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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 55 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any time someone breaks a law, that serves as evidence that the law in question is a failure and should be discarded.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
[sarcasm]Because I was suggesting handing out 12 gauge shotguns to every teacher and not just giving Samp an alternative.[/sarcasm]
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would simply love to see a statistic that compared non police, non suicide, shootings by country, but good luck finding one.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
