Author Topic: Guns again  (Read 20507 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Guns again
« Reply #435 on: April 20, 2013, 06:07:16 AM »
Ah, another knowledgeable gun owner/user.

Not as knowledgeable as most firearms enthusiasts, but better informed than most laymen and journalists.  Or, at least, I would hope so.  :-)  BTW, have you noticed over the past few months that some news outlets have started using the term "magazine clips"?  Apparently they were getting tired of making the same old mistake and wanted to make a new one, or something.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #436 on: April 22, 2013, 09:14:40 AM »
They are vindictive assholes who don't want to reward a state that makes some of their products illegal to own in that state?

It was the question, not a statement.  Are they just making an emotional decision or is it really a business decision?  If it is an emotional decision, then yes, they are kind of being vindictive assholes.  If they are a national company, then it does not really matter whether their product is available in the state where they are made.  It would not be a business decision.   It would be spite.

Do you all see the kind of bullshit rhetoric folks try to get away with in a debate like this?

I'm sorry you are so emotional about it that you are having trouble understanding the difference between statements and questions. 



http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Point, Counter-Point.  I'm sure these idiots, rednecks and ne'er-do-wells shouldn't have had these guns.  They should have waited for the police to save them.  Right?

Of course I agree that there are cases where being armed has saved life and property.  It can and does happen.  But it happens much less often than accidents caused by idiots.  And don't get me wrong.  Not all gun owners are idiots.  Some are responsible people.  But a lot are not.  That is just basic probability, given that most people are morons.

I looked at the first page of your link.  It has 40 instances where gun owners have defended themselves or their property.  It dates back to October 9 of 2012.  That is a span of 28 weeks.  So if those reports are conclusive, and given it is the NRA site I think they are, then guns save 1.4 people per week.  The links I provided have reports of the antics of about 50 armed imbiciles per week.  That is, 50 misfires, wounds and people accidentally killed per week.  The data I linked in earlier posts confirms this anecdotal evidence.  It shows that being armed does not make you more safe, but less safe and 4.5 times more likely to be shot than someone who is unarmed.

Society has to decide whether that is an acceptable cost-benefit.  I don't think it is. I think something needs to be done, I do not necessarily think that means all guns should be banned.  Though, I would not have a problem with that.


So let me ask you, do you want irresponsible idiots to be armed or not?  Who should not be allowed to own a gun, in your opinion?


Odin, I would genuinely like to have a discussion with you.  However, you seem to be going off half-cocked and projecting all sorts of assumptions onto me.   It would help us to move forward if you stopped doing that.



Yes, and it is their prerogative to be vindictive.

So in other words, my question was not just "bullshit rhetoric", but one you conclude is right on the money and one you agree with.

Why continue to do business in a hostile state environment?

Because from a business standpoint it makes no sense.  Their loss of revenue due to the new laws - and it is dubious as to whether the is any - would be constant whether they manufactured in Maryland or Arizona.  There are high costs associated with moving, hiring training etc.  So moving despite the costs would indicate they are just...spiteful. 

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: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #437 on: April 22, 2013, 10:23:12 AM »
I think gun folks who think guns are supposed to be used to revolt against the government and who think the government is trying to steal their guns are... misguided. 

I think they should be more worried about the militarization of the police in the US.  I believe I've linked to articles about that in the past (at TomDispatc.com) but here is a recent editorial on it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-boston-bombs-roused-a-monster-8581430.html

I think this is more dangerous than taking away guns.

edit:
I think the general loss of the other rights is also much more troublesome than regulation of gun rights.  Example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 10:25:46 AM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Guns again
« Reply #438 on: April 22, 2013, 10:50:44 AM »
I think they should be more worried about the militarization of the police in the US.

I agree completely.  When I was working at the Cato Institute, one of the scholars there, Radley Balko, specialized in this matter.  It's troublesome in a lot of ways, many of which might not occur to some people.

For example, with the rise in the use of military-style "no knock" raids, where SWAT teams storm a house with flash-bang grenades and the like, there has been a corresponding increase in the number of homes being wrongly invaded due to the SWAT team having the wrong address.  This, in turn, has resulted in an increase in the number of homeowners naturally assuming that their homes are under attack by criminals and responding with gunfire.  In such cases, if the homeowner is killed, the police are typically pardoned, whereas if the homeowner kills any of the police officers (and lives to tell the tale), he is typically convicted of homicide.

I highly recommend Radley's white paper on the subject:
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

It's a very long read, but it's absolutely worth it.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #439 on: April 22, 2013, 10:56:02 AM »
thanks for the link.  I've read about a local case where a no-knock raid at the wrong address lead to a cop being killed by the home owner.  I cannot conceive how a prosecutor would prosecute or a jury would convict. 
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: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #440 on: April 22, 2013, 10:56:16 AM »
gunfail part 14. 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/19/1201367/-GunFAIL-XIV
It was a light week.  Only 42 accidents. A lot of kids got shot.

edit:
#41 is so predicatable.  "The Medina Police Chief who briefed the media when that town hosted one of the "Gun Appreciation Day" gun shows that experienced an accidental shooting... has accidentally shot himself."

#34 is one reason why cops in schools is a bad idea "A retired police officer accidentally shot himself when he dropped his gun inside a Des Plaines school while attending his grandson's Boy Scout troop meeting."


edit 2:
accidental shootings at 2 (two) gun shows.

edit 3:
also notice how many supposed experts are involved.  Reservists, cops, gun instructors, etc.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 11:11:42 AM by screwtape »
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: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #441 on: April 22, 2013, 11:05:41 AM »
#22 is a twofer.  One for Odin and one for me.
http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20130415/NEWS01/130415015/Two-men-charged-Jackson-apartment-break-led-shooting?nclick_check=1

Guy shoots an intruder.

Also shoots a houseguest on the couch.

So even when things go right, they can still go wrong.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5227
  • Darwins +596/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #442 on: April 22, 2013, 12:14:06 PM »
I'm not sure what I said that makes you think I take you for something.
Let's see, how about, "I don't think you have shot many semi-automatic guns, and you also have not thought this issue through, it appears to me."  You obviously take me to be at least that, and probably more that you didn't actually say.  I also found this to be a fairly insulting statement by you; while it's true that I haven't fired semi-automatic guns, I have studied them and how they work; and you suggested that I hadn't thought this issue through without explaining what caused you to come to that conclusion.

Quote from: Odin
Fully automatic and burst-fire rifles are not available to the general public in the US.  I stated that several times.
Granted.  I was making a rhetorical point which apparently didn't work as I wanted it to.  Basically, I don't think there's any point in trying to restrict magazine sizes.  As you said, there's already millions of 30-round clips out there.

Quote from: Odin
You actually believe teaching a mentally ill Adam Lanza how to use, and when not to use, guns would have prevented a mass shooting?  That's a novel concept.  Here's a better one.  How about if his mom, who legally owned the guns, had followed the laws in place and not allowed her mentally ill son to have access to them?
Think it through.  If he had undergone actual training in firearm usage and safety, it would have been much more likely that someone (say his firearms instructor) would have noticed that he was mentally unstable.  As it is, the only person who was in the position to was his mother, who obviously didn't pay enough attention.  Someone who teaches people how to use deadly weapons is going to be watching them very carefully to make sure that they're competent to use them.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #443 on: April 23, 2013, 08:04:57 AM »
It was the question, not a statement.  Are they just making an emotional decision or is it really a business decision?  If it is an emotional decision, then yes, they are kind of being vindictive assholes.  If they are a national company, then it does not really matter whether their product is available in the state where they are made.  It would not be a business decision.   It would be spite.

But, it was a question that pigeon-holed the possible reasons for moving.  It was either a business decision, or if not, they are being vindictive assholes.

Even spite in this case can be a business decision.  The MD withholding taxes on employee salaries, the real estate and personal property taxes paid by the business and it's employees, MD state income taxes on the profits of the business, and other taxes and fees paid to MD - they are all being paid to a state that does not support a portion of the business that Beretta does. 

As business owners, the Beretta family would be making a business decision not to invest any more money, through investment in plant, property and equipment, or employees whose taxes go to the state of MD, in a state that does not support its business.  And, "not support its business" is not strong enough.  MD is creating a hostile business environment for Beretta.  It seems to me that the Beretta family is looking past "assault weapons" bans and magazine capacity limits to future hostile laws and regulations. 

Quote
I'm sorry you are so emotional about it that you are having trouble understanding the difference between statements and questions.
 

As you can see, it's not emotional at all.  It's probably a difference in the way we look at the situation.

Quote
I looked at the first page of your link.  It has 40 instances where gun owners have defended themselves or their property.  It dates back to October 9 of 2012.  That is a span of 28 weeks.  So if those reports are conclusive, and given it is the NRA site I think they are, then guns save 1.4 people per week.  The links I provided have reports of the antics of about 50 armed imbiciles per week.  That is, 50 misfires, wounds and people accidentally killed per week.  The data I linked in earlier posts confirms this anecdotal evidence.  It shows that being armed does not make you more safe, but less safe and 4.5 times more likely to be shot than someone who is unarmed.

http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

This study estimates a much higher incidence of gun use to stop crimes in the US.  I used the NRA site to counter the gun fail link, that's all. 

Quote
Odin, I would genuinely like to have a discussion with you.  However, you seem to be going off half-cocked and projecting all sorts of assumptions onto me.   It would help us to move forward if you stopped doing that.


I am merely responding to what I read in these posts.  We are probably not going anywhere with this discussion, in any case.  I just feel it necessary to respond to misinformation posted in the 16 pages of this thread.  Why don't we limit the discussion to that?  I will point out what I believe to be misinformation, and you and others can respond and tell me why what I consider to be misinformation is not.  You already stated your position strongly:

Quote
Society has to decide whether that is an acceptable cost-benefit.  I don't think it is. I think something needs to be done, I do not necessarily think that means all guns should be banned.  Though, I would not have a problem with that.

On the issue of supporting the 2nd Amendment, you are a 1 or 2 out of 10, and I am about a 9.  We will never see eye-to-eye, and you will never convince me that the country will be safer if I would just turn in my guns.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #444 on: April 23, 2013, 08:26:26 AM »
Let's see, how about, "I don't think you have shot many semi-automatic guns, and you also have not thought this issue through, it appears to me."  You obviously take me to be at least that, and probably more that you didn't actually say.  I also found this to be a fairly insulting statement by you; while it's true that I haven't fired semi-automatic guns, I have studied them and how they work; and you suggested that I hadn't thought this issue through without explaining what caused you to come to that conclusion.

With a 30-round magazine, I can fire 30 rounds with 30 trigger pulls.  With six 5-round magazines, you would have to change magazines 5 times in order to shoot the first 30 rounds.  You can't carry five 5-round magazines in one hand and use that hand to change magazines, so you have to store the magazines somewhere.  Or, it would take two hands to change the magazines. 

I could, without too much practice, carry two 30-round magazines in my left hand, use my left forearm to help aim an AR-15, and fire and reload twice very quickly.  Shooting 90 rounds with two reloads of 30-round magazines would take something less than about 45 seconds (not very scientific, but I just simulated it using slower than maximum trigger pulls so that I could aim the theoretical AR).

Did I not say, "it appears to me...?"  And, I was correct, it also appears.  Don't be insulted, put on your big boy pants, and let's have a discussion.  I believe that limiting magazine capacities would help prevent mass shootings like Sandy Hook, or at least minimize the damage.  I believe that because it takes more skill to shoot and reload multiple times.  That's why I said, in the post above, I am a 9 out of 10 on a scale of 2nd Amendment supporters, instead of a 10. 

The question is, how do we close Pandora's Box, now that there are a multitude of high-cap magazines in the general population?

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #445 on: April 23, 2013, 09:35:18 AM »
But, it was a question that pigeon-holed the possible reasons for moving.  It was either a business decision, or if not, they are being vindictive assholes.

Granted calling them vindicive assholes is rought, but what's the third option?  I don't see it. 

Make it a different business.  Say they make cigarettes.  Or, flamable childrens clothing.  How is that a business decision and not just being a vindicitve asshole?

Even spite in this case can be a business decision.  The MD withholding taxes on employee salaries, the real estate and personal property taxes paid by the business and it's employees, MD state income taxes on the profits of the business, and other taxes and fees paid to MD - they are all being paid to a state that does not support a portion of the business that Beretta does. 

So what?  It does not hurt or hinder the business in any way.  That is not a business decision.  That is a tantrum.  In Pennsylvania it is illegal to use fireworks.  Yet it is legal to sell them.  Along the NY and NJ borders there are huge warehouse size stores that sell fireworks, speficially for people from out of state.[1]  The PA businesses are not pouting and packing up for another state because it is illegal for Pennsylvanians to use their products.  That would be...vindictive.   

MD is creating a hostile business environment for Beretta.

That is hyperbole and absolutely ridiculous.  A hostile business environment is one that Planned Parenthood has to endure throughout the south and midwest.  Beretta is not being regulated unduly.  There is no direct imposition on them, their facility or what they can make.  And I doubt their sales are even being impacted by this.  If someone in MD wants a gun and cannot get the specific model that is outlawed, they can still buy a different model, and probably would. 

It seems to me that the Beretta family is looking past "assault weapons" bans and magazine capacity limits to future hostile laws and regulations. 

Well, that would be pure speculation and fantasy.  Just like the people who have talked about Obama wanting to take away everyone's guns for the last 5 years.   

As you can see, it's not emotional at all.

No, I do not see that at all.   

http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

This study estimates a much higher incidence of gun use to stop crimes in the US. 

2.5 million crime stoppers is outrageous on its face.  The idea that over 1% of gun owners use their guns every year to thwart crime is simply not believeable.

I used the NRA site to counter the gun fail link, that's all. 

I know.  It does a poor job of it.  In fact, it makes my case.  If it is an indicator, gun fails happen at about 35 times more often.

I just feel it necessary to respond to misinformation posted in the 16 pages of this thread.  Why don't we limit the discussion to that?

That's fine.  Take a look at the links correlating guns and gun laws to violent crime.

Also, I'd like an answer to my question about whom, if anyone, you think should not own guns.

On the issue of supporting the 2nd Amendment, you are a 1 or 2 out of 10, and I am about a 9.  We will never see eye-to-eye, and you will never convince me that the country will be safer if I would just turn in my guns.

So in other words you are compeletely closed to the possibility that you might be wrong about anything regarding gun policy and there is no chance new information might change your mind.  That is too bad.  It saddens me to see an atheist so irrational.


 1. By the way, fireworks are even more illegal in NY and NJ.  So I would say PA is being ethically scummy in this regard.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #446 on: April 23, 2013, 10:07:33 AM »
So in other words you are compeletely closed to the possibility that you might be wrong about anything regarding gun policy and there is no chance new information might change your mind.  That is too bad.  It saddens me to see an atheist so irrational.

You are not reading my posts, at least not with an open mind.  I already said that I believe that magazine capacities should be limited.  That opinion places me in a group of traitors to the 2nd Amendment.  The opinion is based on recent current events, where untrained individuals were able to cause significant damage because they had access to high-cap magazines. 

There is nothing irrational about my 2nd Amendment position.  Set aside the fact that US citizens have a right to own firearms, written into the Constitution by the Bill of Rights.  My Pandora's Box analogy fits.  There are some 50 million households holding 250+ million firearms in the US.  If you repealed the 2nd Amendment and passed laws requiring mandatory surrender of all firearms, you would create 2 classes of people:  1) the criminals who would not comply with the new law, and 2) ordinary citizens who would become criminals because of their refusal to turn in their guns.

I know this is an analogy hated by liberal gun-haters, but we have to learn to live with, and minimize, gun deaths the way we have learned to live with, and minimize, deaths involving automobile accidents.  Some 30,000+ folks die in the US every year from auto accidents.  We've made them safer, and passed regulations, but we haven't tried to outlaw them.  Hell, we haven't even tried to govern their speeds, which might save a significant number of lives every year.

And, we'll have to agree to disagree on the Beretta/MD issue.  I've been working with business owners for 34 years.  I see moving from a state that seems to be working against your business, even a part of it, as creating a hostile business environment. 

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #447 on: April 23, 2013, 11:36:41 AM »
You are not reading my posts, at least not with an open mind. 

I am pretty sure I could say the same.

I already said that I believe that magazine capacities should be limited.  That opinion places me in a group of traitors to the 2nd Amendment.  The opinion is based on recent current events, where untrained individuals were able to cause significant damage because they had access to high-cap magazines. 

Great.  I have no idea how that has relevance to the part of my post you quoted. 

Since you brought it up, I am undecided on the issue.  I am not ideological about what should or should not be done.  I want to do the things that work, and not do the things that do not work.  If smaller mags helps reduce gun violence, then great, let's do it.  If not, then don't ban them.  I would be in favor of trying it out for 3-4 years and looking at the impact in a rigorous way and deciding what to do from there.

I think part of the problem is people have decided what should be done without data based on emotional and ideological grounds.  I want to believe what is true.  If I have untrue beliefs, I want to correct them.

There is nothing irrational about my 2nd Amendment position. 

I was not referring to your positions on the 2nd amendment.  I was refering to your blanket statement that your mind could not be changed.  That is irrational.  That is not wanting to believe what is true.  That is wanting your beliefs to be true. See above

If you repealed the 2nd Amendment

I've not read where anyone in this thread has suggested this.  I've not said it.  I said if we were to ban guns I would be okay with it.  But I did not say this was a great idea or something to strive for.  I've said I want to keep guns away from criminals, the mentally ill and irresponsible idiots (ie. gun fails). 

This is what I am talking about when I say you are projecting erroneous ideas onto me.

but we have to learn to live with, and minimize, gun deaths the way we have learned to live with, and minimize, deaths involving automobile accidents.

I think that is a fine analogy and I agree with it.  The problem is most gun people use that analogy wrongly.  They assume, like you, that the goal is to take away all guns.  That is not my goal.  I would like to treat guns just like cars.  Register all of them.  License anyone who wants to own one.  Make them carry insurance and pass safety training.  Regulate and mandate safety features.  Specify where you can take them.  And take them away from people who use them like assholes.

Some 30,000+ folks die in the US every year from auto accidents.  We've made them safer, and passed regulations, but we haven't tried to outlaw them.  Hell, we haven't even tried to govern their speeds, which might save a significant number of lives every year.

I made this exact point almost word for word several pages ago.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Guns again
« Reply #448 on: April 23, 2013, 12:50:33 PM »
If smaller mags helps reduce gun violence, then great, let's do it.  If not, then don't ban them.  I would be in favor of trying it out for 3-4 years and looking at the impact in a rigorous way and deciding what to do from there.

This has already been tried, from 1994 thru 2004.  Predictably, both the pro-gun and anti-gun camps claim that the ban had the effects that each side predicted it would have.  The truth is probably somewhere between both sides' claims.

According to FactCheck.org:

"Both sides in the gun debate are selectively citing from a series of studies that concluded with a 2004 study led by Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.” That report was the final of three studies of the ban, which was enacted in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994."

I'd suggest reading their review of Koper's analysis:
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

Briefly: the ban had relatively little effect on crime rates, but it is likely that that was due to the (relatively) short period of time that the ban was in effect, especially inasmuch as standard-capacity magazines already possessed were grandfathered in.  Even at that, though, of all shootings studied during this period, only about five percent involved more than ten shots being fired, meaning that even if all standard-capacity magazines had been confiscated -- or the ban had been put in place permanently and the law allowed existing magazines to fade out of circulation as they broke, got lost, etc etc -- the overall decrease in gun violence would likely have been pretty modest.  (Notice also that the question of the effects of reloading, if any, are not addressed at all.)

Another study -- this one by the CDC, if memory serves, although I can't find it offhand and don't have time to look it up right now -- said largely the same thing: new gun control laws have little to no effect on crime because they have no impact on the guns and accessories that are already in private possession.  The only way such bans would have a realistic chance of working, the study said, would be if any such bans were also coupled with confiscation.

Which makes sense, if you know anything about guns at all.  Quality firearms (and their associated parts and accessories, such as magazines) are extremely rugged and durable devices -- they have to be, considering what they're used for -- so if you want to just wait until the existing ones wear out to decrease the supply, you're going to be waiting a long time.  Several decades, at least... perhaps even over a century.  A time frame like that introduces its own difficulties, especially with the way technological growth is accelerating.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #449 on: April 23, 2013, 01:28:26 PM »
I think much of the gun control debate right now is centered on emotional responses to tragedies. Could the tragedy at Sandy Hook have been minimized with mag restrictions? Sure, possibly. Will mag restrictions have a nationwide effect on overall gun crime? Highly doubtful, IMO.

We should really be focusing on that which reduces daily violent crime, not on that which may or may not prevent an obviously horrendous, but also out of the norm, sociopathic episode.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #450 on: April 23, 2013, 01:34:23 PM »
I forgot to ask Odin (for the third time) - do you think there is anyone who should not be allowed 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: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #451 on: April 23, 2013, 01:40:13 PM »
I highly recommend Radley's white paper on the subject:
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

by page 6 I wanted to disband every police force.

On page 35 is the really frustrating stuff - how the system is rigged against the victims.
Quote
The prevailing legal standard states that if a police officer reasonably believes his life to be in peril, he’s permitted to use deadly force to defend himself.252 Given the high-stakes, adrenalin-fueled nature of highly militarized drug raids, that standard allows police to shoot at suspects in such situations with virtual impunity, even in cases where it was clearly an error on the government’s part that led police to the wrong residence. Grand juries and prosecutors have neglected to press criminal charges against police even in cases where they shot unarmed victims, much less victims who were armed but justifiably in fear for their lives.

Quote
...they’ve been far less forgiving of citizens—even completely innocent citizens—who fire at police who have mistakenly raided their homes. Victims who have used force to defend themselves from improper raids have been prosecuted for criminal recklessness, manslaughter, and murder and have received sentences ranging from probation, to life in prison, to the death penalty.

Quote
Victims of botched paramilitary raids are expected to show remarkable poise and composure, exercise
good judgment, and hold their fire, even as teams of armed assailants are swarming their homes. Victims of paramilitary raids have no training in how to act or what to expect as a raid transpires. The police officers
who conduct the raids, on the other hand, are usually required to undergo at least an hour
of training per month.
   Yet civilians who fire back at police officers who wrongly conduct forced-entry raids on their homes are frequently prosecuted, whereas police who erroneously fire at innocents during botched raids are almost never
disciplined, let alone fired or charged with a crime. Civilians are expected to exhibit extraordinary judgment. Egregious mistakes by raiding police officers are readily forgiven.

makes me crazy.  this is not justice.  this is madness.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Guns again
« Reply #452 on: April 23, 2013, 01:46:05 PM »
On page 35 is the really frustrating stuff - how the system is rigged against the victims.

Right, that's what I was saying before about how cops get a free pass and private citizens get prosecuted when it comes to shootouts in botched raids.

Quote
makes me crazy.  this is not justice.  this is madness.

It really is.  And it's very frightening.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #453 on: April 23, 2013, 02:26:19 PM »
do you think there is anyone who should not be allowed to own a gun?

Only liberals.

Kidding! ;D

It's a tough question, but the short answer is "yes, of course there are people who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun". And there already are those people. Convicted felons for 1. Domestic Violence offenders, I believe, for another.

But the long answer would probably be akin to, and I hesitate to use the anology, those people that aren't allowed to drive cars.[1]
 1. Although, IMO, getting a license to drive a car should be a whole lot more difficult than it is.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #454 on: April 23, 2013, 03:33:14 PM »
I forgot to ask Odin (for the third time) - do you think there is anyone who should not be allowed to own a gun?

Sorry, I was trying to stick to my misinformation mandate.  But since we've delved into the debate...

Here is a list of people prohibited from "possessing" a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968:

•Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
•Fugitives from justice;
•Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
•Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
•Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
•Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
•Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
•Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
•Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

I would modify the first one.  Only violent felons should be prohibited.  Non-violent felons should be evaluated.  What link is there between, say, tax fraud and shooting guns?  I would modify the mental defectives one to say anyone with a history of mental illness should be prohibited, unless declared fit by a court.

The others I agree with.

I should state that I am in favor of background checks for everyone buying a firearm.  To satisfy me, all you have to do is make sure there is no database created that could lead to easy registration.  I know this will place me in the lunatic fringe element, but a database could lead to registration, which could lead to confiscation or prohibition.

Odin, King of the Gods

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5227
  • Darwins +596/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #455 on: April 23, 2013, 03:51:26 PM »
With a 30-round magazine, I can fire 30 rounds with 30 trigger pulls.  With six 5-round magazines, you would have to change magazines 5 times in order to shoot the first 30 rounds.  You can't carry five 5-round magazines in one hand and use that hand to change magazines, so you have to store the magazines somewhere.  Or, it would take two hands to change the magazines.
I was quite well aware of how semi-automatic magazine-fed guns worked long before you ever said a word on the subject, thank you very much.  As I said, I have studied how firearms work, even though I don't have much personal experience firing them.

Quote from: Odin
I could, without too much practice, carry two 30-round magazines in my left hand, use my left forearm to help aim an AR-15, and fire and reload twice very quickly.  Shooting 90 rounds with two reloads of 30-round magazines would take something less than about 45 seconds (not very scientific, but I just simulated it using slower than maximum trigger pulls so that I could aim the theoretical AR).
And unless you're talking about shooting a room filled with dozens of people, this is not relevant.  When you're talking about something like the Sandy Hook shooting, or even something like the Virginia Tech shooting, being able to shoot 90 rounds in 45 seconds is pretty meaningless.

Quote from: Odin
Did I not say, "it appears to me...?"  And, I was correct, it also appears.  Don't be insulted, put on your big boy pants, and let's have a discussion.  I believe that limiting magazine capacities would help prevent mass shootings like Sandy Hook, or at least minimize the damage.  I believe that because it takes more skill to shoot and reload multiple times.  That's why I said, in the post above, I am a 9 out of 10 on a scale of 2nd Amendment supporters, instead of a 10.
If you want to have a discussion, then lose the asinine, self-important attitude.  You sound like one of my younger brothers, who has an extremely high opinion of his own intelligence and competence, to the point where he sounds like a pompous fool when he talks about himself.  That's how you sound, especially when you pull out remarks like "pull on your big boy pants", and act as if I shouldn't take exception to your attitude.  In other words, you need to act in a manner consistent with wanting to have a discussion, instead of expecting people to just shut up and ignore your attitude.

Quote from: Odin
The question is, how do we close Pandora's Box, now that there are a multitude of high-cap magazines in the general population?
No, the actual question is, is the benefit of a crazed shooter being limited to five-round magazines worth the cost of removing all the existing civilian high-capacity magazines from general circulation.  My feeling is that it isn't, because the benefit simply isn't all that great.  Sure, it would limit the number of rounds they could fire at a given time, and limit their ability to reload, but I don't think it would have an especially large impact.  Not when it comes to shooting unarmed civilians, or children.

Offline shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1961
  • Darwins +110/-2
Re: Guns again
« Reply #456 on: April 23, 2013, 05:29:11 PM »
   This debate is good from both sides.  Well thought out opinions.  The senate's refusal to allow a vote on background checks when, supposedly, 90% of US citizens are for it, sounded like NRA money for campaigning, but Odin's comment that gun owners fear a database leading to registration  (like a driver's license) which can lead to confiscation or prohibition  - that's what drove the senate.

Oh well, I believe it was Nick, on page one, or maybe that was a couple gun debate threads ago, said nothing is going to change.
“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 Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2462
  • Darwins +131/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Guns again
« Reply #457 on: April 23, 2013, 06:45:27 PM »
I should state that I am in favor of background checks for everyone buying a firearm.  To satisfy me, all you have to do is make sure there is no database created that could lead to easy registration.  I know this will place me in the lunatic fringe element, but a database could lead to registration, which could lead to confiscation or prohibition.


I'm for a database of all firearms. No exceptions. Why am I for it? First, because there are so many gun owners who are against it and without a good reason. That alone is a red flag. Second, if we registered firearms we would more likely figure out how firearms got into the hands of the criminals in the first place.

I am required to have more training to get a drivers license and must undergo periodic testing to maintain it. That is more than is required of any gun owner. My car has to be registered with the state, it must be inspected at the time it is traded to another individual, and that trade is to be recorded by the state at the time of sale. Moreover, if my car is judged as a total loss, I have to go to the state and get the title marked as "salvage" and I can only get that switched to recovered salvage if I prove that the car was adequately fixed. As I drive my car, I am monitored for my ability to follow the rules and I can be cited for violating the rules, potentially leading to revocation of my license. These rules are implemented for the safety of society at large.

The lack of care, training, handling and monitoring of firearms is a major disconnect with rationality.

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 Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #458 on: April 24, 2013, 07:08:33 AM »
And unless you're talking about shooting a room filled with dozens of people, this is not relevant.  When you're talking about something like the Sandy Hook shooting, or even something like the Virginia Tech shooting, being able to shoot 90 rounds in 45 seconds is pretty meaningless.

But that is EXACTLY what the current debate is about.  (I know the debate was softened to merely a vote on universal background checks, because everyone knew that an outright ban of assault weapons and large-cap magazines was impossible.)  "Assault weapons" are being vilified because, when equipped with large capacity magazines, they can fire round after round in a short amount of time. 

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=c6287561-bbbf-4971-bfed-3b8f05e63c0f

http://rainbowpush.org/index.php/blog/single/why_ban_assault_weapons

Quote
If you want to have a discussion, then lose the asinine, self-important attitude.  You sound like one of my younger brothers, who has an extremely high opinion of his own intelligence and competence, to the point where he sounds like a pompous fool when he talks about himself.  That's how you sound, especially when you pull out remarks like "pull on your big boy pants", and act as if I shouldn't take exception to your attitude.  In other words, you need to act in a manner consistent with wanting to have a discussion, instead of expecting people to just shut up and ignore your attitude.

Sorry, Jaime, but I don't want to have a discussion badly enough to lose my self-important attitude.  If you are going to be offended every time I point out something I don't agree with, whether you made a glaring error in logic or it's just something I disagree with, then we aren't going to have any meaningful discussions.

Go do a little reading.  The ability of a shooter to take an AR-15 and a couple of 30-round mags into a classroom and slaughter the teacher and every child in there in a matter of seconds, or a minute or two, is exactly what makes them so lethal, and so vilified.

Odin, King of the Gods

PS - When I ran "Spell Check" on this post, it suggested "Einstein" for "Feinstein."  Now that's one of the funniest things I've ever seen!

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #459 on: April 24, 2013, 07:17:29 AM »
I think gun folks who think guns are supposed to be used to revolt against the government and who think the government is trying to steal their guns are... misguided.

And yet, if you study US History, that's one of the guiding ideas behind the 2nd Amendment. 

Quote
I think they should be more worried about the militarization of the police in the US.  I believe I've linked to articles about that in the past (at TomDispatc.com) but here is a recent editorial on it.

I completely agree.  4th Amendment rights were completely suspended in the Boston area as the police searched for Tamerlan Tsarnaev.  Swat teams went door to door and forced folks out of their homes, without warrants.

http://www.infowars.com/shocking-footage-americans-ordered-out-of-homes-at-gunpoint-by-swat-teams/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313249/Boston-bomber-search-Moment-SWAT-teams-ordered-innocent-neighbors-houses-GUNPOINT.html

See screwtape, I don't think we are that far apart, ideologically. 

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #460 on: April 24, 2013, 08:02:42 AM »
But that is EXACTLY what the current debate is about.  (I know the debate was softened to merely a vote on universal background checks, because everyone knew that an outright ban of assault weapons and large-cap magazines was impossible.)  "Assault weapons" are being vilified because, when equipped with large capacity magazines, they can fire round after round in a short amount of time. 

What impact, exactly, do you believe limiting mag capacity would have? And, where, exactly, would you make the maximum allowable?

Quote
PS - When I ran "Spell Check" on this post, it suggested "Einstein" for "Feinstein."  Now that's one of the funniest things I've ever seen!

Hehe...
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #461 on: April 24, 2013, 08:39:01 AM »
The others I agree with.

Thanks.  I agree with those too. 

But I go a step further.  I think if you have shown to have substance abuse problems, you don't get to have guns.  I think weapons should not be housed under the same roof as the people who are prohibited.  Otherwise it is too easy for the prohibited individual to transfer the gun to a spouse or other occupant and still have the gun.  The Sandy Hook shooting would have been prevented if that were the case. 

I think all the gun fails are prime candidates to lose their guns.  Accidentally discharge your gun while cleaning?  You are too stupid to own a gun and a threat to the public.  Left your gun where a kid got hold of it?  You are too stupid to own a gun and a threat to the public.

This fricken maniac: http://www.wsmv.com/story/20559778/tn-firearms-instructor-gains-attention-from-youtube-rant
is too stupid to own a gun and definitely a threat to the public.  Probably too psychotic to be allowed to walk freely down the street.

Setting aside our individual preferences for who should and should not have guns, if someone is found to be inelligible and they already have guns, are you okay with confiscating those guns?  Suppose you were diagnosed with schizophrenia.  Should your guns be taken away?  If so, how would that happen?

...but a database could lead to registration, which could lead to confiscation or prohibition.

I think there are too many "coulds" in your reasoning.  Sure, that could happen.  But I think it is extremely unlikely.  I do not think the government actually has anything to gain by a mass gun confiscation. 

For one, between the military, the national guard and the militarized police forces, there is no way gun owners actually represent a threat.  Even if the founding fathers intended the 2nd ammendment to be an insurance policy against tyranny, that horse left the barn decades ago.[1]

For two, It would be much more trouble than it is worth. 

For three, they can still have all the tyranny they want or need without taking guns.  I personally think the time to revolt was when congress passed the Patriot Act.  But that didn't happen.  Gun guys had their opportunity, but didn't shoot anyone.  Most of them actually agreed with it.  We didn't mind losing half our constitutional rights.  The only right gun owners seem to care about is owing guns.  They seem to think the only way a government could possibly be tyrannical would be if it took away their guns.  I've written about this at length here and posted a lot of links.  Take a look.

That said, I am totally for a database and registration.  Register every single gun.  Make posessing an unregistered gun a felony.  You should be able to trace ownership of every weapon.  This is how you ensure background checks are made.  If someone who already has guns - like Adam Lanza's mother - goes on the "should not have" list, this is how you know they should turn in their guns and what they should be turning in.  It is how you find out how people who should not have them got them. 

 1. I find that to be a highly dubious claim. I cannot see why the people starting a new government would even suggest that anyone unhappy with it had license to violently revolt against them.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #462 on: April 24, 2013, 08:40:36 AM »
What impact, exactly, do you believe limiting mag capacity would have? And, where, exactly, would you make the maximum allowable?

I believe limiting magazine capacity would put AR-15s, and similar rifles, on a par with hunting rifles.  I don't believe it would have any significant impact on the 30,000 or so lives lost to firearms each year in the US.  A very small, insignificant percentage of those deaths are caused by those types of weapons.  But, it might stop the kind of carnage seen at Sandy Hook - and that's a big "might."  If I recall correctly, the shooter in the CO movie theater had 100-round magazines.  Imagine what someone with four or five 100-round drums, handing around their neck on some sort of belt, could do if they were skilled at shooting and reloading an AR-15.  (The good news, if there is any, is that experienced AR shooters tell me the failure rate of the 100-round drums is about 100% - they jam at some point before they empty the drum.  This is heresay, and not from experience.  I have never fired a rifle with a 100-round drum.)

I would limit magazines to ten rounds. 

As an aside:

Not everyone in the US lives in New York, Chicago, Washington DC, Los Angeles, etc.  Some ranchers out west have problems with wolves and coyotes.  If you owned cattle or sheep, and were faced with a pack of these animals attacking your stock, how many rounds would you want in your AR-15 magazine?  There are legitimate uses for these guns beyond military and paramilitary uses. 

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #463 on: April 24, 2013, 08:47:30 AM »
  I don't believe it would have any significant impact on the 30,000 or so lives lost to firearms each year in the US.  A very small, insignificant percentage of those deaths are caused by those types of weapons. 

I think that's the point though. It's a "feel good" law they're trying to pass, and will have zero impact on death by bullet stats. All it does is infuriate many gun owners, and create a divide.

Quote
Not everyone in the US lives in New York, Chicago, Washington DC, Los Angeles, etc.  Some ranchers out west have problems with wolves and coyotes.  If you owned cattle or sheep, and were faced with a pack of these animals attacking your stock, how many rounds would you want in your AR-15 magazine?  There are legitimate uses for these guns beyond military and paramilitary uses.

Exactly. So why the 10 round limit then?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.