Author Topic: Guns again  (Read 18425 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +88/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Guns again
« Reply #203 on: January 20, 2013, 06:53:08 PM »
Do you have a link to it from facebook? I'd like to repost it with credit given where due.

I'm never sure with facebook what original posters would want -so I thought to make it a bit anonymous, even if copy pasting a section of the writing on google gets you the info anyway.

  https://www.facebook.com/Josh.Fielder/posts/4048262014066

Thanks! The included links to snopes, etc, are a nice bonus!

Edited to add...it won't let me "share" directly from the link, so either I'm being a complete non-techie loser, or there's something in place to prevent it. As you say, maybe sharing wasn't his intent...but I also hate to post it without giving him credit.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 07:21:52 PM by jynnan tonnix »

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #204 on: January 20, 2013, 09:01:06 PM »
So, here’s my two cents (which will end up being closer to $1.50 I’m sure) and I’m sure I will regret posting this later, due to the “friends” I will lose while exercising my First Amendment, but here goes.
Making no honest effort to understand someone of a differing opinion makes you an asshole, that's why they would de-friend you, mot because you have an honest differing of opinion.

Quote
Instead of posting a meme with a picture and a falsely attributed quote or a made up statistic, I’ve spent my time researching the gun violence/gun control debate. And I’d like to talk about some of the pervasive themes I’ve seen lately.
 
First off, Hitler did not say ..
Who cares what Hitler said? Naziism was very popular in Germany. The second world war had nothing to do with German gun ownership.

 
Quote
Secondly, the presidents, and I mean ALL of them, and their families, receive death threats on a daily basis. President Obama did not enact the regulations that REQUIRE Secret Service protection for him and his family. If you believe your children are as much of a target as the president’s children, then you have a self inflated idea of your position in this world. http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml

Don't be silly, the point of the discussion was that armed men protect the president's daughters yet he derides the Idea of armed men guarding the public's children. The argument of "Who" enacted the legislation is a dodge of the question.

 
Quote
Thirdly, there is NO law or bill being considered that would allow anyone to come marching into your home to take your legally obtained and legally owned firearms. There are possible laws that are being explored that would require more responsibility on the part of the gun owner or person purchasing a gun (i.e. pass a background check even if buying a gun from a gun show dealer). If you buy a car from a dealer it must be registered (a record of the transfer is documented). If you buy a car from a private citizen, it must be registered. If you buy a gun from a dealer, there is a record of that sale and it is registered. So how is it illogical to require the same for private sales of firearms?
Not true. Under proposed laws on semi-automatic rifles that look "militaristic-y" enough to be called assault rifles, these rifles would be removed from homes upon the passing of the grandfathered owner. Under it, if I died, my family would have to remember to surrender my weapons to the cops or face a swat team. I could not pass the guns down to my children as is customary.
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/175785/tentative-gun-control-bill-would-require-rifle-registry/
 
Quote
Fourth, there are not more people being killed with baseball bats than guns. .
Yes that is true and rather obvious. This is not claimed by any intelligent gun owner.
 
Quote
We don’t ban cars that are used in DUI related deaths, .. blah blah.

No gun group is suggesting abandoning all gun laws. Cheap shot!
 
Quote
The media is not hiding other gun related stories because they want to sensationalize the problem, they are simply unable to cover every gun death story because there would be an average of 80 of them each day. So they concentrate (unfortunately) on the massacres which I think we can all agree, happen all too often.
I think we get the picture that there is a lot of gun violence in the US. I don't think it's all that relevant to identifying the problem.

 
Quote
I find the fact that more children are killed in the US by guns than in the entire Middle East region, very disturbing.
Bullshit! Citation seriously f*cking needed! Don't mind sprinkling in some bare faced lies do you?

 
Quote
I find it disturbing that the NRA blames the rise in violent shootings on video games and then comes out with its own shooting video game (categorized for children as young as 4 years of age) less than a month after Newtown.
I've never heard the NRA claim such a thing. Citation needed. The program that the NRA made is very mild target practice. Look at it before you bash it and give people a false impression of it.

 
Quote
I find it disturbing that other countries spend in excess of twice as much as the US on violent video games and have a small fraction of the amount of gun related deaths/injuries.
People don't learn their non-empathetic anti-social behavior by watching videos or playing video games. The learn it by living in dysfunctional families and neighborhoods. You're a pretty disturbed individual to even entertain the idea that seeing something can make you a bad person.
 
Quote
I find it disturbing that instead of looking for a solution to a problem like Newtown, there are people wasting their time and energy by trying to turn it into a conspiracy theory.
Again that you portray the believers of weird conspiracies, if there really are any, as mainstream is dishonest. It does not further the discussion.
 
Quote
I find it disturbing that guns are the third largest killer of children ages 5-14 in the US.
 I find it disturbing that a child in America is 12 times more likely to be killed with a gun than the rest of the “developed” world.
We are a melting pot that has many poverty and other issues. We have not learned to get along very well. How many of these victims are bystanders in gang drive-by's? Gangs and hi crive high poverty neighborhoods aren't going away. They cannot be fairly grouped statistically with the wealthy suburbs or the rural farmlands. The U.S. is not homogeneous.
 
Quote
I find it disturbing that there are more guns privately owned in America than the next SEVENTEEN countries combined.
The citizens of the U.S. own lots of things way out of proportion to the rest of the world. How many of the next seventeen countries would you want to live in?
 
Quote
I find it disturbing that all of these statistics are not discussed but fake statistics about a baseball bat death rate are plastered everywhere.
 I find it disturbing that some people believe that the ONLY answer to this problem is more guns.
I find it disturbing that you would mis-characterize the opposing opinion group in this way. The term "some people" is a sneaky way of creating straw men of a very small minority of gun owners. Amongst gun owners, there is not a consensus over the best course of action to address the real problem of gun violence and mass shootings. Many of us do think additional regulations are needed, but the majority of us are fearful of being railroaded by dishonest portrayals of gun owners by anti-gun people that life in safe happy neighborhoods. We know that we are as a whole, safe responsible people and we do not want to give up our rights because of the actions of a few.   
 
Quote
Banning all firearms is NOT the answer, which is exactly why it’s not being proposed. .. The NRA states that the assault weapons ban didn’t work the first time. Well, you know what they say, “If at first you don’t succeed, f*%k it.”.
Until you can define what an "assault" rifle is without referring to pictures or "fashion," we can't even take what you say seriously. You haven't even tried to learn enough about the issue, and the only thing you've shot off is your mouth. The first ban was simply an attack against a few producer's of certain models of rifles. The firepower was not an indicator of it's inclusion to the ban list. Rate of fire was not included on the ban list. The shape of the plastic parts was the greatest indicator of a rifles inclusion on the ban list. Because of this the ban was useless and did nothing but anger the shooting public. It did not really address any issues of gun violence. Google fastest cowboy shooting videos and see if 1860 weaponry was all that slow. In one, a 13 year old boy shoots targets faster with a 1870 model lever action rifle than another man can shoot them with a machine gun. So is the 1870 45 cal henry repeater an "assault" weapon now?

 
Quote
If armed guards are the only answer to ending school shootings, then explain the VT shooting. Virginia Tech had an entire police department complete with a SWAT unit. Explain Columbine, which had an armed officer on staff. When discussing an end to gun violence in schools, there should be NOTHING left off of the table.
The only things that should be on the table are things that would actually have helped prevent these acts of violence. Virginia tech or Columbine shootings would have occurred regardless of the proposed bans on assault rifles of clip sizes.

 
Quote
Ronald Reagan, a huge gun proponent and signor of the Brady Bill, wrote to Congress in 1994 asking them to propose legislation limiting or stopping altogether the manufacture of guns classified as assault weapon. And anyone saying “assault weapon” is a made up term should remember that every word in every language is, in fact, made up.
How f*cking dishonest! First off, who gives a flying crap what dumbass Reagan did? The non-imbicilic know that the issue is that the term "assault rifle" is not well defined. The problem is that it is very difficult to define assault rifle as used in the common vernacular without including nearly everything, or falsely excluding only machine guns that shoot full auto as these are already highly regulated, and illegal for the common person to own. I think this author knew this an was just yet again trying to get in some cheap shots.
 
Quote
And yes, criminals don’t typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No.
Again.. straw man up the wazzoo. Nobody is claiming that we want a Somalia type society. 
 
Quote
Let me be clear, I am NOT anti gun. I have nothing against guns or responsible gun owners. I served proudly in the military, I worked in armed security, I’ve hunted, and enjoy target shooting since I was a kid. And I’m sure most gun enthusiasts are the same way. However, this issue should be discussed logically and rationally, and all I see are comments and pictures that are anything but rational and for the most part, are just viral, inflammatory, unresearched, vitriol.
Yeah, sure. You sound just like the old Archie Bunker type of racists, with "Some of my best friends are n...." No if you were not really anti gun, you would have portrayed the average gun owner in a more truthful fashion instead of the deceitful display of propaganda that you have spouted.
 
Quote
The president enacted 23 executive actions today, of which only 2 have anything to do with limiting the availability of a category of gun or a magazine capacity. The remaining 21 deal with aspects regarding background checks, school safety and mental health system requirements and deficiencies. Will it be a perfect solution? No. Will it help? We’ll see. Is it better than doing nothing? Definitely. If we keep using the statement, “It’s too soon to talk about it.” after each tragedy, pretty soon, we’ll never talk about it.
OK, so maybe it ended up closer to $2.00 instead of 2 cents. So sue me.  [/size]
Until we have universal health care that includes mental care, you're just posing for the cameras and you know it. Until you actually address the causes of men growing up to lack empathy and turn into psychopaths, then you've done nothing. The proposed bans are known by both sides to do nothing statistically significant to prevent the violence such as the Sandy Hook Massacre. The proposals are simply to piss off the gun owners and nothing else. Learn the terminology and the mechanics of the guns. If you ask gun owners to sacrifice their rights for the good of society, it must include a clear definition of what and a good direct effect on the why. That is not too much to ask, and we should not have to resort to dishonest propaganda and pandering by extremists on both sides of the issue.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 09:58:54 PM by Brakeman »
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12298
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #205 on: January 20, 2013, 09:46:33 PM »
Quote
And yes, criminals don’t typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No.
Again.. straw man up the wazzoo. Nobody is claiming that we want a Somalia type society. 

Way to totally miss the point.  But that was your intention, wasn't it?  To dodge the point?

The non-strawman position is the common argument that criminals will simply ignore gun control laws, and so there's no point in them in the first place.  This argument gets tossed around all the time.  The text you quoted is a reducto ad absurdum refutation of that reasoning.

But, again, you knew that and simply wanted to dismiss it without addressing it.  Right?

Quote
First off, Hitler did not say ..[/i]
Who cares what Hitler said? Naziism was very popular in Germany. The second world war had nothing to do with German gun ownership.

Again, this blatantly dodges the author's clear point, which is that the 'quote' so often employed as a rhetorical device by gun-advocates is a lie.  A useful lie, a tool of propaganda.  Naturally, you object to it being uncovered by your politcal opponents.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 09:57:06 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline 3sigma

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • Darwins +6/-1
  • Sceptic
Re: Guns again
« Reply #206 on: January 20, 2013, 10:05:55 PM »
I think we get the picture that there is a lot of gun violence in the US. I don't think it's all that relevant to identifying the problem.

I think the underlying cause of events like the Newtown massacre is a combination of the vast number of guns in private hands, the easy access to them, the gun culture and the general society of the US. What do you think is the cause?


Quote
The citizens of the U.S. own lots of things way out of proportion to the rest of the world. How many of the next seventeen countries would you want to live in?

I wouldn’t mind living in quite a few of them. For example, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Singapore, Australia and Canada have far fewer gun deaths than the US and a standard of living equal to if not better than the US.


Quote
The only things that should be on the table are things that would actually have helped prevent these acts of violence. Virginia tech or Columbine shootings would have occurred regardless of the proposed bans on assault rifles of clip sizes.

This is the crux of the matter. What things do you think would have helped prevent the Newtown massacre, for instance? How do you propose we reduce further such occurrences? I gave my proposal earlier in this thread. What’s yours?
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. – David Hume 1711–1776

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #207 on: January 20, 2013, 10:30:14 PM »
Quote
And yes, criminals don’t typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No.
Again.. straw man up the wazzoo. Nobody is claiming that we want a Somalia type society. 

Way to totally miss the point.  But that was your intention, wasn't it?  To dodge the point?

The non-strawman position is the common argument that criminals will simply ignore gun control laws, and so there's no point in them in the first place.  This argument gets tossed around all the time.  The text you quoted is a reducto ad absurdum refutation of that reasoning.

But, again, you knew that and simply wanted to dismiss it without addressing it.  Right?

No, I'm not dodging anything. Are you drunk or something? The statement was that criminals don't respect laws so why have them. My answer was that gun owners know that laws are necessary and we don't want to live in a lawless society. The anti-gun comment is too broad, and it's appeal is make gun owners appear to want a lawless area like Somalia. The point that gun owners try to make is that you can't simply pass laws to end some type of behavior that is already against the law.What the Sandy Hook shooter did was already against the law. Stealing a gun, entering a gun free zone, and shooting people is already against the law. Passing a law that is similar to saying you can't buy ammo on Wednesdays or whatever day of the week he bought his ammo, doesn't make a direct sensible contribution to preventing a recurrence of such incidents, it simply angers the gun owners.

I have no desire to commit any logic fallacies or dodge any sensible ideas. If I do, then it is unintentional and most likely an honest misunderstanding. I try to respond in kind.
I do not see what you saw in my comment at all.

Quote
Quote
First off, Hitler did not say ..[/i]
Who cares what Hitler said? Naziism was very popular in Germany. The second world war had nothing to do with German gun ownership.

Again, this blatantly dodges the author's clear point, which is that the 'quote' so often employed as a rhetorical device by gun-advocates is a lie.  A useful lie, a tool of propaganda.  Naturally, you object to it being uncovered by your politcal opponents.

I've never heard of it. It seems too off the wall to be a useful point of propaganda. Would it sway anybody that even had an inkling of the history of WWII? Do you think it was effective the first time you heard it? Did you hear this at some really off the wall website like "worldnut daily, or stormfront?" I haven't seen this used anywhere and with the usual forums I peruse, there is a higher quality of intellect where a comment like that would be laughed and derided just as I suspect you did. Why do you feel so strongly about painting the mainstream gun owners in this way?
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12298
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #208 on: January 20, 2013, 10:33:00 PM »
Brakeman, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the pro-gun rhetoric to which the piece under discussion is a response.  Maybe you're just mind-crogglingly ignorant of it, rather than deliberaltely dishonest in this case.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #209 on: January 20, 2013, 10:55:04 PM »
Brakeman, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the pro-gun rhetoric to which the piece under discussion is a response.  Maybe you're just mind-crogglingly ignorant of it, rather than deliberaltely dishonest in this case.

Help me find it. It seems to be a facebook post. Those are usually too silly for me and I would never discuss something like this on an unmoderated board like that. They are often trolls anyway. It's better to just ignore the trolls.

Where is the Hitler claim used by anyone smarter than a clam? (In other words, not in the crazy zone, by a regular member of a forum) I can't know where you go to see such things. Has this been claimed on any of the common atheist boards?

Anyway, remember this, if anyone says stupid stuff like that, I will join you in calling it bullshit, just in the same way you would call another atheist's claim to have proof that jesus was gay or something like that. I am a gun owner. I don't "love" my guns. If someone convinces me that society would be better served by destroying them. I would do so. I have a acetylene cutting torch. I have a couple of guns that are sentimental to me because they were handed down from relatives, so I guess I would just make them unfireable, but I wouldn't cry about it either way.

In the very same way that you were angered by the pro-gun propaganda, I was angered by some of the anti-gun propaganda.

I would rather we talk about the issue honestly and directly. I will gladly give my take on the issues, but It's bedtime now.. see you guys tomorrow..
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #210 on: January 21, 2013, 12:00:37 AM »
Making no honest effort to understand someone of a differing opinion makes you an asshole, that's why they would de-friend you, mot because you have an honest differing of opinion.
You mean like you just did?  You aren't making any effort at all to understand the differing opinion that shinozzola posted, you're just deriding it.  If you're going to criticize someone else for something, you'd better make sure that your criticism is accurate and that you're not doing the same thing that you're criticizing them for.

Quote from: Brakeman
Don't be silly, the point of the discussion was that armed men protect the president's daughters yet he derides the Idea of armed men guarding the public's children. The argument of "Who" enacted the legislation is a dodge of the question.
Armed men protect the President and his family because past presidents have been assassinated.  It works because they have a limited number of individuals to watch, have multiple personnel to guard each one, and can dictate that their security arrangements take predicence.  That solution won't work very well at a school.

Quote from: Brakeman
Not true. Under proposed laws on semi-automatic rifles that look "militaristic-y" enough to be called assault rifles, these rifles would be removed from homes upon the passing of the grandfathered owner. Under it, if I died, my family would have to remember to surrender my weapons to the cops or face a swat team. I could not pass the guns down to my children as is customary.
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/175785/tentative-gun-control-bill-would-require-rifle-registry/
The article you cited says nothing about rifles that look "militaristic-y".  It says, specifically, that specific characteristics (such as a telescoping stock, a bayonet mount, or a pistol grip) on a semi-automatic rifle would qualify it to be banned.  Surprise, surprise, they don't mention swat teams raiding the homes of families who don't turn in their guns either.  It doesn't help your argument any to say things that aren't even mentioned in the article you're supposedly using as a source.

Quote from: Brakeman
No gun group is suggesting abandoning all gun laws. Cheap shot!
This has nothing to do with what he said.
 
Quote from: Brakeman
Bullshit! Citation seriously f*cking needed! Don't mind sprinkling in some bare faced lies do you?
What was that saying about glass houses and stones?

By the way, here's something for you to consider.  Since 1979, more than a hundred thousand US children have died from gun violence[1].

Quote from: Brakeman
I've never heard the NRA claim such a thing. Citation needed. The program that the NRA made is very mild target practice. Look at it before you bash it and give people a false impression of it.
I like the wording here.  "I've never heard".  By the way, it was the executive director of the NRA, Wayne LaPierrre who said, "Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?"  I'm surprised he didn't call out Halo or Borderlands while he was at it.  No, he didn't blame just violent video games for it, but it was pretty high on his list of things to blame for school shootings.

Quote from: Brakeman
People don't learn their non-empathetic anti-social behavior by watching videos or playing video games. The learn it by living in dysfunctional families and neighborhoods. You're a pretty disturbed individual to even entertain the idea that seeing something can make you a bad person.
Not according to the NRA statement I linked above.  LaPierre talked about violent video games and movies, then claimed that fantasizing about killing people was the filthiest form of pornography.  I'm not sure that it's possible to get more blatant than that.

Quote from: Brakeman
Again that you portray the believers of weird conspiracies, if there really are any, as mainstream is dishonest. It does not further the discussion.
Actually, he didn't make that portrayal at all.  So it's you who isn't furthering the discussion.

Quote from: Brakeman
We are a melting pot that has many poverty and other issues. We have not learned to get along very well. How many of these victims are bystanders in gang drive-by's? Gangs and hi crive high poverty neighborhoods aren't going away. They cannot be fairly grouped statistically with the wealthy suburbs or the rural farmlands. The U.S. is not homogeneous.
You just got done talking about how dysfunctional families and neighborhoods were a core part of the problem.  Now, here, you're apparently saying that it's an insoluble one - that the neighborhoods (and by extension the families that live in them) aren't going away.  If that's true, then what do you propose to deal with school shootings, given that you're against additional gun control?  Incidentally, the problem is that these school shootings are not happening in gang-ridden, high-crime, poverty-stricken neighborhoods.  Columbine was not, Newtown was not, Virginia Tech was not.

Quote from: Brakeman
The citizens of the U.S. own lots of things way out of proportion to the rest of the world. How many of the next seventeen countries would you want to live in?
This is beside the point, and irrelevant to the discussion.  Most of the things that you refer to are not deadly weapons.

Quote from: Brakeman
I find it disturbing that you would mis-characterize the opposing opinion group in this way. The term "some people" is a sneaky way of creating straw men of a very small minority of gun owners. Amongst gun owners, there is not a consensus over the best course of action to address the real problem of gun violence and mass shootings. Many of us do think additional regulations are needed, but the majority of us are fearful of being railroaded by dishonest portrayals of gun owners by anti-gun people that life in safe happy neighborhoods. We know that we are as a whole, safe responsible people and we do not want to give up our rights because of the actions of a few.
He isn't.  The fact of the matter is that the people who make up stuff like that are themselves part of the problem.  They tend to be among the most vocal opponents of gun control in any form, and they delude themselves into thinking that the only way to solve the problem is to make guns even more common than they already are.

Quote from: Brakeman
Until you can define what an "assault" rifle is without referring to pictures or "fashion," we can't even take what you say seriously. You haven't even tried to learn enough about the issue, and the only thing you've shot off is your mouth. The first ban was simply an attack against a few producer's of certain models of rifles. The firepower was not an indicator of it's inclusion to the ban list. Rate of fire was not included on the ban list. The shape of the plastic parts was the greatest indicator of a rifles inclusion on the ban list. Because of this the ban was useless and did nothing but anger the shooting public. It did not really address any issues of gun violence. Google fastest cowboy shooting videos and see if 1860 weaponry was all that slow. In one, a 13 year old boy shoots targets faster with a 1870 model lever action rifle than another man can shoot them with a machine gun. So is the 1870 45 cal henry repeater an "assault" weapon now?
I think you need to start citing sources for your claims.  By the way, seriously, you're citing a youtube video that you couldn't even be bothered to link?

By the way, you can't hose down an entire room full of people with a lever action rifle, but you can with an automatic weapon.  So it frankly doesn't matter which is better at target shooting.

Quote from: Brakeman
The only things that should be on the table are things that would actually have helped prevent these acts of violence. Virginia tech or Columbine shootings would have occurred regardless of the proposed bans on assault rifles of clip sizes.
Maybe, but given the number of times you've been caught being deceptive in this post, I'm no longer willing to take your word for it. 

By the way, the Newtown shooter used a semi-automatic AR-15 model rifle, the Bushmaster XM-15Wiki.  Except for being semi-automatic, it's basically the same as the M16 rifle, models of which have been standard issue for US soldiers since 1963.

Quote from: Brakeman
How f*cking dishonest! First off, who gives a flying crap what dumbass Reagan did? The non-imbicilic know that the issue is that the term "assault rifle" is not well defined. The problem is that it is very difficult to define assault rifle as used in the common vernacular without including nearly everything, or falsely excluding only machine guns that shoot full auto as these are already highly regulated, and illegal for the common person to own. I think this author knew this an was just yet again trying to get in some cheap shots.
I think we can safely define the rifle the Newtown shooter used as a semi-automatic assault rifle.  So that's a good starting point for the definition, don't you think?

Quote from: Brakeman
Again.. straw man up the wazzoo. Nobody is claiming that we want a Somalia type society.
He didn't say that anyone was claiming such a thing.

Quote from: Brakeman
Yeah, sure. You sound just like the old Archie Bunker type of racists, with "Some of my best friends are n...." No if you were not really anti gun, you would have portrayed the average gun owner in a more truthful fashion instead of the deceitful display of propaganda that you have spouted.
You are not one to talk about how other people sound, given the way you've come across through this entire post.

Quote from: Brakeman
Until we have universal health care that includes mental care, you're just posing for the cameras and you know it. Until you actually address the causes of men growing up to lack empathy and turn into psychopaths, then you've done nothing. The proposed bans are known by both sides to do nothing statistically significant to prevent the violence such as the Sandy Hook Massacre. The proposals are simply to piss off the gun owners and nothing else. Learn the terminology and the mechanics of the guns. If you ask gun owners to sacrifice their rights for the good of society, it must include a clear definition of what and a good direct effect on the why. That is not too much to ask, and we should not have to resort to dishonest propaganda and pandering by extremists on both sides of the issue.
You would have done better just to respond with this paragraph.  It's far more coherent and concise than the rest, and far less insulting.  Most of the rest of your post sounds like you were responding emotionally rather than thinking rationally.
 1. http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf, page 13.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #211 on: January 21, 2013, 08:56:57 AM »
Quote
Fourth, there are not more people being killed with baseball bats than guns. .
Yes that is true and rather obvious. This is not claimed by any intelligent gun owner.

Little bit of a No True Scottsman there?  But that's the problem.  There are a lot of stupid gun owners.  If they represent a standard distribution of the populace, then most of them are stupid.  Of all the gun owners I know, only a very slim percentage of them do not buy into the "Obama wants to take my guns away" type of crazy.   I think there is something about making the decision to buy a gun that flips a paranoia switch in the brain.  It seems to be a self-reinforcing, downward spiral.

http://www.hipointfirearmsforums.com/forum/f295/top-10-killers-gun-control-statistics-295649/
^yay gun owners. One out of the first nine bothered to check numbers.  Not coincidentally, his screen name is "sceptic".

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2212
  • Darwins +73/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #212 on: January 21, 2013, 10:11:42 AM »
Quote
Fourth, there are not more people being killed with baseball bats than guns. .
Yes that is true and rather obvious. This is not claimed by any intelligent gun owner.

Little bit of a No True Scottsman there?  But that's the problem.  There are a lot of stupid gun owners. 

There are a lot of stupid people. Yes, that's a period.

Quote
If they represent a standard distribution of the populace, then most of them are stupid. 

Most everyone is stupid. It's not exclusive to gun right supporters.

Quote
Of all the gun owners I know, only a very slim percentage of them do not buy into the "Obama wants to take my guns away" type of crazy.   I think there is something about making the decision to buy a gun that flips a paranoia switch in the brain.

Then you know stupider people than I. The gun owners that I know see, and use, the "slippery slope" fallacy, and which isn't totally out of the realm of the plausible. Some[1] stand behind many of the measures aimed at preventing access to munitions to those people that should not have them. Enhanced background checks, and a waiting period, for instance. However, many of the other measures being put forth in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy will absolutely do nothing but infringe on 2nd amendment rights.
 1. but not all obviously,
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Darwins +130/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Guns again
« Reply #213 on: January 21, 2013, 05:54:17 PM »
Then you know stupider people than I. The gun owners that I know see, and use, the "slippery slope" fallacy, and which isn't totally out of the realm of the plausible.

So, finding microbes on Mars means that Little Green Men aren't totally out of the realm of the plausible, either. Slippery-slope fallacies are often used when people are paranoid, and I agree with Screwtape that gun owners don't just accumulate guns and ammo, they accumulate paranoia.


I know a lot of people who don't own guns, and a lot of people who do, many of whom are in my own family. All it takes is one segment on FOX News to announce that Obama is coming to take your guns (not even remotely true), and they are set afire like sawdust at a lumber mill. Two stories on FOX and they start talking about Second Amendment Solutions. Three stories, and they start bringing out their collection for you to see -- either to lust for or be wary of, I'm not sure.

The people who are paranoid, and there are many, will send emails or pass around Facebook stories and anecdotes which often have incomplete, inconsistent or blatantly incorrect info -- they can't bother to read and think on their own. This pattern simply copies itself from religion, because guns are like religion. People often don't care to read and parse information to understand it. They only wish to hear whatever reaffirms their existing thoughts on the matter.

I often hear "They should make sure crazy people like that kid in Newtown don't get guns", and yet the system did keep that crazy-kid-from-Newtown from buying a gun. But, it didn't matter. There was a supply of weapons and ammo stored in his own house; he just had to shoot his mother to get it (or maybe he thought she wouldn't want to live after what he was about to do). An obvious problem with guns in America is that there are so many out there -- nearly one for every man, woman and child in America -- that it is difficult to measure how much the ready availability of guns contributes to violence in general. The only way to know for sure is to take away all, or a substantial portion, and then see what happens in society. Of course, that's not going to happen and that's how paranoid gun owners like it.


However, many of the other measures being put forth in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy will absolutely do nothing but infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

The SCOTUS neutered the first portion of the Second Amendment. They completely ignored anything about a "well regulated Militia", such that anything the government does is an infringement. However, I cannot own hand grenades and I would like to know why. They are "arms" and I have a right to "keep and bear arms". Seriously. I would find a grenade a much more effective deterrent in my home than any single firearm you could provide. Can a grenade kill a number of humans? Yes, but so could the Bushmaster that was used in Newtown. In fact, it did.

So, since your government is already infringing on my Second Amendment right to own a grenade, I don't see why it can't infringe on your Second Amendment right to own anything else.



John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7277
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Guns again
« Reply #214 on: January 21, 2013, 06:12:25 PM »
However, many of the other measures being put forth in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy will absolutely do nothing but infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

Rights?  Why the plural?  You can own a gun(s), that's it.

Offline shnozzola

Re: Guns again
« Reply #215 on: January 21, 2013, 07:46:40 PM »
Making no honest effort to understand someone of a differing opinion makes you an a**hole, that's why they would de-friend you, mot because you have an honest differing of opinion. <snip>

Wow, I've reignited the fire and fanned the flames.  Hard to predict what is and is not a harmless post.  Brakeman, your response teaches me there may not be any middle ground on gun control.   Do you think there is anything that should be done after Sandy Hook?
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #216 on: January 21, 2013, 09:55:57 PM »

Wow, I've reignited the fire and fanned the flames.  Hard to predict what is and is not a harmless post.  Brakeman, your response teaches me there may not be any middle ground on gun control.   Do you think there is anything that should be done after Sandy Hook?

There is no middle ground in a propaganda war, but there certainly is in the gun issue.

My proposal is to make gun safes tax deductible to a fair degree so that good quality ones are withing reach of everyone. Every body that owns a good gun safe uses it for the most part because no one wants their guns stolen or taken by an unauthorized family member. Then I would support a law that says all sales of semi-automatic rifles require proof of gun safe ownership. It's simple, we demand that they have a safe place to shoot them, why can't we demand that they have a safe place to store them?
This would have prevented Sandy hook, at least in the form we witnessed. It would dramatically curtail the influx of stolen guns into the hands of criminals. Which would effect inner city crime. It would also take away a major cash cow for burglars, as guns are so easily fenced at such high cash rates. Plus people might just store other valuables there too, further deterring crime.

I would push for single payer, universal mental care as a sister to single payer health care. This would help with the mental attention to psychopaths.

I would push for easier short term commitment for mental patients. This is a deep, complicated issue.

I would require/request that the local police visit shooting ranges often an act upon treasonous anti-obama propaganda that is given credence by the lack of action by the police.

Thats what I would do to start.  I would consider requiring a registration program for high capacity cartridges to deter the ner'-do-wells from bothering to obtain them. Something like that.

As for school safety. I would require the revamping of school entrances and not allow the full glass windows and doors that allowed the sandy hook shooter entrance. I would not give teachers or principles guns, but rather police grade tear gas canisters along with training to use them safely and effectively. There is some good new non-lethal technology out there and it should be investigated for use to make the school system safer.

Do these ideas sound reasonable to you?
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: Guns again
« Reply #217 on: January 22, 2013, 12:43:17 AM »
The SCOTUS neutered the first portion of the Second Amendment. They completely ignored anything about a "well regulated Militia", such that anything the government does is an infringement. However, I cannot own hand grenades and I would like to know why. They are "arms" and I have a right to "keep and bear arms". Seriously. I would find a grenade a much more effective deterrent in my home than any single firearm you could provide. Can a grenade kill a number of humans? Yes, but so could the Bushmaster that was used in Newtown. In fact, it did.

So, since your government is already infringing on my Second Amendment right to own a grenade, I don't see why it can't infringe on your Second Amendment right to own anything else.

Exactly my thoughts. It seems obvious, given the founding fathers included the verbage right there in the 2nd amendment, that membership in a well-regulated militia should be a requirement for gun ownership. Unfortunately and inexplicably, the SCOTUS did not see it that way. Gun proponents point to Switzerland as a prime example of a society with high rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun violence, but they fail to mention that militia membership is a requirement for gun ownership there.

Your point about grenades is a good one. Gun lovers seem to think they have a right to keep and bear any weapon they want, but the 2nd amendment doesn't say exactly what kinds of weapons are included. How could it? The deadliest firearm that existed when it was written was a single-shot musket that took about 30 seconds to reload, and was wildly inaccurate. I would support the right of most Americans to own a musket.

And BTW, all you gun folks who think it is your responsibility to own an arsenal so you'll be prepared to defend against a tyrannical government, think again. In the outrageously unlikely event that our government actually turns against its own citizens, your little pea shooters wouldn't stand a chance against an M1 Abrams tank or an A-10 Warthog jet. And you can't buy anything in their class because letting the average citizen own an armed tank or fighter jet would be completely stupid. So if our access to M1's and A-10's (not to mention grenades) can be restricted, why not assault weapons? Why not 30 round clips? Why not everything except a single-shot rifle that takes 30 seconds to load?

That said, I think Brakeman has made some good points. I am against giving teachers guns, but I'm all for providing them non-lethal means by which to defend themselves and their students. At least that would ensure that no teachers would accidentally kill a kid while trying to protect them.

edit: clarity
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 12:46:31 AM by DumpsterFire »
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #218 on: January 22, 2013, 07:40:36 AM »
Gun lovers seem to think they have a right to keep and bear any weapon they want, but the 2nd amendment doesn't say exactly what kinds of weapons are included. How could it? The deadliest firearm that existed when it was written was a single-shot musket that took about 30 seconds to reload, and was wildly inaccurate. I would support the right of most Americans to own a musket.

No, gun proponents are not proposing more access to explosives or artillery. Let me clear up a few misconceptions. A civilian can own a grenade, an a10 warthog, and a tank, even armed. In fact, most of these items are designed in civilian factories. They are extremely well regulated of course. But a licensed blaster holder can own explosives, and a title three licensee can own heavy machine guns and more. The requirements are too onerous for a casual collector, but theoretically, if you made it your life's mission to own one, it is possible.

Secondly, and something I know more about because it is more to my hobby, a revolutionary musket was not as "wildly inaccurate" as you make it seem. They had sharpshooters or "snipers" back then. That's what infuriated the British soldiers so much at the beginning of the war. A 69 caliber Charleville musket is a hoot to shoot. At about 175 to 200 feet the spread is about the size of a pie pan. With a modern rifle the spread is about the size of a baseball. More inaccurate, for sure more than 2x, but in real life, it's still pretty good. I would still be 99.9% sure to hit a silhouette at that distance. You know that they did have to hunt with those guns and a "wildly inaccurate" gun wouldn't be worth much. When they needed more firepower they added barrels or more often, carried a "brace" or two of pistols. Only the poor soldiers carried only a single musket. The pepperbox, a forerunner to the modern revolver began at this time, and it had up to nine barrels in the obnoxious form. Five and six were more common. So with five peperbox pistols, George Washington could have killed all of the dead at Sandy hook with a few shots to spare.

Quote
And BTW, all you gun folks who think it is your responsibility to own an arsenal so you'll be prepared to defend against a tyrannical government, think again. In the outrageously unlikely event that our government actually turns against its own citizens, your little pea shooters wouldn't stand a chance against an M1 Abrams tank or an A-10 Warthog jet. And you can't buy anything in their class because letting the average citizen own an armed tank or fighter jet would be completely stupid. So if our access to M1's and A-10's (not to mention grenades) can be restricted, why not assault weapons? Why not 30 round clips? ..

A civil war is ugly but the overthrow of an unpopular tyrannical government is not the same. The soldiers have families that are not protected by the razor wire and Abrams' tanks. This would push the soldiers into revolt.  Mexico has lots of tanks, bombers, and attack helicopters too, but that doesn't stop the pistol and rifle armed cartels from largely dictating who their governors and sheriffs are, and they are not popularly supported. Of course it's not the point of the discussion to talk military strategy. An armed populous would definitely be something to worry about for a tyrannical leader.

Again, most gun owners are somewhat reasonable and are willing to bow to fair and sensible legal controls, but they have their "bristles up" right now over the braying of anti-gunners for unlearned and non-sensible controls that do not solve actual problems, just pile on restrictions. We gun owners are just as human as the anti's. We have daughters and sons just like the anti's. We love our fellow man just like the anti's.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2212
  • Darwins +73/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #219 on: January 22, 2013, 07:54:42 AM »
However, many of the other measures being put forth in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy will absolutely do nothing but infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

Rights?  Why the plural?  You can own a gun(s), that's it.

Keep AND bear. Plural.  :D
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #220 on: January 22, 2013, 08:06:34 AM »
Keep AND bear. Plural.  :D

One in the same, my good man.  One in the same.  And they do not add up to the Bill of Rights guaranteeing the right, as this essay argues...
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-natural-but-not-a-second-amendment-guaranteed-right-to-own-a-gun/

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #221 on: January 22, 2013, 08:53:42 AM »
Do you think there is anything that should be done after Sandy Hook?

I've thought about this a lot lately.  It seems that this one particular incident is what people are trying to prevent.  But it's a Black Swan event[1].  It is not something that can be prepared for and it is a bad idea to attempt to prevent it again.  If you do, you often end up tying yourself in knots trying to prevent an extremely low probability event at extremely high cost.  And you still fall victim to the next black swan anyway.  A good example is 9/11 and the ensuing destruction of the Bill of Rights.[2] 

So, I think reducing gun violence in general in the US should be the goal. 

According to the FBI[3] there were 12,664 murders in the US in 2011.  8,583 were by firearms. That's 68% of all murders.  It does not include the people shot by police.  Those numbers are not collected anywhere.  I also did not find data on how many of the murder weapons were acquired illegally.  I suspect a tiny percentage.

What would I do to achieve that?  I would have to be king to do it, but it would include:
  • require all weapons be registered. 
  • require all gun owners pass mandatory gun safety training.
  • require all gun owners to provide evidence their weapons are secure.  maybe a receipt for their gun safe.
  • require all guns be sold with trigger locks.  This would also apply to person-to-person sales.
  • gun owners would be held responsible for what happened with their weapons.  If your kid shoots up his school with your guns, you would be criminally and civilly responsible.  If someone breaks into your house and your weapons have not been reasonably secured, you would be responsible for the damage done if those guns are stolen.
  • require all gun owners to have gun insurance, in the event their weapon is used to hurt someone else, as above.
  • repeal all "Stand your ground" laws
  • create a national database of people who cannot own weapons.  They would not be allowed to be housed at an address with registered weapons.  So, if your spouse or kid had mental issues and you had guns, you would either have to move him or her out, or turn in the guns.
  • require background check for all weapon transfers. This would mean person-to-person sales or gifts would have to be reported and registered.  This could be done with the local police.
  • limit gun ownership to bolt action long rifles(for hunting), shotguns (with limitations), and revolver type handguns.
  • carry laws would be reviewed.  I think in most cases people do not need to carry guns outside their home.
  • nothing would be grandfathered in.


violation of any of these rules would be a felony.  Penalties would include fines, revoking all gun privileges for 10 years, confiscation of all weapons, and possible jail time.

 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
 2. except, of course, the second amendment
 3. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #222 on: January 22, 2013, 09:17:10 AM »
First off, Brakeman, the sharpshooters probably used rifled muskets, which were much slower to load than a standard musket, but considerably more accurate.  Many of them probably owned those guns for hunting, where accuracy is much more important than speed of reloading.  The reason most guns weren't rifled is because it reduced an already anemic rate of fire to something that would have been almost useless on the battlefield.  Now, it's true that non-rifled muskets were not wildly inaccurate, within 50 meters or so, because within that range the velocity of the bullet is high enough that it will not lose way.  Much past that, and it'll start to tumble, meaning it'll go who knows where.  That's where the "wildly-inaccurate" descriptor came from.

However, be that as it may, I think you have to admit that a Revolutionary War-era musket would have been almost useless in a Columbine or Newtown shooting situation.  One shot, and then you have to spend the next fifteen seconds reloading (and that's if you're practiced at reloading), not to mention the cloud of black powder smoke.  Even against unarmed adults, that's enough time for the survivors to close the distance and turn it into a melee.  Can't do that against a modern gun with even a small magazine.

Now, it's true that you could overcome that handicap with multiple guns or extra barrels on the guns.  But you're forgetting some things.  First is expense.  Multiple barrels on a gun raised the cost considerably, especially for pistols.  It isn't something that you could just buy out of a gun shop, either, you had to get the guns custom-made, which took time.  For another thing, most people who owned pistols didn't use them for hunting, they used them for dueling, for the simple fact that pistols would not have been useful against most wild animals.  If you wanted to hunt, you used a musket for the increased range and power.  Pistols were used for killing people.  It was one thing to own a pistol for self-defense, or for honorable dueling, but you didn't see people owning multiple pistols, or pistols with multiple barrels, let alone carrying them around on a regular basis.  In short, yes, someone could have had a half-dozen pepperbox pistols and committed a Newtown-type massacre, but the likelihood of such a thing happening was vanishingly small, because many people didn't even own a single pistol, let alone several, never mind having extra barrels on them.

Like it or not, it is much, much easier to acquire guns today than it ever was in 1800.  And those guns are generally far more dangerous in the hands of someone intending to kill.  So, it's more than a little ridiculous to try to say, "well, someone could have had a bunch of pepperbox pistols and could have committed massacres like Newtown 200 years ago", and expect it to hold any water.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #223 on: January 22, 2013, 10:08:46 AM »
Forgive the double-post, but this is relevant to the discussion.

Letter to the Editor: Gun control leads to exterminations

Quote
1911 — Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated.

1929 — The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were exterminated.

1935 — China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, about 20 million political dissidents were exterminated.

1938 — Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews were exterminated.

Thanks to gun control 56 million people were exterminated in the 20th century. Should I go on? Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia? Could this happen in the United States? Yes!

On Jan. 1, 2012, the Nation Defense Authorization Act was signed. In this bill is explicit authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens with out due process. That is a clear violation of the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments.

On March 16, 2012, the president signed executive order “National Defense Resources Preparedness Act.” This gives the president the power to declare martial law.

H.R. 347 was signed into law during March 2012. The “federal restricted building and ground improvement act.” This gives the Secret Service the right to designate a no-speech zone for anyone that they are assigned to protect. The government says this is a no trespassing bill. This bill, based on the content of the speech, gives the Secret Service the right to arrest and charge you with a felony.

“They that can give up essential liberty to maintain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety,” Benjamin Franklin (1759).

I realize this individual is not representative of all or even most gun owners, but this is the kind of rhetoric that is so often the public face of those who are pro-gun.  So I wanted to see what other people here thought about it.

One thing that is extremely notable is that all of those things happened during wars.  So arguing that "gun control" somehow resulted in them is...unlikely, to say the least.  The rest of the conclusions of the letter are also pretty irrational, in my opinion.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #224 on: January 22, 2013, 10:18:44 AM »
And BTW, all you gun folks who think it is your responsibility to own an arsenal so you'll be prepared to defend against a tyrannical government, think again.

I agree, that ship has sailed long ago.  But even more than the fact that they would be outgunned, there are several other facts they are overlooking.

First, to overthow a "tyrannical" government it necessarily means you are going to have to kill people.  Whom do they think they are going to kill?  Well, whomever it is they will be fighting.  They may fantasize that means a president or other politicians who have overstepped their bounds.  But really that means cops.  Local town police.  County Sheriffs.  State troopers.  Federal agents.  And how do we look upon people who kill cops?  As criminals.  Terrorists.  If you start shooting cops, you will be Timothy McVeighWikiTerry NicholsWikiTed KaczynskiWiki. Nidal Malik HassanWiki.  No one will sympathize with you.  No one will support you. Except a handful of fellow paranoid loons.  And that does not a revolution make.  What it does make is a terrorist organization.  Congratulations, gun nut, you have made yourself into the IRA.

Second, most gun nuts think the hallmark of a "tyrannical" government is one that is trying to take their guns.  But it is possible for a tyranny to exist which revokes all other rights and leaves gun ownership in place.  Who cares about individuals with guns if the authorities can listen to your phone conversations and read your email at will?  If they can jail you (or kill you) without habeas corpus or trials, why would guns bother them?  Especially when they have the means to prevent people from organizing in the first place and a better arsenal of weapons.

That segues into the third point, which is second amendment fans do not seem to support the other rights with nearly the same fanaticism, or even at all.  The exercise of free speech, free press, voting, due process are all democratic processes.  Armed insurrection is anything but democratic.  It is supposed to be the last barrier, but the point is to maintain democracy before it gets to that point.  American Conservative has an excellent article that gets more into it:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/rethinking-the-right-to-bear-arms/


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2212
  • Darwins +73/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #225 on: January 22, 2013, 11:09:56 AM »
I also did not find data on how many of the murder weapons were acquired illegally.  I suspect a tiny percentage.

I suspect it's a much larger percentage.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208079.pdf

From article
Quote

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Current debate about proper measures to reduce illegal access to guns, places insufficient emphasis on the fact that for every six firearms used in crime only one was legally obtained (Reiss and Roth 1993). Yet, two populations of most concern to law enforcement, adult career criminals and juveniles, are legally prohibited from purchasing handguns nearly everywhere in the United States, and firearms violence in the United States has been linked to illegal markets in firearms (Blumstein and Cork 1996).

Quote
What would I do to achieve that?  I would have to be king to do it, but it would include:
  • require all weapons be registered. 
  • require all gun owners pass mandatory gun safety training.
  • require all gun owners to provide evidence their weapons are secure.  maybe a receipt for their gun safe.
  • require all guns be sold with trigger locks.  This would also apply to person-to-person sales.

No huge problems so far, but I doubt it would do a whole lot to curb gun violence.

Quote
  • gun owners would be held responsible for what happened with their weapons.  If your kid shoots up his school with your guns, you would be criminally and civilly responsible.  If someone breaks into your house and your weapons have not been reasonably secured, you would be responsible for the damage done if those guns are stolen.

So if someone commits a crime against me, I'm responsible? And if they steal my car and use it as a getaway vehicle during a bank robbery, am I also an accomplice to that?

Quote
  • require all gun owners to have gun insurance, in the event their weapon is used to hurt someone else, as above.

To pay out to whom, for what? I'm missing the end game on this one.


Quote
  • repeal all "Stand your ground" laws

Review and modify perhaps, but not repeal. We do have a right to self defense, don't you think? Or am I missing something here as well?

Locally, we had 2 separate criminal cases in the past month. In one, a man fended off 2 criminals that were attempting to perpetrate a home invasion. One was shot, and the other escaped unharmed. Would the homeowner have been injured or killed by these criminals? We'll never know, because he defended himself with a gun. In the other case, a couple returning home surprised a burglar, who in turn shot and killed the couple. Would they have survived if they were armed? Maybe, maybe not. But unarmed, they didn't have a chance.

Quote
  • create a national database of people who cannot own weapons.  They would not be allowed to be housed at an address with registered weapons.  So, if your spouse or kid had mental issues and you had guns, you would either have to move him or her out, or turn in the guns.
  • require background check for all weapon transfers. This would mean person-to-person sales or gifts would have to be reported and registered.  This could be done with the local police.

More reasonable points.

Quote
  • limit gun ownership to bolt action long rifles(for hunting), shotguns (with limitations), and revolver type handguns.

Why? Is this an attempt to limit rate of fire? I don't understand the reasoning, especially in regards to "revolvers only". Revolvers can be semi-automatic too, but they're called "double action". Also, you might look up the fairly impressive rate of fire that Oswald accomplished on Kennedy. Of course, I do concede that he could have done more damage in that timeframe with an AR-15, so please don't take that as an attack on your suggestion.

Quote
  • carry laws would be reviewed.  I think in most cases people do not need to carry guns outside their home.
  • nothing would be grandfathered in.

These would be great discussion points, and I could possibly be convinced they were the right choice. Or not.

I read an article recently, but don't remember where, that although the Brady Act had very little impact on homicides and other gun assaults, the waiting period portion of the law had a significant impact on suicides. I wouldn't mind seeing that law come back on the books.

But all that aside, I think gun control laws are more like a band aid, treating the symptom instead of the disease. If you want less gun violence, we need to increase education, decrease poverty, decriminalize drug use, and seriously address mental health issues.

But that's just me.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline shnozzola

Re: Guns again
« Reply #226 on: January 22, 2013, 11:30:32 AM »
Good ideas, everyone.  Regardless of how the gun debate is labeled, at the end of the day, if the changed regulations lower violence, it's all good.  Unfortunately I do not think most of your ideas will get past the gun lobby.

IMO, like the health care debate, and the abortion debate, the screaming drowns out the fact that  in the U.S., if a majority of citizens think laws have reached too far, we change them.  The people are the government, right?   I do not feel that is naive.

Quote
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons".[1] The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[2] but no bill has reached the House floor for a vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

The expiration of the assault weapons ban is the U.S. form of government at it's best, and the current return of the debate is equally important government.  I know many NRA members, family and friends, that are not against an assault weapons ban.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #227 on: January 22, 2013, 12:14:35 PM »
I suspect it's a much larger percentage.

Possibly.  I have no data, so I remain open.  My initial feeling is based on the fact that in all the recent massacres, I have heard nothing about any of the weapons being acquired illegally.

I'd read your link, but for some reason, I cannot open it.  I think it is a problem with my machine.

So if someone commits a crime against me, I'm responsible?

Depending on the situation, yes.  I think if the kid's mom in Sandy Hook had taken proper precautions, her mental case kid would not have been able to get his hands on her legally acquired guns.  I think that makes her partly responsible.  I think it is a necessary responsibility for gun owners to secure their guns.  If they do not, then they bear some responsibility.   If your guns are stored in a gun safe and someone cuts into it with a torch and steals them, then I do not think you are accountable for that.  You took every reasonable precaution.

To pay out to whom, for what? I'm missing the end game on this one.

Whomever.  You have car insurance, right?  It is to pay for damages in case you damage property or hurt someone while driving.  Homeowners insurance?  That doesn't just cover your stuff.  It covers liability in case someone gets hurt on your property. It goes with the whole idea of responsibility.  Right now it seems as if the whole rest of society is responsible for people with guns.  The rest of us are paying the price.

Review and modify perhaps, but not repeal. We do have a right to self defense, don't you think?

Stand your ground is not the same as self defense.  In states that do not have SYG, shooting someone is legally a last resort.  That means, if you can avoid the situation, you must.  SYG engourages confrontation.

Just two examples:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/witnesses-dispute-trevor-dooleys-stand-your-ground-claim-in-valrico/1206308
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/27/texan-in-stand-your-ground-case-awaits-sentence/

If the point is to have fewer people killed with guns, then this is one way to do it.  People with guns should be trying to find other solutions rather than killing someone.  My bedroom has an entrance door.  If someone came into my house (though another door) while I was there, I could avoid all trouble just by leaving.  I would not have to stand my ground, nor would I be tempted to, even if I had a gun.  Standing my ground inherently means putting myself at risk. And that is stupid.

Why? Is this an attempt to limit rate of fire?

yep

"double action".

I'd ban that.  I would, however, make swords legal.  Minimum blade length of 12". 

Also, you might look up the fairly impressive rate of fire that Oswald accomplished on Kennedy.

Let's not bring Oswald into it.  Too fertile for digressions and conspiracy theories.

Yes, there are people who can do shoot a bolt action fast.  But that and limiting the clip capacity makes them less practical for mass killing than, say, a semi-automatic with a 15 shot capacity.

so please don't take that as an attack on your suggestion.

I've not taken anything you've said as an attack.  We're talking and we respect each other.  We have some different ideas, but as long as we treat them as ideas and not beloved body parts, we're good.

I read an article recently, but don't remember where, that although the Brady Act had very little impact on homicides and other gun assaults,

I've seen mixed conclusions.  I'm not sure which to believe. 

It would help if the NRA and congress had not made studying gun violence illegal.
http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1

But all that aside, I think gun control laws are more like a band aid,

I think they are part of the solution, but not the only part.  I am wholely in agreement with the other stuff you mention -  education, poverty, drugs, mental health. 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6481
  • Darwins +771/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Guns again
« Reply #228 on: January 22, 2013, 12:14:56 PM »
Seriously. We need to find out who it is that gets all of those "politically incorrect" words out of our vocabulary. You know, the people who insist that fat people be referred to as "circumferencially disadvantaged" and the blind as "sight impaired". They control the world. Ask them what they would do. Nicely.

Vociferous gun owners want to be prepared for the worse. So much so that they are willing to ignore their duty as citizens to make this country more viable now so that it doesn't deteriorate the way they fear it will. They want every governmental policy to reflect their seat of the pants, whim of the moment, prejudicial attitudes, and when they don't, obviously commies are involved. They want lower taxes, a stronger right-wing military, no immigrants, richer rich folks and poorer poor ones, and their guns.

Of course they're afraid. Nothing they want makes any sense and, in their heart of hearts, they know it. And they drag the fun owner who merely wants to teach a child how to safely handle a gun using a single shot 22 short, the only gun they own, into the paranoia. As usual, sanity ends up being outnumbered 50:1 and nothing gets done.

Australia totally banned automatic and semi-automatic rifles after a terrible 1996 mass shooting. They haven't had one since. Of course, Australians follow the law a bit more conscientiously than we do. And most of them die off every year from snake and spider bites, so there aren't many targets anyway. But still, there is precedence.





Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Guns again
« Reply #229 on: January 22, 2013, 12:36:15 PM »
If the point is to have fewer people killed with guns, then this is one way to do it.  People with guns should be trying to find other solutions rather than killing someone.  My bedroom has an entrance door.  If someone came into my house (though another door) while I was there, I could avoid all trouble just by leaving.  I would not have to stand my ground, nor would I be tempted to, even if I had a gun.  Standing my ground inherently means putting myself at risk. And that is stupid.

I've been mostly staying out of this (gun control debates are a very strong trigger for my SIWOTI Syndrome), but I did want to address this.

"Stand Your Ground" laws refer to duty to flee outside of the home.  In the past, legal precedent has been that if you are attacked anywhere other than in your home, you had a duty to flee, if possible, before resorting to violence against the attacker, and Stand Your Ground laws remove the duty to retreat.  Inside one's home, however, duty to flee does not apply in most states.  Even highly left-leaning states with strict gun control laws, such as California, Maryland and Massachusetts, are known as "Castle Doctrine" states (as in, a man's home is his castle), meaning that if you are attacked in your own home, you have no duty to retreat and may proceed directly to appropriate use of force.

This is highly unlikely to change in the way you describe, and in fact, attitudes on this have gone strongly in favor of the Castle Doctrine.  There was one case some years back in Massachusetts (wish I could remember the name, but I can't), before it became a Castle Doctrine state, in which a woman alone in her home was confronted by a home intruder.  She had a gun, but she also knew that she had a duty to retreat, so she fled all over the house.  The invader kept chasing her, finally cornering her in the basement, at which point she shot and killed him.  The District Attorney brought her up on homicide charges, arguing that since there was a ventilation duct in the basement that was large enough to crawl thru, she should have done that instead of shooting the perp.  Massachusetts, as you're probably aware, is not known for its love of guns or its exceptionally harsh attitude toward criminals, but even so, there was a huge outcry over what the DA did, and shortly afterward, Massachusetts passed Castle Doctrine legislation.

So opposing Stand Your Ground laws is one thing, and you'll find a fair amount of support for it, as I'm sure you already realize.  Getting rid of the Castle Doctrine, however, is simply not going to happen because no one favors it.  Quite the contrary, self-defense in the home is almost universally regarded as an inalienable right, and this is being reflected in other ways as well.  In the state I live in, for example (Maryland), the situation until recently was that if you shot a home intruder, the intruder (or his family, if the intruder did not survive the shooting) could sue you for damages.  A law was enacted in 2009 that prevented this, saying basically that getting shot is a risk you choose to take if you break into someone's house and that you can't sue someone who shoots you in such a circumstance.  If memory serves, the vote in the legislature was unanimous, and Maryland is one of the bluest states in the union.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #230 on: January 22, 2013, 12:52:11 PM »
How'd you like to go against Bob Mundy with four pistols in his belt? Here he is with one.



here's a shooting and reload and shoot revolver - 12 shots  in under 3 seconds



Try timing a walk across the room between any of these shots..


Take the you tube claims of fastest with a grain of salt. We don't really know.. but they are fast.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 12:54:06 PM by Brakeman »
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #231 on: January 22, 2013, 01:20:46 PM »
What relevance do Bob Mundy and other quick-draw specialists have to this discussion, Breakman?  Most people who own guns are not quick-draw specialists.

I've written two posts directed at you, and you've totally ignored them.  Instead, you post things like the above which give false impressions about the skills of gun owners in general, gems like "George Washington could have killed all the dead at Sandy Hook with bullets to spare with five pepperbox-style pistols"[1] as if that's actually meaningful, and in general have provided what amounts to a textbook example of fearful emotional 'thinking' from gun owners who let NRA propaganda stampede them.  No, not everything that you've posted has been like that, but enough of it has that it overshadows the stuff that makes sense.

If you aren't willing to address criticism and objections to your posts, then you're going to end up doing your position much more harm than good.  I strongly suggest that you think about this before you post again.
 1. paraphrase of the original quote