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).
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
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'.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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?
IP: Logged |
I mean, you don't think it's contradictory to hold the opposite opinion of him on both issues, right? Why not?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.*"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understood the point. I am saying that his point has very little basis in reality and ignores the actual situation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
