and trouble needed if not for quite a few laws! That 'is this illegal/when my corner gets searched, can I be hauled in for it?' is obviously a part of 'drug dealing they want to accomplish'?
No, it just wasn't relevant.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What is this absurd reality? Is this more pseudo-libertarianism, where criminals pay no attention at all to laws because they're criminals, and we know that's true because criminals pay no attention to laws? You go on to deny that outlook, but it was very much included in your original assertion.
No.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, as to laws: you're speaking as though laws are only useful as proactive regulation of law abiding citizens. They're not. They can also be useful tools to force those who would otherwise break them to have a more difficult time doing so, and to be able to exact greater punishment when they do.
No to the bold. Yes to everything else.
One last time: All the stuff you think I've been saying applies to easily circumvented laws. When you read what I write, it's important to read, and understand, the whole thing.
I never made these assertions about all laws, everywhere.
Drug dealers, fundamentally, break the law. They sell drugs. That's because, at its base, laws prohibiting drugs are not practical. They are too easily circumvented.
Some particular laws about drugs are likely harder to circumvent, though. And have a significant effect on the exact way a drug dealer goes about breaking the law. That's not a contradiction of my point.
This whole line of argument stemmed from a comment I made about gun laws (or drug laws, analogously) that could be easily circumvented. When you change it to a conversation about all gun laws, or all drug laws, then of course what I've said no longer applies.
Maybe you guys think I think that all gun laws can be easily circumvented or something? I don't, though.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for nonlethal weapons....I...yes, they're not as effective at reliably stopping people as the tool designed for lethal violence. Jesus. Apparently that is the *only* consideration to be examined. You're sort of *leaving off* the part where non-lethal can be considered an advantage in the case of negligence, accidents, or poor marksmanship comes into play.
But no. For some baffling, unexplained reason, these sorts of things aren't to be considered when talking about the pros and cons of weapons. The only thing we should think of is stopping power in the event of the incredibly unlikely mass shooting.
Has nothing to do with a mass shooting.
Other forms of self-defense weapons are just woefully inadequate in a huge variety of situations. They're utterly, utterly worse than guns.
Yes, non-lethal, non-gun self-defense weapons are better in every category except self-defense. Okay. Stone Wolf asked why I thought they weren't as good for self-defense, though, so... yeah.
Again, context is important.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I hate, hate the moral cowardice of advocates of the Second Amendment. The answer to any problem involving violence is always, invariably, more tools of violence for everyone. An eternal arms race, with any effort to break that cycle rejected because Second Amendment. Comparisons to societies that live without this arms race rejected out of hand because those other places are just too different. Common sense questions rejected as lacking good statistical backing, but 'common sense' assertions in support (such as 'laws don't work on criminals) accepted as gospel.
There isn't anything we can do except accept a few score thousand gun deaths every year. EVERYTHING that happens is a sign we need more, not fewer or even the same number guns in peoples' hands.
For now I'm assuming this (and your even more over-the-top sarcastic post further down) aren't in any way directed at me. It's just you unleashing an irrational, ineffectual rant at the NRA or whoever.
If I'm wrong, and this was actually intended as a straw man directed at me... let me know, and we can both save time by no longer discussing guns with each other. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
also easier to escape or subdue a crazed knifestabber; you don't get the same "can tear up whole groups of people at a comfortable distance with minimal physical effort" thing with knives, not like this should be news to anyone but still has to be said
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Parkour, Sam, Rakeesh,
I'm trying to figure out how you guys are missing so much context. Not too sure, but I'll try again. I'm quoting Rakeesh, because he responded the most specifically, but I've got all three of you in mind.
I do ask that you try to read the whole post, though.
I did. If we are "missing so much context," it is because in this case you are massively unclear and you need to start over.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
In case anyone wants to follow how many gun deaths there are per day in the US, you can follow @GunDeaths on Twitter. From Slate:
quote: It seems shocking that when guns are in the headlines every day, there’s no one attempting to create a real-time chronicle of the deaths attributable to guns in the United States.
Well, someone is. Since this summer, the anonymous creator of the Twitter feed @GunDeaths has been doing his best to compile those statistics, tweeting every reported death he can find. He was inspired, he told us in a phone interview, by the Aurora, Colo., shootings and simply wanted to call daily attention to the toll that guns take. Now Slate is partnering with @GunDeaths to create this interactive feature, “Gun Deaths in America Since Newtown.”
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Parkour, Sam, Rakeesh,
I'm trying to figure out how you guys are missing so much context. Not too sure, but I'll try again. I'm quoting Rakeesh, because he responded the most specifically, but I've got all three of you in mind.
I do ask that you try to read the whole post, though.
I did. If we are "missing so much context," it is because in this case you are massively unclear and you need to start over.
If you'd like help understanding something, ask a clarifying question, please.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:All drug dealers everywhere carry on their person as much drugs as they feel are necessary to accomplish whatever drug-dealing they want to accomplish. Is that untrue?
Yes. Very yes. Many dealers go to great lengths to avoid significant carry. They often limit what they are carrying at any given time to within/below certain charge guidelines, or (more likely than not) they keep it low-stashed nearby if they are street dealing.
Huh? How on earth is that a contradiction of what I said?
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
you asked if "All drug dealers everywhere carry on their person as much drugs as they feel are necessary to accomplish whatever drug-dealing they want to accomplish" was true or untrue
I explained that it is untrue, dealers usually limit what they are carrying, or specifically don't carry on their person because of the law???
...
i don't get what there is not to get about this??
^
basically, how does this not very clearly answer the question about whether or not that is untrue (it is untrue)
I mean the core question is: "Why would changing the laws regarding carrying firearms meaningfully effect the behavior of people who break those laws?" — the answer is direct, straightforward, and meaningful. If you make something more difficult to do, and the punishments for doing so much more dissuading, it happens much, much less. Drugs are not even near a perfect comparison versus guns (chemical dependency to guns isn't a thing, so regulating guns would be a much different prospect than regulating cocaine re: human nature) but even in the case of drugs the laws in effect do alter to what degree drugs are traded and criminal behavior involving drugs.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:All drug dealers everywhere carry on their person as much drugs as they feel are necessary to accomplish whatever drug-dealing they want to accomplish. Is that untrue?
Yes. Very yes. Many dealers go to great lengths to avoid significant carry. They often limit what they are carrying at any given time to within/below certain charge guidelines, or (more likely than not) they keep it low-stashed nearby if they are street dealing.
Huh? How on earth is that a contradiction of what I said?
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
you asked if "All drug dealers everywhere carry on their person as much drugs as they feel are necessary to accomplish whatever drug-dealing they want to accomplish" was true or untrue
I explained that it is untrue, dealers usually limit what they are carrying, or specifically don't carry on their person because of the law???
...
i don't get what there is not to get about this??
^
basically, how does this not very clearly answer the question about whether or not that is untrue (it is untrue)
I mean the core question is: "Why would changing the laws regarding carrying firearms meaningfully effect the behavior of people who break those laws?" — the answer is direct, straightforward, and meaningful. If you make something more difficult to do, and the punishments for doing so much more dissuading, it happens much, much less. Drugs are not even near a perfect comparison versus guns (chemical dependency to guns isn't a thing, so regulating guns would be a much different prospect than regulating cocaine re: human nature) but even in the case of drugs the laws in effect do alter to what degree drugs are traded and criminal behavior involving drugs.
Perfect! Now the confusion is clarified.
So, you're right that this was the start of the conversation thread...
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The other main reason I think there is a high likelihood of increased violence is twofold. One, Second Amendment advocates tell us it is too difficult or unreliable to take the measures necessary to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous lunatics-which begs the question of why on Earth we should believe that openly permitting them in many more places wouldn't necessarily put quite a few guns into the hands of the mentally ill, the criminal, or the negligent.
Criminals? Dangerous lunatics? ... Why would changing the laws regarding carrying firearms meaningfully effect the behavior of people who break those laws?
However, then Rakeesh replied. He pointed out that I'd spoken too imprecisely by illustrating an extreme version of what I'd said. I agree! And I clarified my position. This is also where I made the assertion you think is untrue. Check it out:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Criminals? Dangerous lunatics? ... Why would changing the laws regarding carrying firearms meaningfully effect the behavior of people who break those laws?
Wait...so now criminals pay no attention to the law? A criminal just breaks every single law all the time? This is one of the things that is so galling about these discussions-the notion that criminals will break the law, period, so there is no use in crafting new or different laws because they won't have an impact on 'the criminals'. By this reasoning, all drug dealers everywhere carry on their persons as much drugs as they like with no concern for the law, because they're criminals.
But it's a good argument against any proposed gun law that could be easily circumvented, right?
All drug dealers everywhere carry on their person as much drugs as they feel are necessary to accomplish whatever drug-dealing they want to accomplish. Is that untrue?
I was no longer defending the broad statement I'd made before, the one you just cited as the "core" question. I agreed immediately with Rakeesh that it was too broad.
That's why I worded the drug analogy the way that I did... to allow for some adjustment of behavior based on the particular ways in which particular laws are actually effective.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Capax, I feel your ideas have merit, but lack two major areas of concern: proving safe handling and safe storage.
I support required courses for personal carry - concealed or not. I would also be in favor of a mandatory Hunters Education program, not just for firearm safety but also for the information it provides on rules, regulations, and ethics. What kind of safe storage laws would you support?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Capaxinfiniti,
First off, I think your standards are unreasonable in some respects. Laws governing the licensing of drivers can be considered a huge bureacratic mess, but that isn't reason to scrap the entire thing. Some bureaucratic mess is unavoidable. Second, on the one hand you offer 'if it proves unreasonably burdensome to lawful gun owners'-a very flexible, nebulous standard; on the other, you desire that unless a new law proves effective within a matter of years...see where I'm going with this?
If gun owners are jumping through hoops and paying fees to prove they're fit to exercise their right, the new legislation should be providing the desired results. The expected benefit should be evident in 5 years minimum, 10 years max. I don't think this is unreasonable give the utter failure of the '94 Assault Weapons Ban.
quote:As for background checks, why wouldn't they need to apply to gifts or inheritance? If the concern over public safety lies with gun ownership, as you appear to agree with, why should there be such a wide open door?
I don't think requiring background checks for these two instances would alleviate a significant portion of the problem. Is there data indicating firearms received as gifts or inheritance are more frequently used in violent crime? Consider that such a law would require a father to have a background check done on one of his children before giving them any kind of firearm, even if it's a handgun for self-defense or a rifle for the fall elk hunt. It would also require a grandchild get a background check, etc. just to inherit their grandfather's WWII era firearm. Criminals bent on obtaining a firearm aren't going to be reduced to using these avenues to circumvent the law. Such a provision would be costly and difficult to enforce, despite reaching far into citizens' lives and personal relationships.
quote:Firearms have a purpose: killing or permitting readiness to do lethal violence to things. Plain and simple. They can of course be crafted to be aesthetically beautiful, and people may use them not to kill things-such as target practice-but we don't say 'you can't say a hammer has a purpose' if someone uses a hammer as a paperweight and not to drive nails into our pull out of wood.
In a way, giving a purpose to a firearm is anthropomorphic. A gun is not good or bad. It doesn't act with intent. Anything can be a paperweight because that function is too general. To use your analogy, a hammer can be use to both drive nails into wood or wooden stakes into the ground or break up tile and grout when you're refinishing a floor. None of those purposes go counter to the hammer's intended function. It's critical to understand that the hammer is a multi-purpose tool and it's the user who defines the purpose. Firearms have a function. They accelerate a projectile to speeds a human can't achieve without mechanical assistance. If anything, that's a firearm's inherent purpose. Where that projectile goes is up to the user.
quote:As for psych evaluations or even background checks on psychiatric grounds-do you have a proposal, then, for *attempting* to limit the access of guns for the mentally ill? This actually isn't just a concern for mass shootings, but rather also because suicides are the most common form of gun deaths in our country.
I want to re-state this:
quote:The psychological evaluation itself poses significant concerns. Essentially, it constitutes a mini-trial. A medical professional would have to conduct the test. More probable still, it would have to be multiple qualified medical professionals. I doubt a constitutional right would be made void based on the medical opinion of one person, especially given the nature of psychology. It's not like seeing the tumor on a mammogram. And in cases of test failure, an appeals process would have to be provided, or else allow for a re-test after a reasonable amount of time has passed (considerably less time than that of renewal.) Ultimately, I find it unlikely that the Supreme Court would allow a entire classification of people, who have broken no law, to be denied a right guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Currently, the only citizens who lose gun rights are felons.
To answer your question, no, I don't have any proposal which attempts this objective. I question the implementability (new word), effectiveness, cost, privacy, and constitutionality of any measure which aims to evaluate the mental state of an individual as a precondition to gun ownership. And if the goal is to reduce the amount of suicides by gun, focusing on the circumstances prior to the suicide would be more appropriate.
quote:How would you feel about measures mandating that if you have living in your home or on your property someone you know to have a criminally violent history (say, a brother who murdered his grandmother and did nearly 20 years for it), and you owned any sort of firearms, you would then be stepped up into a higher degree of regulation?
I would consider such a mandate. What would these measures entail?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What kind of safe storage laws would you support?
I'd support something similar to how the BATF handles permitting for the purchase of high explosives - you have to demonstrate that you have appropriate storage facilities for the materials that you wish to purchase, which are determined by a rigid set of guidelines (type of construction, distance from dwellings, etc.) and an actual inspection. A BATF agent does the inspection, but for something more widespread like firearms it could be done by any law enforcement officer or perhaps by private contractors for a small fee.
I could see something similar for firearms purchase - say, a certified safe or safes of sufficient capacity for all registered firearms in a household. Perhaps allow one handgun per registered owner to be stored outside of the safe provided it has an approved trigger lock for the people that want a quick access option for home defense.
Obviously you can't enforce how people actually store their guns, but requiring that they own appropriate storage will make it a lot more likely that they'll actually use it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't think this is unreasonable give the utter failure of the '94 Assault Weapons Ban.
You know, people keep talking about the "utter failure" of the assault weapons ban, but I still haven't seen anything that it suggests it failed to reduce the number of public mass murders.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Capax, I feel your ideas have merit, but lack two major areas of concern: proving safe handling and safe storage.
I support required courses for personal carry - concealed or not. I would also be in favor of a mandatory Hunters Education program, not just for firearm safety but also for the information it provides on rules, regulations, and ethics. What kind of safe storage laws would you support?
Not for mere ownership? Because, if not, I would disagree.
Requirement of proof of a trigger lock, locking case or safe.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't think this is unreasonable give the utter failure of the '94 Assault Weapons Ban.
You know, people keep talking about the "utter failure" of the assault weapons ban, but I still haven't seen anything that it suggests it failed to reduce the number of public mass murders.
I provided a quote and link early in the thread.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Not for mere ownership? Because, if not, I would disagree.
Requirement of proof of a trigger lock, locking case or safe.
I wouldn't oppose a requirement of proving safe handling for owning a firearm but I don't see such a measure reducing gun crime (or suicide, but that's only tangentially related).
When would the proof of safe-storage be required? At the time of purchase, or before one seeks to own a firearm, like at the time of the background check?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't think this is unreasonable give the utter failure of the '94 Assault Weapons Ban.
You know, people keep talking about the "utter failure" of the assault weapons ban, but I still haven't seen anything that it suggests it failed to reduce the number of public mass murders.
You can't find much praising its success unless you dredge the partisan blogs. The only significant success of the AWB is related to magazine capacity.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Not for mere ownership? Because, if not, I would disagree.
Requirement of proof of a trigger lock, locking case or safe.
I wouldn't oppose a requirement of proving safe handling for owning a firearm but I don't see such a measure reducing gun crime (or suicide, but that's only tangentially related).
When would the proof of safe-storage be required? At the time of purchase, or before one seeks to own a firearm, like at the time of the background check?
Safe handling would be to prevent accidents, not crime or suicide.
In Cali, you have to sign an affidavit with information about your safe storage at the time of pick up, after the waiting period, or buy a trigger lock.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"partisan blogs"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I provided a quote and link early in the thread.
And as I pointed out, that link addresses only total firearm deaths -- which you wouldn't necessarily expect to decrease, since mass murder accounts for only a tiny percentage of firearm deaths.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
The idea of a trigger lock on a weapon that is bought for self defense only is amusing.
"Please sir could you rape me a little less hard? All of the pounding and jiggling is making it awful hard to unlock my gun."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
No Tom, that's utterly not true.
Shigs...then don't get a trigger lock for that gun, get a quick access safe. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: They're just completely inferior to guns in terms of rendering an attacker incapable of harming you. Completely.
Right.
That's all I was getting at. Pick a nonlethal weapon, Stone Wolf, and I'll be happy to be more specific about it's egregious failings.
How about the list I already provided? Sticky nets, tazers, diarrhea gun (causes not shoots), long distance pepper spray, and expanding foam.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: They're just completely inferior to guns in terms of rendering an attacker incapable of harming you. Completely.
Right.
That's all I was getting at. Pick a nonlethal weapon, Stone Wolf, and I'll be happy to be more specific about it's egregious failings.
How about the list I already provided? Sticky nets, tazers, diarrhea gun (causes not shoots), long distance pepper spray, and expanding foam.
Too many. Pick a specific one and link me to a practical for-market version of it, and I'll tell you what its failings are.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: They're just completely inferior to guns in terms of rendering an attacker incapable of harming you. Completely.
Right.
That's all I was getting at. Pick a nonlethal weapon, Stone Wolf, and I'll be happy to be more specific about it's egregious failings.
How about the list I already provided? Sticky nets, tazers, diarrhea gun (causes not shoots), long distance pepper spray, and expanding foam.
Too many. Pick a specific one and link me to a practical for-market version of it, and I'll tell you what its failings are.
MacGuyver is not impressed. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Any time someone breaks a law, that serves as evidence that the law in question is a failure and should be discarded.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Too many. Pick a specific one and link me to a practical for-market version of it, and I'll tell you what its failings are.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Too many. Pick a specific one and link me to a practical for-market version of it, and I'll tell you what its failings are.
First of all, I'm amused that you immediately pick, not one of the nonlethal weapons on your list, but a nonlethal ammunition which by necessity requires a firearm to use. So... how does this relate to gun control?
But just for fun: bean bag rounds have far less effective range than real bullets, which could be a factor if you're using them for self defense and the assailant is too far away. Plus, get too close and you have the opposite problem... they can easily still be lethal at very close range.
Useful? Sure! As useful as a gun firing real ammunition? No.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Thankfully, the advantages of lethal weapons are the only factor, and the downsides of nonlethals are likewise the only factor to consider.
I feel confident that if challenged on that basis, Dan, you will (correctly) point out that you didn't say that and wouldn't have meant that. Quite true. Except your defense is severely narrow in scope, and *starts out* with the default assumption that leads straight to firearms: that the only real means of safety is to have absolutely lethal force to bring to bear in a given situation.
Your defense is, in fact, without every saying so due to its narrow scope, quite similar to the NRA's 'only a good guy with a gun' rhetoric. In case you or anyone else was wondering again why someone is bringing them up.
Yup, that stuff such as a taser or a can of spray AREN'T going to be as useful against an armed assailant as, say, a rifle loaded with cop-killers (as to the functionality of firearms...). They're also less likely to kill anyone by accident-an event quite a lot more likely than a mass shooting-and should a teacher or cafeteria worker have a bad breakup and come into work plastered and desolate and hating the world, less likely to kill then either.
But by all means, you're right-they ARE less effective in certain situations than a gun...and for some reason, those are the situations we need to act upon.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
*shrug* Easiest to look up.
Useful = stopping power?
They have drag stabilized bean bags which are accurate out to about 25 yards, which is pretty good.
Okay, let's talk tasers. Other then having only two shots per reload and a max range of 35' (which are pretty sizable disadvantages compared to a rifle), they still are pretty durn effective.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
*Language Warning* (duh)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh, I have no argument with what you're saying. I don't really understand what your point is.
Stone Wolf was talking about nonlethal self defense weapons, and I said that they are all notable inferior to guns in at least one category (which categories changes based on the weapon). He questioned what I meant by that.
Basically, I (and Sam, I might add, though you haven't directed any of this scorn at him) was just pointing out a basic fact: No nonlethal weapon currently invented is as good as guns at being able to reliably making attackers unable to harm you.
Now he's challenging me on specifics. Okay. So I'm being specific.
quote: I feel confident that if challenged on that basis, Dan, you will (correctly) point out that you didn't say that and wouldn't have meant that. Quite true.
Right. I'm addressing Stone Wolf's specific comments.
quote: Except your defense is severely narrow in scope, and *starts out* with the default assumption that leads straight to firearms: that the only real means of safety is to have absolutely lethal force to bring to bear in a given situation.
That's totally false. I'm starting with the assumption that whatever renders your opponent unable to attack you is the most effective method of self-defense. The less able he is to attack you, the more effective the self-defense.
This isn't a ballsy, out-there assumption. It's a basic tenet of all self-defense, ever. Pepper Spray isn't designed to be kind of annoying. It's designed to incapacitate as much as possible given the nature of the tool.
Your point that nonlethal weapons have the advantage that they aren't lethal is true and totally irrelevant to what I claimed and what I'm addressing.
Many non-gun self-defense tools have extra benefits outside of how effective they actually are at defending you. For instance, knowing a comprehensive hand-to-hand self defense method also has the advantage over guns that you're never caught without your weapons. And yet it has the disadvantage of being less effective at self defense than a gun.
Which is all I ever claimed. Non guns are less effective at actually defending you than guns. It would be great if this weren't the case. But it is.
---
Stone Wolf: What do you mean by "stopping power," exactly?
Yeah, tasers have lots of value as self-defense weapons. And you already established two huge, glaring ways they're less effective for self defense than guns. What exactly do you want me to say about them?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I was right. You DID say 'I was only talking about this specific aspect'.
Just for giggles, then: do you suggest that the best response to gun violence and particularly gun violence in schools is to arm school workers with firearms? Also, do you think that in choosing a weapon for self defense, the only criteria should be how effective they are at stopping the attacker?
Part of the reason people, not just me, are so frustrated is because sweet Jesus you're being incredibly, usefully for a Second Amendment position, specific. So please, no more of this looking for ways a statement may be *right* while skipping over the ways it might be wrong.
You asked awhile ago for specific statistics. We've had that discussion before, and I'll ask the same question now that I did then: what sort of statistics would be persuasive, and what are the sorts of statistics you're willing to accept *across the board* in this matter?
I ask that second question because it seems that when you're facing a proposition for greater gun control (such as modeled after societies with much lower rates of gun violence), you repeatedly insist on the most damning of evidence. But things change remarkably when coming from the other direction. Suddenly statistics such as accidental gun deaths don't matter, or at least aren't mentioned despite their relevance. Stopping power is all that matters. And as for why there should be more in the discussion aside from how effective at killing people a self defense tool is, the entire *reason* they were brought up was *because* they are less risky outside of the self defense situation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You don't want good stopping power or penetration, you want at least, something that will embed itself in the thin wall materials underfunded American schools are likely made of.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Stopping power is the ability of a firearm or other weapon to cause a penetrating ballistic injury to a target (human or animal) enough to incapacitate the target where it stands. This contrasts with lethality in that it pertains only to a weapon's ability to incapacitate quickly, regardless of whether death ultimately ensues.
While non lethal weapons/ammo do have certain disadvantages to firearms, they have the huge advantage of not killing people. Heck, firearms are at a huge disadvantage to ICBMs but no one is suggesting the cops nuke bad guys.
For the purposes of protecting schools against killing sprees, but with the goal of not having to have an actual police officers (which there are too few of to get that job done), is there a non lethal weapon which would be suitable for that goal in your estimation?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: You don't want good stopping power or penetration, you want at least, something that will embed itself in the thin wall materials underfunded American schools are likely made of.
Stopping power has -nothing- to do with wall penetration, and you -do- want it.
ETA: I know that sounds weird considering the quote above I used, but the quote is wrong, not this post. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i remember that episode of bullshit. it was like the one where they looked at ineffectual poorly managed recycling programs and concluded that recycling programs were bullshit
even though there were literally national recycling coverage programs they could look at which were clear contradictions to their proposal. sounds .. familiar.
at least they did a good job with pointing out how massively stupid Chiropractic is
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
given how armed to the teeth this country is there is like no way in the world that i would replace a home defense gun with a one-shot taser or glue gun or diarrhea gun or hypoplastinastic bean bag frisbee or whatever people are proposing as an acceptable alternative. they all suck compared to (surprise!) a gun.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You could always buy the Kel Tec shot gun and load one tube with real ammo and the other with beanbags and flip of a switch, change from lethal to non lethal (it has two mag tubes).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I would not be too enthused with the potential reliability issues of a bean bag in a shotgun shell. I would probably reliably never utilize the option in the event of a home invasion.
I mean, maybe I would if this weren't such a ridiculously gun violence soaked nation but given that I live in America...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I would use beanbags, but for some crazy reason they are illegal in Cali.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You could always buy the Kel Tec shot gun and load one tube with real ammo and the other with beanbags and flip of a switch, change from lethal to non lethal (it has two mag tubes).
And this would be a great weapon to give our schoolteachers! Just think of all the fun we'd have, figuring out which tube was active!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
[sarcasm]Because I was suggesting handing out 12 gauge shotguns to every teacher and not just giving Samp an alternative.[/sarcasm]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Nah. I would want a pistol. Long and short of it. If I lived in a country with sane gun regulation, I'd not have any significant concern about how armed an intruder is and that would change things. As it is, though, I'm not going to test less-lethal options in the event of a home invasion.
cause this is america
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i remember that episode of bullshit. it was like the one where they looked at ineffectual poorly managed recycling programs and concluded that recycling programs were bullshit
even though there were literally national recycling coverage programs they could look at which were clear contradictions to their proposal. sounds .. familiar.
at least they did a good job with pointing out how massively stupid Chiropractic is
I remember that episode, in fairness to Penn & Teller I don't think it was recycling programs they concluded was bs, but it was more the mindset of "omg we must recycle everything or cause bad things to happen!!" no matter how convoluted the process to recycle something they were criticizing.
Not that they haven't had wildly incorrect episodes but that one I'm muddled on.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Nah. I would want a pistol. Long and short of it. If I lived in a country with sane gun regulation, I'd not have any significant concern about how armed an intruder is and that would change things. As it is, though, I'm not going to test less-lethal options in the event of a home invasion.
cause this is america
I'm a little surprised by your attitude Samp...I mean, I agree that you should be able to get a gun for self protection, but I'm surprised considering how strongly over the years your stance has been that a gun in the home is more likely to cause problems then solve them that you would want one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's not my 'stance,' it's data. It's the facts. And our any consideration about having a gun in the home just comes from an extension of the fact that we just have a shitzillion guns in general, no kids, no bad gun users, and no goddamned idiots anywhere, so why not.
Things that would change this in a heartbeat:
- America's gun laws sane up and our endemic levels of gun crime go down to a level more like ANY OTHER MODERNIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD - I have kids - I have roomates - I move to any other modernized country in the world, rendering the need for armament so trivial as to be disregardable
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I would simply love to see a statistic that compared non police, non suicide, shootings by country, but good luck finding one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
OAS and other studies have measured that out
(unsurprisingly, the US is orders of magnitude higher than any other modernized nation in terms of gun homicides per 100,000 people)
Posted by vegimo (Member # 12618) on :
Here is a comparison tool.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks vegimo, but that doesn't delineate between police and non police shootings.
Oh, and Samp, the US is NOT orders, or even a single order of magnitude over other "modernized" countries.
France, Canada, U.K., Australia, are all around 1 shooting per 100,000, and the US is at 4, not 10, or 100.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
For those interested, countries with a higher gun homicide rate then the US: Name Homicide/100,000 Homicides Honduras 91.6 7,104 El Salvador 69.2 4,308 Côte d'Ivoire 56.9 10,801 Jamaica 52.2 1,430 Venezuela 45.1 13,080 Belize 41.4 129 U.S. Virgin Islands 39.2 43 Guatemala 38.5 5,681 Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2 20 Zambia 38.0 4,710 Uganda 36.3 11,373 Malawi 36.0 5,039 Lesotho 35.2 764 Trinidad and Tobago 35.2 472 Colombia 33.4 15,459+ South Africa 31.8 15,940 Congo 30.8 1,180 Central African Republic 29.3 1,240 Bahamas 27.4 94 Puerto Rico 26.2 983 Saint Lucia 25.2 44 Dominican Republic 25.0 2,513 Tanzania 24.5 10,357 Sudan 24.2 10,028++ Saint Vincent & Grenadines 22.9 25 Mexico 22.7 25,757+ Ethiopia 22.5 20,239 Guinea 22.5 2,152 Dominica 22.1 15 Burundi 21.7 1,726 Dem. Rep. of the Congo 21.7 13,558 Panama 21.6 759 Brazil 21.0 40,974 Equatorial Guinea 20.7 137 Guinea-Bissau 20.2 294 Kenya 20.1 7,733 Kyrgyzstan 20.1 1,072 Cameroon 19.7 3,700 Montserrat 19.7 1 Greenland 19.2 11 Angola 19.0 3,426 Guyana 18.6 140 Burkina Faso 18.0 2,876 Eritrea 17.8 879 Namibia 17.2 352 Rwanda 17.1 1,708 Chad 15.8 1,686 Ghana 15.7 3,646 Ecuador 15.2 2,638 North Korea 15.2 3,658 Benin 15.1 1,262 Sierra Leone 14.9 837 Mauritania 14.7 485 Botswana 14.5 287 Zimbabwe 14.3 1,775 Gabon 13.8 200 Nicaragua 13.6 785 French Guiana 13.3 30 Papua New Guinea 13.0 854 Swaziland 12.9 141 Bermuda 12.3 8 Comoros 12.2 85 Nigeria 12.2 18,422 Cape Verde 11.6 56 Grenada 11.5 12 Paraguay 11.5 741 Barbados 11.3 31 Togo 10.9 627 Gambia 10.8 106 Peru 10.3 2,969 Myanmar 10.2 4,800 Russia 10.2 14,574 Liberia 10.1 371 Costa Rica 10.0 474 Nauru 9.8 1 Bolivia 8.9 884 Mozambique 8.8 1,925 Kazakhstan 8.8 1,418 Senegal 8.7 1,027 Turks & Caicos Islands 8.7 3 Mongolia 8.7 239 British Virgin Islands 8.6 2 Cayman Islands 8.4 5 Seychelles 8.3 7 Madagascar 8.1 1,588 Indonesia 8.1 18,963 Mali 8.0 1,157 Pakistan 7.8 13,860+ Moldova 7.5 267 Kiribati 7.3 7 Guadeloupe 7.0 32 Haiti 6.9 689 Timor-Leste 6.9 75 Anguilla 6.8 1 Antigua and Barbuda 6.8 6 Lithuania 6.6 219 Uruguay 5.9 199 Philippines 5.4 4,947 Ukraine 5.2 2,356 Estonia 5.2 70 Cuba 5.0 563 Belarus 4.9 473 Thailand 4.8 3,307 Suriname 4.6 24 Laos 4.6 279 Georgia 4.3 187 United States 4.2 12,996
If my statement doesn't work, replace it with "multiples."
And i'd be amused if anyone thought that that list is supposed to put the united states' gun homicide rate in a positive light. Whew, we only have half the effective homicide rate of Kazakhstan, why are people saying we have a problem?? Totally edging Pakistan out, guys
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Do we need to point out that some of those nations have significantly more stringent gun laws than the US, Samp (Russia and Mexico, that I've found so far, but I'm not gonna waste a lot of time looking at worldwide gun laws for your benefit)?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you think about it for just a moment, you might see why Mexico is a poor example for the 'failure' of gun control laws, due to its proximity to a nation that both has crappy gun control itself, as well as literally finances the driving forces behind so much of the violence Mexico.
Perhaps if you consider some of the other circumstances in Russia, you will see why it may be a less applicable example as well. But when one actually looks at nations similar to ours in terms of stable government, corruption in the justice system, standards of living...well.
One can find a dozen ways to reject examples that make one's case squeamish, but far fewer good ones.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If my statement doesn't work, replace it with "multiples."
And i'd be amused if anyone thought that that list is supposed to put the united states' gun homicide rate in a positive light. Whew, we only have half the effective homicide rate of Kazakhstan, why are people saying we have a problem?? Totally edging Pakistan out, guys
You could argue that those other countries have X amount of deaths despite being virtually lawless or despite having stronger firearm laws, when X isn't significantly higher (say <15).
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Rakeesh, any statistic that compares the number of gun deaths between specific nations is going to be comparing Apples with Oranges. Every nation has unique social, political, historical, and ethnic variables that will impact the results. You can't point to *any* single statistic (particularly statistics with no supporting context, how many gun deaths in the US are the result of self-defense, how many are criminals killing other criminals, how many are mass shootings, how many are police officers killing criminal) and use it as evidence to support either view of gun control, because doing so simply results in the correlation/causation fallacy. Or you can switch the statistics from gun deaths per capita to gun deaths *per gun owned* and get a much different result.
Ultimately, point-in-time statistics are useless in actually coming up with a solution to high gun violence because they have no real meaning without the appropriate context. Trends are more useful, but still inadequate.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oh, I remember this.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: ... no amount of gun control legislation--even well enforced--will stop these tragedies from happening.
Well, let's examine this. Of course zero is difficult, you can just look at the world list of homicides by firearms and the countries with a zero in the "Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop" column. There aren't many places at zero, places like Hong Kong and Iceland have reached it but this is of course difficult But you can also see many places like Japan, many places in Europe, and Canada which top out at 0.5 gun homicides per year per 100,000.
The thing to realize is that there is a big gap between these countries and the US at 2.97/100,000. In other words, the thing to do is not to raise your hands and give up saying that the current state of affairs is inevitable, but to realize that the current state of things is a policy choice. For whatever reason, whether the constitution, resistance to a tyrannical government, whatever, Americans have chosen to live with a system that produces more firearm deaths than places like the Gaza+West Bank (2.95), Sierra Leone (2.28), or the Congo (1.56).
Zero? Reasonable people can agree that this is difficult. Lower than pretty disreputable developing countries and near-war zones? Should be reasonable for a country which "[chose] to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: But you can also see many places like Japan, many places in Europe, and Canada which top out at 0.5 gun homicides per year per 100,000.
And the only explanation for these nations having low gun violence is Policy? Not population density (Canada, Iceland) or culture (Japan) or any other of the myriad possible reasons that gun violence might not be as common in those areas? Only policy? That's kind of an ignorant belief to hold on to, don't you think?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh this reminded me I never responded to Rakeesh.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You asked awhile ago for specific statistics. We've had that discussion before, and I'll ask the same question now that I did then: what sort of statistics would be persuasive, and what are the sorts of statistics you're willing to accept *across the board* in this matter?
That's not what I asked for.
Here's what I said:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Just because other gun rights advocates use bad arguments based on scientism and narrow interpretations of statistics doesn't mean it's okay for you to do so.
If there's a particularly compelling statistics-based argument you'd like to share, though, I'm open to reading it.
My whole point in that post is that I don't think that approaching the issue from statistics, as if they speak for themselves, is a good way to approach it. Boris elaborates on a few reasons for this above.
What's actually revealing, and potentially persuasive, is the attendant arguments and explanations that one uses with their chosen statistics.
And that's what I was asking for.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If my statement doesn't work, replace it with "multiples."
And i'd be amused if anyone thought that that list is supposed to put the united states' gun homicide rate in a positive light. Whew, we only have half the effective homicide rate of Kazakhstan, why are people saying we have a problem?? Totally edging Pakistan out, guys
You could argue that those other countries have X amount of deaths despite being virtually lawless or despite having stronger firearm laws, when X isn't significantly higher (say <15).
I'm sure that these countries are such inspiring analogues to compare ourselves against. "We have better gun homicide rates than lawless crapholes!"
As far as I can see, that's just basically a list of the earth's second and third world countries. What happens when we compare the united states versus nations that are like us in terms of being developed?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm sure that these countries are such inspiring analogues to compare ourselves against. "We have better gun homicide rates than lawless crapholes!"
As far as I can see, that's just basically a list of the earth's second and third world countries. What happens when we compare the united states versus nations that are like us in terms of being developed?
Whether they're inspiring analogues wasn't the argument. The argument was, despite being lawless crapholes, their death rate isn't significantly higher. Meaning, the situation is complex and other factors are at play, making straight-across statistics basically useless in this conversation. And Boris has twice made comments related to your question.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
You are missing the point you are unintentionally making. Despite being lawless crapholes, their gun homicide rate isn't significantly higher than ours. Which means our gun homicide rate is comparable with lawless crapholes, as opposed to every other modern nation on earth.
So, yes thank you for pointing it out? That's bad news! I wonder what the problem is. What do you think it is!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: But you can also see many places like Japan, many places in Europe, and Canada which top out at 0.5 gun homicides per year per 100,000.
And the only explanation for these nations having low gun violence is Policy? Not population density (Canada, Iceland) or culture (Japan) or any other of the myriad possible reasons that gun violence might not be as common in those areas? Only policy? That's kind of an ignorant belief to hold on to, don't you think?
What is the gun homicide rate in Canadian cities of equivalent density to American cities? Looked at that figure yet?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: You are missing the point you are unintentionally making. Despite being lawless crapholes, their gun homicide rate isn't significantly higher than ours. Which means our gun homicide rate is comparable with lawless crapholes...
At the bottom of that list is 4.2, the U.S. of A.
At the top is 91.6, Honduras.
So, I wouldn't say they are comparable.
We -are- comparable to the bottom 1/10 of that list.
Want to talk comparable, here is double and half our rate:
Madagascar 8.1 1,588 Africa Eastern Africa Indonesia 8.1 18,963 Asia South-Eastern Asia Mali 8.0 1,157 Africa Western Africa Pakistan 7.8 13,860+ Asia Southern Asia Moldova 7.5 267 Europe Eastern Europe Kiribati 7.3 7 Oceania Micronesia Guadeloupe 7.0 32 Americas Caribbean Haiti 6.9 689 Americas Caribbean Timor-Leste 6.9 75 Asia South-Eastern Asia Anguilla 6.8 1 Americas Caribbean Antigua and Barbuda 6.8 6 Americas Caribbean Lithuania 6.6 219 Europe Northern Europe Uruguay 5.9 199 Americas South America Philippines 5.4 4,947 Asia South-Eastern Asia Ukraine 5.2 2,356 Europe Eastern Europe Estonia 5.2 70 Europe Northern Europe Cuba 5.0 563 Americas Caribbean Belarus 4.9 473 Europe Eastern Europe Thailand 4.8 3,307 Asia South-Eastern Asia Suriname 4.6 24 Americas South America Laos 4.6 279 Asia South-Eastern Asia Georgia 4.3 187 Europe Eastern Europe Martinique 4.2 17 Americas Caribbean United States 4.2 12,996 Americas Northern America Turkmenistan 4.2 203 Asia Central Asia Yemen 4.2 990+ Asia Western Asia Palestine 4.1 145+ Asia Western Asia Albania 4.0 127 Europe Southern Europe Niger 3.8 552 Africa Western Africa Solomon Islands 3.7 19 Oceania Melanesia Sri Lanka 3.6 745 Asia Southern Asia Montenegro 3.5 22 Europe Southern Europe Djibouti 3.4 29 Africa Eastern Africa Argentina 3.4 1,360 Americas South America Cambodia 3.4 448 Asia South-Eastern Asia India 3.4 40,752+ Asia Southern Asia Turkey 3.3 2,320 Asia Western Asia Chile 3.2 541 Americas South America Taiwan 3.2 743 Asia Eastern Asia Uzbekistan 3.1 831 Asia Central Asia Latvia 3.1 70 Europe Northern Europe Iran 3.0 2,215 Asia Southern Asia Libya 2.9 176+ Africa Northern Africa Nepal 2.8 818 Asia Southern Asia Liechtenstein 2.8 1 Europe Western Europe Fiji 2.8 23 Oceania Melanesia Bangladesh 2.7 3,988 Asia Southern Asia South Korea 2.6 1,251 Asia Eastern Asia Mauritius 2.5 33 Africa Eastern Africa Luxembourg 2.5 12 Europe Western Europe Afghanistan 2.4 712+ Asia Southern Asia Malaysia 2.3 604 Asia South-Eastern Asia Syria 2.3 463+ Asia Western Asia Azerbaijan 2.2 206 Asia Western Asia Kuwait 2.2 59 Asia Western Asia Lebanon 2.2 95 Asia Western Asia Finland 2.2 118 Europe Northern Europe Tajikistan 2.1 143 Asia Central Asia Israel 2.1 159+
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The problem with arguing culture is that when you have a list of numerous countries all with different culture and population densities and all are doing better than the us, you have to start wandering if the one thing they do have in common might actually have an affect. We had this discussion with respect to health care too. Though it could be that the us is being presumptuous in trying to call itself a first world nation and we are just a lawless craphole.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
As for statistical arguments and their relevance-I would credit that statement as more worthwhile if I stopped hearing about tyrannies and defensive gun violence-which is precisely what I've been getting at. If you're going to reject inexact comparisons, you must reject *all* of them else it's entirely self-serving.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The problem with arguing culture is that when you have a list of numerous countries all with different culture and population densities and all are doing better than the us, you have to start wandering if the one thing they do have in common might actually have an affect.
I know, I know, they are all on the same planet?
I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that every country on that list with a number lower then ours does -not- have the same gun policy. I'd bet not even half.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... how many gun deaths in the US are the result of self-defense, how many are criminals killing other criminals, how many are mass shootings, how many are police officers killing criminals ...
I think this is the closest you have me convinced that Americans really do have a different culture that explains your violence.
*Well, they're just criminals being shot, criminals shooting each other, and police shooting criminals. Why would we cares about those gun deaths? A trial? What's that?*
Maybe as Stone_Wolf_ notes with his handy chart, the US (4.2) really IS culturally neighbours with war-torn areas like Yemen (4.2) and places being bombed and occupied like Palestine (4.1).
Wait, I think a wise man once had some remarks about the culture in Palestine:
quote:“As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality.” ... “Culture makes all the difference,” Romney said. “And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.” Among them, he cited “the hand of providence.”
Yeah, you guys should work on fixing this culture thing. Otherwise, that wise man might disapprove of your Palestinian-like culture.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The problem with arguing culture is that when you have a list of numerous countries all with different culture and population densities and all are doing better than the us, you have to start wandering if the one thing they do have in common might actually have an affect. We had this discussion with respect to health care too. Though it could be that the us is being presumptuous in trying to call itself a first world nation and we are just a lawless craphole.
As I find myself endlessly discussing with European friends: we are a confederacy of states, as it were. We represent highs and lows because we are, unlike most other countries in the world, systemically and culturally pluralistic in a way that is quite unique.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: You are missing the point you are unintentionally making. Despite being lawless crapholes, their gun homicide rate isn't significantly higher than ours. Which means our gun homicide rate is comparable with lawless crapholes...
At the bottom of that list is 4.2, the U.S. of A.
At the top is 91.6, Honduras.
So, I wouldn't say they are comparable.
We -are- comparable to the bottom 1/10 of that list.
Want to talk comparable, here is double and half our rate:
Madagascar 8.1 1,588 Africa Eastern Africa Indonesia 8.1 18,963 Asia South-Eastern Asia Mali 8.0 1,157 Africa Western Africa Pakistan 7.8 13,860+ Asia Southern Asia Moldova 7.5 267 Europe Eastern Europe Kiribati 7.3 7 Oceania Micronesia Guadeloupe 7.0 32 Americas Caribbean Haiti 6.9 689 Americas Caribbean Timor-Leste 6.9 75 Asia South-Eastern Asia Anguilla 6.8 1 Americas Caribbean Antigua and Barbuda 6.8 6 Americas Caribbean Lithuania 6.6 219 Europe Northern Europe Uruguay 5.9 199 Americas South America Philippines 5.4 4,947 Asia South-Eastern Asia Ukraine 5.2 2,356 Europe Eastern Europe Estonia 5.2 70 Europe Northern Europe Cuba 5.0 563 Americas Caribbean Belarus 4.9 473 Europe Eastern Europe Thailand 4.8 3,307 Asia South-Eastern Asia Suriname 4.6 24 Americas South America Laos 4.6 279 Asia South-Eastern Asia Georgia 4.3 187 Europe Eastern Europe Martinique 4.2 17 Americas Caribbean United States 4.2 12,996 Americas Northern America Turkmenistan 4.2 203 Asia Central Asia Yemen 4.2 990+ Asia Western Asia Palestine 4.1 145+ Asia Western Asia Albania 4.0 127 Europe Southern Europe Niger 3.8 552 Africa Western Africa Solomon Islands 3.7 19 Oceania Melanesia Sri Lanka 3.6 745 Asia Southern Asia Montenegro 3.5 22 Europe Southern Europe Djibouti 3.4 29 Africa Eastern Africa Argentina 3.4 1,360 Americas South America Cambodia 3.4 448 Asia South-Eastern Asia India 3.4 40,752+ Asia Southern Asia Turkey 3.3 2,320 Asia Western Asia Chile 3.2 541 Americas South America Taiwan 3.2 743 Asia Eastern Asia Uzbekistan 3.1 831 Asia Central Asia Latvia 3.1 70 Europe Northern Europe Iran 3.0 2,215 Asia Southern Asia Libya 2.9 176+ Africa Northern Africa Nepal 2.8 818 Asia Southern Asia Liechtenstein 2.8 1 Europe Western Europe Fiji 2.8 23 Oceania Melanesia Bangladesh 2.7 3,988 Asia Southern Asia South Korea 2.6 1,251 Asia Eastern Asia Mauritius 2.5 33 Africa Eastern Africa Luxembourg 2.5 12 Europe Western Europe Afghanistan 2.4 712+ Asia Southern Asia Malaysia 2.3 604 Asia South-Eastern Asia Syria 2.3 463+ Asia Western Asia Azerbaijan 2.2 206 Asia Western Asia Kuwait 2.2 59 Asia Western Asia Lebanon 2.2 95 Asia Western Asia Finland 2.2 118 Europe Northern Europe Tajikistan 2.1 143 Asia Central Asia Israel 2.1 159+
Did I miss something? I can't parse this list without a legend. What are the numbers in reference to?
Also, what is the source? World Health Org? CIA fact book?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yes, you missed the link and the headings on the page before.
Country/ Shooting Homicide Per 100,000 people/ Total Shooting Homicide from Most Resent Year/ Continent/ Region
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The problem with arguing culture is that when you have a list of numerous countries all with different culture and population densities and all are doing better than the us, you have to start wandering if the one thing they do have in common might actually have an affect.
The problem with this attitude is that it presupposes that the only thing that makes the US different from every other 1st world nation is our gun laws.
But that's patently untrue. For many reasons, but let's just focus on one.
This example is especially despicable, which is the point. Because it is completely consistent with your idea that, if every other low-murder country has something in common, and that thing is different in the US, then that must be the cause of all the violence.
The US has many times the black population (in percentage, no less, not just in pure population) of any other industrialized first world nation. The closest nations are Canada and the UK, with 2.5% and approximately 2%, respectively, compared to our 12.6% as of last census.
Canada's per capita homicide rate is 1.6, and the US's is 4.2. And statistically, it's not a lie that the American black population is much more likely to be victims and perpetrators of gun violence.
So, clearly, it's just because of all our black people, right? If we got rid of them, the problem would go away.
Correlation. Is not. Causation.
The people who cite these numbers as evidence that black people are inherently more violent and ought to be deported are wrong. But they're using the same logical framework, and an uncomfortably similar moral framework, as anyone who uses similar statistics to say that our gun laws are obviously the cause of our murder rates.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So the claim that gun control laws might have a strong link to levels of gun violence is similar in...what way, morally, to overt racism exactly?
Anyway, this might all be fine except for the part you don't say: that we can't be sure if gun control laws might have a substantial impact on gun violence, and since we can't be *sure*, we can resist all efforts to actually attempt to discover if there is a link the only real way it could ever be done, proving or disproving: by *trying it and seeing*.
Nope. Can't try it. We also can't try legalizing drugs in an effort to decrease violence and health problems because while we can look at other nations with less Prohibitionist laws and see that there might be a link, we can't *know*. So we shouldn't try.
But-again!-of course we can't look to those nations with greater guns per capita and make any sort of judgment either for why we would be safer, or something. We can't try *lowering* the number of guns because we can't *know* it would be effective.
So why on Earth is it reasonable to suggest *raising* the number of guns, then, for pity's sake? Yes, sarcasm and heavy exasperation, Dan, because of how eager Second Amendment advocates are to jam that particular camel through the eye of this needle.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm surprised by how often people here are railing at the horrible things that they make up for people who aren't here to say.
Seems like they could just say these things to their imaginary friends and leave us real discussion participants out of their fantasies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, it's a good thing indeed no one has suggested we shouldn't try to decrease the number of guns because of uncertainty, but has advocated or defended the idea of adding guns to schools without appearing to note the contradiction. That would be positively bizarre.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heya Dan, am I understanding you that you are saying that you disagree with deriving simplistic answers from complex, multilevel data as a principal because it's inappropriate regardless of the conclusion, or is it as someone else might have suggested, that you don't want to decrease the number of guns because you are not *sure* it will be helpful?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So the claim that gun control laws might have a strong link to levels of gun violence is similar in...what way, morally, to overt racism exactly?
I just tried to explain it. Which part was confusing? Ask a more specific question and I'll be happy to answer it.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, this might all be fine except for the part you don't say: that we can't be sure if gun control laws might have a substantial impact on gun violence, and since we can't be *sure*, we can resist all efforts to actually attempt to discover if there is a link the only real way it could ever be done, proving or disproving: by *trying it and seeing*.
Nope. Can't try it. We also can't try legalizing drugs in an effort to decrease violence and health problems because while we can look at other nations with less Prohibitionist laws and see that there might be a link, we can't *know*. So we shouldn't try.
But-again!-of course we can't look to those nations with greater guns per capita and make any sort of judgment either for why we would be safer, or something. We can't try *lowering* the number of guns because we can't *know* it would be effective.
So why on Earth is it reasonable to suggest *raising* the number of guns, then, for pity's sake? Yes, sarcasm and heavy exasperation, Dan, because of how eager Second Amendment advocates are to jam that particular camel through the eye of this needle.
Rakeesh, no, you're not really arguing with me at all, up there, you're just railing against unnamed conservatives or whatever.
It has nothing to do with whether or not we can know. We can't know anything, in the sense you mean here.
My point has nothing to do with uncertainty, and everything to do with the simple fact that the statistics don't make your argument for you.
The reasons I'm wary of the "Try it and see" approach to gun control, and wouldn't be nearly as wary of a "try it and see" approach to e.g. drug legalization, are twofold.
The less important, more practical, reason is that our society is very law-happy. It's easier to pass a law than it is to get rid of it. So I tend to be warier of "pass it and see" than I do of "repeal it and see."
The reason that's more important to me is similar, but slightly different. It's a moral position. Whenever possible, I'd prefer that people be free to be free to make their own choices and live their own lives. So, that's the other reason I'm going to be more sympathetic to "repeal it and see" than I would be to "criminalize it and see."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Heya Dan, am I understanding you that you are saying that you disagree with deriving simplistic answers from complex, multilevel data as a principal because it's inappropriate regardless of the conclusion, or is it as someone else might have suggested, that you don't want to decrease the number of guns because you are not *sure* it will be helpful?
Right.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I Was not attempting to argue lack of gun control as the singular problem. We have numerous problems in the us such as institutionalized poverty (which would make more sense as a reason why crimes occur more likely amongst some racial groups) which when combined with guns for all leads to more violence than in the rest of the first world. Get rid of guns for all, those numbers will drop.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Gun politics have only become a notable issue in Australia since the 1980s. Low levels of violent crime through much of the 20th century kept levels of public concern about firearms low. However, in the last two decades of the century, following several high profile multiple murders and a media campaign, the Australian government co-ordinated more restrictive firearms legislation with all state governments. Australia today has arguably some of the most restrictive firearms legislation in the world.
quote:Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
quote:The reason that's more important to me is similar, but slightly different. It's a moral position. Whenever possible, I'd prefer that people be free to be free to make their own choices and live their own lives. So, that's the other reason I'm going to be more sympathetic to "repeal it and see" than I would be to "criminalize it and see."
Well, that's a decent argument for freedom in the abstract. Tough to live one's life if you've been shot to death, though.
In any event, though, I don't appear to have misstated your position. It would take a much higher degree of certainty to increase gun control, but it takes no added or subtracted certainty at all to maintain it-and not much, it appears, to increase it. You would, in fact, have to be sure it would be helpful. Heck, you even qualified and explained *why* you would have to be sure-freedom, freedom, etc.
As for freedom, though, here's the rub: *I* would very much like the freedom of not wondering if the person next to me at the DMV, library, supermarket, or day care is carrying a gun or not. But for some baffling reason, the answer to my dilemma is 'buy a gun if you're concerned'. The solution always seems to be add more guns.
So you can claim all you like that these aren't your positions, Dan, and if you say they aren't I would like to believe it. But so long as you make arguments that fit precisely to also advance those positions, I'm not going to ignore the connection.
As for the moral similarity to racism, you explained the logical similarities...sort of. You skipped over the part where there is a moral similarity, though-in fact your argument was that it's simply similar, on moral grounds. I'm still not sure why. Because both (supposedly) involve prejudice?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Different view on Australia.
But...complex systems and drawing conclusions!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Over the past 20 years, the death rate from drug overdoses has tripled, CDC data show, with prescription painkillers the reason for much of that rise. In 2008 there were 36,000 overdose deaths, almost all of which were from prescription painkillers.
Get rid of prescription drugs and we can eliminate 36,000 deaths per year.
Well, you know except for all the lives they save and suffering they prevent.
quote:Fatal Car Crashes by Year 2010 32,885 2009 30,797 2008 37,172 2007 37,435 2006 38,648 2005 39,252
Get rid of cars and we can eliminate 35,000 deaths per year.
Well, you know, except for our need to travel, and move goods.
quote:(Homicide by firearm) United States 12,996
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Get rid of guns for all, those numbers will drop.
quote:After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.
Get rid of guns and we can eliminate 12,996 deaths per year.
Well, you know, except for rapes going up 30% and violent crime gong up 40%.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Of course those figures are completely speculative, but the idea I'm trying to put forth is that only looking at one side of a coin, the gain side, is not looking at the full picture.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Prescription drugs and cars are both regulated.
Rape is a difficult statistic to evaluate in context with gun violence, not as simple as the homicide by gun stat. One thing with rape, is it could be that the numbers of rapes have actually decreased but the reporting has increased so that could be a good number for all I know.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't know whether to be sad that we're now doing the bad guns to cars comparisons, or happy that it took us longer than usual to get to it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Oh, dear lord. I have to stop and step back for a minute. I know we're starting to talk about the issues about correlation science™ and I daresay you have found one of the worst statistical liars I have seen in a long time. Who the hell are these clowns and what agenda are they selling?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Prescription drugs and cars are both regulated.
And so are guns. And I (and others) are calling for more regulation. It is boots who is calling for all guns to be removed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't know whether to be sad that we're now doing the bad guns to cars comparisons, or happy that it took us longer than usual to get to it.
Because I was just using a generalized guns and cars comparison and not in anyway simply making a point that if we remove something useful yet dangerous we also loose it's use, not just its danger.
And anyhow, considering the similarities, there is a lot of fertile discussion in that topic anyway, your personal scorn aside. (Insert fertilizer joke here.)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...you have found one of the worst statistical liars I have seen in a long time. Who the hell are these clowns and what agenda are they selling?
Any stats to back up this attitude, or should your contemptuousness be enough evidence that we should start lighting the effigies?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Stone wolf, you and I probably are pretty close on this issue, though I am ok with some guns being completely outlawed (not all, but I think there are some guns currently ok that should not be legal at all). I live in gun country and most of my discussions are from fairly extreme people. My last discussion had people who claimed that the gun show loophole is just something made up by liberal press and there is no legal way to buy a gun without a full background check. Of course, I also recently learned this person, a trained scientist, is also a birther so I might be seeing a skewed view of the opposition.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'd say we are close.
Background checks for every gun purchase is just common sense, and it's not even hard with computers these days.
Which guns which are currently legal do you think should be outlawed, and why?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't know whether to be sad that we're now doing the bad guns to cars comparisons, or happy that it took us longer than usual to get to it.
Because I was just using a generalized guns and cars comparison and not in anyway simply making a point that if we remove something useful yet dangerous we also loose it's use, not just its danger.
Even though I'm against banning guns, the analogy doesn't work. A modern society works better without guns. It doesn't work better without cars. Arguments otherwise are extremely tenuous.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Modern societies have the tendency to regress temporarily/permanently into less civilized places, and one should be able to be prepared for such lapses.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I've been looking at the statistics that many gun rights advocates are using and they simply boggle my mind. Based on a survey of gun owners they claim that there are 1 million incidents a year where armed private citizens use a gun for self protection or protection of property and there are 162,000 incidents per year, where someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if the private citizen had not used a gun.
To put those numbers in perspective -- there are 1.2 million violent crimes reported annually in the US and 16 thousand homicides.
They are claiming that people use a gun to protect themselves in somewhere between 85% and 45% of all violent crimes. (It would be 85% if all cases were reported to police and 45% if none of the cases were reported to police). Even more outrageous, those statistics imply that private citizens with guns prevent 10 out of 11 homicides in the US. Even if you take "almost certainly" to mean "10% chance", it would imply 1 of every 2 attempted murders is stopped by a private citizen with a gun.
Does anyone actually find those claims even remotely plausible?
[ January 02, 2013, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No — related to which, look at the last full article I posted. It has links involved with how some of the statements pertaining to how guns prevent homicide were essentially pure invention.
quote:Modern societies have the tendency to regress temporarily/permanently into less civilized places, and one should be able to be prepared for such lapses.
Source?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp, you call a source I link to a liar (one of the worst) and when I ask for some evidence of that, you ignore me. Then when I make a basic statement which should be obvious, you ask me for sources? Come on! I'll do it, just to illustrate my point. For the sake of brevity, I'll limit it to my life time.
quote:1980s
1980 – New Mexico State Penitentiary Riot, (Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States) 1980 – Arthur McDuffie riots, May 1980, (Miami, United States) 1980 – Gwangju Democratization Movement, May 1980, (South Korea) 1980 – St Pauls riot, April 1980, (St Pauls, Bristol, England) 1981 – 1981 Toronto bathhouse riots, February 1981, (Toronto, Canada) 1981 – Brixton riot of 1981, (London, England) 1981 – Toxteth riots (Liverpool, England) 1981 – Moss Side riots (Manchester, England) 1981 – Chapeltown riot Leeds, England 1981 – Handsworth riots, (Birmingham, England) 1982 – Washington Anti-Klan protest 1982, Nov. 1982, (Washington, D.C., United States)[15] 1982 – Miami Riot, Overtown Riot, Dec. 1982, (Miami, United States)[16] 1983 – Polish Pro-Solidarity Riots, May. 1, (Poland)[17] 1984 – Anti-Sikh riots, (Delhi, Kanpur, India) 1984 – Operation Blue Star (Amritsar, India) 1984 – Aggieville Riot, (Manhattan, Kansas) 1984 – Queens Street Riot, 7 December 1984. (Auckland, New Zealand) 1985 – Sudanese Food Riots, Mar. 6, (Khartoum, Sudan)[citation needed] 1985 – Sri Lanka Riots, Jun. 3, (Sri Lanka)[citation needed] 1985 – Guadeloupe Riots, Jun. 25, (Basse-Terre, Guadeloupe)[citation needed] 1985 – Drumcree riots (Portadown, Northern Ireland, July 1985) 1985 – Durban Riots, August 8, (Durban, South Africa) 1985 – Cape Town Riots, August 30, (Cape Town, South Africa)[citation needed] 1985 – Escalante Riots and Massacre, September 15, (Escalante), (Negros Occidental) (Philippines)[citation needed] 1985 – Brixton riot of 1985, September 28, (London, England) 1985 – Second Handsworth riots, September 11, (Birmingham, England) 1985 – Broadwater Farm Riot, Oct. 6, (London, England) 1986 – Egyptian Conscription Riot, Feb. 25, (Egypt) 1986 – 1986 Sabah riots, Mar. 12, (Sabah, Malaysia) 1986 – Battle of Ryesgade, Oct 14–22 (Copenhagen, Denmark) 1987 – Chapeltown riot Leeds, England 1987 – Tampa Riot 1987, Feb. 1987, (Tampa, Florida, United States) 1987 – Iranian pilgrim riot, (Mecca, Saudi Arabia) 1987 – Atlanta Prison Riots, (Atlanta, United States) 1987 – First Intifada, Israel 1988 – Fremantle prison riot 1988 – Latino riot, Perth Amboy, New Jersey[18] 1988 – Tompkins Square Park Police Riot, August 1988 (East Village, Manhattan, New York City) 1988 – Hot Biscuit Riot, Shreveport, Louisiana[19] 1988–1989 – Nanjing Anti-African protests, (Nanjing, China) 1989 – 1989 riots in Argentina 1989 – 1989 Sukhumi riots 1989 – Dewsbury riot 1989 – Tampa Riot 1989, Feb. 1989, (Tampa, Florida, United States) 1989 – Tibetan Anti-China Riot, Mar. 5, (Lhasa, Tibet)[citation needed] 1989 – Caracas Riots of February 1989, Feb. 1989, (Caracas, Venezuela)[citation needed] 1989 – Aftermath of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, (Beijing China) 1989 – Romanian Revolution of 1989, (Romania) 1989 – Purple Rain Riot (South Africa) 1989 – Greek Fest Riot (Virginia Beach, Virginia)
1990s – 2000
1990 – Poll Tax Riots, (London) 1990 – Strangeways Prison Riot, (Manchester, UK), April 1 – April 25 1990 – Dinamo Zagreb-Red Star Belgrade riot, (Zagreb, Croatia, at the time part of Yugoslavia) 1990 – Salford, (Greater Manchester, UK), July 1990 – Hyderabad Riots – Over 150 people killed. Communal riots occurred due to the killing of Sardar and Majid Khan[disambiguation needed].[20] 1990–1990 Airin Riots, (Osaka, Japan), October 2 – October 5[21] 1990 – Urban riots in Vaulx-en-Velin (France), October 6, 1990.[citation needed] 1991 – 1991 Washington, D.C. riot in D.C.'s Mount Pleasant neighborhood, May 1991, (Washington, D.C., United States) 1991 – Riverport Riot, at Riverport Amphitheater during a Guns N' Roses concert, July 2 1991 – Crown Heights Riot, August 1991, (Brooklyn, New York, United States) 1991 – 1991 Moscow August Putsch, GKChP (Russian: ГКЧП) riot, or "August Coup Attempt", 19–21 August 1991, (Moscow, Soviet Union) 1991 – Ely Petrol Riots in Cardiff, Wales 1992 – Los Angeles riots, April 29 – May 4 (Los Angeles, United States) 1992 – Washington Heights Riot, July 1992, (New York, United States) 1992 – Chicago Bulls Victory Riots, June (Chicago, United States)[22] 1992 – Montreal, Quebec, Canada – Riot after Guns N' Roses show during the Guns N' Roses/Metallica Stadium Tour. 1992 – Bombay Riots and other inter-communal riots- Riots in the Indian city of Mumbai (formerly Bombay) after the demolition of Babri Mosque in Ayodhya. 1992 – Riot of Rostock-Lichtenhagen, Rostock, Germany – most serious xenophobic riots in Germany after World War II 1993 – Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 riots, Moscow, Russia 1993 – 18 May Riot, Copenhagen, Denmark, May 18, 1993. 1993 – Stanley Cup Riot, Montreal, Canada, June 9, 1993. 1994 – Stanley Cup Riot, Vancouver, Canada, June 14, 1994. 1994 – 1990s uprising in Bahrain, 35 killed, 1994–1999. 1995 – 1995 Gazi Quarter riots, 23 killed, March 1995, Istanbul, Turkey 1995 – Brixton riot of 1995, (London, England) 1995 – Manningham Riot, June 1995, (Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK) 1995 – Lansdowne Road football riot, English Neo-Nazi Hooliganism, (Lansdowne Road, Dublin, Ireland)[23] 1996 – Yatala Prison Riot, 6 May 1996, (Yatala Labour Prison, Adelaide, South Australia)[24] 1996 – Drumcree riots, July 1996, (throughout Northern Ireland) 1996 – Parliament House Riot, 19 August 1996, (Canberra, Australia)[citation needed] 1996 – Western Wall Tunnel riots, September 1996, (Jerusalem, Israel) 1996 – St. Petersburg, Florida Riot 1996, Oct. 1996, (St. Petersburg, Florida, United States) 1997 – Drumcree riots of July 1997, (throughout Northern Ireland) 1998 – Pullman (WSU) Riot, May 1998, (Pullman, Washington)[25] 1998 – Jakarta Riots of May 1998, (Jakarta, Indonesia) 1998 – Drumcree riots, July 1998, (throughout Northern Ireland) 1998 – Le Mirail urban riots, December 1998, (Toulouse, France) 1999 – Khaitan Riot, (Kuwait) 1999 – Michigan State University student riot, April 1999, (East Lansing, Michigan, United States) 1999 – Iran student riots, July 1999, July 1999, Iran 1999 – WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999, November, 1999 (Seattle, United States) 1999 – 1999 Berlin riot[citation needed] 2000 – Riot at the Staples Center after Lakers win Championship, June 21, (Los Angeles) 2000 – Cochabamba protests of 2000, (Cochabamba, Bolivia) 2000 – October Riots, (Israel) 2000 – Al-Aqsa Intifada, Israel 2000 – Riots between English and Turkish football fans break out in Copenhagen, Denmark after the final of UEFA Euro 2000,[26] 2000 – Chinese anti-corruption riot,[27] (Yangjiazhangzi, China) 2000 – Spanish anti-immigrant riots,[28] (Almeria, Spain)
21st century This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2009) 2001–2009 Many of Ahmedabad's buildings were set on fire during 2002 Gujarat violence
2001 – Philadelphia Mardi Gras Riots, February 2001, (Philadelphia, United States)[29] 2001 – Seattle Mardi Gras Riots, February 2001, (Seattle, United States) 2001 – University of Maryland student riots following team's loss in the 2001 NCAA tournament, (College Park, Maryland, United States) 2001 – 2001 Cincinnati Riots, April 2001, (Cincinnati, United States) 2001 – Quebec City Summit of the Americas, April 2001 (Quebec, Canada) 2001 – EDSA III, May 2001 (Manila, Philippines) 2001 – Oldham Riots, May 2001, (Oldham, Greater Manchester, England) 2001 – Gothenburg Riots, June 2001, (Gothenburg, Sweden) 2001 – Harehills riot Leeds, June 2001, West Yorkshire, England 2001 – Canada Day Riot, July 2001, Edmonton, Canada[30] 2001 – Bradford Riot, July 2001, (Bradford, England) 2001 – Genoa Group of Eight Summit protest, July 2001, (Genoa, Italy) 2001 – Holy Cross dispute, Summer 2001, (Belfast, Northern Ireland) 2001 – December 2001 Riots, (Buenos Aires, Argentina) 2001 – Ohio State University, First Chittfest block party riot, April, (Columbus, Ohio, United States)[31] 2002 – San Salvador Atenco Airport Riot, (San Salvador Atenco, Mexico) 2002 – Post- Godhra Riots after the Godhra train burning, Feb 2002 (Gujarat, India) 2002 – Naroda Patiya massacre, happened on 28 February, resulted in death of 97 Muslims by approximately a mob of 5000 people.[32] 2002 – 2002 Urso Branco prison riot,[33] (Rondônia, Brazil) 2002 – Chinese textile worker riot,[27] (Shuikou, Guangdong, China) 2002 – University of Maryland students following their team's victory in the 2002 NCAA tournament, (College Park, Maryland, United States) 2002 – Ohio State University post University of Michigan football game riot, November 2002, (Columbus, Ohio, United States) 2002 – Ohio State University, Second Chittfest block party riot, April 21, (Columbus, Ohio, United States)[34] 2002 – Guns N' Roses riot in Vancouver, Canada after their concert was cancelled. 2003 – Riot in Neos Marmaras (Porto Carras, Sithonia) against the EU-Summit, June 20,[35] (Chalkidiki,Greece) 2003 – Benton Harbor Riot, June 2003 (Benton Harbor, Michigan, United States) 2003 – Wrocław football riot 2003, March 30, 2003, 2003 – University of Minnesota campus riots after the Gophers men's hockey team won their back to back national championships 2003 – G8 riots in Geneva, Switzerland, June 2003[citation needed] 2003 – Maldives civil unrest, September 2003, (Malé, Maldives) 2003 – Riot over bad policy during a SARS outbreak,[36] (Xiandie, China) 2003 – The Exploited Montreal riot, Montreal, Canada.[37][38] October 14, 2003 2004 – Redfern riots, (Sydney, Australia) 2004 – Han–Hui riot,[39] (Henan province, China). 2004 – April 5 Haredi Riot At Brooklyn 2004 – Boston, Lincolnshire, Croydon,[40] and other UK towns. Fans rioted after England lost to France in their first game of the UEFA Euro 2004 group stage. 2004 – VEISHEA riot, drunk Iowa State students riot, cancel 2005 VEISHEA (Ames, Iowa) 2004 – Urso Branco prison riot,[33] (Rondônia, Brazil) 2004 – Chinese riot in response to a beating,[41] (Guangdong, China) 2004 – Citizens in Benghu riot in response to inflating prices and poor healthcare,[42] (Anhui, China) 2004 – Farmers riot when their land is taken and given to real-estate companies,[43] (Zhengzhou, China) 2004 – Chinese soccer fans riot when a Japanese team wins the final,[44] (Beijing, China) 2004 – Rioters attack police station December 30, 2004 [45] (Athens, Greece) 2005 – Dongzhou protest,[46] (Guangdong, China) 2005 – Macquarie Fields riots, February 2005, southwestern suburb of Sydney, Australia 2005 – Cedar Revolution, February 2005, Lebanon[citation needed] 2005 – Anti-Japanese riots, April 2005, Beijing, Shenzhen and Guangzhou, China[citation needed] 2005 – Riots in response to land taken for a power plant,[47] (Shenyou, China) 2005 – Riots over excessive pollution,[48] (Zhejiang, China) 2005 – Perpignan ethnic violence, May 2005,[49] France) 2005 – Maldives civil unrest, August 2005, (Malé, Maldives)[citation needed] 2005 – Chinese worker riot,[50] July 2005, (Xizhou, China). In 2005, the government admitted to 87,000 riots and demonstrations across China.[51] 2005 – Street clashes in central Athens,[52] September 2007, (Athens, Greece), 2005 – 2005 civil unrest in France, October 2005[citation needed] 2005 – 2005 Toledo Riot, October 2005, (Toledo, Ohio, United States) 2005 – Anti-Muslim Riots of Mau,[53] October 2005, (Mau, Uttar Pradesh),India 2005 – Mar del Plata Summit of the Americas, November 2005, (Mar del Plata, Argentina)[citation needed] 2005 – 2005 Cronulla riots, December 2005, (Sydney, Australia) 2005 – 2005 Birmingham race riots in Lozells, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 2006 – Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals (Edmonton Oilers victory), May 2006, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada[54] 2006 – Cartoon riots[citation needed] 2006 – 2006 Nuku'alofa riots, Nov. 16, (Nuku'alofa, Tonga) 2006 – 2006 Dublin riots, Feb. 25, Dublin, Ireland 2006 – San Bernardino punk riot, March 4, San Bernardino, California 2006 – 2006 labor protests in France, March–April, Paris, France[citation needed] 2006 – Riot during the European Social Forum, May 6, Athens, Greece 2006 – Burj Khalifa riot, (Dubai, UAE) 2006 – Hindu/Muslim Aligarh Riots, April 2006, (Aligarh, India) 2006 – April 2006 Venezuela prison riot, April, (Venezuela)[55] 2006 – 2006 civil unrest in San Salvador Atenco, (San Salvador Atenco, Mexico)[56] 2006 – Shengda Economics, Trade and Management College diploma riot [57] 2006 – Riot after a hospital doesn't treat a patient [58][full citation needed], (Sichuan, China) 2006 – Riot over government response to a whistleblower,[59] (Shandong, China) 2006 – Riot follows after a traffic accident incites violence,[60] (Chizhou, China) 2006 – Riot over a land dispute,[61] (Sanzhou, China) 2006 – 2006 protests in Hungary 2006 – Reclaim The Streets Riot Sep 24, Copenhagen, Denmark[citation needed] 2006 – Copenhagen December Riot (Nørrebro, Copenhagen, Denmark) 2007 – Anti-immigrant riots,[62] (Madrid, Spain) 2007 – 2007 – Guinea-Bissau riot 2007 – Chinese immigrants clash with riot police,[63] (Milan, Italy) 2007 – Riot starts when a company takes over the bus routes and doubles the fares,[64] (Zhushan[disambiguation needed], China) 2007 – Karachi Riots, (Karachi, Pakistan) 2007 – Muslim-Tibetan riot,[65] (Qinghai, China) 2007 – Muslim–Han riot [66] (Shandong, China) 2007 – Roma riots [67][unreliable source?] (Sofia, Bulgaria) 2007 – Georgian anti-government protests, September – December 2007 – Burmese anti-government protests 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel, France, Nov 25–30[citation needed] 2007 – Food riots in West Bengal 2007–2008 – Kenyan Presidential Election Riots 2008 – Striking dock workers clash with riot police at state-controlled Piraeus (OLP) and Thessaloniki (OLTH) ports
[6], Greece, Jan 11+15
2008 – Protests in Serbia – Riots in Belgrade on embassy's of countries recognizing the independence of Kosovo by Serbian nationalists. 2008 – Political crisis in Lebanon – Riots and engagements between Islamists and progressives. 2008 – Tibetian unrest, Mar. 10 – June. (Tibet) 2007–2008 – Food riots in India, Peru, Morocco, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Namibia, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Yemen, Guinea, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Mauritania and Senegal.[68][69][70][71][72][73] 2008 – UEFA Cup Final riots in Manchester, United Kingdom 2008 – South Africa riots – Attacks on foreign nationals 2008 – Fishermen riots in Paris – French fishermen clashed with police as they protested over rising fuel costs[74] 2008 – Fishermen riots in Brussels[75] 2008 – Kamagasaki G8 Riots Osaka, June 2008 Repression and Revolt, General Union 2008 – 2008 Guizhou riot in Guizhou, China[76] 2008 – Kanmen riot in the coastal province of Zhejiang.[77] According to the Ministry of Public Security, there were 87,000 riots and protests reported in 2005 and this number increases every year.[78] 2008 – 2008 riot in Mongolia, following the legislative election 2008 – August 2008 Montreal North Riot (Montreal, Canada) [79] 2008 – Yom Kippur Arab-Jewish riots in Akko, Israel 2008 – Riots throughout Greece after police shot dead a teenager.[80] Riots of 2009 (Akron, Ohio), (United States) 2008 – Riots in Sweden, Riots hits the immigrant suburb Rosengard in the Swedish city Malmö 17 dec – 20 dec. 2009 – Riots in Oslo, Copenhagen, London, Belfast, Toronto, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other cities following the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. 2009 – Rosemeadow brawl with over 100 in Rosemeadow NSW Australia 2009 – Riot on Jan. 13 in Riga, Latvia, after a peaceful demonstration of people, demanding parliament (Saeima) dissolution. 2009 – Icelandic riots caused by the global economic crisis, Jan. 22, Reykjavík, Iceland (From: Mail Online, London 1/23/09)[not specific enough to verify] 2009 – Anti-government Riots in Bangkok, Thailand. Protesters are demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. hundreds of protesters injured. Thai Army were deployed on the streets of Bangkok and the State of Emergency was declared. 2009 – Riots in Jharkhand, India ahead of government elections. 6 soldiers dead.[citation needed] 2009 – Luton, United Kingdom, riot against Muslim extremists who disrupted a homecoming parade of British soldiers, May 24[citation needed] 2009 – Riot in Downtown Los Angeles after Lakers win the Championship, June 14[citation needed] 2009 – 2009 Iranian election protests 2009 – Protests against military coup in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, June 28 --? 2009 – July 2009 Ürümqi riots in Ürümqi, China, July 5 --? 2009 – Riots in Jerusalem after the welfare officials rescued toddler who was being starved by his abusive Ultra Orthodox mother who is a member of the small Toldos Aharon community, which does not recognized the state of Israel, municipal services were suspended to all neighborhoods where riots developed. 2009 – Riots in Pakistan's central Punjab, 8 dead.[81] 2009 – Riots in Birmingham, United Kingdom when far-right activists clash with anti-racism protesters and local members of the Muslim and Afro-Caribbean community on August 8, 2009.[82][83] 2009 – Arab protesters clashed with Israeli security forces during riots near Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Israel.[84] 2009 – Football violence before, at and after a League Cup match between West Ham United and Millwall in London at Upton Park. There were also 3 pitch invasions. 2009 – Football riot in Široki Brijeg, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1 dead. 2009 – Bastille Day Riots in the commune of Montreuil, France; July 9
2010s 2010
2010 – Riots in Corsica between police force and supporters of the FLNC, 3 injured.[85] 2010 – Prison riot in Venezuela, 8 dead.[86] 2010 – Immigrants riots in Rosarno, Italy, 37 injured.[87] 2010 – Riots in Nigeria between Muslim and Christian gangs, 992 dead.[88][89] 2010 – Vancouver Winter Olympics Riot. Small short-lived disturbance involving Black Bloc members[90] 2010 – 2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising, 85 dead.[91][92] 2010 – Political protests in Thailand, 91 dead.[93][94][95][96] 2010 – April 10 – Springfest Riot, Harrisonburg, Virginia, dozens injured; 30–35 arrested.[97] 2010 – Riots in Indonesia, 3 dead.[98] 2010 – Riots in Kyrgyzstan, 5 dead[99] 2010 – Riots in Santa Cruz, California.[100] 2010 – Riots in Greece, 3 killed.[101] 2010 – Prison riot in Venezuela, 8 dead.[102] 2010 – Riots in northeast India, 3 dead, 70 injured.[103] 2010 – Riots in Kyrgyzstan between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks, 2 dead.[104] 2010 – Riots in Jamaica, 73 dead.[105] 2010 – Riots in Kyrgyzstan, at least 2000 dead.[106] 2010 – Prison riot in Mexico, 28 dead.[107] 2010 – Drake Seaport riot at least 7 injured [108] 2010 – Riots in Bariloche, Argentina, 2 dead, 12 injured.[109] 2010 – G20 Riots in Toronto Canada – Zero dead, significant damage, 1105 arrests [110] 2010 – Prison riot in Venezuela, 6 dead.[111] 2010 – Riots in Indian Kashmir, at least 10 dead.[112] 2010 – Riots in Yemen, 2 dead.[113] 2010 – Riots in Panama, 1 dead, dozens injured.[114] 2010 – Riots in Northern Ireland. Police estimate that million in damages have been caused, and over 80 police officers injured by nationalist rioters.[115] 2010 – Riots in Nigeria, at least 4 killed [116] 2010 – Prison riot in Quebec, Canada, 2 killed.[117] 2010 – Riots in Indian Kashmir, 50 people have now been killed in seven weeks of clashes with Indian forces.[118][119] 2010 – Riots in Karachi, Pakistan, 90 dead.[120][121] 2010 – Prison riot in Mexico, 14 dead.[122] 2010 – Prison riot in Kazakhstan, at least 2 killed, 80 injured.[123] 2010 – Farmers riot in Uttar Pradesh, India, at least 2 killed.[124][125] 2010 – Riots in Punjab province, Pakistan, 2 dead.[126] 2010 – Riots in Mozambique, 13 killed.[127][128] 2010 – Riots in Indonesia, 6 killed, 22 injured.[129] 2010 – Riots in Afghanistan, 2 killed.[130] 2010 – Riots in Karachi, Pakistan, 17 dead.[131] 2010 – Riots in Ecuador, 3 killed, 50 injured.[132] 2010 – Riots in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, 5 dead.[133] 2010 – Prison Riots in Venezuela, 16 killed.[134] 2010 – Belgrade anti-gay riot, 78 police officers and 17 civilians injured.[135] 2010 – Riots in Karachi, Pakistan, at least 33 killed.[136] 2010 – Prison riot in Haiti, 3 killed.[137] 2010 – Riots in Cross River State, Nigeria, at least 30 killed.[138] 2010 – Riots in Western Sahara, 11 dead.[139] 2010 – Riot in Maranhão, Brazil, 18 dead.[140] 2010 – Student riots in London, 14 injured, 35 arrested, Conservative head office damaged by protestors.[141] Goldsmiths College's UCU (lecturers union) issue statement in support of all demonstrators: "The real violence in this situation relates not to a smashed window but to the destructive impact of the cuts."[142][143] 2010 – Riots in Haiti, 2 dead.[144][145] 2010 – Riots in Cairo, Egypt, 2 dead.[146] 2010 – Riots in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, at least 25 people have been killed.[147] 2010 – Riots in Côte d'Ivoire, at least 3 killed.[148] 2010 – More student riots in London. Twelve police officers were injured with six requiring hospital treatment. 43 protesters injured, and 26 arrests made. several buildings were attacked, including the Treasury, the Supreme Court and Topshop. The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall car came under attack, smashing the window of the car and covered in paint.[149] 2010 – Riots in Buenos Aires, Argentina, at least 3 killed.[150] 2010 – Riots in Bangladesh, at least 3 killed and dozens more have been injured.[151] 2010 – Ethnic riots in Moscow, Russia, 29 injured.[152] 2010 – Riots in Ivory Coast, at least 20 people have been killed.[153] 2010 – Riots in the Constitución neighborhood, Buenos Aires, Argentina.[154] 2010 – Riots in Tunisia, 1 dead and several people injured.[155]
2011
2011 – Riots in Assam, Meghalaya, Northeast India, 4 dead.[156][157] 2011 – Riots in Arusha, Tanzania, 2 dead and nine people injured.[158] 2011 – Riots in Algeria, 2 dead and four hundred people injured in riots linked to food price increases and unemployment.[159] 2011 – Riots in Tunisia, at least 219 killed.[160] 2011 – Riots in Jos, Nigeria, more than 30 people dead.[161][162] U.S.A 2011 – Riots in Tirana, Albania, 3 killed, 17 policemen and soldiers were injured, including three seriously, along with 22 civilians.[163] 2011 – Riots in Lebanon, following the fall of Saad Hariri's government.[164] 2011 – Riots in Egypt, at least 846 killed.[165] 2011 – Riots in Tafawa Balewa, Nigeria, 4 killed.[166] 2011 – Prison riot in Sao Luis, Brazil, 6 dead.[167] 2011 – Religious riot in Banten, Indonesia, at least 6 killed.[168] 2011 – Riots in Manama, Bahrain, at least 70 killed, 92 civilians, 2 security forces injured.[169][170][171] 2011 – Riots in Sulaimaniya, Iraqi Kurdistan, two killed.[172] 2011 – Riots in Al Hoceima, Morocco, 5 killed.[173] 2011 – Riots in Libya, at least 24 people killed.[174] 2011 – Riots in Iraq, at least 13 killed.[175] 2011 – Riots in Yemen, 24 killed.[176][177] 2011 – Riots in Tunis, Tunisia, 3 killed.[178] 2011 – Miners riot in Peru, at least 2 killed.[179] 2011 – Riots in Cairo, Egypt, between Muslims and Christians, at least 13 people died and 140 were injured.[180] 2011 – Riot in Kissidougou, Guinea, at least 3 dead.[181] 2011 – Prison riot in Tikrit, Iraq, 2 dead, 14 wounded.[182] 2011 – Riots in Syria, at least 60 killed.[183][184][185] 2011 – Riots in Sana'a, Yemen, 42 people had died and at least 300 were injured according to doctors.[186] 2011 – Prison Riot in Hyderabad, Pakistan, 7 dead.[187] 2011 – Riot in London, around 250 thousand people, initially a small protest.[188] 2011 – Riots in Nigeria, at least 70 people have been killed.[189] 2011 – Riots in Mazar-e Sharif and Kandahar, Afghanistan, at least 13 people have been killed.[190][191] 2011 – Riots in Jessore, Bangladesh, 1 dead and at least 30 others injured.[192] 2011 – Riots in Cairo, Egypt, 2 killed and at least 15 wounded.[193] 2011 – Prison riot in Rumieh prison, Lebanon, 2 dead.[194] 2011 – Riot in Parwan province, Afghanistan, 1 killed.[195] 2011 – Riots in Uganda, at least 3 killed.[196] 2011 – Riots in Yemen, more than 100 people have died in two months of protests.[197] 2011 – Riots in Jaitapur, Maharashtra, India, 1 killed, more than 50 injured.[198] 2011 – Riots in Diyarbakir, Turkey, 1 killed.[199] 2011 – Riots in Dakar, Senegal.[200] 2011 – Riots in Tyre, Lebanon, 2 killed.[201] 2011 – Riots in Mansa, Luapula Province, Zambia, 3 people were burned to death.[202] 2011 – Riots in Nigeria, at least 500 killed in post-election rioting.[203][204] 2011 – Riots in Kampala, Uganda, at least 5 dead and 100 injured.[205][206] 2011 – Riots in Cairo, Egypt, between Muslims and Christians, 12 dead.[207] 2011 – Riots in Hesarak District, Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, 1 killed, 3 wounded.[208] 2011 – Riots on Israel's borders, at least 12 killed and dozens injured.[209][210] 2011 – Riots in West Bengal, India, at least 8 people killed in post-election violence.[211] 2011 – Riots in Taloqan, Takhar province, Afghanistan, at least 12 killed and 80 injured.[212][213] 2011 – Riots in Tbilisi, Georgia, 2 killed, 20 injured.[214] 2011 – Riots in Choucha refugee camp, Tunisia, at least 2 killed.[215] 2011 – Riots in Sri Lanka, 1 killed, at least 200 wounded.[216] 2011 – Riots in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India, 4 killed.[217][218] 2011 – Riots in Metlaoui, Tunisia, 3 dead and 90 wounded.[219] 2011 – Riots in Mogadishu, Somalia, 2 killed.[220] 2011 – Riots in El Rodeo I prison, Caracas, Venezuela, 19 killed.[221] 2011 – Riots in Vancouver, Canada after the Vancouver Canucks lost to the Boston Bruins in the Stanley Cup.[222] 2011 – Riots in Tripoli, Lebanon, at least 4 killed and at least 48 people wounded.[223][224] 2011 – Riots, three separate outbreaks in June and July, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, over 300 injured.[225][226] 2011 – Riots in Huancavelica, Peru, 3 killed and more than 30 injured.[227] 2011 – Riots in Guwahati, Assam, India, 2 killed and at least 30 injured.[228][229] 2011 – Riots in Juliaca, Puno Region, Peru, at least 5 killed and 30 wounded.[230] 2011 – Riots in Dadaab, Kenya, 2 killed and 13 injured.[231] 2011 – Riots in Karachi, Pakistan, at least 114 killed, including violence a week prior.[232][233] 2011 – Riots in Ganjam, Orissa, India, at least 2 killed.[234][235] 2011 – Riot in Karaganda, Kazakhstan, at least 7 killed in a prison riot.[236] 2011 – Riot in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, 7 killed in a prison riot.[237] 2011 – Riot in Hotan, China, 4 killed.[238] 2011 – Riots in Homs, Syria, at least 30 killed in sectarian violence.[239] 2011 – Riots in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, 1 killed.[240] 2011 – Riots in Malawi, at least 18 killed.[241] 2011 – Riots in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, 17 people killed in a prison riot.[242] 2011 – Riots in Papua, Indonesia, 18 killed in rioting between rival clans.[243][244] 2011 – Riots in Qalad District, Zabul province, Afghanistan, at least 4 killed.[245] 2011 – Riots in Pimpri-Chinchwad, India, 3 killed.[246] 2011 – Riots in London which spread to other cities in England, over a hundred injured and 5 killed.[247][248][249][250] 2011 – Riots in Mogadishu, Somalia, at least 10 killed.[251] 2011 – Riots in Chile, scores of demonstrators and police injured, 1 killed.[252] 2011 – Riots in Hakkari province, Turkey, 1 killed.[253] 2011 – Riots in Jos, Nigeria, at least 22 killed.[254] 2011 – Riots in Sbeitla, Tunisia, 4 injured, 1 teenage girl killed.[255] 2011 – Riots in Cairo, Egypt, 3 killed and more than 1000 injured in anti-Israel protests.[256] 2011 – Riots in Ambon, Indonesia, 5 dead and 80 injured in clashes between Christians and Muslims.[257][258] 2011 – Riots in Paramakudi, Tamil Nadu, India, 7 killed.[259] 2011 – Riots in Ujjain, India, 2 killed and 16 injured in a religious riot.[260] 2011 – Riots in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, India, at least 9 killed, over a dozen injured.[261] 2011 – Riots in Nablus, West Bank, 1 killed.[262] 2011 – Riots in Katunitsa, Bulgaria, 2 dead, at least 6 injured in ethnic clashes.[263][264] 2011 – Riots in Dakhla, Western Sahara, Morocco, 7 killed, at least 20 injured.[265] 2011 – Riots in Conakry, Guinea, at least 4 killed.[266][267] 2011 – Riots in Cairo, Egypt, at least 24 killed.[268][269] 2011 – Riots in Darrang district, Assam, India, 4 killed.[270] 2011 – Riots in Papua, Indonesia, 1 killed, 5 injured.[271] 2011 – Riots in Athens, Greece, 1 died of heart attack, 16 injured.[272] 2011 – Riots in Monrovia, Liberia, at least 1 killed and several others wounded.[273] 2011 – Riots in Nicaragua, at least 4 people killed in post-election violence and 46 officers have been injured.[274] 2011 – Riots in Damietta, Egypt, 1 killed and at least 11 injured.[275] 2011 – Riots in Cairo, Egypt, 33 killed.[276] 2011 – Riots in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, at least 1 dead.[277] 2011 – Riots in Karachi, Pakistan, at least 2 killed and 8 injured.[278] 2011 – Riots in Zakho, Iraq, at least 30 injured.[279] 2011 – Riots in Canete, Peru, at least 1 killed and 20 injured.[280] 2011 – Riots in Nabi Saleh, West Bank, 1 killed.[281] 2011 – Riot in Jagatsinghpur district, Orissa, India, at least 1 killed and 2 injured.[282] 2011 – Riots in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 6 killed.[283] 2011 – Riots in Zhanaozen, Kazakhstan, at least 11 people killed and 86 injured.[284] 2011 – Riots in Cairo, Egypt, at least 13 people killed and hundreds injured.[285][286] 2011 – Riots in Bima, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia, at least 2 people were killed and 8 wounded.[287]
2012
2012 – Riots in Uri, Indian Kashmir, India, 1 killed and 4 injured.[288] 2012 – Riots in Ebonyi, Nigeria, at least 50 killed.[289] 2012 – Riots in Qatif, Saudi Arabia, several killed and 3 injured.[290] 2012 – Riots in Bahrain, at least 100 killed and dozens injured within 2011–2012.[291] 2012 – Riots in Dakar and Podor, Senegal, 3 killed.[292][293] 2012 – Riots in Bangladesh, 4 killed.[294] 2012 – Riots in Port Said, Egypt, at least 74 killed and at least 1000 people injured.[295][296] 2012 – Riots in Cairo and Suez, Egypt, 7 dead.[297] 2012 – Riots in Qatif, Saudi Arabia, 1 killed and at least 6 injured.[298] 2012 – Riots in Chilaw, Sri Lanka, 1 killed and 4 injured.[299] 2012 – Riots in Apodaca, Nuevo León, Mexico, 44 killed in a prison riot.[300] 2012 – Riots in Rustenburg, South Africa, 2 killed.[301] 2012 – Riots in Afghanistan, 23 killed.[302][303][304] 2012 – Riots in Songea, Tanzania, 2 killed.[305] 2012 – Riots in Aysen, Chile, 1 killed and several injured.[306] 2012 – Riots in Macedonia, 2 killed and dozens wounded.[307] 2012 – Riots in Puerto Maldonado, Peru, 3 killed and more than 30 injured.[308] 2012 – Riots in Turkey, 1 killed.[309] 2012 – Riots in Port Said, Egypt, 1 killed and 65 injured.[310] 2012 – Riots in Israel, West Bank and Gaza, 1 killed and scores injured.[311] 2012 – Riots in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, at least 18 killed.[312] 2012 – Riots in Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistan, at least 17 killed and nearly 50 injured.[313] 2012 – Riot in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25000 protesters fired upon by police using water cannons and tear gas.[314] 2012 – Riots in Cairo, Egypt, at least 20 killed.[315] 2012 – Riots in Tunis, Tunisia, 1 killed.[316] 2012 – Riots in Papua Province, Indonesia, 1 killed and 4 injured.[317] 2012 – Riots in Rakhine State, Myanmar, 50 killed.[318][319] 2012 – Riots in Kaduna, Nigeria, more than 90 killed.[320] 2012 – Riots in Celendin, Peru, at least 3 killed.[321] 2012 – Riots in Potosi, Bolivia, 1 killed.[322] 2012 – Riots in Qatif, Saudi Arabia, 2 killed.[323] 2012 – Riots in Delhi, India, 1 killed and more than 85 injured.[324] 2012 – Riots in Linden, Guyana, at least 3 killed.[325] 2012 – Riots in Mérida state, Venezuela, at least 22 killed.[326] 2012 – Riots in Montreal, due to tuition cost increase, 2500 arrests as of May 25.[327] 2012 – Riots in Assam, India, at least 36 killed.[328] 2012 – Riots in Anaheim, California, several injuries and 24 arrested.[329] 2012 – Riots in Nyala, Sudan, 6 killed.[330] 2012 – Riots in Zogota, Guinea, 5 killed.[331] 2012 – Riots in Mumbai, India, 2 killed and at least 55 injured.[332] 2012 – Riots in North West Province, South Africa, 9 killed.[333] 2012 – Riots in North West Province, South Africa, 34 killed, 78 wounded.[334]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Different view on Australia.
Australia never had a similar event *before* that one either going back nearly 100 years from what I can find. In the 1996 event, 35 people were killed. Prior to 1996, going back as far as 1928, the largest number of people killed in a mass shooting was 8. Guess how often prior to 1996 Australia had mass murder events? About 1 every *4 years* going back to 1980, before that, there was 1 in the 70s, and before that you have to go back to 1928 to a number of Aboriginal mass murders. (Edit to add: And during the time prior to any of the mass shootings in the 80s, guns were perfectly legal, so you have to ask what happened that suddenly caused people to start going on shooting sprees, which is the question everyone should be asking to begin with) So no, they've not had a similar event since enacting those laws because what happened in 1996 was a *complete* anomaly.
That said, the argument that Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since then is a lie. In 2002 at Monash University, a student opened fire on his class, killing 2 and injuring 5.
Going further, in 2000, a man set fire to a hostel he was staying at and killed 15 people, so the strict gun laws apparently don't prevent crazy people from killing lots of people if they want to.
Australia's gun laws did not prevent one mass shooting event (and they outlawed even more guns after that one), and did not prevent one mass *murder* event since being enacted in 1996. In light of those events and the fact that Australia already had a very low incidence of mass murder to begin with, it's a stretch to suggest that Australia's gun laws have actually done much at all to prevent mass shootings simply because they didn't have many there to begin with.
But here's the point that the "Take away all guns" people are forgetting: You don't view weapon ownership as a human right, primarily because it isn't something you take advantage of.
The people who have lots of guns view it as a fundamental human right. *Many* of those view it as a right that they are willing to kill *and* die to protect. So I have three questions for you:
1. Are you truly willing to sacrifice the lives of many of the police and federal officers that would have to confiscate the guns those people own? 2. Are you truly willing to ensure that the people who don't agree with you are killed, possibly by the millions, in order to slightly decrease potential occurrences of mass shootings in the future? 3. Why don't you feel like a complete hypocrite for answering yes to either of the first two questions?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: 1. Are you truly willing to sacrifice the lives of many of the police and federal officers that would have to confiscate the guns those people own? 2. Are you truly willing to ensure that the people who don't agree with you are killed, possibly by the millions, in order to slightly decrease potential occurrences of mass shootings in the future? 3. Why don't you feel like a complete hypocrite for answering yes to either of the first two questions?
This is *fundamentally* dishonest argumentation. You take it as a given that *millions* of people would give up their lives to keep their guns, and that removing guns from society would thus require the willingness to kill millions of people. Sorry, but that is simply not an assumption you are qualified to make- nor one that anyone else here is required to accept, or even to entertain as plausible.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: But here's the point that the "Take away all guns" people are forgetting: You don't view weapon ownership as a human right, primarily because it isn't something you take advantage of.
The people who have lots of guns view it as a fundamental human right. *Many* of those view it as a right that they are willing to kill *and* die to protect. So I have three questions for you:
1. Are you truly willing to sacrifice the lives of many of the police and federal officers that would have to confiscate the guns those people own? 2. Are you truly willing to ensure that the people who don't agree with you are killed, possibly by the millions, in order to slightly decrease potential occurrences of mass shootings in the future? 3. Why don't you feel like a complete hypocrite for answering yes to either of the first two questions?
I can't speak for anyone else, but here's my answer: I'd support a complete ban on guns (sans for military and police personnel, and exceptions for hunters/farmers, and probably even "assault weapons" stored at gun ranges where folks can go and shoot and then lock them back up when they're done). That said, I recognize what you're saying and from my end, I'm willing to compromise - not a complete ban, but at least some steps to enforce stricter regulations and maybe bans on certain weapons and large capacity clips.
What I don't get is that so many I've talked to in the last few weeks on the pro-gun/2nd amendment side don't want to budge at all. Not even a restriction on gun manufacturer advertising (I point to the Bushmaster, whose most recent campaign boiled down to "regain your man card" by buying this gun). I appreciate Stone_Wolf_ here at least being willing to come to the table. But I haven't gotten that a lot from the other side.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This is *fundamentally* dishonest argumentation. You take it as a given that *millions* of people would give up their lives to keep their guns, and that removing guns from society would thus require the willingness to kill millions of people. Sorry, but that is simply not an assumption you are qualified to make- nor one that anyone else here is required to accept, or even to entertain as plausible.
I'm willing to accept there would be *some* violence were a complete gun ban/round up enforced.
But as my last post was pointing to - I'm willing to compromise to take some steps in the right direction. I don't see many on the other side willing to do that. You made a great post a few pages back about how the Constitution came together as a *compromise* - I wish I saw at least a popular willingness to give that a try.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Oh come on, Orincoro, do you believe *no one* is going to kill to protect their guns? With some of the gun nuts we have in this country? I don't take it as a given that Millions would give up their lives or kill officers attempting to take their guns (Note the word "possibly", I know you missed it because you read what you wanted to in what I said). I don't know how many would. but If even 1 percent of the gun owners in this country did so, you're talking at least 300,000 people (based on low estimates of gun ownership) who would ultimately end up getting killed by law enforcement in the best case scenario of them using their guns to defend what they view as a human right. If .1 percent did so, it's 30,000, which is about twice the number currently killed every year by guns.
Then you must consider the logistics of gun confiscation. As soon as one person chooses to fight law enforcement to keep their guns, law officers around the country would start taking extreme measures in *every* attempt to confiscate guns to protect officers. It wouldn't take long before you had SWAT teams storming the homes of people who have chosen to protest the gun laws just by not turning in their registered weapons because the police can't know if these particular gun owners are the type that would shoot police officers to keep their guns. And how many of those gun owners would respond to a SWAT assault on their homes by grabbing their guns and getting shot by the police? And "Oh hey, why aren't people on the left bitching about the Police State anymore?"
So no, it's not "*fundamentally* dishonest argumentation". It's reality. If you want to confiscate every gun in this country, you have to address the very real possibility that people aren't going to hand them over peacefully.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
I can't speak for anyone else, but here's my answer: I'd support a complete ban on guns (sans for military and police personnel, and exceptions for hunters/farmers, and probably even "assault weapons" stored at gun ranges where folks can go and shoot and then lock them back up when they're done). That said, I recognize what you're saying and from my end, I'm willing to compromise - not a complete ban, but at least some steps to enforce stricter regulations and maybe bans on certain weapons and large capacity clips.
What I don't get is that so many I've talked to in the last few weeks on the pro-gun/2nd amendment side don't want to budge at all. Not even a restriction on gun manufacturer advertising (I point to the Bushmaster, whose most recent campaign boiled down to "regain your man card" by buying this gun). I appreciate Stone_Wolf_ here at least being willing to come to the table. But I haven't gotten that a lot from the other side. [/QUOTE]
Personally, I don't and probably never will own a gun. I don't trust myself to be responsible enough to properly maintain and secure one, so I don't want to have one. I wish everyone who owned guns took it as a responsibility. But responsibility isn't something you can easily legislate. Realistically you are talking massive invasions of privacy to ensure that people are being responsible with their guns.
Laws that govern storage of weapons can only ever be punitive and never preventative because you can't legally enforce such a law until something has already happened with a weapon that was not stored according to the law. That is, of course, unless you want to have massive breach of privacy issues in requiring government officials enter a home to ensure proper storage on a regular basis (because having an inspection to ensure the guns are properly stored just once doesn't mean that those guns will always be properly stored).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...you have found one of the worst statistical liars I have seen in a long time. Who the hell are these clowns and what agenda are they selling?
Any stats to back up this attitude, or should your contemptuousness be enough evidence that we should start lighting the effigies?
You can't legitimately draw those conclusions from the Australian numbers. That's a particularly egregious example of what Dan has been complaining about. Is a 30 or 40% swing significant given the baseline and existing variance? We don't know, your source doesn't mention that. Is it actually a 30% swing on a per capita basis? We don't know, your source doesn't mention that. It's a perfect example of throwing out some numbers that sound good but don't actually show what the author claims they do.
FYI, the Snopes entry on the subject is helpful. More recent studies have been similarly inconclusive.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Different view on Australia.
Rakeesh: This seems like a roundabout response to Stone_Wolf. If it wasn't then disregard. If it was, I'd appreciate it if you'd leave him be.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Laws that govern storage of weapons can only ever be punitive and never preventative because you can't legally enforce such a law until something has already happened with a weapon that was not stored according to the law. That is, of course, unless you want to have massive breach of privacy issues in requiring government officials enter a home to ensure proper storage on a regular basis (because having an inspection to ensure the guns are properly stored just once doesn't mean that those guns will always be properly stored).
I was speaking of banning semi-automatic weapons for personal ownership, but allowing shooting ranges to own them. The idea is, those who want to shoot them can still go to a range, rent them and then return them. But that's just an idea.
My point was, I see an all-or-nothing attitude from the majority of pro-gun advocates I've spoken to. Is there no room for practical compromise? If imposing some regulations helps reduce gun death and violence by even a few percentage points while still allowing gun ownership, isn't that worth looking at seriously?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...you have found one of the worst statistical liars I have seen in a long time. Who the hell are these clowns and what agenda are they selling?
Any stats to back up this attitude, or should your contemptuousness be enough evidence that we should start lighting the effigies?
You can't legitimately draw those conclusions from the Australian numbers. That's a particularly egregious example of what Dan has been complaining about. Is a 30 or 40% swing significant given the baseline and existing variance? We don't know, your source doesn't mention that. Is it actually a 30% swing on a per capita basis? We don't know, your source doesn't mention that. It's a perfect example of throwing out some numbers that sound good but don't actually show what the author claims they do.
FYI, the Snopes entry on the subject is helpful. More recent studies have been similarly inconclusive.
Yeah and upon further examination the kind of garbage statements that that think tank produced are par for the course for them, they also are paid-for liars on the subject of healthcare and global warming.
quote:Samp, you call a source I link to a liar (one of the worst) and when I ask for some evidence of that, you ignore me. Then when I make a basic statement which should be obvious, you ask me for sources? Come on! I'll do it, just to illustrate my point. For the sake of brevity, I'll limit it to my life time.
Stone_wolf: Your giant superfluous list of riots isn't a source supporting your claim, it is a list of riots, mostly in non-modern parts of the world — like you literally didn't even trim from that list places completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Considering my father had to shoot his way out of one on that list...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So no, it's not "*fundamentally* dishonest argumentation".
Hi Boris. I take it from your last foray into gun arguments that my public apology was apparently not needed?
quote:But here's the point that the "Take away all guns" people are forgetting: You don't view weapon ownership as a human right, primarily because it isn't something you take advantage of.
The people who have lots of guns view it as a fundamental human right. *Many* of those view it as a right that they are willing to kill *and* die to protect. So I have three questions for you:
1. Are you truly willing to sacrifice the lives of many of the police and federal officers that would have to confiscate the guns those people own? 2. Are you truly willing to ensure that the people who don't agree with you are killed, possibly by the millions, in order to slightly decrease potential occurrences of mass shootings in the future? 3. Why don't you feel like a complete hypocrite for answering yes to either of the first two questions?
Wow. Your logic is essentially that if gun nuts in this country are literally as insane as you make them out to be and will prove gun-ban proponents' positions sane and salient by murdering police and federal officers in an epidemic of violence, it makes other people hypocrites. It's like a game of moral pass-the-buckery.
"Yassir, I done gone and shot that couple of cops when he done came ter take my gerns. Got 'em both with a 7.62 at 300 yards, were a nice clean shot on the first and my extended margazeen put the other one down afore he could radio in fer help. Now I tell you what, them gun-cerntrol folk got blood on their hands NOW, whoo-ee! Just like 'em lib-ruls to get all them boys murdered."
Also, just so that I'm sure I understand your idea of how the world works: what, honestly, is your estimation of a percentage chance that a gun ban and subsequent required trade-in of registered weapons would result in millions of deaths? Do you actually perceive this to be a remotely probable event?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Considering my father had to shoot his way out of one on that list...
Considering that, then .. what? What does the anecdote prove?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Here's the thing, Godric, there are almost no guns on the market now that are *not* "Semi-Automatic." Even modern revolvers meet the distinction of Semi-Automatic in that they fire a bullet with every pull of the trigger (Double action revolvers, at least. Good luck finding Single Action revolvers made in the past century). Conversely, I can go out right now and buy a rifle that doesn't meet the definition of "Semi-Automatic" but could still shoot through the engine block of a semi (there are very few high-caliber sniper rifles that are Semi-Automatic. The Barret .50 Cal. rifle is bolt-action and used to kill people from nearly a mile out by the military).
There is also no established definition of what constitutes an "Assault weapon" that doesn't rely almost entirely on purely cosmetic things. This is one of the reasons that the Federal Assault weapons ban didn't do much (As for proof that it was useless, how about that since the ban phased out in 2004, the number of firearm homicides in the US has dropped by nearly 20 percent). The Federal ban relied on things like, "This gun has a barrel shroud and a flash suppressor, so it is illegal." Neither of those things actually increases the lethality of a firearm. They just make it operate differently and protect the shooter from things like blindness and burning their hands on the barrel. This differs from what is referred to as an Assault *Rifle* which is defined as a weapon with a removable cartridge that allows the user to select between semi-auto, burst, and fully automatic firing methods.
And you know what, it's already illegal to purchase or sell any weapon made after 1986 that is capable of fully automatic fire, so a private citizen *can't* get the the weapons that our military currently uses as in this country. You can get one that was made prior to 1986 as long as you follow the requirements set out in the National Firearms Act, but nothing made new can be purchased legally. Modifying semi-automatic weapons made after 1986 to fire in a full automatic mode is *already illegal*. Modifying a weapon made before 1986 requires a high tax, registration with the ATF, and a whole lot of other stuff. There are companies that specialize in that, but they deal with a lot of laws doing so.
The "All or nothing" attitude probably comes mostly from the wording of the second amendment. There are lots of arguments about what the intent and purpose of the second amendment was, but the simple fact that the amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Thus, the people you talk to don't feel they should have to budge in any way whatsoever. (A proper reading of the text and its construction would suggest that the people *are* the Militia, and when you consider how long it takes to mobilize a proper fighting force in the event of an invasion, having a bunch of people who can instantly respond to an invasion with their own weapons is useful at the very least.)
So the trick would be to find a way to improve gun laws without impacting the rights of gun owners. For instance, it would not be in any way against the wording of the constitution to regulate who is allowed to *sell* guns (And we already do). It would also not be against the constitution for the populace to start putting pressure on gun merchants to start requiring mandatory (but not legislated) training before a person can purchase a firearm.
There are several gun merchants who do this already. They won't allow someone to buy a weapon without having them shoot it first. If they can't handle it, they tell them to take some classes or they won't sell them the gun. If every gun store owner did that, I can guarantee that accidental gun deaths would drop significantly.
But the give no ground approach isn't limited to gun supporters, as evidenced by the guy who delights at the idea of dragging congressional representatives tied to a truck around until they "See the light" and happily obliging the "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" people, I would assume by killing them all. Which is *such* a civilized attitude. (See Here).
And probably the last thing I'll say on the subject, and I may not do a very good job of stating it, is that people have owned guns in this country since its creation. Semi-automatic weapons and expanded magazines have existed since the late 19th century. When I look at events like the tragedy in Connecticut and the others that have happened recently, I don't see a failure of gun policy. I see a failure of humanity.
The people that commit these acts are all too often shut off from the world without a single other person who gives a crap about whether they exist or not. They are people who are terribly alone and angry at the world for not including them, so they lash out at everyone around them.
The number of people who do this type of thing has been increasing steadily for years, and will continue whether we outlaw guns or not (People like to point out the guy in China who stabbed 23 kids and only injured them as a reason that gun availability is bad, but they ignore the event in 2003 when a man in China stabbed *and killed* 13 people over a land dispute). There are some deep injuries in our society that we are overlooking in the name of political gain. Reactionary legislation like gun bans in response to a societal failures is like putting Band-aids on a broken arm and pretending that will fix the break. At best, we prove ourselves delusional, and at worst we sacrifice our rights for a solution that could cause more harm than good.
And you may ask, "Why don't we just *try* doing this or that?" I don't know about you, but I trust our government with *trying* things about as far as I can throw them. The only way I'd ever go along with any legislation that is experimental was if it was tied to specific, realistic, measurable results being achieved in a specific time frame, and if it failed to meet those requirements, would be automatically repealed. Even then, I still wouldn't trust the government not to suddenly decide that the law should keep on existing despite meeting those requirements.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: I take it from your last foray into gun arguments that my public apology was apparently not needed?
Considering that the guy who shot Giffords was so far gone that reality would have had no influence on him, the statement that Republican rhetoric was the cause of it has turned out to be pretty stupid, and you *should* apologize for stating it was a cause. I don't expect you did so, mostly cause you're you. But even if you did, I would have missed it because the statement by someone else asking if I should be somewhere shooting up a mall was offensive enough to take me off this forum for a good couple years. I just recently decided to come back to see if the vitriol in here has calmed down at all, and based on most threads I can see it hasn't, as evidenced by this response:
quote: Wow. Your logic is essentially that if gun nuts in this country are literally as insane as you make them out to be and will prove gun-ban proponents' positions sane and salient by murdering police and federal officers in an epidemic of violence, it makes other people hypocrites. It's like a game of moral pass-the-buckery.
"Yassir, I done gone and shot that couple of cops when he done came ter take my gerns. Got 'em both with a 7.62 at 300 yards, were a nice clean shot on the first and my extended margazeen put the other one down afore he could radio in fer help. Now I tell you what, them gun-cerntrol folk got blood on their hands NOW, whoo-ee! Just like 'em lib-ruls to get all them boys murdered."
Also, just so that I'm sure I understand your idea of how the world works: what, honestly, is your estimation of a percentage chance that a gun ban and subsequent required trade-in of registered weapons would result in millions of deaths? Do you actually perceive this to be a remotely probable event?
I'm seriously wondering if it's even possible for you to be in a political discussion without being a snarky reductionist douchebag. I guess that's just what you are.
But let me clarify my point for you, since it apparently flew right over your head. I would like you to consider for a moment whether a perfectly sane and logical human being, who believed heavily in the second amendment outlining a fundamental human right, could be willing to either kill or be killed in protest of the removal of that right. Do you think that's possible? Likely? I do. But even if there are no people who do that, there are plenty of people in this country who are not all there (I grew up in Rural North Carolina, so I know a few growing up) who are more than willing to shoot anyone who steps foot on their land without permission, and wouldn't hesitate to have a good old shootout of the type you have so eloquently written if someone came to disarm them.
And let's explain something else, in this country, if you perform an action that results in a reaction leading to the death of another person, you can be made legally responsible for that death. Whether you knew it would result in that death or not isn't a defense in most cases. If we enact legislation that can cause a reaction that will result in the deaths of many people, whether they are ignorant rednecks shooting cops or innocent people reacting to a SWAT raid, how would it not be hypocritical to enact such a law for the express theoretical purpose of saving lives?
quote: what, honestly, is your estimation of a percentage chance that a gun ban and subsequent required trade-in of registered weapons would result in millions of deaths? Do you actually perceive this to be a remotely probable event?
An estimation? Not possible. What do you think the percentage chance of such a law causing a civil war would be? Because I can see how such a thing at the federal level might cause civil war, given the way many gun owners (and states) feel about the second amendment.
Realize first that such a law would absolutely require a major modification to the Constitution, then realize that a significant portion of the population would not agree to such a modification. How much of a stretch to your imagination is to to think those people who oppose the modification could start an armed rebellion rather than submit to the removal of what they view as a human right? Whether the rebellion would be successful or not is immaterial. Only 3% of the gun owners in this country would have to die for the casualties of such an event to reach the million mark.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This is one of the reasons that the Federal Assault weapons ban didn't do much (As for proof that it was useless, how about that since the ban phased out in 2004, the number of firearm homicides in the US has dropped by nearly 20 percent).
*sigh* No. Do I need to explain why, again?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Oh come on, Orincoro, do you believe *no one* is going to kill to protect their guns?
Of course there are people stupid and crazy enough to kill and die for guns. But not MILLIONS of people. So don't give me that all or nothing bullshit -I'm not saying it would be pleasant or entirely peaceful, and I'm not even advocating that it be done... but i am calling you on the ridiculous assertion that millions of Americans would sacrifice their lives over gun rights. I think that's laughable.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... Stone_wolf: Your giant superfluous list of riots isn't a source supporting your claim, it is a list of riots, mostly in non-modern parts of the world — like you literally didn't even trim from that list places completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Hold on, hold on hold on. Let the guy explain himself.
You've got to give the guy a chance to explain how things like drunken soccer riots in the UK would be substantially improved by a good injection of guns.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Sounds legit to me. If I know anything, I know that guns have decreased violence worldwide. It's not hard to oh wait no...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: I take it from your last foray into gun arguments that my public apology was apparently not needed?
Considering that the guy who shot Giffords was so far gone that reality would have had no influence on him, the statement that Republican rhetoric was the cause of it has turned out to be pretty stupid, and you *should* apologize for stating it was a cause. I don't expect you did so, mostly cause you're you.
Boris, you're trying to pretzel madly here. Ignoring entirely whether or not your future conditions for demanding an apology were worth the pixels they were printed on*, your demand was contingent on finding out that Giffords wasn't the primary target. Now you're trying to say you still deserve an apology even though Giffords was the primary target?
*to wit: was I concluding that violent rhetoric was "the" cause of it, or shall we look at what I said and see what was actually going on:
quote:Originally posted by the actual Samprimary, not the one in Borisworld I, individually, don't want to mutely accept dangerous rhetoric from the side that constantly references violence. I am utterly unsurprised that a multi-year spike in irresponsible, alarmist, right-wing rhetoric with allusions to violence and 'second amendment solutions' has coincided with a violent assassination attempt against a democrat.
Even if this man turns out to have NOTHING to do with any conservative leanings at all, even if the judge was the primary target or something, I don't see how democrats are wrong to feel worried by a mass rise in hate speech and terrorist attacks. The FBI are even reporting on it. this is not an imaginary bogeyman that Democrats are making up.
Frankly, I don't think liberals speak out enough against our current environment.
The one thing I want to see come out of this hideous event (besides the absolutely anticipated 'he's not OUR fault' spree) is the death of the goddamned irresponsible violent rhetoric: sarah palin's 'don't retreat, just reload!' and putting literal crosshairs on democrats (including today's victim), the tea party's "take aim" and "put the sights on Giffords" style egging. There's a culture of rhetoric like this that has grown like a cancer within Republican politics over the last two years, and now that there was a political shooting like this, the least we can get out of it is a realization that it is pathetic and irresponsible and should end immediately.
to which you said
quote:Samp, I'm going to copy and past that, and if it turns out that Giffords wasn't the primary target, I'm going to demand a public apology from you.
and now
Oh wow yeah I was obviously saying that Republican rhetoric was the cause of the shooting, because
wait
nope
no I wasn't
I guess I would totally apologize to you if, as you say, 'the statement that Republican rhetoric was the cause of it has turned out to be pretty stupid' because yeah, that would be pretty stupid.
it's just kind of inconveniently not at all a statement I made sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Oh come on, Orincoro, do you believe *no one* is going to kill to protect their guns?
Of course there are people stupid and crazy enough to kill and die for guns. But not MILLIONS of people. So don't give me that all or nothing bullshit -I'm not saying it would be pleasant or entirely peaceful, and I'm not even advocating that it be done... but i am calling you on the ridiculous assertion that millions of Americans would sacrifice their lives over gun rights. I think that's laughable.
*headdesk* Pay attention to the word *possibly*. I don't think that many will die, but it *is* possible, though very remote, that events following such a ban could spark other events that result in deaths that reach the million mark and go beyond that.
But that's not the point I was making (yes, I exaggerated, southerners do that). I mean come on, even if half a percent of the gun owners out there get into a shoot out with police and die, you've introduced a piece of legislation that has resulted in more death than even prohibition.
The point I was making is that the people who are willing to demand that the government outlaw guns and confiscate them all and "To hell with the people who fight us!" are being hypocritical by saying the purpose of such a law is to save lives. The people who say that are not trying to save lives by supporting gun control, they are trying to win a political argument and thumping their chests like a bunch of primates.
If you were to ask me what I think needs to be done, my response would be to say that the government should require potential gun owners to successfully complete gun safety courses and stress that they not allow anyone who has not also done so to handle their firearms. That would be infinitely more successful a solution than any amount of banning, waiting periods, or registration laws could ever do. I mean look at how Switzerland handles it. They're number three in the world for number of guns per capita according to one of the previous lists, but have less than 1 firearm death for every 125,000 people.
Finally, I'm going to point this out real quick...the list that you guys are getting the 4.9 per 100,000 number from is showing all Homicides. not just gun homicides. Go here for the most recent statistics an the US's gun homicides. Please note that California, the state with some of the most strict weapons laws in the US, is on top with the most gun homicides. The next state, Texas, has half the number, and 2/3 the population.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Considering my father had to shoot his way out of one on that list...
Considering that, then .. what? What does the anecdote prove?
I find myself less interested in posting in this thread. I would rather take a break and let things cool down then escalate what is already quickly turning into a bad situation.
Topics like this, religion, abortion, etc, tend to polarize and both sides spend a lot of time yelling "APPLES" or "ORANGES" and very little that is useful gets accomplished, while a lot of alienation and desensitivity, not to mention bickering and back biting flourish.
And while discussions like this are important to have, they in and of themselves do not -do- anything unless we can freely and honestly exchange ideas and find a way to a middle ground which all parties find tolerable.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: I appreciate Stone_Wolf_ here at least being willing to come to the table.
I tried to post a thank you before, but my smart phone wouldn't let me...misnomer "smart phone", they should call it "frustratingly savant phone".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The point I was making is that the people who are willing to demand that the government outlaw guns and confiscate them all and "To hell with the people who fight us!" are being hypocritical by saying the purpose of such a law is to save lives. The people who say that are not trying to save lives by supporting gun control, they are trying to win a political argument and thumping their chests like a bunch of primates.
They would be hypocritical IF THEY SINCERELY BELIEVED that the result of such a law would be a net increase in deaths and violence. I don't want a gun ban, but I think (a) the possibility of mass casualty from a gun ban would be remote outside of a few fringe right-wing militias, and (b) it's a long moral pass to hold anti-gun voters as ultimately responsible for someone who murders a cop or a federal agent cause 'they came to take my guns!'
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Oh come on, Orincoro, do you believe *no one* is going to kill to protect their guns?
Of course there are people stupid and crazy enough to kill and die for guns. But not MILLIONS of people. So don't give me that all or nothing bullshit -I'm not saying it would be pleasant or entirely peaceful, and I'm not even advocating that it be done... but i am calling you on the ridiculous assertion that millions of Americans would sacrifice their lives over gun rights. I think that's laughable.
*headdesk* Pay attention to the word *possibly*. I don't think that many will die, but it *is* possible, though very remote, that events following such a ban could spark other events that result in deaths that reach the million mark and go beyond that.
Ah, I see, we're supposed to entertain the wildest possible scenarios (not actually within the realm of reasonable possibilities), and if we don't, we don't believe *anything* adverse will happen at all. Brilliant. That's just brilliant thinking.
quote: But that's not the point I was making (yes, I exaggerated, southerners do that). I mean come on, even if half a percent of the gun owners out there get into a shoot out with police and die, you've introduced a piece of legislation that has resulted in more death than even prohibition.
Again, "even half a percent," which you are employing as semantic prevarication to portray this as on the low-side of likely outcomes, is well over a million people. That's not realistic. It just is not within the realm of possibility.
As Samp points out, should political violence, drawing partly upon populist anger related to gun bans and other government actions occur, there is a long moral path between the advocacy of such a ban, and the responsibility for such an outcome. And even then, the question of moral culpability is between the violent parties and those who advocate government action, and is not clear cut. We have perfectly good historical examples: abolitionists are not blamed for the death toll of the civil war, because we recognize deeper and more universal economic and social imperatives that drove political action leading to violence during that period. Should we suggest that abolitionists are responsible for the bloodshed? In part, they certainly were responsible for it: they helped bring it about. But we do not hold them morally culpable for the deaths stemming from the war, nor do we hold the Union in general responsible for the bloodshed, even though they precipitated it, intentionally, by refusing to allow secession.
So bringing up a remote political scenario involving violence, and attempting to temper an anti-gun movement by postulating that it will lead to violence (committed by the opposition to such measures, mind), is less than helpful. It plays very closely into the pro-gun lobby's tactics of fear over reason: the mere implication of violence; people carrying guns, people willing to die to protect guns, is a fear based philosophy. . No matter how unreasonable the solution of "more guns!" is, the gun lobby will offer it as a counter, and promise, by implication, violence against all opposition. And you're buying it.
[ January 03, 2013, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Again, "even half a percent," which you are employing as semantic prevarication to portray this as on the low-side of likely outcomes, is well over a million people
Half a percent of the gun owners in this country (estimated to be around 40 million from some sources I've seen, but is likely higher due to ) is about 200,000 people, Orincoro, not over a million. Math is hard, isn't it? But let's say for sake of argument, .05% of the gun owners out there choose to take up arms. Is that a small enough number? 20,000 people is not even remotely an unrealistic number who would rather die than give up their guns, and that's more than double the annual death count from gun homicides in this country right now.
And for clarification, my suggestion that the people who put such a law in place would be responsible for a great deal of death would involves Not *one* police or federal officer being killed. It assumes a best case scenario of only the gun owners being killed in such shootouts, because any time a group of police is assaulted with a firearm, they are authorized to used deadly force. These are people who, aside from being crazy about guns, have up until such a ban is implemented, done absolutely nothing wrong. After all, we're talking legally obtained guns here, and criminals can't legally obtain guns in this country. With a gun ban, you are instructing the government to forcefully remove personal property from its citizens. That is morally objectionable and an incredible violation of civil liberty.
Based on what I've read from some of the far left of the spectrum, the people who want a confiscation gun ban *know* that the death of gun advocates is very likely, and they just don't care. They actually *want* it. I mean hell, who cares about a bunch of dumb rednecks anyway. They're not really people, after all. To some of the gun control advocates I've read articles from, the idea of getting rid of guns is worth all the death it *takes* to happen, regardless of the death toll. And *that* is hypocritical, meeting Sam's little requirements for hypocrisy spelled out here:
quote: They would be hypocritical IF THEY SINCERELY BELIEVED that the result of such a law would be a net increase in deaths and violence
Further, comparing slavery and guns is kind of unrealistic as well. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would not be willing to state that causing death to extend freedom is a greater moral purpose. Causing death to *restrict* freedom, as in the case of gun control, is a significant moral difference.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This is one of the reasons that the Federal Assault weapons ban didn't do much (As for proof that it was useless, how about that since the ban phased out in 2004, the number of firearm homicides in the US has dropped by nearly 20 percent).
*sigh* No. Do I need to explain why, again?
Oh please do. I'm dying to understand why you think the federal assault weapons ban actually accomplished anything. Do you have any evidence to suggest it has, or are you just choosing to believe what you want in the absence of any evidence that you are willing to not rationalize away? I mean, the ban didn't stop this. It didn't stop this. The only noticeable thing that occurred during that time is a sudden decrease in overall murders during the mid 1990s, which can be attributed to a number of other factors, and with no increase in homicides after the ban disappeared, such evidence is not truly valid. What exactly do you think the ban accomplished?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: Again, "even half a percent," which you are employing as semantic prevarication to portray this as on the low-side of likely outcomes, is well over a million people
Half a percent of the gun owners in this country (estimated to be around 40 million from some sources I've seen, but is likely higher due to ) is about 200,000 people, Orincoro, not over a million. Math is hard, isn't it? But let's say for sake of argument, .05% of the gun owners out there choose to take up arms. Is that a small enough number? 20,000 people is not even remotely an unrealistic number who would rather die than give up their guns, and that's more than double the annual death count from gun homicides in this country right now.
Don't be a complete jackass. Estimates yield about 50 million *households,* including over half the population of the US.
Last time I checked, there was an average of more than one person per household.. Huh, gee "math is hard," but it's easy to make yourself look like a jackass. (Note: the high side of estimates of people with access to guns or living in households with guns would put the number over a million. A conservative estimate would have the number closer to just under a million. Personally I do not care to argue specifics, because I don't find that it matters. Your quibbling of "just a half percent," as being not much was ridiculous, and it still is).
quote: Further, comparing slavery and guns is kind of unrealistic as well. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would not be willing to state that causing death to extend freedom is a greater moral purpose. Causing death to *restrict* freedom, as in the case of gun control, is a significant moral difference.
You have this habit of mistaking semantics for fact. To wit: "restricting freedom," is not the avowed purpose of gun control advocacy. In fact, we could, if we were only to wage this battle in semantic terms, claim that gun control is a fight *for* freedom: the freedom from the presence of dangerous weapons.
Think back on the slavery issue for a second: secessionists claimed that their *freedoms* to govern themselves and to engage in slavery were being impinged upon. Their *freedom* to *enslave*. In the same vein, gun advocates claim a freedom to be armed and potentially dangerous, and react against that "freedom," being impinged. You see, there are two sides to that coin, as there usually are.
You have to start with the understanding that not everyone sees gun control as fundamentally different, from, say, emancipation: both are the advocacy of changes to the way our constitution is read, which affect people's personal freedoms and liberties. And it could as easily be said that gun control and the repeal of the 2nd amendment is a stroke in *favor* of freedom. I make no such argument, but I do not countenance *you* making the opposite claim unchallenged.
quote:Based on what I've read from some of the far left of the spectrum, the people who want a confiscation gun ban *know* that the death of gun advocates is very likely, and they just don't care. They actually *want* it. I mean hell, who cares about a bunch of dumb rednecks anyway. They're not really people, after all. To some of the gun control advocates I've read articles from, the idea of getting rid of guns is worth all the death it *takes* to happen, regardless of the death toll. And *that* is hypocritical, meeting Sam's little requirements for hypocrisy spelled out here:
Faceless, baseless, unsourced and directionless claims such as this deserve absolutely no response from me, whatsoever. I say this merely as a courtesy, to let you know that I did see it, and that I do not see it as deserving of response.
I quote myself for emphasis:
quote: I make no such argument, but I do not countenance *you* making the opposite claim unchallenged.
Do not respond by addressing what I said about what gun control means as an argument. It was an example of semantic quibbling of the type you were doing. It is not an argument I am making.
[ January 03, 2013, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Don't be a complete jackass.
And I keep getting reminded why I left this forum in the first place...So much civility. Outright personal attacks are so useful in a political discussion. But hey, 50 million households means .5% is 250,000 households. The average household is 2.59 people. So 500,000 people. Would every person in the house get killed in a confiscation shootout? Maybe, but most likely not. .5% isn't outside the realm of possibility. But you're still just arguing outside the point I'm making in an attempt to discredit me and thus dismiss everything I'm saying as a result. You haven't addressed the point that people would die as a result of a ban, thus making such a ban extremely deadly.
quote: freedom from the presence of dangerous weapons
People who believe that banning legal gun ownership will grant them this kind of freedom are outright delusional. For reasons that have been mentioned countless times, it is *impossible* to remove all weapons from this country. Aside from "dangerous weapons" being a completely vague description (A claw hammer is a dangerous weapon. A kitchen knife is a dangerous weapon. But I guess it's okay if we follow China's lead and start planning for registration of Kitchen knives like their recent spate of mass stabbings has convinced them to do), banning firearms that are currently legal without grandfathering only makes lawful citizens into criminals.
quote: Faceless, baseless, unsourced and directionless claims
Gave you a link already to an article published in the Des Moines register (And posted on the writer's blog, which is where the link takes you). The fact that you didn't read it is your fault, not mine. I'll find a bunch more if you want.
quote: Think back on the slavery issue for a second: secessionists claimed that their *freedoms* to govern themselves and to engage in slavery were being impinged upon. Their *freedom* to *enslave*. In the same vein, gun advocates claim a freedom to be armed and potentially dangerous, and react against that "freedom," being impinged. You see, there are two sides to that coin, as there usually are.
And I'm glad you've proven my point about gun ownership being something that could *spark a civil war*. One side viewed abolition as an expansion of freedom. The other viewed it as a restriction of their existing freedoms and an unlawful confiscation of property. And it started a civil war. One side of this sees gun control as an expansion of freedom from gun violence. The other sees it as a restriction of their existing freedoms and unlawful confiscation of property. Do you see any similarities here?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [QB]And I keep getting reminded why I left this forum in the first place...So much civility. Outright personal attacks are so useful in a political discussion
quote: Math is hard, isn't it?
I would characterize this as mocking. Mocking is not civil.
quote: Do you see any similarities here?
Of course I do. I brought up all those similarities myself. Aren't you the clever one for pointing them out!
The differences, of course, are also deep. Namely that the issue about guns has no connection to a deeper, region-wide economic imperative, and the issue of gun ownership is not an issue of state's rights, meaning that there is no reason why a coalition of states would develop to threaten secession from the union, and thus no hope of gun advocates organizing themselves effectively enough to pose a serious military threat.
And if all that weren't enough, there is no threat of this happening *anyway*, because gun control will never progress to this point (or if it does, it will do so very, very slowly). The issue of slavery was a catalyst for the civil war, but not the sole cause: there were deep economic issues in need of resolution, and slavery was exacerbating them, and increasingly functioning as a cause for the north to fight for. Guns and gun control do not function as a catalyst because they are not well connected with any particular economic imperative driving appart the interests of different states or regions. They never will serve as such a catalyst either: the existence of slavery formed the basis of an economic conflict: the South's oligarchy had atrophied the entire souther economy and locked out competition from the north. Guns do not do this- they just cause lots of unnecessary death, and so states can to a good degree govern themselves on the topic of violence- there is no economic interest, nationally, to drive strict gun control. This is sort of like how slavery was ended abruptly and completely in the space of a few years, but civil rights took another century. Why? There wasn't a particularly compelling economic reason for the north to fight for civil rights in the south. That took the culture changing to make it happen- but economic needs make things happen much faster.
So yes, I pointed out the similarities. The differences, however, are equally important.
[ January 03, 2013, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'd argue in favor of decreasing gun regulations. Yes, there's a good chance that the total number of gun related incidents might increase dramatically. But if half of the audience in the Aurora shooting had been concealing . . . the loss of life would have been decreased. If teachers had been allowed to pack. . . .
My supposition is a radical, Libertarian one. I acknowledge that. It's ultimately a question of the individual right to protection versus a purported universal level decrease in gun crime (which isn't necessarily backed by statistical data).
Yes, there's a lot less shootings in the UK. But (per capita) there are WAY more bombings. Crazy people are crazy people. I'd rather have the right to maximize my own ability to survive, and that of my family, than have an overall societal reduction in violent crime. But maybe I'm just being selfish and optimistic.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think Sam Harris hit a lot of nails on the head with this piece.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: [QB] I'd argue in favor of decreasing gun regulations. Yes, there's a good chance that the total number of gun related incidents might increase dramatically. But if half of the audience in the Aurora shooting had been concealing . . . the loss of life would have been decreased. If teachers had been allowed to pack.
This is the sort of conclusion you come to when you aren't using Baysian statistics. You've only considered what would have happened in Sandy Hook if half the teachers had been armed.
But what about he other 180 school days a year in the other 100,000 public schools. There have been only 7 incidents in the last 20 years where there have been mass shootings in a school. You are talking about arming millions of people in schools to prevent an extremely unlikely event. These things are really tragic when they happen, but the odds of them happen in any given school are vanishingly small.
If an average teacher is carrying a gun at school, what do you think the odds are that someone innocent will get shot. Why don't we assume the same rate that there is for concealed carry permit holders which is 1 in 101,000. (In the past 5 years 395 concealed carry permit holders have committed homicide. There are roughtly 8 million concealed carry permit holders).
In the the US and 3.7 million full time equivalent school teachers. If we assume the same rate as for other concealed permit holders, can expect 37 school killings a year if we arm every teacher.
There have been about 60 school shootings in the US in the past 20 years. Most of those have been cases where one student shot one other student. Many of them were accidental. In those instances, having a lot of armed teachers would not have prevented the shooting and it would have made it far more likely that at least one more person would have been shot.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There have been about 60 school shootings in the US in the past 20 years. Most of those have been cases where one student shot one other student. Many of them were accidental. In those instances, having a lot of armed teachers would not have prevented the shooting and it would have made it far more likely that at least one more person would have been shot.
If I was speaking about a bunch of untrained yokels carrying handguns in the back of their trousers, you might have a statistical point. But that isn't what I advocated. I was speaking in unyielding generalities. Gun locks? Alarm systems? Guards at entrances? There are a lot of possibilities that could save life without significant diminishing returns.
But Aurora would have certainly turned out differently if a reasonable number of people had been carrying firearms.
Do you disagree that madmen when, denied access to guns, will not turn to other means of mass destruction?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Aros, The Rabbit is pointing out, and you are steadfastly ignoring, that you cannot infer that the statistical outcome over time will be improved, by showing that changing one condition in one situation allows you to infer a more desirable result. You cannot infer that statistical outcomes will improve based on this one change, because you cannot factor in the negative consequences of implementing it.
So while it is true that if half the theater in Aurora were armed, there may well have been fewer deaths, or even more likely the shooter would not have carried out the attack. However, in order to achieve the state of having half a theater armed, you half to arm half of people *everywhere*, all the time. The mere incidence of accidents that occur due to guns being carried, were gun carrying to be expanded to roughly half the population of the US, would shoot up (pardon the expression), to a much higher casualty rate over time than is incurred by random acts of mass violence.
So you would have introduced an possibly enormous social ill, to counteract what is, in fact, a statistically insignificant rate of massive shooting violence. You are still more likely to be struck by lightning (and to be killed by it), to be killed in a car accident, to drown, to trip and fall and die on a flight of stairs, and to be murdered by a family member while you sleep. Statistically speaking.
And the problem with these arguments is that gun advocates don't like "statistically* speaking, because gun culture is very personal and pride based. A gun owner would tell you, perhaps with justice, that he or she is not a statistic. But what is often forgotten is that when talking about a national movement, one way or the other, involving hundreds of millions of weapons: the stats don't lie. All together, we are statistics, and gun stats tell us that guns are a greater danger in greater numbers, and that statistically, not accounting for any single event, they cost more lives than they can ever save.
The question I put to you is: do you think it is desirable to trade the remote possibility of a mass shooting in your vicinity taking place without armed people to respond to it, for a chronic condition of constant smaller incidents in which guns are mishandled or used capriciously in public places because so many people are carrying them? Are you willing to make this trade, with the understanding that a *higher* rate of fatalities is *guaranteed* as the result? Because a higher rate of gun fatalities is virtually guaranteed by a higher rate of concealed carrying. The stats only go in one direction.
While I have to say, I find the right, in its essence, to keep and bear arms to be important to the fundamental freedoms of our nation, I do not see as why that right extends to carrying a weapon of such awesome killing power in daily life. And frankly, I think the founding fathers would probably agree with that assessment as well. I think the right to have guns is actually important. But there is that little clause at the beginning of the 2nd amendment, that helpfully explains *why* it is important. And self-defense while you drop off mail at the post office is not what they were talking about.
[ January 03, 2013, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Orincoro, Rabbit, as I was quick to point out, I would gladly trade a higher overall statistical death rate in return for a decrease in loss of life in some of these incidents, or more specifically if me or my family was under attack.
Then again, I guess I can get a conceal carry in my state under current law. So my argument is somewhat moot.
I don't understand, however, why increasing security at schools (to some reasonable degree) isn't a valid option. As long as the crazies think that a gun is an effective option, they'll use one. If we can mitigate some deaths, we should. If they think that EVERYONE is packing, and they can't get away with a gun rampage, death tolls might be much higher from improvised explosive devices.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lots of druggies Godric shoot cops, is it the fault of anti drug people that those cops died or the fault of the addicts?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: All together, we are statistics, and gun stats tell us that guns are a greater danger in greater numbers
Except that the data isn't *really* telling us that, because the data you're using is incomplete. Yes, the US has a lot of gun violence in comparison to most European 1st world countries. We also have more guns. But guess what, Switzerland has a 2:1 ratio of people to guns, but has a homicide rate well below 1 per 100,000. In Addition, most European 1st world countries do not have the Racial, Ethnic, Religious, and Social stresses that the US has.
If you look at the demographics of any European country, you'll find that the racial and social demographics lean very heavily toward the people who have lived in those areas for over a thousand years. Conversely, the US is still constantly undergoing social development and assimilation of other cultures simply because it is an immigrant culture. If you look at many wartorn nations, you'll see that the major causes of those wars are often ethnic, racial, or religious in nature. Frankly, given how diverse and constantly changing the United States is, it's outright amazing that this country isn't a crater riddled hellhole right now. Socially, ethnically, and demographically, we have more in common with the war-torn hellholes of the world than we do with Europe.
[ January 03, 2013, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lots of druggies Godric shoot cops, is it the fault of anti drug people that those cops died or the fault of the addicts?
Depends on who you ask. I've heard many many legalization advocates blame anti drug people and laws for the murders caused by cartels.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But you would not legalize all drugs based on that alone, but on several other statistics.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Are you willing to make this trade, with the understanding that a *higher* rate of fatalities is *guaranteed* as the result? Because a higher rate of gun fatalities is virtually guaranteed by a higher rate of concealed carrying. The stats only go in one direction.
I don't agree that this is a forgone conclusion, as I feel one area we as a country failed is wide spread safety testing. We do have a lot of available training, which is great, but unless we make safety performance testing a part of gun ownership, such accidents will likely continue to seem so inevitable, although they are not.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And the problem with these arguments is that gun advocates don't like "statistically* speaking, because gun culture is very personal and pride based. A gun owner would tell you, perhaps with justice, that he or she is not a statistic. But what is often forgotten is that when talking about a national movement, one way or the other, involving hundreds of millions of weapons: the stats don't lie. All together, we are statistics, and gun stats tell us that guns are a greater danger in greater numbers, and that statistically, not accounting for any single event, they cost more lives than they can ever save.
It seems to me that the only statistic that usually matters to gun control advocates is 26 deaths and the direct gun deaths per 100,000 stats. Those are just as emotional as pride based reactions of gun advocates.
Also couldn't the fact that the likely to be struck by lightning, get in a car accident, or drown than be a mass shooting victim be a statistic used to argue against more gun control? It is of course ignoring the rest of gun violence.
I think fall more along the lines of the article BlackBlade posted. It hasn't been long enough to tell if people are ignoring it, agree with it, or haven't gotten around to adressing it yet.
I just don't see that banning guns can really be a viable solution. Better regulations in terms of education, permits, and requirements on re-selling guns along with more funding to mental health facilities seems like a better option.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... given how diverse and constantly changing the United States is, it's outright amazing that this country isn't a crater riddled hellhole right now. Socially, ethnically, and demographically, we have more in common with the war-torn hellholes of the world than we do with Europe.
Eh?
Both Australia and Canada have substantially higher immigration rates (and immigrants as a percentage of the population) than the US. Or Hong Kong for that matter. All three have substantially lower gun homicide rates (or homicide rates period) than the United States.
There are also a decent number of European countries above the US foreign born population such as Austria, Switzerland, and Ireland.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... given how diverse and constantly changing the United States is, it's outright amazing that this country isn't a crater riddled hellhole right now. Socially, ethnically, and demographically, we have more in common with the war-torn hellholes of the world than we do with Europe.
Eh?
Both Australia and Canada have substantially higher immigration rates (and immigrants as a percentage of the population) than the US. Or Hong Kong for that matter. All three have substantially lower gun homicide rates (or homicide rates period) than the United States.
There are also a decent number of European countries above the US foreign born population such as Austria, Switzerland, and Ireland.
Except Boris wasn't talking about current immigration rates, but the current social, ethnic, and demographic factors. Which are much more a result of immigration in the past than now.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... given how diverse and constantly changing the United States is, it's outright amazing that this country isn't a crater riddled hellhole right now. Socially, ethnically, and demographically, we have more in common with the war-torn hellholes of the world than we do with Europe.
Eh?
Both Australia and Canada have substantially higher immigration rates (and immigrants as a percentage of the population) than the US. Or Hong Kong for that matter. All three have substantially lower gun homicide rates (or homicide rates period) than the United States.
There are also a decent number of European countries above the US foreign born population such as Austria, Switzerland, and Ireland.
Except Boris wasn't talking about current immigration rates, but the current social, ethnic, and demographic factors. Which are much more a result of immigration in the past than now.
Not to mention the fact that most foreign born immigrants to those places share ethnicity and race with the dominant majorities in those places. Australian immigrants are primarily from New Zealand, South Africa, England, India, and China (there is a significant Asian population in Australia as well). Irish Immigrants are primarily European. Immigrants to Hong Kong are primarily Chinese (only 6 percent of the population in Hong Kong are from nations other than Hong Kong/China). Swiss immigrants are, again, primarily European. In fact, if you look at the immigration statistics from that list you posted, you'll probably find that the majority of the immigrants to those nations have a similar ethnicity or race as the existing majority. I haven't looked through many of those, but I seriously doubt there is quite the same spread of ehtnicities and races seen in the US's current immigration demographics. None of these countries have the same Racial tensions that the US has, either.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: All together, we are statistics, and gun stats tell us that guns are a greater danger in greater numbers
Except that the data isn't *really* telling us that, because the data you're using is incomplete. Yes, the US has a lot of gun violence in comparison to most European 1st world countries. We also have more guns. But guess what, Switzerland has a 2:1 ratio of people to guns, but has a homicide rate well below 1 per 100,000. In Addition, most European 1st world countries do not have the Racial, Ethnic, Religious, and Social stresses that the US has.
You're not arguing against my point, you're outline why my point applies in the US, even if it doesn't apply in Switzerland, where compulsory service is still the law.
quote: If you look at the demographics of any European country, you'll find that the racial and social demographics lean very heavily toward the people who have lived in those areas for over a thousand years. Conversely, the US is still constantly undergoing social development and assimilation of other cultures simply because it is an immigrant culture.
On the contrary, most Western European nations are immigrant countries, meaning that their populations are increasing through immigration faster than they decrease through emmigration. The UK, German and France all have immigration rates significantly higher than a century ago (in fact, more per capita immigration than the US experiences in some cases) and they are only rising, causing demographics and ethnic balance to change increasingly- and yet gun violence, thanks to regulation, does not increase at a pace to match.
So your point is doubly moot- Europe is experiencing heavy immigration, and gun control has helped to quell racial and socially motivated violence.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
Yeah, they're going to have to rename the United Kingdom Polackistan soon.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
While everyone in Switzerland has a gun, they still have massive regulation, such as training,permits, tracking ammunition sales, etc.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Great article BB! I agree with every single word.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: So your point is doubly moot- Europe is experiencing heavy immigration, and gun control has helped to quell racial and socially motivated violence.
Europe is indeed experiencing heavy immigration...Mostly Europeans moving to other European countries, as I mentioned earlier. Again, you looking at a single statistic and deriving some specific meaning.
European Immigration is significantly different from Immigration in the US. There are not nearly as many races involved, and Europe never had the historical racial issues the US has). Also, gun control has done nothing to quell the racially and socially motivated violence in, say, South Africa for example. South Africa has some pretty restrictive gun laws and is one of the few nations with racial and social stresses that even remotely compare with the US. They experience a 33 in 100,000 homicide rate, with a gun homicide rate of around 15 in 100,000. South Africa is also considered a modernized first world nation.
Conversely, the previous example of Gaza/West Bank is one where there are relatively few guns, but a significant amount of gun Violence. Sources posted here state that Gaza/West Bank has relatively few guns/person. With a population of over 3 million, there are only about 125,000 guns estimated. Their gun homicide rate is almost exactly on par with the US. They certainly have a lot of racial and ethnic stress, though.
So no, the point is most definitely *not* doubly moot. You are simply trying to rationalize your belief in an interpretation of a single statistic in the face of data that doesn't support your interpretation of that statistic.
"America has lots of guns. America has lots of gun violence. Therefore, taking away guns or increasing bureaucratic regulation will reduce gun violence." This is probably the most simplistic view on gun control you can hold, and you're defending it. There are a multitude of factors in play, as I've said over and over, and you're only paying attention to one of them. That is nothing more than simple ignorance.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: So your point is doubly moot- Europe is experiencing heavy immigration, and gun control has helped to quell racial and socially motivated violence.
Europe is indeed experiencing heavy immigration...Mostly Europeans moving to other European countries, as I mentioned earlier. Again, you looking at a single statistic and deriving some specific meaning.
European Immigration is significantly different from Immigration in the US. There are not nearly as many races involved, and Europe never had the historical racial issues the US has).
You have no concept of what you speak. Five centuries ago, Spain and other parts of souther Europe south western France were controlled by North African Moors. The crusades were, as much as anything, racial. They have us beat on race warfare in Europe- both for volume and duration.
(ETA: internal migration in the EU Schengen zone is not classed as "immigration," because EU citizens are not foreigners).
[ January 04, 2013, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Orincoro,
Are you arguing that the ethnic diversity in European countries (England, Sweden, France, Germany, etc...) is more diverse than in the United States?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: So your point is doubly moot- Europe is experiencing heavy immigration, and gun control has helped to quell racial and socially motivated violence.
Europe is indeed experiencing heavy immigration...Mostly Europeans moving to other European countries, as I mentioned earlier. Again, you looking at a single statistic and deriving some specific meaning.
European Immigration is significantly different from Immigration in the US. There are not nearly as many races involved, and Europe never had the historical racial issues the US has).
You have no concept of what you speak. Five centuries ago, Spain and other parts of souther Europe south western France were controlled by North African Moors. The crusades were, as much as anything, racial. They have us beat on race warfare in Europe- both for volume and duration.
(ETA: internal migration in the EU Schengen zone is not classed as "immigration," because EU citizens are not foreigners).
Go look at some freaking data on Immigration for individual countries instead of looking at the total immigration numbers. But its still beside the point. The European nations learned long ago to handle racial, political, and ethnic differences without as much violence, and those issues are not nearly as prevalent in European society. It took two world wars for that to happen, but it did. The US hasn't learned the same lessons yet, and it may actually take another civil war for that to happen. I hope it doesn't.
The US is a completely different part of the world, different culture, different experiences, different *everything*. And that's the point I've been trying to drill into your head. Your arguments regarding gun violence in other nations are *immaterial* to determining a solution to gun violence in this country.
Further is that many nations that heavily restrict gun ownership do not have constitutions that guarantee the right to own them. If you want to restrict or control gun ownership in this country, you must either change the constitution or come up with a solution that follows the constitution. Requiring gun merchants to provide or require proof of prior training in gun safety and storage before selling weapons would not go against the constitution, and would result in fewer accidental shootings at the very least. Outlawing guns with specific features goes against the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and the effectiveness of such a ban is at question.
With all that said, I'm done with this. You're arguing miniscule points that have no bearing on the subject at hand or the arguments I've made. This isn't a discussion at this point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
you said, "Europe is indeed experiencing heavy immigration...Mostly Europeans moving to other European countries, as I mentioned earlier."
he mentions " internal migration in the EU Schengen zone is not classed as "immigration,""
is this a 'miniscule point' that has no bearing on the subject? It's certainly relevant to an argument you've made, in trying to paint other parts of the world as conclusively pretty much not at all a model for the US.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Orincoro,
Are you arguing that the ethnic diversity in European countries (England, Sweden, France, Germany, etc...) is more diverse than in the United States?
I got this, yes. Even Canada is more ethnically diverse than the United States.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Orincoro,
Are you arguing that the ethnic diversity in European countries (England, Sweden, France, Germany, etc...) is more diverse than in the United States?
No. It is not so. But rates of immigration are in many cases, currently higher than to the US (as a function of population percentage).
These numbers are tricky though: the US has a probably higher rate of illegal immigration in a few areas. On the other hand, European urban areas are experiencing higher rates of immigrant settlement (partly due to falling native birth rates), from outside the EU. The borders of the EU are also more porous than the US, and immigration and emigration have higher rates of turnover as well, as does internal migration, making a breakdown problematic.
But one thing is clear: demographics in Europe are changing very quickly thanks to immigration. And Europe is poised for increasing waves of immigration as birth rates continue to fall. Yet, gun violence, and violent crime in general, are low by international standards, and by the standards of the US.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Orincoro,
Are you arguing that the ethnic diversity in European countries (England, Sweden, France, Germany, etc...) is more diverse than in the United States?
I got this, yes. Even Canada is more ethnically diverse than the United States.
Is this, like, a joke, or what?
Do you actually believe this is a true statement? Or do you mean something else by this, something other than what the words you just said actually mean?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Orincoro,
Are you arguing that the ethnic diversity in European countries (England, Sweden, France, Germany, etc...) is more diverse than in the United States?
I got this, yes. Even Canada is more ethnically diverse than the United States.
I believe you are partially mistaken. Canada is indeed more ethnically diverse than the US but the only European nations (At least Western European, I could be missing some on the list though so please correct me if you see others) that are more diverse are Belgium and Switzerland. Something I honestly didn't expect but hey, I'm no expert at anything.
This is only a rating of ethnic diversity, not the other factors Boris mentioned. I'm not even sure how it factors into anything either.
There are lists of cultural and lingual diversity. US is less culturally diverse than ethnically diverse.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Yes, Sam, because it doesn't actually use data to prove his point, and he is still absolutely freaking *wrong*.
You'll find that much of the actual data on the lists provided earlier include data on "Foreign born residents" not official Immigrants.
The Schengen zone is a mutual pact to allow free movement and employment between EU member states, but people who move within the Schengen zone are still counted as Foreign Born Residents on national censuses, which is what the data used to "prove" that there is just as diverse immigration in Europe as the US.
Just look at the Foreign Born information for any European nation. Here, I'll give you [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland ]Switzerland[/URL] Notice the majority there? Italy, Germany, Austria, and Baltic states.
Germany - 6% of Germany's population is from somewhere other than Europe or Russia.
France keeps no data on Ethnicity, so it's impossible to determine their data.
Italy is 8% foreign born. Less than 4% are from non-European nations.
England is probably the only Nation in Europe with a truly diverse Immigrant population, but even those immigrants are, for the most part, from former members of the British Empire. Only about 5% of Great Britain's population are from nations other than Europe or former British holdings.
Want me to keep going? Or are you getting the picture?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Orincoro,
Are you arguing that the ethnic diversity in European countries (England, Sweden, France, Germany, etc...) is more diverse than in the United States?
No. It is not so. But rates of immigration are in many cases, currently higher than to the US (as a function of population percentage).
These numbers are tricky though: the US has a probably higher rate of illegal immigration in a few areas. On the other hand, European urban areas are experiencing higher rates of immigrant settlement (partly due to falling native birth rates), from outside the EU. The borders of the EU are also more porous than the US, and immigration and emigration have higher rates of turnover as well, as does internal migration, making a breakdown problematic.
But one thing is clear: demographics in Europe are changing very quickly thanks to immigration. And Europe is poised for increasing waves of immigration as birth rates continue to fall. Yet, gun violence, and violent crime in general, are low by international standards, and by the standards of the US.
I do know that there has been a lot of tension in France with Middle Eastern immigrants. This has fueled violence on a number of levels up to mass riots. I don't know how guns factored in and I am not familiar with France's gun laws.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... South Africa is also considered a modernized first world nation.
Not really. South Africa is not part of the OECD, is classified by the IMF and MCSI as an emerging economy/developing country, and only recently joined the highly visible grouping of the BRIC developing countries (now BRICS).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Only about 5% of Great Britain's population are from nations other than Europe or former British holdings.
You do recognize that "former British holdings" include India, Pakistan, Thailand, New Guinea, Hong Kong, Singapore, most of the Caribbean, a significant fraction of Polynesia, and about 1/3 of Africa. That's as racial diverse as it gets.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Yes, Sam, because it doesn't actually use data to prove his point, and he is still absolutely freaking *wrong*.
You'll find that much of the actual data on the lists provided earlier include data on "Foreign born residents" not official Immigrants.
The Schengen zone is a mutual pact to allow free movement and employment between EU member states, but people who move within the Schengen zone are still counted as Foreign Born Residents on national censuses, which is what the data used to "prove" that there is just as diverse immigration in Europe as the US.
Just look at the Foreign Born information for any European nation. Here, I'll give you [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland ]Switzerland[/URL] Notice the majority there? Italy, Germany, Austria, and Baltic states.
Germany - 6% of Germany's population is from somewhere other than Europe or Russia.
France keeps no data on Ethnicity, so it's impossible to determine their data.
Italy is 8% foreign born. Less than 4% are from non-European nations.
England is probably the only Nation in Europe with a truly diverse Immigrant population, but even those immigrants are, for the most part, from former members of the British Empire. Only about 5% of Great Britain's population are from nations other than Europe or former British holdings.
Want me to keep going? Or are you getting the picture?
* Rate of immigration. Not current percentages of foreign born population. Rate of immigration. These are not the same values. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Only about 5% of Great Britain's population are from nations other than Europe or former British holdings.
You do recognize that "former British holdings" include India, Pakistan, Thailand, New Guinea, Hong Kong, Singapore, most of the Caribbean, a significant fraction of Polynesia, and about 1/3 of Africa. That's as racial diverse as it gets.
And the current influx outstrips the UK's birth rate. Meaning (though it is not going to sustain indefinitely), that the Uk's population is being replaced by non-ethnic English people. This is a phenomenon happening or about to happen in much of Europe.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Rabbit, yes, I know, and you'll notice that I said the UK was the most diverse immigrant population of Europe. But the racial demographics of the UK, where 90% of the population is white, aren't really close to similar with the US, where just over 72% are white. In addition, people who live in former British holdings are still very familiar with British culture and society, and as such tend to assimilate more easily and willingly.
Orincoro...As was stated earlier (and you ignored) current rates of immigration don't have much of an impact on violence as historical rates and the current racial/ethnic makeup of a nation. Additionally, European citizens are not really as Xenophobic as Americans can be, so immigration doesn't have as much of an impact on violence there as it does here.
But you're still just attacking tiny points of what I've said so far. My point has been that the US is different enough from Europe, Australia, and other nations that what they do will have a different impact than what we do. The entire idea that we should adopt the same laws that other nations are using is pretty arrogant, ignorant, and fairly stubborn. It lacks creativity and stinks of short-sightedness. Other nations have regulated firearms based on their own laws. Most of those nations do not grant citizens the right to own firearms, and therefore, those governments are legally capable of doing whatever they want with firearms.
The United States Constitution grants the right to own firearms. We must operate in light of that or remove the right, which would be a bad idea for a number of reasons. The Supreme court has upheld that right twice in the past 5 years and has already struck down bans on handguns in DC and Chicago (See DC vs Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago.
But, if you guys are so absolutely determined to use European gun laws as a template...The UK outlawed handguns in 1998. From 1997 to 2009, firearm homicide rates stayed pretty much the same (based on trending. Firearm deaths spiked significantly following the ban, but dropped back to the same levels shortly thereafter) and have only recently begun dropping (the most recent year I could find data for was 2009, 2006 was the first year of truly significant decrease).
There's a lot of diversion on whether Australia's gun homicide rate drops were due to the ban or other influence (some argue that the rate was dropping prior to the ban, and several studies have suggested that the ban had no actual impact on gun homicides). The Australian Institute of Criminology shows that homicides have followed a predictable rate of decline since 1989. Australia's percentage of homicides by firearm out of all homicides is currently about 11%, but that statistic has been decreasing steadily since 1969. The existing recorded rate of decline has seen no real change since the late 80s.
But hey, I figure you guys aren't going to listen to me no matter what, so here's a nice Article from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (probably as non-conservative a source as I could find on the subject) on whether or not stricter gun laws have actually had an impact on gun violence around the world (I believe it was written in 2008): Here ya go. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
In fairness to Orincoro, I don't think he has called for the same laws as Europe, (correct me if I'm wrong here) but is calling for more regulation and using the foreign numbers as evidence that that's a good idea.
I look forward to reading the article you linked to sometime today.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Additionally, European citizens are not really as Xenophobic as Americans can be, so immigration doesn't have as much of an impact on violence there as it does here.
I've found the opposite to be true. This is not data, just personal experience.
(As long as we're defining xenophobia and racism as non-identical)
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The United States Constitution grants the right to own firearms. We must operate in light of that or remove the right, which would be a bad idea for a number of reasons. The Supreme court has upheld that right twice in the past 5 years and has already struck down bans on handguns in DC and Chicago...
I can't tell if you are saying that the fact the Supreme Court has upheld the right to bear arms is one of the reasons removing the right is a bad idea or if it's not quite connected to the previous sentence the way I'm reading it. So I'll just nitpick the following which doesn't really invalidate anything else you wrote.
If we removed the right (by changing the constitution) then the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to uphold the right in Court on grounds of the Constitution.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Additionally, European citizens are not really as Xenophobic as Americans can be, so immigration doesn't have as much of an impact on violence there as it does here.
I've found the opposite to be true. This is not data, just personal experience.
(As long as we're defining xenophobia and racism as non-identical)
Yeah, Europe isn't really the shining example of progressive liberalism that people tend to prop them up to be when it comes to race and immigration. Sometimes they are more backward than the US.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The United States Constitution grants the right to own firearms. We must operate in light of that or remove the right, which would be a bad idea for a number of reasons. The Supreme court has upheld that right twice in the past 5 years and has already struck down bans on handguns in DC and Chicago...
I can't tell if you are saying that the fact the Supreme Court has upheld the right to bear arms is one of the reasons removing the right is a bad idea or if it's not quite connected to the previous sentence the way I'm reading it. So I'll just nitpick the following which doesn't really invalidate anything else you wrote.
If we removed the right (by changing the constitution) then the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to uphold the right in Court on grounds of the Constitution.
I read it this way:
The United States Constitution grants the right to own firearms. The Supreme court has upheld that right twice in the past 5 years and has already struck down bans on handguns in DC and Chicago. We must operate in light of that or remove the right, which would be a bad idea for a number of reasons.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The United States Constitution grants the right to own firearms. We must operate in light of that or remove the right, which would be a bad idea for a number of reasons. The Supreme court has upheld that right twice in the past 5 years and has already struck down bans on handguns in DC and Chicago...
I can't tell if you are saying that the fact the Supreme Court has upheld the right to bear arms is one of the reasons removing the right is a bad idea or if it's not quite connected to the previous sentence the way I'm reading it. So I'll just nitpick the following which doesn't really invalidate anything else you wrote.
If we removed the right (by changing the constitution) then the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to uphold the right in Court on grounds of the Constitution.
I read it this way:
The United States Constitution grants the right to own firearms. The Supreme court has upheld that right twice in the past 5 years and has already struck down bans on handguns in DC and Chicago. We must operate in light of that or remove the right, which would be a bad idea for a number of reasons.
This. I have ADD and worked on most of the paragraphs of what I wrote at the same time. I think I inserted the comment about the supreme court decisions after writing that removing the 2nd amendment would be bad. My brain's a little weird sometimes.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: In fairness to Orincoro, I don't think he has called for the same laws as Europe, (correct me if I'm wrong here) but is calling for more regulation and using the foreign numbers as evidence that that's a good idea.
Yeah, that's about right. I only argue that Europe is by and large an apros pos example of how gun violence can be handled well.
quote: Additionally, European citizens are not really as Xenophobic as Americans can be, so immigration doesn't have as much of an impact on violence there as it does here.
This smacks of talk from a person who has no experience with the subject. I've lived in 4 European countries- that doesn't make me an expert, but it does tell me that this dog of an observation won't hunt.
I could go down the road of stupid anecdotes about the racist things I've heard and seen all over Europe, and the incredibly racist xenophobic ignorant people I've met here, but that wouldn't prove anything either. Suffice to say, I think this is popular wisdom in the US, and I think it is mostly bunk.
A great deal of the American vision of "egalitarian," non-racist Europe comes from a few popular black American novels (such as those of James Baldwin), and is mostly based on the fact that black Americans in Europe were, in ages past, treated rather well. Other historically influential figures such as actress Anna May Wong popularized the notion of the "accepting" European society (which accepted her because she was famous). This was mostly to do with them being Americans, educated, famous etc, and less to do with the French or anyone else not being racists. But we've built a rather funny cultural imagery around the experiences of a few celebrated minority authors, most of them black, who lived in Europe in the 20's to the 60's.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
What Orincoro said - English people, though not all of them, are the only ones I've ever met who actually pulled off being racist against other white people. The chunk of the population that hates Indian subcontinent immigrants is no smaller then Mexican hating Americans.
My Dad never had a problem with the Indians, it was the Pakistanis that he couldn't stand. The Muslim thing.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
I mean, Northern England was having honest to god race riots just a few years back.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I hear they're not such fans of minarets over in Europe, either.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
I imagine there wouldn't be as much of a problem without the radical element ; most European countries are, nominally and culturally, Christian nations, not nations full of Christians.
Muslim integration is more of a problem then, say, Irish or Italian integration was here. Mainly because it's a harsh and cruelly interpreted religion that holds them together, not just that everyone's granddad shared the same Motherland.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, Europe has a long embittered history with Islam. They have some cause to see it as an invasive force, because that's exactly what it was in the past. The rise of European world domination began with the expulsion of Islam from Europe.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigs: I imagine there wouldn't be as much of a problem without the radical element ; most European countries are, nominally and culturally, Christian nations, not nations full of Christians.
Muslim integration is more of a problem then, say, Irish or Italian integration was here. Mainly because it's a harsh and cruelly interpreted religion that holds them together, not just that everyone's granddad shared the same Motherland.
Well, Irish and Italian immigration are different issues. Italians have a tremendous amount of pride in their language, music, history, traditions, food, and culture, and may not really want to be completely assimilated, in many cases.
The Irish are mostly embarrassed about their history (if they're much aware of the history of the Irish in the larger context of Europe the US), and any pride is mostly along the lines of "screw you! I'm Irish and have a right to be proud."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I find your characterization uncharitable and insulting. And I have no more Irish ancestry than the average American does.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Aside from its heavy dose of anti-Irish sentiment (is there a word for that?), it's also absurd. Irish-American is probably one of the most distinct (that is, recognized by others) European-immigration groups in the country.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I find your characterization uncharitable and insulting. And I have no more Irish ancestry than the average American does.
I actually have quite a bit of Scots/Irish ancestry, but not the most recent wave of immigration. Most of my ancestors were hillbilly folk who've been in the Appalachians for at least 200 years or more. Some of my relatives would qualify as full-on "white trash".
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Aside from its heavy dose of anti-Irish sentiment (is there a word for that?), it's also absurd. Irish-American is probably one of the most distinct (that is, recognized by others) European-immigration groups in the country.
But not recognized in a positive way. Irish were VERY looked-down-upon until fairly recently.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
Yeah, recently they upgraded their image to terrorist. Viva IRA!
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Recently? We got that upgrade a long time ago, do keep up.
As an aside, I don't know of any Irish person who is embarrased about their history, but maybe Irish-Americans are different?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not so you would notice.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Aside from its heavy dose of anti-Irish sentiment (is there a word for that?)
Teetotalism.
::laughtrack::
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Aside from its heavy dose of anti-Irish sentiment (is there a word for that?)
Teetotalism.
::laughtrack::
+1
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not so you would notice.
For example, I always notice the thick scent of shame in the air when Norte Dame plays. They always shy away from their Irish roots. Try not even to mention it, really.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
I've never been so happy to hear a sick thud as I was last night. Buncha overrated pansies, was Notre Dame.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Is there any real reason why we shouldn't have a federal gun registry? I mean, (if I recall correctly) handguns are registered by serial number with the state, but long guns (rifles and shot guns) are only registered as "a long gun" without any record being kept.
Seems like keeping a ballistic record of each weapon (special exclusion for rare antiques which haven't been fired in generations) and current status (i.e. not stolen, location address), name of owner, etc. should be a good thing.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Is there any real reason why we shouldn't have a federal gun registry?
The primary reason I have seen in argument against this is that gun owners feel it is an invasion of privacy or that they feel the government has no right to have this information at its fingertips.
Personally, my inclination would be to have gun merchants keep records of serial numbers for weapons they've sold. Possibly including ballistics information. This information could only be released by court order in the event a weapon is used in a crime. I think that would allow a buffer from potential "oppression" by the government against gun owners. But for the most part, my inclination on gun control is to control those who sell guns rather than those who buy them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I like the concept behind the idea, but if you didn't have a databank of ballistics to compare to, how could you possibly know which one to subpoena?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I suppose you could have ballistics centrally stored, with weapons manufacturer, but no serial numbers. Manufacturers would be responsible for keeping records of serial numbers along with their ballistics information, allowing them to know the original merchant. I think it would add some bureaucracy to police investigation, but the benefit of having all that information available would be significant.
The biggest issue you have now, though, is that there are so many guns already out there. If you consider states like Arizona that have no weapons registration data (and recently passed a law making it illegal to store serial numbers attached to owner names in the state), it would be difficult at best to ensure that everyone either registers their ballistics or whatever is done. Most legislation proposals I've seen would essentially turn millions of gun owners into felons if they didn't register/turn in/whatever their weapons. I don't think that's a very good idea.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: David Dewhurst, Texas Lieutenant Governor, Calls For State-Funded Weapons Training For Teachers
Yay! Heaven forbid, we spend government money on contraception or education or anything else but we are all for filling the filling the coffers of the gun makers.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote: David Dewhurst, Texas Lieutenant Governor, Calls For State-Funded Weapons Training For Teachers
Yay! Heaven forbid, we spend government money on contraception or education or anything else but we are all for filling the filling the coffers of the gun makers.
And if we spent money on contraception or education, it would be totally reasonable to cynically see that as just a blatant attempt to fill the coffers of the teacher's unions and Planned Parenthood, right? Those greedy bastards. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Generally, the people in favor of filling the coffers of teachers and Planned Parenthood are not the ones squealing about government spending.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
My point was that it's very cynical and narrow-minded to see every decision like this as primarily motivated by the desire to fill someone's coffers.
I think that's bull. Both in the context you used it, and the one I did.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why? We don't want to pay teachers a decent salary but we are willing to spend money to arm them and expect them to guard our children?
It is hard to imagine how anyone can think that the solution to gun violence is more guns unless one is interested in selling guns. OR is being played by those people.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why? We don't want to pay teachers a decent salary but we are willing to spend money to arm them and expect them to guard our children?
First of all, how is this a response to what I said? I'm saying that it is narrow-minded and cynical to think that the motivation behind such an initiative is "line the coffers of the gunmakers." The same way it is cynical and narrow-minded to think the motivation behind increased teacher pay is "line the coffers of the teacher's union."
I'm sure there are many people for whom those are prime motivators. But it's not the majority of people arguing for those causes.
Also... you slipped in two major unargued, question-begging assertions in a single fake question, up there. Is this intentional? What's the point of answering you when you do this?
Do you actually want to have a reasonable discussion where we both try to understand each other and find the truth? Or do you just want to snipe?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is hard to imagine how anyone can think that the solution to gun violence is more guns unless one is interested in selling guns. OR is being played by those people.
You don't need to imagine it, because there are many people who are happy to explain it for you.
What you really mean is that you have no interest in understanding why anyone would think that, and would rather attribute nefarious motives to them or the people "playing" them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Have hashed through this and many other conversations about reasonable gun limits, there is nothing that makes sense about arming teachers as a solution to gun violence. Nothing. Police and soldiers shoot people they don't intend to shoot. Do we expect teachers to do better? What about this makes sense to you?
On the other hand, it is brilliant if your goal is to sell guns. A whole new market!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Have hashed through this and many other conversations about reasonable gun limits, there is nothing that makes sense about arming teachers as a solution to gun violence. Nothing. Police and soldiers shoot people they don't intend to shoot. Do we expect teachers to do better? What about this makes sense to you?
As a solution to general "gun violence," you're absolutely right.
If arming teachers was the proposed solution for, say, gang shootings at inner-city schools, it would be a stupid solution. Those situations are complicated, quick, and often involve multiple people on both sides. It can be hard to tell who's doing what, and when.
It's a different story, though, if the goal is to try to mitigate (not stop) a very specific kind of gun violence... that is, the statistically insignificant occurrences of mass shootings by a crazed gunman intent on a high body count.
There's plenty of reason to think that a few armed teachers (armed bystanders of any kind, really) could help in such a situation. Whether or not this is worth the potential problems caused by arming teachers is another matter.
Personally, since mass shootings are so rare, I'm inclined to oppose any broad sweeping change intended to try to curtail them. But not because I think it's all a desperate ploy to make money for gunmakers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I suppose you could have ballistics centrally stored, with weapons manufacturer, but no serial numbers. Manufacturers would be responsible for keeping records of serial numbers along with their ballistics information, allowing them to know the original merchant. I think it would add some bureaucracy to police investigation, but the benefit of having all that information available would be significant.
I...yes, having to go to a gun dealer and inquire who bought such and such gun would indeed add some bureaucracy to police work, that's true. As opposed to knowing almost nothing about a gun besides its caliber.
----
As for the lining coffers bit, while it is frankly perverse and absurd that anyone seriously suggests arming our schools in response to mass shootings-essentially punting forever on the notion of doing *anything* proactive on the matter-the idea that it's money driven as in done for the profits of gun makers is almost as silly.
Fact of the matter is, the idea that as little as possible should come between one's desire to own a gun and the actual ownership is really, really important to a lot of people. It wasn't always-in fact back in the 1970s, the NRA nearly moved west and focused largely on hunting and sport shooting-but it is now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And now the NRA works mostly for gun manufacturers and dealers. You really think they don't have an eye on the bottom line? Keeping people scared and angry is a great way to sell guns.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Of course they do. I don't propose that the NRA is a disinterested (that is, objective) political organization. Far from it. But their power doesn't only come from the money and influence lent them by manufacturers-it also comes from quite a lot of people who DO have little or no interest in the bottom line of manufacturer's-who simply align politically with 'protecting' the Second Amendment against threats (I would say, real or imagined).
Is the NRA so concerned with advancing its agenda because it's been bought out by manufacturers? Eh, I would say that's part of it, but only part. There are many lobbies that also enjoy enormous financial backing (or could) from enormous industries, but people don't get all shook up over how great fast food is to render such a lobby as a titan in American politics period, quite aside from being very powerful in its own field.
There's more to it than money. If you wish to fool yourself that the issue would be all but solved if only millions of people weren't getting played by the gun lobby, so be it. The manufacturers didn't spring up and then have to trick people into wanting to buy guns, anymore than weapons have needed much advertising at any point in history.
-----
Dan, your thoughts on guns and the middle ages would be all well and good, except for one little problem: guns don't beat the problem of 'might makes right' by really solving the problem, they beat it by switching 'swords and bows' with 'guns'. Guns haven't eliminated that problem, they've played ad-libs with it.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Most of the stats I've seen lag (understandably) a couple years, due to, you know, gathering the relevant data and stuff.