whywontgodhealamputees.com

Community Zone => Chatter => Topic started by: Nick on December 14, 2012, 02:26:57 PM

Title: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 14, 2012, 02:26:57 PM
Had the shooting in the mall earlier this week and now the shooting at an elem school.  27 dead ... most kids.  But Im sure it is too soon to talk about the gun culture in this country.  Imagine how those parents are going to feel each year at xmas time.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Graybeard on December 14, 2012, 04:03:51 PM
The very least that can be done is that the police or ATF or whoever,
(i) start making checks on people and
(ii) make annual checks, and
(iii) have all police and doctors report anyone who is behaving in a weird, threatening or violent manner and suspend their right to carry arms and take their weapons into safe custody until such time as they have successfully completed a training course for anger management and have, for a year had no other remarks against them.

Once they have completed the course, and for the next year, the person who ran the course will be severally liable for any firearms offence they commit.

They then may have their guns back and continue to be a part of a well organized militia.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 14, 2012, 04:33:09 PM
I think I have at least part of the answer.

Anyone committing a mass shooting will immediately and automatically have their name changed to "John Doe". Or Jane, as the case may be. Their actual name will never be reported in the mass media, nor will any photos of the shooter ever be published. No description of the person or his or her past or anything else that describes the person will ever be published.

This prevents going out with a bang, so to speak. People wanting to be noticed will find that mass killings will not do them any good.

Second: Every victim of a mass shooting will be described prominently described, and the scope of their loss (the effect of their death on individuals, institutions, chat rooms, whatever) will be printed in an effort to make it perfectly frickin' clear that innocent victims of mindless acts are human beings that lost everything by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many 911 victims were memorialized quite publicly, and I think it helped make the loss clearer to all. The same should be done for the victims of todays school shooting, of the recent theatre and mall victims, etc. This would apply to those who are injured as well. We need to turn ourselves into humans so that we will be less likely to be shot by those who think of everyone as faceless nobodies.

Third: Make it clear that if you are an individual or a part of a small group that is becoming obsessed with committing such a crime, all you have to do is walk into any medical facility, tell someone that you need help, and an army of trained professionals will immediately begin helping via psychological intervention. The goal of all involved will be to actually help and cure the person with the problems. Such interventions will be made public (though the name of the person with the problem would not be released), broadcasting the fact that someone in need of help got it and was helped through the recovery process, hopefully successfully.

These are just ideas off the top of my head after hearing about todays absolutely senseless killings. I felt much the same way after the Norwegian massacre and of course feel much the same way after every mass killing. This shit has to stop, and the media has to stop doing exactly what most of the killers want: providing instant fame.

On top of the above steps, we kind of need to step back as a society and figure out what the f**k we're doing wrong to cause such people to exist. And if any religious person claims that all we need is jesus, keep in mind that Timothy McVeigh already had him. He expressed a belief in god after he blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City. So religion is not an anecdote, nor is any other philosophical stance, if it can be combined with insanity.

Sorry, I'm just angry. I cannot imagine what set of circumstances could ever set me off on a jihad against innocents just because I've had a bad day or a bad life. I understand (in the sense that it has at least a tiny bit of rationality) when someone kills a person who has actually harmed them or someone they loved. But school kids? No frickin' way.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 14, 2012, 04:51:39 PM
FOX and Mike Huckabee is blaming it on God being taken out of the schools.  So there is your answer.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 14, 2012, 05:27:23 PM
On top of the above steps, we kind of need to step back as a society and figure out what the f**k we're doing wrong to cause such people to exist.

Exactly. Perhaps one of the first questions to ask should be: why does the US apparently have three times as many of these shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting) as all the other countries in the world combined? Just this year, the US has had seven school shootings leaving 41 people dead. The rest of the world has had one school shooting and one bombing leaving a total of five dead.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 14, 2012, 05:42:21 PM
FOX and Mike Huckabee is blaming it on God being taken out of the schools.  So there is your answer.

Thinking one has all the answers and actually having all the answers are two very different things. Passing the blame while espousing hatred and amplifying differences and insisting that compromise is weak and that the rich are gods and belittling all who don't talk the talk does not actually contribute to anything. Let alone solutions.;

The free market solution? they don't have one because there is no way to do the right thing and get rich too. Solutions don't fit their paradigm.

They best the right can do is say that if we were all armed, we could shoot our way out of anything. The trouble is, little kids can't lift large caliber weapons. Probably because of original sin or something. So obviously we need to keep them in the womb until they are big enough. Like 13 or so. And then give 'em guns.

Hey, this having all the answers crap is easy! I just make sh*t up! I too can be mindless! I think I'll switch parties!

Sorry, I'm pissed right now. Kids! Don't shoot the kids...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on December 14, 2012, 05:42:55 PM
On top of the above steps, we kind of need to step back as a society and figure out what the f**k we're doing wrong to cause such people to exist.

Yes.  As I so often like to say, guns are not the problem.  They indicate that there is a problem.

The comparison I usually make in this regard is Iceland.  Iceland also has a fairly high gun ownership rate -- about thirty guns per hundred people.  (Not as high as the United States, but still higher than most other countries.)  And yet violent crime in Iceland, gun-related or otherwise, is practically nonexistent.  We should figure out what they're doing right and try to emulate it.  Universal healthcare would definitely be a good start.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 14, 2012, 05:45:29 PM
You gave me a visual of K students packing along with their lunches in the new world order of the USA.  We are a sad people...but free to kill each other.  Guy in Florida who killed the kid because his music was too loud and will prob get away with it.  Its NUTS out there.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 14, 2012, 05:46:26 PM
On top of the above steps, we kind of need to step back as a society and figure out what the f**k we're doing wrong to cause such people to exist.

Yes.  As I so often like to say, guns are not the problem.  They indicate that there is a problem.

The comparison I usually make in this regard is Iceland.  Iceland also has a fairly high gun ownership rate -- about thirty guns per hundred people.  (Not as high as the United States, but still higher than most other countries.)  And yet violent crime in Iceland, gun-related or otherwise, is practically nonexistent.  We should figure out what they're doing right and try to emulate it.  Universal healthcare would definitely be a good start.
Probably too damn cold to go out.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jetson on December 14, 2012, 05:49:29 PM
On top of the above steps, we kind of need to step back as a society and figure out what the f**k we're doing wrong to cause such people to exist.

Yes.  As I so often like to say, guns are not the problem.  They indicate that there is a problem.

The comparison I usually make in this regard is Iceland.  Iceland also has a fairly high gun ownership rate -- about thirty guns per hundred people.  (Not as high as the United States, but still higher than most other countries.)  And yet violent crime in Iceland, gun-related or otherwise, is practically nonexistent.  We should figure out what they're doing right and try to emulate it.  Universal healthcare would definitely be a good start.

How easy is it to get guns in Iceland?  What are the limits, if any?  Is it really comparable to the U.S.?  Here in the U.S., I think the NRA would be happiest when all citizens have at least a semit-automatic gun of their own.

Guns are definitely a part of this problem. 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 14, 2012, 05:51:10 PM
I don't understand why we need the kind of guns that can do this kind of damage.  Rifles and hand guns are fine.  These things have no purpose xcept this kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Emily on December 14, 2012, 05:53:36 PM
FOX and Mike Huckabee is blaming it on God being taken out of the schools.  So there is your answer.

So instead of honestly focusing on the tragedy right now they are subtly or directly using this story to support their own agenda for trying to get god back in the classroom.

Bastards.  >:(

It is a sad story. Too much sad news these days. 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 14, 2012, 05:58:05 PM
FOX and Mike Huckabee is blaming it on God being taken out of the schools.  So there is your answer.

So instead of honestly focusing on the tragedy right now they are subtly or directly using this story to support their own agenda for trying to get god back in the classroom.

Bastards.  >:(

It is a sad story. Too much sad news these days.
You can see their point.  If God had been there the guy never would have gotten thru the door.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on December 14, 2012, 06:01:13 PM
How easy is it to get guns in Iceland?  What are the limits, if any?  Is it really comparable to the U.S.?

Licensing and registration are required, but you don't need to show "legitimate need" or anything like that.  That is comparable to some jurisdictions in the U.S., but not others.

Quote
Here in the U.S., I think the NRA would be happiest when all citizens have at least a semit-automatic gun of their own.

Strawman.

Probably too damn cold to go out.

Iceland's climate is actually rather mild, at least for a significant portion of the year.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 14, 2012, 06:04:21 PM
Guns are definitely a part of this problem.

Yes, guns are part of the problem, but it’s also the gun culture and the culture in general. Why do people want a gun? Why do they feel they need a gun? And, above all, why do disaffected people choose to walk into a school and shoot innocent children. What sort of society breeds that kind of attitude?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 14, 2012, 06:08:02 PM
Guns are definitely a part of this problem.

Yes, guns are part of the problem, but it’s also the gun culture and the culture in general. Why do people want a gun? Why do they feel they need a gun? And, above all, why do disaffected people choose to walk into a school and shoot innocent children. What sort of society breeds that kind of attitude?

Agreed. Why do so many insist on responding to what they see as the problem (violence) by encouraging more guns when the sane response would be to concentrate on the causes of the violence.

The same people would probably propose umbrella ownership if it was discovered that an asteroid was going to hit us.

We humans are better than this, but we let those among us that are not better than this dictate our reality. Shame on us.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on December 14, 2012, 06:20:23 PM
Has this always happened, in every society, and we just didn't have the 24 hr news cycle that get people to the scene almost as fast as first responders?

Will the US mandate metal detectors at every public building?  Who will want to pay for it?  What do metal detectors detect?  Does that mean guns ARE a problem?  Does a gun owner say guns are not the problem?  Does a non-gun owner say guns are the problem?

Probably simply the loss of families eating every dinner together and discussing  how everyone's day went is as important as anything.   I've noticed during the summer, in farming families I work with, how lucky it is to have mom and dad home all day, and the kids catching snakes in the creek while mom brings everyone iced tea.  Is the loss of that nuclear family care causing a problem.  Maybe we can never go back to that as a society.  Does Iceland have more of that than the US?  Are most housewives home in Iceland?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 14, 2012, 06:30:33 PM
The United States is a purely territorial focused country.
it permeates every idea from everybody I come across.
it is all about segregation. isolation.
there is no unity. there is no trust.
they only thing you can count on is people being afraid of each other.
this country's mentality sucks.
and I don't blame everyone for this.
it appears that only half the population is willing to bring the other half down because of what their handlers tell them.
I would like to have a serious discussion about what would make the country I reside in a better place, if any one is interested....
it is kinda tragic when the demographics of our prison populations don't match that of the law enforcement authorities.. just saying...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 14, 2012, 06:38:55 PM
FOX and Mike Huckabee is blaming it on God being taken out of the schools.  So there is your answer.

http://gawker.com/5968633/mike-huckabee-says-conn-shooting-happened-because-we-removed-god-from-our-schools

^ At least he isn't blaming just homos, hookers and abortionists, like Falwell used to do. He's decided to be more inclusive.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 14, 2012, 06:40:58 PM
The free market solution? they don't have one because there is no way to do the right thing and get rich too. Solutions don't fit their paradigm.

They best the right can do is say that if we were all armed, we could shoot our way out of anything. The trouble is, little kids can't lift large caliber weapons.

No, but they can be armed with grenades. They're easy to throw.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on December 14, 2012, 07:21:28 PM
I would like to have a serious discussion about what would make the country I reside in a better place, if any one is interested....
There's a web site that seems to address this.  The link to it is on the front page of this website.  At the bottom is a link:
 Deciding To Be Better (http://decidingtobebetter.com/)

In the site there is a page to dig down to.  It is Oprah Winfrey-ish/ Dr. Oz-ish,and maybe that is why Marshall Brain no longer cares about this site he created. He's been on their shows.  He's gone over to the Wonderful World of Disney.  However, there is some food for thought about how we in society should treat each other:
                                                 http://decidingtobebetter.com/values.htm
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: rev45 on December 14, 2012, 07:29:13 PM
You can see their point.  If God had been there the guy never would have gotten thru the door.
One of the first things I thought about when I heard about this on the radio when the hosts were asking everyone to keep the victims in their thoughts and prayers was the song "Jesus loves the little children."  It just popped in my mind.  I can't help but think about God's love as the children were scared out of their freaking minds as a lunatic went on a rampage killing the faculty and their classmates.  The screams and blood they saw as their classmates died and the trauma that will be with them for a long time if not forever.  The parents tears and torment as their children are ruthlessly taken away from them before the Christmas holiday.

Jesus loves the little children.
God's plan everyone.  It's perfect.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 14, 2012, 07:36:26 PM
I thank you for the link and interest shnozzola.
of course I have something to say... it is my nature... and of course I can mention that I get a good impression of what the front page says...
now I will say that I didn't dig to deep so to speak but I did see this and I don't agree with it...
Quote
if the topic of discussion is something like alcoholism or teen pregnancy, it is best to escort the child from the room so that the conversation can continue.
I was "sheltered" as a "child" and it seriously fucked me up for a long time.
I don't see the advantage of sheltering a child from any discussion unless it harms the child or has the potential to harm the child.
I can use the church child sex thing as an example.. nobody talks about it and it happens...
other than that it looks pretty cool...
thanks for posting the link.
I am still interested in other websites and forums that might be available.
thanks.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 14, 2012, 08:04:44 PM
I heard a report tonight on TYT about how the bodies are still in the school tonight because it is being processed.  The parents who have not found their kids are in the firehouse waiting...knowing that their child is for all purposes gone.  They even mentioned that the sceen is so bad in the school that trained 1st respoders are going to be in need of counseling.  I can't even imangine how you would deal with and get over something like this.

This so called "exceptional" nation is one sick puppy.

HOw could you go to a church service and give any kind of lip service to the idea of a god?  What kind of monster would sit back and watch this all unfold?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 14, 2012, 08:11:07 PM
um, a human being is the monster you are looking for.
just so happens the human being who pulled the trigger on the other human beings killed himself too.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 14, 2012, 08:15:04 PM
I realize that.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 14, 2012, 08:19:41 PM
well that is a good place to start "realization".....
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 14, 2012, 08:24:06 PM
ahh well.. I have had enough.. I'll be watching some theatrical violence in lieu of continuing this conversation for now...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dabbler on December 14, 2012, 08:29:52 PM
FOX and Mike Huckabee is blaming it on God being taken out of the schools.  So there is your answer.

What do they know about God?  Are they ordained?

On the other hand the right Reverend Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association tweeted today it is because it was a gun free zone.  So it wasn't taking God out of the school it was taking guns out of the school.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 14, 2012, 08:35:30 PM
Yeah, now FOX is suggesting that teachers should be packing.

I had nuns when I was in school.  They did not need guns.  They would have had that kid down beating him in less than 8 seconds.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dabbler on December 14, 2012, 08:44:20 PM
The comparison I usually make in this regard is Iceland.  Iceland also has a fairly high gun ownership rate -- about thirty guns per hundred people.  (Not as high as the United States, but still higher than most other countries.)  And yet violent crime in Iceland, gun-related or otherwise, is practically nonexistent.  We should figure out what they're doing right and try to emulate it.  Universal healthcare would definitely be a good start.

How easy is it to get guns in Iceland?  What are the limits, if any?  Is it really comparable to the U.S.?  Here in the U.S., I think the NRA would be happiest when all citizens have at least a semit-automatic gun of their own.
In Switzerland all men must join the army for training.  After that the man is issued a selective fire rifle and ammunition to keep at home.  The sergeants and officers also are issued a semiauto pistol. 

It's something about a well-regulated militia being necessary to the defense of a free state.


Pistols are licensed in Connecticut:
http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4213&q=494614 (http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4213&q=494614)

As to the fitness of the shooter and the question of licensing him, he was the son of a firearms owner.  She was a kindergarten teacher.  He stole her gun and shot his mother with her own gun and took her gun to carry out the spree.

How would you make a psychological questionnaire for that:

Question 37.  Is there anyone disappointed in you because he/she thinks you don't love him/her enough?   (Yes) (No)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 14, 2012, 09:02:56 PM
(http://goo.gl/MFoWc)

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 14, 2012, 09:20:14 PM
You know we have the strongest military the world has ever known yet more of our people die each and every year at our own hands than from any outside force.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 14, 2012, 09:34:15 PM
I don't understand why we need the kind of guns that can do this kind of damage.  Rifles and hand guns are fine.  These things have no purpose xcept this kind of stuff.

Reports indicate that the killer had two 9 mm pistols: a Glock and a SIG Sauer. He also had a .223 rifle, but left it in the car. So all the damage was done with just two handguns.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: kin hell on December 14, 2012, 09:35:03 PM
Gotta love the logic fail of "gun's don't kill people....".

In China, man with knife goes on rampage slashes 22 children (as horrific as this is, and it is horrific )   0 >ZERO< dead.
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-man-slashes-22-children-near-china-school-20121214,0,6383015.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-man-slashes-22-children-near-china-school-20121214,0,6383015.story)

In USA, man with guns goes on rampage shoots any and all.  27 dead 14 of them children
http://live.reuters.com/Event/Newtown_School_Shooting (http://live.reuters.com/Event/Newtown_School_Shooting)

Same apparent intent, very different outcomes.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nam on December 14, 2012, 09:44:03 PM
I didn't hear about this 'til well after it happened. It makes me happy I no longer have cable or "free" TV. My mother called and told me about this. I replied: Nothing's going to happen. She asked what I meant. I replied: People will yell for tighter gun restrictions. It won't happen. People will yell about security for schools: most likely won't happen because who's going to pay for it? Then I replied with: Some religious nut will say something stupid, or some ex-politician will say something stupid because that's what they do. (According to Nick, it's already been done; sooner than I thought, tho.)

I asked her: of how many school shootings, or mass murders that happen in the US, how much has been done to prevent them? She couldn't think of one single thing.

So, what's going to happen: NOTHING.

That's what's sad.

-Nam
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: mrbiscoop on December 14, 2012, 10:28:58 PM
I'm no humanitarian but this was just horrific. 20 children aged 5-10. It didn't take long for the truly despicable to start chiming in. Wait for Pat Robertson...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dabbler on December 14, 2012, 10:45:04 PM
And now for a lighter moment.

Remember the film The Parallax View (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071970/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) where a mysterious organization was turning out mind controlled assassins?

Alex Jones thinks it's real:  http://www.infowars.com/enemies-of-second-amendment-will-exploit-connecticut-shooting/ (http://www.infowars.com/enemies-of-second-amendment-will-exploit-connecticut-shooting/)

Quote
As we have documented on numerous occasions, many of the mass casualty shootings in the United States have the hallmark of being perpetuated by mind controlled assassins or are attributed to mind controlled patsies.
...
The latter will feed into the latest government gun-grabbing scheme — to deny firearms to people who are suffering from mental illness and PTSD.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 14, 2012, 10:49:23 PM
Makes sense now.  The government is using mind control to get people to do these things so they can take our guns away.  Damn Obama and his evil plan for this country.  Where is Rambo when you need him?  Oh, right, he was robbing a bank today.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 15, 2012, 06:10:01 AM
So far, Obama has governed from the center-right, which is why Andrew Sullivan calls Obama the best Tory president the US has ever had. Even though a bunch of people who have questionable mental health went out and bought hundreds or thousands of rounds of ammunition before Obama took the oath of office, Obama has done nothing to restrict Second Amendment rights and even expanded them by allowing people to conceal carry firearms while visiting a national park (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57477652/major-garrett-obama-has-expanded-not-reduced-gun-rights/), which is not something a liberal would do.

Yet, we have absolutely insane right-wing jackasses running around the country speaking to whomever they can, into whatever mic they can and into whichever camera they can, all claiming that Obama is a socialist/communist who will tax the hell out of you and take away your guns and put you in a black box on a slow train to an enslavement camp.

People who cannot recognize reality shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. People who own firearms should be required to meet strict standards at frequent intervals, you know, part of that "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment that SCOTUS ignores.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 15, 2012, 06:41:07 AM
I'm going to have to agree with Nam on this one.  In the end nothing will be done.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: changeling on December 15, 2012, 08:40:13 AM
I wouldn't say nothing is being done.
They had security at that school. The killer broke a window to get in.
It is difficult to protect people from the criminally insane.
A person has to be insane to do this sort of thing.

I can't believe that there weren't some prior signs that something was mentally wrong with
the thinking of this man. And if there were any signs of instability, why would his
mother give him all of those guns to begin with.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 15, 2012, 09:22:19 AM
... why would his mother give him all of those guns to begin with.
because he was just so darn handsome/cute...
yeah, and hoodies are the problem..
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 15, 2012, 11:27:01 AM
Roger Ebert says that mass shootings are caused by the 24 hour news cycle and the need of those channels to make a big deal out of everything. People who want to be noticed and who are angry in the first place and who have access to guns like that.

His newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times, never puts mass shooting on page 1. All news outlets should be that responsible.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 15, 2012, 11:39:15 AM
this isn't a very revealing article...
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/what-does-research-say-about-rampage-violence
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on December 15, 2012, 03:15:59 PM
I'm not a big fan of gun control but I do wonder why a 20 year old Autistic kid had a bunch of guns...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on December 15, 2012, 07:41:31 PM
I'm not a big fan of gun control but I do wonder why a 20 year old Autistic kid had a bunch of guns...

If you're talking about the dick from Connecticut, they were his mom's.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Quesi on December 15, 2012, 08:06:02 PM
I've been watching the coverage on TV, and of course, my heart breaks for the families and the community.  My daughter is in first grade.  The same grade that the murdered children were in.  It makes me crazy to think about.  I understand the insanity that the people who knew and loved these dead children are facing.

It appears to be a particularly religious community.  Over and over again I hear residents calling for prayers.  And being thankful for prayers. 

I ask this question genuinely. 

What are these prayers for?

Are people praying that their god will welcome these dead, innocent children into heaven?  The same god who either knew, at the beginning of time, that these kids would die in first grade, or the god who gave this tortured, crazy man the free will to kill these children?  Or both?

Are people praying that god will diminish the families' pain?  And if so, aren't they mad that this god caused (or allowed) that pain?  And do those offering prayers think that god will respond or change his plans because of the abundant prayers?

I understand desire to support these families during this horrible time.  And I also understand the desire of this devastated community to ask for the support of the rest of the humanity.  They don't need food or clothes or tangible things.  But they want support.  I understand that.   

But I genuinely don't understand what the people who are praying are praying for.  And I genuinely don't understand what those who are asking for prayers are hoping the outcome of those prayers will be.   
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 15, 2012, 08:17:21 PM
If I lived there, even I would be praying that the news people leave. What a bunch of obnoxious asses.

Hey, religious people pray. Since the outcome of prayer is always undefined, they get to not only do the praying, but also do the hoping that their prayers will be answered and define at some level what that answer might be, via some arbitrary and capricious mental process. Some will have little experiences that they will interpret at answers and be happier.

From our perspective, it is nonsense. As is all of religion. But to expect the religious to avoid taking non-nonsensical action is asking way too much.

Despite their religious stances, my heart goes out to all of them. It is so, so sad. Even I wish that their prayers, whatever they may be, could be answered.

A loving god would give the kids back. A non-existent god would do nothing. Nuff said.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nam on December 15, 2012, 09:20:23 PM
I saw a list of names and ages of the people who died at wiki. Most of the children were 6 years old.

-Nam
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 15, 2012, 11:30:08 PM
If I lived there, even I would be praying that the news people leave. What a bunch of obnoxious asses.

Hey, religious people pray. Since the outcome of prayer is always undefined, they get to not only do the praying, but also do the hoping that their prayers will be answered and define at some level what that answer might be, via some arbitrary and capricious mental process. Some will have little experiences that they will interpret at answers and be happier.

From our perspective, it is nonsense. As is all of religion. But to expect the religious to avoid taking non-nonsensical action is asking way too much.

Despite their religious stances, my heart goes out to all of them. It is so, so sad. Even I wish that their prayers, whatever they may be, could be answered.

A loving god would give the kids back. A non-existent god would do nothing. Nuff said.
A loving God would not have let it happen.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 16, 2012, 02:21:43 PM
NOw (Sunday) people are racing out of a church (St. Rose of Lima in the town that had the shooting) because of a bomb threat.  We have become a sick people.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 16, 2012, 02:59:41 PM
If I lived there, even I would be praying that the news people leave. What a bunch of obnoxious asses.

We're not watching any TV today, probably won't. Don't need any kind of Breaking News to tell me which cheek had an abscess drained at age 12 that may have lead to violence later in life ... or that a particular chemical found in food preservatives may have contributed to autism ... or ....

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 16, 2012, 05:54:15 PM
I don't understand why we need the kind of guns that can do this kind of damage.  Rifles and hand guns are fine.  These things have no purpose xcept this kind of stuff.

Reports indicate that the killer had two 9 mm pistols: a Glock and a SIG Sauer. He also had a .223 rifle, but left it in the car. So all the damage was done with just two handguns.

Sorry, Nick, you were right. Later reports indicate all victims were shot with the Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle. The killer also was reported to have been carrying hundreds of rounds of ammunition and several high-capacity magazines for the rifle and the pistols, all of which belonged to his mother.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 16, 2012, 05:57:03 PM
I just saw where Westboro Baptist Church plans to protest the funerals of these little kids.  Isn't religion grand?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 16, 2012, 07:59:09 PM
Maybe people with guns can show up to protect the families who are burying their dead children.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Tero on December 16, 2012, 09:02:33 PM
There's no denying that a gun owner that has his guns under control can get some benefit from them.

I have yet to see convincing data that there is any benefit to me, who does not own guns.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 17, 2012, 06:05:34 AM
Nobody here seems willing to suggest banning guns. Why not? There are around 30,000 people killed and 75,000 injured by firearms each year in the US. Here’s my proposal to reduce the carnage.

Ban private ownership of all firearms and airguns unless a person can provide a genuine reason and demonstrate a genuine need to own a gun. Genuine reasons would include pest control, hunting, target shooting or collecting. Self-defence would not be considered a genuine reason.

The approved firearm would be the least powerful weapon required for the task—for example, a single-shot .22 for pest control on farms. Applicants would need to demonstrate a genuine need for a more powerful weapon. Only professional hunters would be allowed semi-automatic weapons. Target shooters would need to compete in a specified minimum number of matches each year to retain their licence. Collectors’ weapons would be rendered permanently inoperable by plugging the barrel and welding the action. Only registered collectors would be allowed to own replica firearms.

All gun owners would be licensed through a rigorous process including a probationary period and each firearm would be individually registered to the owner by serial number. Additional firearms would only be allowed if the owner could demonstrate a genuine need to own more than one firearm. Owners must have secure storage for the firearm.

The currently existing weapons in private hands would be surrendered and destroyed. Fair compensation would be paid and financed with a levy on all taxpayers.

So, what do people think of this proposal? Do you think it is reasonable, desirable or feasible? Would you vote for this? If not, what are your objections?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 17, 2012, 06:12:29 AM
Yeah, sounds like a plan.  Problem is we have moved so far to the right with guns I don't think you would ever get guns out of the nads of those who already have them.  Sales soared after this shooting and when Obama was relected.  People really think they are going to have to defend their turf.  Have you seen that Preppers show?  People are nuts out there.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: changeling on December 17, 2012, 07:39:28 AM
Yeah, sounds like a plan.  Problem is we have moved so far to the right with guns I don't think you would ever get guns out of the nads of those who already have them.  Sales soared after this shooting and when Obama was relected.  People really think they are going to have to defend their turf.  Have you seen that Preppers show?  People are nuts out there.

Knowing that one of the definitions of nads is testicles, your post was humorous and still true.  :D
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Tero on December 17, 2012, 07:57:29 AM
You could only ban guns with an amendment. More than 2/3 of states still support guns.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Quesi on December 17, 2012, 08:11:57 AM
Emerging information seems to suggest that his mom was a doomsday prepper. 

The xenophobia of preppers is what always startles me.  As someone who has lived through various widespread crises and natural disasters, I am always struck by hour communities come together and help each other. [1]The preppers are the folks who have no intentions of helping anyone but themselves and their close circle, and have all intentions of shooting anyone who wants their "stuff."

What a sad, tragic irony, that this prepper, was shot by her own guns, by her own family member. 

I wonder what we will learn in days to come about this sad, tortured young man.  Did he kill these children in anger?  Or did he, in his twisted mind, believe he was saving these kids by killing them? 
 1. In the aftermath of Sandy here in NYC, folks in unaffected neighborhoods like mine amassed literally tons of supplies, and transported them to devastated communities like the Rockaways.  And donated thousands of work hours in the most impacted communities.  Folks with electricity put out power strips for strangers without electricity to charge phones. Store owners with no electricity contributed perishable foods to community meals, that were prepared on dark streets and shared with strangers.  We saw it after 9/11.  I saw it in the Mexico City earthquake, long ago.  Most people come together to survive. This is the way it should be.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 17, 2012, 08:44:02 AM
Yeah, sounds like a plan.  Problem is we have moved so far to the right with guns I don't think you would ever get guns out of the nads of those who already have them.  Sales soared after this shooting and when Obama was relected.  People really think they are going to have to defend their turf.  Have you seen that Preppers show?  People are nuts out there.

Knowing that one of the definitions of nads is testicles, your post was humorous and still true.  :D
Shit, I meant "hands"  . Oh, well, works just as well. ;D
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 17, 2012, 08:46:27 AM
You could only ban guns with an amendment. More than 2/3 of states still support guns.

So? Pass an amendment. Repeal the Second Amendment.  Badger your Congressman. Do whatever is necessary to stop this. The alternative is to carry on as usual or pass some half-hearted measure that doesn’t really achieve anything. If people sit on their hands and do nothing you just know there is going to be another school shooting, and another, and another… There have been thirteen mass shootings this year in the US. There is no reason to think they are going to stop unless some drastic measures are taken.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 17, 2012, 08:46:56 AM
I don't have the stat in front of me but the odds of getting killed if you have a gun in the house was way higher than if you did not.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jetson on December 17, 2012, 09:03:20 AM
I would support it 3sigma.  Sounds like a great way to clamp down on this so that every single person has to go through a bit more hassle.  Sure beats the current setup of multiple gun shows per city, per week, where one can walk out with an ICBM in their trunk.   ;D
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 17, 2012, 09:52:04 AM
Nobody here seems willing to suggest banning guns. Why not? There are around 30,000 people killed and 75,000 injured by firearms each year in the US. Here’s my proposal to reduce the carnage.

Ban private ownership of all firearms and airguns unless a person can provide a genuine reason and demonstrate a genuine need to own a gun. Genuine reasons would include pest control, hunting, target shooting or collecting. Self-defence would not be considered a genuine reason.

The approved firearm would be the least powerful weapon required for the task—for example, a single-shot .22 for pest control on farms. Applicants would need to demonstrate a genuine need for a more powerful weapon. Only professional hunters would be allowed semi-automatic weapons. Target shooters would need to compete in a specified minimum number of matches each year to retain their licence. Collectors’ weapons would be rendered permanently inoperable by plugging the barrel and welding the action. Only registered collectors would be allowed to own replica firearms.

All gun owners would be licensed through a rigorous process including a probationary period and each firearm would be individually registered to the owner by serial number. Additional firearms would only be allowed if the owner could demonstrate a genuine need to own more than one firearm. Owners must have secure storage for the firearm.

The currently existing weapons in private hands would be surrendered and destroyed. Fair compensation would be paid and financed with a levy on all taxpayers.

So, what do people think of this proposal? Do you think it is reasonable, desirable or feasible? Would you vote for this? If not, what are your objections?
personal freedom.
it is pretty simple.
what makes guns sooooooo dangerous?
is there something inmate about a gun that makes it dangerous?
people kill themselves in bathtubs accidentally.
should we ban bathtubs or water?
people get drowned.
should we ban any thing that can contain water or should we ban the water?
oh if it is a numbers thing.
more people are killed by guns that drowning... ok
hmm...
lets not worry about the numbers but the individual fatalities unless individual fatalities don't matter...
ok
so what does a murder by drowning and a murder by firearm have in common?
well people's hands and stuff.
well...
lets get rid of the tools used to commit each of the drowning and firearm type deaths...
hmm..
people get strangled.
fuck..
well, lets ban.... um hands.
yeah, well shit... some people get strangled to death because somebody uses their legs...
oh heck lets just ban bodies.
see there is a perfect solution.
ban bodies.
people can no longer have bodies.
nobody gets hurt.. the perfect solution all we have to do is implement a ban...
you pick what it should be... please...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Tero on December 17, 2012, 10:20:09 AM
How about we bundle abortion and guns together. You want free access to guns? Then the gubment is going to pay for abortion for girls any age. If they want them, no parent involved.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 17, 2012, 05:32:25 PM
personal freedom.

You seem to think people should have the sort of “personal freedom” that allows them to gun down classrooms full of schoolchildren. That’s pretty indefensible, yet you attempt to justify it with nothing more than a pathetic straw man argument.

Quote
what makes guns sooooooo dangerous?

The people who use them, of course. What sort of society breeds people who choose to shoot 6-year-old schoolchildren? There are around 300 million people in the US and 6.7 billion in the rest of the world. The US population is roughly one twentieth of the world population, yet the US has three times the number of school shootings than the rest of the world put together. Why is that? I’ll tell you why. It’s because of the culture in the US and the attitude toward guns. Until the culture and attitude are changed, the mass shootings will continue.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 17, 2012, 06:16:05 PM
How about we bundle abortion and guns together. You want free access to guns? Then the gubment is going to pay for abortion for girls any age. If they want them, no parent involved.
hehehehe nice change up.
seems reasonable to me.
How about we bundle atheists and the executive branch of the gov? in it's entirety....
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 17, 2012, 06:43:52 PM
personal freedom.

You seem to think people should have the sort of “personal freedom” that allows them to gun down classrooms full of schoolchildren. That’s pretty indefensible, yet you attempt to justify it with nothing more than a pathetic straw man argument.
quit projecting.
Just because you think that personal freedom is dangerous doesn't mean behavior can't be controlled.
What keeps you from going on a rampage of violence?
and please don't create another strawman argument.
Quote
Quote
what makes guns sooooooo dangerous?

The people who use them, of course. What sort of society breeds people who choose to shoot 6-year-old schoolchildren? There are around 300 million people in the US and 6.7 billion in the rest of the world. The US population is roughly one twentieth of the world population, yet the US has three times the number of school shootings than the rest of the world put together. Why is that? I’ll tell you why. It’s because of the culture in the US and the attitude toward guns. Until the culture and attitude are changed, the mass shootings will continue.
Wow, we almost have a winner.
I asked you a question and the tool you are using to view this message can be used as a weapon.
Are you going to be nice because of the rules of this forum or are you going to be nice because that is what you choose independent of the rules?

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 17, 2012, 07:21:46 PM
Just because you think that personal freedom is dangerous doesn't mean behavior can't be controlled.
What keeps you from going on a rampage of violence?
and please don't create another strawman argument.

I don't think personal freedom is dangerous, per se, but you used the term “personal freedom” as an objection to banning guns. There are around 30,000 people killed and 75,000 injured by firearms in the US every year. There have been 13 mass shootings in the US this year. There is no doubt that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. I don't go on rampages of violence because I'm not, by nature, a violent person nor have I been inculcated with a culture of violence and gun use. I take it you don't want to ban guns so how do you propose controlling the behaviour of people who have been inculcated with that culture and attitude?


Quote
Wow, we almost have a winner.
I asked you a question and the tool you are using to view this message can be used as a weapon.
Are you going to be nice because of the rules of this forum or are you going to be nice because that is what you choose independent of the rules?

I really don't know what you are asking here. Are you demanding that I respond to your straw man argument as though it were reasonable?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on December 17, 2012, 07:30:14 PM
Gun control lessons from Lyndon Johnson
            By Joseph A. Califano Jr, The Washington Post

Quote
Ifever there were a moment for President Obama to learn from history, it is now, in the wake of Friday’s shootings at the elementary school at Newtown, Conn. The timely lesson for Obama, drawn from the experience of Lyndon B. Johnson — the last president to aggressively fight for comprehensive gun control — is this: Demand action on comprehensive gun control immediately from this Congress or lose the opportunity during your presidency.

In the aftermath of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (just weeks after the fatal shooting of Martin Luther King Jr. and only a few years after President John F. Kennedy was shot), President Johnson pressed Congress to enact gun control legislation he had sent to Capitol Hill years earlier. LBJ ordered all of us on his staff — and urged allies in Congress — to act swiftly. “We have only two weeks, maybe only 10 days,” he said, “before the gun lobby gets organized.” He told Larry O’Brien and me, “We’ve got to beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] into the offices of members of Congress.”

For three years Johnson’s bill had been locked in the Senate Judiciary Committee by a powerful army of gun lobbyists. But LBJ was always poised to grasp any opportunity to achieve his legislative objectives, even in the most horrendous circumstances. He had used the tragedy of King’s assassination in 1968 to “at least get something for our nation” out of it, finally persuading the House to pass the Fair Housing bill he had sent it in 1966. Johnson saw in the tragedy of the assassination of Robert Kennedy in June of 1968 a chance to get his gun bill enacted.

Johnson’s bill would ban all mail-order and out-of-state sales of handguns, shotguns and rifles; prohibit the sale of guns to minors; and require national registration of all guns and licensing of all gun owners. There had been little hope of enactment. But the day after Kennedy died from gunshot wounds, LBJ renewed his pressure on the Senate Judiciary Committee to report his bill out and send it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Maryland Sen. Joseph Tydings, a close friend of Kennedy, and a couple of Democratic colleagues wanted the committee to consider a bill they believed was stronger. LBJ thought the Tydings proposal had no chance of passage and feared that any delay to consider it would give the gun lobby time to kill his legislation.

That’s exactly what happened. The Tydings proposal never got beyond the discussion phase, and LBJ’s comprehensive bill failed by a tie vote in the committee. With relentless pressure, he was able to get a bill by October with a prohibition against mail-order sales (LBJ called it “murder by mail order”), sale of guns to minors and importation of “$10 specials,” or cheap guns that were pouring into the country. But Johnson’s pet proposals to license all gun owners and register all guns were defeated.

When he signed the legislation on Oct. 22, 1968, LBJ vented his anger with the gun lobby for killing licensing and registration:
“The voices that blocked these safeguards were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were the voices of a powerful gun lobby, a gun lobby, that has prevailed for the moment in an election year. .?.?. We have been through a great deal of anguish these last few months and these last few years — too much anguish too forget so quickly. So now we must complete the task which this long needed legislation begins.”

Obama’s pained remarks in the wake of this latest school shooting echo Johnson’s anguish a half-century ago. But Obama has a unique opportunity: a lame-duck session of Congress. If he learns from the lesson of LBJ — two weeks to get action — and takes advantage of the fact that many members can vote their conscience without fear of retribution by the gun lobby because they are not seeking reelection, this nation may “complete the task” of passing comprehensive gun controls. That’s an opportunity that is worth grasping out of the unspeakable tragedy that occurred in Newtown, Conn.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 17, 2012, 07:50:37 PM
Just because you think that personal freedom is dangerous doesn't mean behavior can't be controlled.
What keeps you from going on a rampage of violence?
and please don't create another strawman argument.

I don't think personal freedom is dangerous, per se, but you used the term “personal freedom” as an objection to banning guns. There are around 30,000 people killed and 75,000 injured by firearms in the US every year. There have been 13 mass shootings in the US this year. There is no doubt that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. I don't go on rampages of violence because I'm not, by nature, a violent person nor have I been inculcated with a culture of violence and gun use. I take it you don't want to ban guns so how do you propose controlling the behaviour of people who have been inculcated with that culture and attitude?
education and therapy.
you know poke em with a sharp stick, right in the eye if you have to....

Quote
Quote
Wow, we almost have a winner.
I asked you a question and the tool you are using to view this message can be used as a weapon.
Are you going to be nice because of the rules of this forum or are you going to be nice because that is what you choose independent of the rules?

I really don't know what you are asking here. Are you demanding that I respond to your straw man argument as though it were reasonable?
No, I asked you not create another one.
this is the question I was referring to:What keeps you from going on a rampage of violence?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 17, 2012, 07:51:35 PM
Gun control lessons from Lyndon Johnson
            By Joseph A. Califano Jr, The Washington Post

Quote
Ifever there were a moment for President Obama to learn from history, it is now, in the wake of Friday’s shootings at the elementary school at Newtown, Conn. The timely lesson for Obama, drawn from the experience of Lyndon B. Johnson — the last president to aggressively fight for comprehensive gun control — is this: Demand action on comprehensive gun control immediately from this Congress or lose the opportunity during your presidency.

In the aftermath of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (just weeks after the fatal shooting of Martin Luther King Jr. and only a few years after President John F. Kennedy was shot), President Johnson pressed Congress to enact gun control legislation he had sent to Capitol Hill years earlier. LBJ ordered all of us on his staff — and urged allies in Congress — to act swiftly. “We have only two weeks, maybe only 10 days,” he said, “before the gun lobby gets organized.” He told Larry O’Brien and me, “We’ve got to beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] into the offices of members of Congress.”

For three years Johnson’s bill had been locked in the Senate Judiciary Committee by a powerful army of gun lobbyists. But LBJ was always poised to grasp any opportunity to achieve his legislative objectives, even in the most horrendous circumstances. He had used the tragedy of King’s assassination in 1968 to “at least get something for our nation” out of it, finally persuading the House to pass the Fair Housing bill he had sent it in 1966. Johnson saw in the tragedy of the assassination of Robert Kennedy in June of 1968 a chance to get his gun bill enacted.

Johnson’s bill would ban all mail-order and out-of-state sales of handguns, shotguns and rifles; prohibit the sale of guns to minors; and require national registration of all guns and licensing of all gun owners. There had been little hope of enactment. But the day after Kennedy died from gunshot wounds, LBJ renewed his pressure on the Senate Judiciary Committee to report his bill out and send it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Maryland Sen. Joseph Tydings, a close friend of Kennedy, and a couple of Democratic colleagues wanted the committee to consider a bill they believed was stronger. LBJ thought the Tydings proposal had no chance of passage and feared that any delay to consider it would give the gun lobby time to kill his legislation.

That’s exactly what happened. The Tydings proposal never got beyond the discussion phase, and LBJ’s comprehensive bill failed by a tie vote in the committee. With relentless pressure, he was able to get a bill by October with a prohibition against mail-order sales (LBJ called it “murder by mail order”), sale of guns to minors and importation of “$10 specials,” or cheap guns that were pouring into the country. But Johnson’s pet proposals to license all gun owners and register all guns were defeated.

When he signed the legislation on Oct. 22, 1968, LBJ vented his anger with the gun lobby for killing licensing and registration:
“The voices that blocked these safeguards were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were the voices of a powerful gun lobby, a gun lobby, that has prevailed for the moment in an election year. .?.?. We have been through a great deal of anguish these last few months and these last few years — too much anguish too forget so quickly. So now we must complete the task which this long needed legislation begins.”

Obama’s pained remarks in the wake of this latest school shooting echo Johnson’s anguish a half-century ago. But Obama has a unique opportunity: a lame-duck session of Congress. If he learns from the lesson of LBJ — two weeks to get action — and takes advantage of the fact that many members can vote their conscience without fear of retribution by the gun lobby because they are not seeking reelection, this nation may “complete the task” of passing comprehensive gun controls. That’s an opportunity that is worth grasping out of the unspeakable tragedy that occurred in Newtown, Conn.
yeah great...
a wall of text and no logic.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 17, 2012, 10:13:04 PM
education and therapy.

I wish you the best of luck with that. I guess education and therapy have never been tried before. If they have then they haven’t reduced the carnage enough.

Quote
No, I asked you not create another one.
this is the question I was referring to:What keeps you from going on a rampage of violence?

As I said, I’m not a violent person and I haven’t been inculcated with a culture of violence and gun use. However, there are violent people in the US who have been inculcated with that culture and attitude. How do you propose to find them and educate them or give them therapy before they start shooting? How would you have identified and educated Adam Lanza or Thomas Lane before they began shooting schoolchildren? We’ve seen from past school shootings that it is very difficult to identify these people as threats before they start shooting. Wouldn’t it be wiser then to ensure that it is more difficult for them to gain access to the guns they used without having to identify them first? The easiest way to do that is to make it more difficult for anyone to gain access to guns. It also has the benefit of reducing  the other 30,000 deaths and 75,000 injuries due to firearms each year in the US.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 17, 2012, 10:29:49 PM
education and therapy.

I wish you the best of luck with that. I guess education and therapy have never been tried before. If they have then they haven’t reduced the carnage enough.

Quote
No, I asked you not create another one.
this is the question I was referring to:What keeps you from going on a rampage of violence?

As I said, I’m not a violent person and I haven’t been inculcated with a culture of violence and gun use. However, there are violent people in the US who have been inculcated with that culture and attitude. How do you propose to find them and educate them or give them therapy before they start shooting? How would you have identified and educated Adam Lanza or Thomas Lane before they began shooting schoolchildren? We’ve seen from past school shootings that it is very difficult to identify these people as threats before they start shooting. Wouldn’t it be wiser then to ensure that it is more difficult for them to gain access to the guns they used without having to identify them first? The easiest way to do that is to make it more difficult for anyone to gain access to guns.
well, I guess I don't know what you have been inculcated with.
what have you been inculcated with?
and here is the most obvious answer I can think of to answer the the slew of questions you threw at me.
(http://www.davenportschools.org/madison/wp-content/blogs.dir/33/files/right/madisonfront.jpg)
but that is a public school... and heck they are "out of control"...
The easiest way to stop rampage violence is to um... stop rampage violence.
like I said people drown.
people get drowned.
Murder is murder.
If by happen chance people are taught not to murder then murder would cease.
But you want to ban guns.
Lets say guns ceased to exist.
Can you please explain why murder wouldn't exist if guns ceased to exist?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 17, 2012, 10:33:18 PM
Well, finally someone has an intelligent and reasonable solution to the problem:

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2012/12/the-time-has-come-to-arm-our-6-year-olds-with-assault-weapons.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+3quarksdaily+%283quarksdaily%29&utm_content=Google+Reader (http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2012/12/the-time-has-come-to-arm-our-6-year-olds-with-assault-weapons.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+3quarksdaily+%283quarksdaily%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

Can't argue with that logic.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Quesi on December 17, 2012, 10:54:22 PM
I assume that the innocent children who died in their classrooms this week did not live in a reality in which they heard gunfire often.  My sweet 6 year old has never heard gunfire.  If I could, I would keep it that way forever and ever. 

This precocious 9 year old boy, Amor “Lilman” Arteaga,  from Flatbush, Brooklyn, lives in a world in which gun violence in common.  Less than a week before the shooting in Connecticut, he heard gunfire outside his home, and dropped to the floor in his living room. 

He knows more about violence than many of us.  And he has a message.  A simple message.  A message that perhaps will become more complex as he matures.  Although the video focuses on various forms of violence, including bullying, domestic violence, and random violence, he asked his father's permission to dedicate his video to the victims of Sandy Hook.   

http://youtu.be/kFZlqAvFjyo
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 17, 2012, 11:01:20 PM
Well, finally someone has an intelligent and reasonable solution to the problem:

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2012/12/the-time-has-come-to-arm-our-6-year-olds-with-assault-weapons.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+3quarksdaily+%283quarksdaily%29&utm_content=Google+Reader (http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2012/12/the-time-has-come-to-arm-our-6-year-olds-with-assault-weapons.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+3quarksdaily+%283quarksdaily%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

Can't argue with that logic.
I am pretty sure the Catholic church would agree.
Last thing they want is alter boys armed....
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 17, 2012, 11:36:22 PM
I assume that the innocent children who died in their classrooms this week did not live in a reality in which they heard gunfire often.  My sweet 6 year old has never heard gunfire.  If I could, I would keep it that way forever and ever. 

This precocious 9 year old boy, Amor “Lilman” Arteaga,  from Flatbush, Brooklyn, lives in a world in which gun violence in common.  Less than a week before the shooting in Connecticut, he heard gunfire outside his home, and dropped to the floor in his living room. 

He knows more about violence than many of us.  And he has a message.  A simple message.  A message that perhaps will become more complex as he matures.  Although the video focuses on various forms of violence, including bullying, domestic violence, and random violence, he asked his father's permission to dedicate his video to the victims of Sandy Hook.   

-ttp://youtu.be/kFZlqAvFjyo
Ok, Although the video focuses on various forms of violence... the message is?
...Submit to authority?
Oh come on...  :police:
please.
BTW I hope his message gets more complex he is going to need it, because I am running out of energy.
guns are not the cause of violence, weapons are used in violent situations.
Look at what just happened to the U.S.
We as a nation invaded a country and shot the place up... and are still engaged in that type of behavior.
Lets ban guns.... give me a break...
Why not ban weapons?
Like um this weapon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LAHhiY_Ogk
Quote
Since his mommy wont let 1 year old son "Benny" talk on the phone to a real person and does not like being tricked that there is someone on the other end he takes the phone and hits her with it.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 18, 2012, 06:23:13 AM
well, I guess I don't know what you have been inculcated with.
what have you been inculcated with?

I was instilled with ethics and morals by my parents, teachers and wider community and they all have their foundation in the ethic of reciprocity. I was taught never to resort to violence. I was never instilled with the belief that owning guns was a right.


Quote
and here is the most obvious answer I can think of to answer the the slew of questions you threw at me.

I asked you how you are going to identify the people who go on rampage killings and you gave me a picture of a school. Do you think that we can identify them in childhood? How’s that working out? It didn’t help with the rampage killers people described as being normal, friendly people right up to the point where they started shooting people. It doesn’t seem to be preventing 100,000 people being killed and injured each year by firearms.


Quote
Murder is murder.
If by happen chance people are taught not to murder then murder would cease.
But you want to ban guns.
Lets say guns ceased to exist.
Can you please explain why murder wouldn't exist if guns ceased to exist?

Oh, of course, how stupid we’ve been. All we had to do was teach people not to murder. Why didn’t anyone ever think of this before? If only we’d passed laws against murder or taught people in schools or churches that murder was bad. Think of the lives we could have saved.

Of course we’re never going to stop people murdering each other, but if guns were banned and much more difficult to obtain, it would certainly put a dent in the nearly 13,000 gun homicides in the US each year. Guns are range weapons. They can kill people at a distance. Semi-automatic weapons can kill people quickly. The children shot in Sandy Hook were shot between three and eleven times each. Twenty children and six adults were killed in a matter of 15 minutes. Contrast that with the knife rampage (http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-man-slashes-22-children-near-china-school-20121214,0,6383015.story) in China that kin hell posted (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24137.msg537481.html#msg537481) earlier. Sadly, 22 children were injured, but none was killed. Note the last sentence in that story, “China has strict gun control laws, so knives are the weapon of choice in violent crimes.

If we reduce the number of guns available then the crimes using guns and the gun deaths decrease. That’s obvious. Those restrictions I posted earlier were very close to the restrictions imposed by the Australian government after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. In the 18 years before the restrictions, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia. In the 14 years since the restrictions took full effect, there were none. However, you don’t want to ban guns. You’d rather try to identify mass shooters before they start shooting or educate people that murder is bad. Instead of employing a solution that has been shown to be effective, you’d rather try something that has never been effective.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 07:34:12 AM
well, I guess I don't know what you have been inculcated with.
what have you been inculcated with?

I was instilled with ethics and morals by my parents, teachers and wider community and they all have their foundation in the ethic of reciprocity. I was taught never to resort to violence. I was never instilled with the belief that owning guns was a right.
...[useless bullshit]...
what was the method used to instill ethics and moral that you experienced?
I just need to know because I have this crazy fucked up idea about education and therapy and I want to make sure that you know for certain that you can't own a gun because you can't control yourself as a result of conditioning.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 18, 2012, 08:53:44 AM
I just need to know because I have this crazy fucked up idea about education and therapy and I want to make sure that you know for certain that you can't own a gun because you can't control yourself as a result of conditioning.

This doesn’t even make sense. What do you think—that because I don’t shoot people then education must work? How do you explain the other 100,000 deaths and injuries from firearms each year? Did the people who caused them just not receive the proper education and therapy? If you think we could ever provide enough education and therapy to prevent people killing each other then you are living in a fantasy world. What we can do is prevent them killing so many people by restricting their access to guns.

Quote
...[useless bullshit]...

What a charming person you are. I’ve shown you how restricting access to guns does reduce gun deaths. It is obvious that education and therapy are not reducing gun deaths. It is also obvious that we cannot even reliably identify mass shooters before they start shooting. You dismiss all of that with this cheap denial. I really see no point in continuing this conversation if this is how you are going to behave. Are you going to address the points I’ve raised or just continue to dismiss them out of hand like this?

Do you want to see any restriction on guns at all? Do you acknowledge that restricting access to guns reduces gun deaths? Do you acknowledge that we cannot reliably identify which people are going to become mass shooters? Do you acknowledge that education and therapy have so far failed to reduce gun deaths significantly?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari on December 18, 2012, 09:18:53 AM
You won't get very far with none, 3sigma.  He's a troll.  Reasoned exchanges aren't really possible, there.

That said, you're not quite right about identification pre-rampage.  There is a long way we could go in providing mental health options.

For example, there's the author of this article:
http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother

It's by the mom of a mentally-ill young teen who's violent and dangerous.  He's exactly the kind of guy who's likely to grow up into one of these mass shooters.  And that fact is painfully obvious right now, at the age of 13.  It's just an example, of course - who knows how prevalent such clear-cut cases are compared to the rest.  But it does highlight a problem with the system we have in place to deal with such kids.  Right now, the solution is to send them to jail.  There've got to be better options made available, because jail's not an attractive one.  And when the one option to prevent a known threat isn't an attractive option, it's not going to be sought out, and we're left with adults who are like that kid in the article.  Unless they kill themselves before then, maybe along with others.

What doesn't make sense is none's insistence that such an approach can't be coupled with gun-control measures.  The kid in the article should under no circumstances gain access to a gun.  Good luck with that in America.  Personal freedom, right?   &)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 09:32:15 AM
I just need to know because I have this crazy fucked up idea about education and therapy and I want to make sure that you know for certain that you can't own a gun because you can't control yourself as a result of conditioning.

This doesn’t even make sense. What do you think—that because I don’t shoot people then education must work? How do you explain the other 100,000 deaths and injuries from firearms each year? Did the people who caused them just not receive the proper education and therapy? If you think we could ever provide enough education and therapy to prevent people killing each other then you are living in a fantasy world. What we can do is prevent them killing so many people by restricting their access to guns.

Quote
...[useless bullshit]...

What a charming person you are. I’ve shown you how restricting access to guns does reduce gun deaths. It is obvious that education and therapy are not reducing gun deaths. It is also obvious that we cannot even reliably identify mass shooters before they start shooting. You dismiss all of that with this cheap denial. I really see no point in continuing this conversation if this is how you are going to behave. Are you going to address the points I’ve raised or just continue to dismiss them out of hand like this?

Do you want to see any restriction on guns at all? Do you acknowledge that restricting access to guns reduces gun deaths? Do you acknowledge that we cannot reliably identify which people are going to become mass shooters? Do you acknowledge that education and therapy have so far failed to reduce gun deaths significantly?
geesh.
I guess if I ask a question followed by a self analysis people get all confused.
look at this again:
what was the method used to instill ethics and moral that you experienced?
[confusing shit removed]
is there a problem answering the question?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 10:08:30 AM
...
What doesn't make sense is none's insistence that such an approach can't be coupled with gun-control measures.  The kid in the article should under no circumstances gain access to a gun.  Good luck with that in America.  Personal freedom, right?   &)
I can only hope that the persons who intend to send me private messages will engage in the behavior I see in this post.
an inquiry....
yes, it's about personal freedom AND responsibility together.
I never said that personal freedom shouldn't include responsibility.
if personal freedom didn't include responsibility what keeps you from committing rampage violence?
a law on paper?
a suggestion from authority?
consider the scenario that personal freedom doesn't include personal responsibility, would that mean everything is meaningless including the person?
and if there is more to personal freedom than personal freedom what is it?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari on December 18, 2012, 12:37:26 PM
What about personal responsibility will help keep the kid from getting ahold of a gun?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 12:57:38 PM
What about personal responsibility will help keep the kid from getting ahold of a gun?
the structure of your question is intriguing.
obviously a physical barrier is needed unless "the kid" has no interest in "getting ahold of a gun".
I am not interested in sheltering human beings from acquiring and using tools in their daily activities.
What about "the kid" "getting ahold of a gun" bothers you?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 18, 2012, 12:58:18 PM
Have you seen reality TV lately.  Americans, for the most part, are dumber than a box of rocks.  Personal responsibility???  Sh*t, we are lucky we can teach most of them to tie their shoes.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari on December 18, 2012, 01:07:12 PM
obviously a physical barrier is needed unless "the kid" has no interest in "getting ahold of a gun".

Yes, it is needed.  Not having as many guns in the community would help.  Not being allowed to have one in the home would, too.

I am not interested in sheltering human beings from acquiring and using tools in their daily activities.
What about "the kid" "getting ahold of a gun" bothers you?

Probably the same thing that caused you to say that a physical barrier is needed.  What bothers me is that he's not always in control of his actions and he stands a good chance of killing others.

That bothers some people.  Apparently it doesn't bother everyone.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 01:27:14 PM
Have you seen reality TV lately.  Americans, for the most part, are dumber than a box of rocks.  Personal responsibility???  Sh*t, we are lucky we can teach most of them to tie their shoes.
hehe
I like you nick, luckily I hate tying shoes...
get ready...
"troll hat" on...
what are you worshiping "reality tv" now?
I can choose to experience reality tv, and I can choose not to.
I don't get pissed at "reality tv" I get pissed about the behavior that created "reality tv".
of course I haven't seen a "reality tv" show run by atheists exclusively... or Americans... if they even exist...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 01:32:32 PM
obviously a physical barrier is needed unless "the kid" has no interest in "getting ahold of a gun".

Yes, it is needed.  Not having as many guns in the community would help.  Not being allowed to have one in the home would, too.

I am not interested in sheltering human beings from acquiring and using tools in their daily activities.
What about "the kid" "getting ahold of a gun" bothers you?

Probably the same thing that caused you to say that a physical barrier is needed.  What bothers me is that he's not always in control of his actions and he stands a good chance of killing others.

That bothers some people.  Apparently it doesn't bother everyone.
ok, now you have defined "the kid".
"the kid" as "he" who is not always in control of his actions...
if "the kid" isn't in control of "his" actions who is?
and well, I hate to say it but I disagree with you that "Yes, it is needed. ...[rambling]...", but you know what kinda "troll" I am.. right?
anyways..
what is the justification for the sentiment "Yes, it is needed.  Not having as many guns in the community would help.  Not being allowed to have one in the home would, too."?
hopefully you won't lose concentration and forget I asked at least 2 questions...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Tero on December 18, 2012, 01:43:12 PM
Have you seen reality TV lately.  Americans, for the most part, are dumber than a box of rocks.  Personal responsibility???  Sh*t, we are lucky we can teach most of them to tie their shoes.

Sadly true. I did not realize how stupid people are till some 10 years ago.Talking to many idiots on internet helped!
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 18, 2012, 02:01:50 PM
Getting back to guns, it appears that Australians are un-American. They tightened down on guns after a 1996 mass shooting, and look what happened!

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf)

Short version? They made semi-automatic and pump action rifles illegal. There had been 104 people killed in mass shooting in the 18 years prior to the legislation. None in the 10 years after, when this report was written.

What a bunch of wimps. Didn't they used to say "They'll take away my gun when they pry it from my poison-spider swollen, tiger-snake-bitten, kangaroo stomped, platypus nibbled dead fingers"? Then they just let laws stop them from doing illegal things. Whoda thunk it?

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 18, 2012, 02:05:19 PM
The Australian model appears to be a good one.  Logical.  They are an island so that helps.  I can see guns coming back across from Mexico in our case.

Besides...it is clear that God wants us to have guns.  Which Commandment says, "lock and load"?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 02:19:20 PM
Getting back to guns, it appears that Australians are un-American. They tightened down on guns after a 1996 mass shooting, and look what happened!

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf)

Short version? They made semi-automatic and pump action rifles illegal. There had been 104 people killed in mass shooting in the 18 years prior to the legislation. None in the 10 years after, when this report was written.

What a bunch of wimps. Didn't they used to say "They'll take away my gun when they pry it from my poison-spider swollen, tiger-snake-bitten, kangaroo stomped, platypus nibbled dead fingers"? Then they just let laws stop them from doing illegal things. Whoda thunk it?
no shit.
whoda thunk that um... lets make murder illegal..?
um...
lotta good that did right?
shit the body count musta got to high for the pussies to actually do something about murder.
"lets loose our concentration as a country Australia and ban guns because we forgot that we can't stop murder and are distracted by a new form of murder called 'rampage violence'"
shit no fucking wonder they were experiencing a new form of murder, they didn't stop the first kind.
gee lets not stop murder because um...?
go for it, I want an irrefutable hehe... explanation as to why murder HAS to occur.
I am sure it exists in a news paper somewhere...

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 02:23:16 PM
The Australian model appears to be a good one.  Logical.  They are an island so that helps.  I can see guns coming back across from Mexico in our case.

Besides...it is clear that God wants us to have guns.  Which Commandment says, "lock and load"?
funny.
ok.
just because "lock and load" has been hijacked by religion doesn't mean that "lock and load" is a bad thing.
I am "locked and loaded".
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 18, 2012, 02:26:28 PM
The Australian model appears to be a good one.  Logical.  They are an island so that helps.  I can see guns coming back across from Mexico in our case.

Besides...it is clear that God wants us to have guns.  Which Commandment says, "lock and load"?
funny.
ok.
just because "lock and load" has been hijacked by religion doesn't mean that "lock and load" is a bad thing.
I am "locked and loaded".
Oh, I thought you were crocked and bloated. ;)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 02:28:00 PM
The Australian model appears to be a good one.  Logical.  They are an island so that helps.  I can see guns coming back across from Mexico in our case.

Besides...it is clear that God wants us to have guns.  Which Commandment says, "lock and load"?
funny.
ok.
just because "lock and load" has been hijacked by religion doesn't mean that "lock and load" is a bad thing.
I am "locked and loaded".
Oh, I thought you were crocked and bloated. ;)
don't breath my farts, they are lethal.
 ;D
see, we can get along.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Quesi on December 18, 2012, 03:12:52 PM
Here we go.  And 11 year old from Utah was encouraged (by his parents) to bring a gun to school in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/student-brings-gun-to-school_n_2324143.html

If EVERYONE had a gun, including our nation's kindergarteners, hormone raging kids on the early years of puberty, special needs kids, senior citizens, rush hour commuters, store clerks, bank tellers, insurance agents, McDonald's employees, FEMA staff, volunteers at homeless shelters, the homeless, staff who work at the department of motor vehicles, citizens waiting for their numbers to be called in motor vehicle offices, camp counselors, teachers, bowling alley attendants, shoe salesmen, corporate attorneys, mortgage brokers, people applying for mortgages.... I mean EVERYONE... If everyone had a gun, there would certainly be no more crazy shootings. 

I think it is a great idea.   
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 18, 2012, 03:16:27 PM
Yeah, they call that personal responsibility.

Bet the teacher gave him an "A" today, he got extra milk in the lunch line, and any seat at any table he wanted.

Again, for the 1000th time, Americans are a strange people.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 18, 2012, 03:22:02 PM
Here we go.  And 11 year old from Utah was encouraged (by his parents) to bring a gun to school in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/student-brings-gun-to-school_n_2324143.html

If EVERYONE had a gun, including our nation's kindergarteners, hormone raging kids on the early years of puberty, special needs kids, senior citizens, rush hour commuters, store clerks, bank tellers, insurance agents, McDonald's employees, FEMA staff, volunteers at homeless shelters, the homeless, staff who work at the department of motor vehicles, citizens waiting for their numbers to be called in motor vehicle offices, camp counselors, teachers, bowling alley attendants, shoe salesmen, corporate attorneys, mortgage brokers, people applying for mortgages.... I mean EVERYONE... If everyone had a gun, there would certainly be no more crazy shootings. 

I think it is a great idea.

Why don't we just make shooting people legal for a couple of years and then let the survivors figure out what to do. Who knows, maybe those two people can accomplish something that we millions can't.

I know you're being sarcastic, Quesi. So am I. But what choice do we have. Rationality is not allowed into the discussion.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 03:25:28 PM
Here we go.  And 11 year old from Utah was encouraged (by his parents) to bring a gun to school in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/student-brings-gun-to-school_n_2324143.html

If EVERYONE had a gun, including our nation's kindergarteners, hormone raging kids on the early years of puberty, special needs kids, senior citizens, rush hour commuters, store clerks, bank tellers, insurance agents, McDonald's employees, FEMA staff, volunteers at homeless shelters, the homeless, staff who work at the department of motor vehicles, citizens waiting for their numbers to be called in motor vehicle offices, camp counselors, teachers, bowling alley attendants, shoe salesmen, corporate attorneys, mortgage brokers, people applying for mortgages.... I mean EVERYONE... If everyone had a gun, there would certainly be no more crazy shootings. 

I think it is a great idea.
a murder was inevitable, why?
 

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 03:31:26 PM
Yeah, they call that personal responsibility.

Bet the teacher gave him an "A" today, he got extra milk in the lunch line, and any seat at any table he wanted.

Again, for the 1000th time, Americans are a strange people.
it is just a scenario.
look, human beings created the scenario.
identifying the scenario is mandatory to understand why murder occurs.
I am being sincere when I ask: what is the scenario?
and no guns are not the cause, they are a tool and that is it.
I didn't say rampage violence I said murder.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 03:32:57 PM
Here we go.  And 11 year old from Utah was encouraged (by his parents) to bring a gun to school in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/student-brings-gun-to-school_n_2324143.html

If EVERYONE had a gun, including our nation's kindergarteners, hormone raging kids on the early years of puberty, special needs kids, senior citizens, rush hour commuters, store clerks, bank tellers, insurance agents, McDonald's employees, FEMA staff, volunteers at homeless shelters, the homeless, staff who work at the department of motor vehicles, citizens waiting for their numbers to be called in motor vehicle offices, camp counselors, teachers, bowling alley attendants, shoe salesmen, corporate attorneys, mortgage brokers, people applying for mortgages.... I mean EVERYONE... If everyone had a gun, there would certainly be no more crazy shootings. 

I think it is a great idea.

Why don't we just make shooting people legal for a couple of years and then let the survivors figure out what to do. Who knows, maybe those two people can accomplish something that we millions can't.

I know you're being sarcastic, Quesi. So am I. But what choice do we have. Rationality is not allowed into the discussion.
well how long has it been illegal to murder?
shooting is just a method.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 04:02:31 PM
Hopefully that ultimatum of "Rationality is not allowed into the discussion." is not enforced...
it was just a couple of questions....
 :'(
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Quesi on December 18, 2012, 05:01:32 PM
You know None, you've talked about accidental deaths in bathtubs and shown a video of a woman beating a toddler with a phone.  Yes.  There are a gazillion ways that people can die accidently, and a gazillion ways people can be murdered.  Falling branches, ingesting kerosene, baseball bats, the cords on your window blinds, hairdryers in bathtubs, car accidents, etc.

But when you think about the purpose of cars and hairdryers and kerosene, and the reason that they are manufactured, they have a purpose in our lives that has nothing to do with killing or inflicting harm.

Even knives have a purpose. 

But guns?  What is the purpose of a gun? 

To shoot.  To kill or maim.  That is the purpose.  That is what guns are made to do.   

I mean, I suppose there may be alternative purposes for owning or carrying a gun.  They could be decorative.  According to some NRA members, it can be sexually stimulating to fire certain guns.  But you see, we easily use knick knacks for decoration, and I can think of all sorts of alternate forms of sexual stimulation.   

I just do not see the need to protect the rights of individuals to own an item that was manufactured, marketed and sold for the purpose of maiming and killing. 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 18, 2012, 05:49:10 PM
Nuf said:

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/12613/lightbox/TMW2012-12-19colorKOS.png?1355584910)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 18, 2012, 05:56:15 PM
Children should be armed with hand grenades.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 06:31:45 PM
You know None, you've talked about accidental deaths in bathtubs and shown a video of a woman beating a toddler with a phone.  Yes.  There are a gazillion ways that people can die accidently, and a gazillion ways people can be murdered.  Falling branches, ingesting kerosene, baseball bats, the cords on your window blinds, hairdryers in bathtubs, car accidents, etc.

But when you think about the purpose of cars and hairdryers and kerosene, and the reason that they are manufactured, they have a purpose in our lives that has nothing to do with killing or inflicting harm.

Even knives have a purpose. 

But guns?  What is the purpose of a gun? 

To shoot.  To kill or maim.  That is the purpose.  That is what guns are made to do.   

I mean, I suppose there may be alternative purposes for owning or carrying a gun.  They could be decorative.  According to some NRA members, it can be sexually stimulating to fire certain guns.  But you see, we easily use knick knacks for decoration, and I can think of all sorts of alternate forms of sexual stimulation.   

I just do not see the need to protect the rights of individuals to own an item that was manufactured, marketed and sold for the purpose of maiming and killing.
purpose is given to a gun, fantabulous.
it is a marketing issue.
big deal.
doorstops? are we too outlaw doorstops?
here is a nice doorstop.
(http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/GH_Mtns.jpg)
now be responsible and only use it as a doorstop because that is how I marketed it.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 18, 2012, 06:34:15 PM
Quote
what was the method used to instill ethics and moral that you experienced?
[confusing shit removed]
is there a problem answering the question?

I’m not the one here who has a problem answering questions. I told you how I formed my morals and on what they are based. If you want me to describe the actual method I used then I would say it is probably the same method used by most people when they learn how to behave: I observed the reactions of people to my behaviour and the behaviour of others. It doesn’t take long for a reasonable person to discover what behaviour is considered acceptable and what is not. Of course, that all depends on the culture and society in which one is raised, which is why I wondered what sort of culture and society breeds people who choose to murder schoolchildren three times more often than the rest of the world combined.

Now, how about you answer my questions to you. Do you think my gun restriction proposal is reasonable, desirable or feasible? Would you vote for it? If not, what are your objections? All I’ve received from you so far on that was the vague term “personal freedom” and a straw man argument. I then asked you other questions in an attempt to better understand your position and you’ve been evading those questions consistently. Are you in favour of any restrictions at all on gun ownership? What are they? Do you acknowledge that restricting gun ownership reduces gun deaths?

Do you acknowledge that we have never had a system of education or therapy that prevents people murdering each other? Do you acknowledge that we still don’t have a method of reliably identifying mass shooters before they begin shooting? Obviously, neither of those has been discovered yet because we still have mass shooters. I’d like to hear what you propose as solutions to those two problems and how and when you think they could be implemented. In the meantime, don’t you think a reasonable way to reduce the number of gun deaths would be to restrict access to guns?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 06:40:43 PM
Children should be armed with hand grenades.
at least and it is a full time job being responsible for the education of children.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 07:20:01 PM
Quote
what was the method used to instill ethics and moral that you experienced?
[confusing shit removed]
is there a problem answering the question?

I’m not the one here who has a problem answering questions. I told you how I formed my morals and on what they are based. If you want me to describe the actual method I used then I would say it is probably the same method used by most people when they learn how to behave: I observed the reactions of people to my behaviour and the behaviour of others. It doesn’t take long for a reasonable person to discover what behaviour is considered acceptable and what is not.
wow, that is amazing.
receiving an education without educators.
continue to elaborate, please.


Quote
Of course, that all depends on the culture and society in which one is raised, which is why I wondered what sort of culture and society breeds people who choose to murder schoolchildren three times more often than the rest of the world combined.
yeah, close your eyes, change borders, compartmentalize.
see you don't have to be part of society or culture.
you can say this is not "my" culture and claim innocence.
I see how it works now, thanks.
Quote
Now, how about you answer my questions to you. Do you think my gun restriction proposal is reasonable, desirable or feasible?
Obviously not reasonable, desired by some, and legal restrictions on guns won't eliminate murder.
Quote
Would you vote for it?
nope.
Quote
If not, what are your objections?
Because, it is a red herring and irrelevant.
Quote
All I’ve received from you so far on that was the vague term “personal freedom” and a straw man argument.
right, I guess I am in the wrong thread.
shit, here is a strawman argument:
You believe that guns cause murder.
If there weren't any guns there wouldn't be any murder.
 :'(
Quote
I then asked you other questions in an attempt to better understand your position and you’ve been evading those questions consistently. Are you in favour of any restrictions at all on gun ownership?
no.
Quote
What are they?
n/a
Quote
Do you acknowledge that restricting gun ownership reduces gun deaths?
so less people dying by gun inflicted injury is the best we can do...
alright, somebody has to die... who is it going to be?
yes, I noticed the word "reduces".
Quote
Do you acknowledge that we have never had a system of education or therapy that prevents people murdering each other?
yes, and you haven't died yet and neither have I.
big deal.
Quote
Do you acknowledge that we still don’t have a method of reliably identifying mass shooters before they begin shooting?
Quite obviously everybody has the potential to commit murder.
here is a scenario:
premise: mass shootings are going to happen.
premise: this random guy is going to be the shooter:
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00670/prof-stephen-hawkin_670185c.jpg)
and the premises are factual and a permanent fixture of reality.
there.
I can elaborate on all that is mandatory for the shooting to occur, but I really don't want to.
heck, it is just a scenario.
Quote
Obviously, neither of those has been discovered yet because we still have mass shooters.
Yeah, murder sucks.
Quote
I’d like to hear what you propose as solutions to those two problems and how and when you think they could be implemented.
education and therapy.
Quote
In the meantime, don’t you think a reasonable way to reduce the number of gun deaths would be to restrict access to guns?
yeah, but the elimination of murder is the priority in my actions.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on December 18, 2012, 07:41:46 PM
   Probably the most important thing we as Americans can do to prevent more Newtowns, more Auroras,  is to understand what removing funding from mental health services means.  With each dollar we remove, another type of mental health service doesn't get implemented, or a family can't take care of a person with a mental problem. 

   Funny, no matter how much we deny it, we ARE our brother's keepers, we actually have no choice  - it is like the law of gravity -  it cannot be ignored  - humanity will fall. 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 18, 2012, 08:46:18 PM
   Probably the most important thing we as Americans can do to prevent more Newtowns, more Auroras,  is to understand what removing funding from mental health services means.  With each dollar we remove, another type of mental health service doesn't get implemented, or a family can't take care of a person with a mental problem. 

   Funny, no matter how much we deny it, we ARE our brother's keepers, we actually have no choice  - it is like the law of gravity -  it cannot be ignored  - humanity will fall.
I could be worse.
I didn't have to log on today.
humanity will fall.. come on...
melo-dramatic crap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvDC3TQ2lLM
here you go: you give up on humanity that easy?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on December 18, 2012, 09:10:40 PM
melo-dramatic crap.

Yeah, you're right.  I don't mean on the 21st of December.  But in the long run, to progress, we need to change our views.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari on December 18, 2012, 09:11:52 PM
ok, now you have defined "the kid".
"the kid" as "he" who is not always in control of his actions...

I have described "the kid" in the article I linked to.  You know.  The topic at hand.

if "the kid" isn't in control of "his" actions who is?

Nobody.  A lot of what we do isn't inside our control.  In cases of mental illness, that can extend to a lot of the things that otherwise usually do fall within conscious control.

I challenge you to choose not to wake up when someone pours cold water on you while sleeping.  After all, if you're not in control, who is - right?

and well, I hate to say it but I disagree with you that "Yes, it is needed. ...[rambling]...", but you know what kinda "troll" I am.. right?
anyways..

You originally said it was needed.  Now you're disagreeing that it was needed.   :o

what is the justification for the sentiment "Yes, it is needed.  Not having as many guns in the community would help.  Not being allowed to have one in the home would, too."?
hopefully you won't lose concentration and forget I asked at least 2 questions...

Well, if guns are harder for this kid to get ahold of, then he'll be less able to kill people when he loses control.  Some people would consider that effect to be a good thing.  Not you, apparently.

This thread your first introduction to the concept of mental illness, isn't it?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 18, 2012, 10:05:47 PM
wow, that is amazing.
receiving an education without educators.
continue to elaborate, please.

There isn’t much more to be said. We learn how to behave by observing others. We take our cues from the culture and society in which we are raised. We learn what is acceptable behaviour by noting whether people consider it acceptable or not. Isn’t that how you learned to behave or did you go through some formal, government sanctioned, behaviour modification program?


Quote
yeah, close your eyes, change borders, compartmentalize.
see you don't have to be part of society or culture.
you can say this is not "my" culture and claim innocence.
I see how it works now, thanks.

No, that isn’t what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that current US society is broken. The rampant gun culture is ridiculous. This idea that gun ownership is almost a god-given right and the only way someone will take people’s guns is out of their cold dead hands is childish in the extreme. As others here have noted, it seems the most common reaction to increasing gun violence is not to restrict access to guns, but to buy more guns. It’s ludicrous.

I’d like to see a society where gun ownership is considered equivalent to drunk driving. They both put peoples lives at risk. There should be the same social stigma attached. The first step towards that goal is to amend or repeal the Second Amendment.


Quote
Quote
I’d like to hear what you propose as solutions to those two problems and how and when you think they could be implemented.
education and therapy.

Continue to elaborate, please. What form would this education and therapy take? Is it the same as my description above of how we learn to behave or do you have some formal training in mind. Give us an idea of what that training might be.


Quote
Quote
In the meantime, don’t you think a reasonable way to reduce the number of gun deaths would be to restrict access to guns?
yeah, but the elimination of murder is the priority in my actions.

In answer to my other questions (kudos for that), you said that my proposal is not reasonable, a red herring, irrelevant and you wouldn’t vote for it. You also said you are not in favour of any restrictions on gun ownership at all. Yet here you say that restricting access to guns is a reasonable way to reduce the number of gun deaths so which is it—is it reasonable or not? Furthermore, while you may be prioritising your quest for the lofty and probably unattainable goal of eliminating murder, don’t you think it would be wise or prudent to implement some interim measures to reduce the number of people murdered? Aiming for unattainable perfection is all well and good, but not at the expense of the reasonable and achievable.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: kardula on December 19, 2012, 08:14:42 PM
The first thing we need is to educate the masses on guns. Not only what an assault rifle is but also what damage guns can do. We also need to explain that there are no new automatic weapons being sold, all automatic weapons being bought and sold (legally of course) are those which were made and registered with the US gov prior to 1986. The "AR" in "AR-15" is short for Armalite, the original patent holder, not Assault Rifle. Semi-automatic means that the gun can fire more than one bullet with each trigger pull and the new bullet is chambered automatically. It doesn't mean the weapon is a burst fire weapon. I believe that this is the first step. Truly educate people on the dangers of guns and what they can do. After that I think we can have a much more open debate on how to combat mass shootings and not resort to rhetoric.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXOuuHcjbs

The issue in the US is a lot more complicated than many people realize.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 20, 2012, 12:15:46 AM
wow, that is amazing.
receiving an education without educators.
continue to elaborate, please.

There isn’t much more to be said. We learn how to behave by observing others. We take our cues from the culture and society in which we are raised. We learn what is acceptable behaviour by noting whether people consider it acceptable or not. Isn’t that how you learned to behave or did you go through some formal, government sanctioned, behaviour modification program?
yeah I wasn't home schooled I was institutionalized.
Quote
Quote
yeah, close your eyes, change borders, compartmentalize.
see you don't have to be part of society or culture.
you can say this is not "my" culture and claim innocence.
I see how it works now, thanks.

No, that isn’t what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that current US society is broken. The rampant gun culture is ridiculous. This idea that gun ownership is almost a god-given right and the only way someone will take people’s guns is out of their cold dead hands is childish in the extreme. As others here have noted, it seems the most common reaction to increasing gun violence is not to restrict access to guns, but to buy more guns. It’s ludicrous.
can I call you an American citizen?
why the fuck not?
compartmentalize my ass you don't.
can I can call you dumbfuck?
why the fuck not?
oh you don't self identify as an American or self identify as a dumbfuck...
great.
well geuss what if you can't label you you can't label the murderers.
dumbfuck American.
Quote
I’d like to see a society where gun ownership is considered equivalent to drunk driving. They both put peoples lives at risk. There should be the same social stigma attached. The first step towards that goal is to amend or repeal the Second Amendment.
ok, that is fine.
enemy of the entity known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
keep it up, I dare you.
Quote
Quote
Quote
I’d like to hear what you propose as solutions to those two problems and how and when you think they could be implemented.
education and therapy.

Continue to elaborate, please. What form would this education and therapy take? Is it the same as my description above of how we learn to behave or do you have some formal training in mind. Give us an idea of what that training might be.
whatever form necessary.
maybe I should set an appointment to waterboard your ass for a long long time.
oh you don't like me talking like that huh?
oh you do?
right on, if you like it sooo much get a towel and waterboard yourself but make sure there is somebody there so you do it right, I don't want you to get hurt.
Quote
Quote
Quote
In the meantime, don’t you think a reasonable way to reduce the number of gun deaths would be to restrict access to guns?
yeah, but the elimination of murder is the priority in my actions.

In answer to my other questions (kudos for that), you said that my proposal is not reasonable, a red herring, irrelevant and you wouldn’t vote for it. You also said you are not in favour of any restrictions on gun ownership at all. Yet here you say that restricting access to guns is a reasonable way to reduce the number of gun deaths so which is it—is it reasonable or not? Furthermore, while you may be prioritising your quest for the lofty and probably unattainable goal of eliminating murder, don’t you think it would be wise or prudent to implement some interim measures to reduce the number of people murdered? Aiming for unattainable perfection is all well and good, but not at the expense of the reasonable and achievable.
wow, kudos to you too.
you obviously confuse the word gun with the word murder.
what method of conditioning would you suggest for an individual to experience that would enlighten them enough to admit the word gun is not equivalent to murder and then admit that murder is wrong and guns are not murder and murder is wrong and guns are not murder and guns are wrong and guns are not murder and...?
until they realized what they were saying was the truth that guns are not murder and murder is not guns and murder is wrong but guns are not wrong because guns don't kill people do they should shut the fuck up.
don't skip any words.
I want confirmation that you read every word in this post.
this is almost as bad as teaching a theist that they believe in dogma not reality,
at least a pacifist realizes that they can carry a gun without some idiot saying they can't because 3sigma doesn't understand that guns are not dangerous.
its the people like 3sigma that are dangerous, they have an opinion about guns and that opinion is guns are dangerous.
well guess what 3sigma maybe you shouldn't be around guns because guns are dangerous.
 ;D
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Bagheera on December 20, 2012, 06:01:03 AM
I returned to this board remembering some of the more constructive and stimulating conversations I've had in the past on various topics, hoping I might be able to have a rational one regarding the Sandy Hook shootings.

I may have been overly optimistic. . . but here goes.

I'm not interested in discussing how horrible the shootings were (utterly) or how ridiculous people's knee-jerk reactions are (very). What I want is a frank discussion, with supporting evidence, about a number of issues.

1. Will increased firearms legislation have the desired effect of reducing incidents like these?

Because that is the most likely result of the S.H. shootings. The federal government will likely attempt to enact some version of the Brady Bill, perhaps requiring a few more hoops for firearms dealers to jump through, some states or cities will toughen their gun laws, while others may loosen them. I suspect a peicemeal solution like this will do little more than anger pro-gun activists while disappointing anti-gun ones while having little overall effect.

2. If there's no meaningful legislation from the Capitol, will we see more private citizens arming themselves, even teachers? If so, might this be the lesser of two evils?

Because mass shootings are not going away, and with each shooting the next crop of would-be killers will be further emboldened to enter a school shooting, if only because the last killer was so successful.  I think the prospect of elementary schools all over the US staffed with armed teachers is a disturbing one, but no less so than the notion that schools might be targeted specifically because they are "soft" targets.

3. If stats suggest that only banning guns entirely can reduce violence-related fatalities (as suggested by the cited Australia study), will the political climate in the US ever allow that to happen?

People are easily suaded by appeals to personal safety, and many in the US (rightfully) believe that the police are usually too far away to help when they are being assaulted. They also believe (incorrectly) that violent crime is on the rise in the US, has been for some time, and that they are in more danger than ever from the types of violence exemplified by Sandy Hook. given those two factors, it seems extremely unlikely that repealing the 2nd Amendment will ever happen.

4. Even if the 2nd Amendment were successfully appealed, in a country of over 300 Million people and almost as many (estimated) privately owned firearms, could a ban on firearms be physically enforced?

Especially considering the number of firearms in the hands of people who don't have a right to own them, haven't registered them, and will not give them up.

5. A lot of people cite Switzerland as a model gun-ownership state. Fine. Should we abolish our army and have mandatory military service for all adults who want to own their own firearm? That would take care of the 'well regulated militia'. Anyone not in the militia, doesn't get a gun. Anyone in the militia, has compulsory training and military service when needed. Yes, I know how unlikely it sounds. If we're talking about actually trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment, this is about as likely. Might as well bring it up. Plus, we'd save a lot of money on the Army, I guess, with all the unpaid militia available. We stop policing the world and act only for defense.

The stats on gun violence in the US seem to suggest that per capita, we kill ourselves far more often than we kill each other, yet we do both at a much higher rate than in other industrialized nations. Anyone have other studies they can contribute to the discussion?

Histrionics and name-calling not necessary. From either side of the fence. And if people have compelling arguments on either side (I really would like to hear from those who feel we should be encouraging gun ownership by responsible citizens would solve the problem) I welcome their input.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 20, 2012, 06:56:35 AM
I returned to this board remembering some of the more constructive and stimulating conversations I've had in the past on various topics, hoping I might be able to have a rational one regarding the Sandy Hook shootings.

I may have been overly optimistic. . . but here goes.
yep, because you started typign lebbers witout tinking.
Quote
I'm not interested in discussing how horrible the shootings were (utterly) or how ridiculous people's knee-jerk reactions are (very). What I want is a frank discussion, with supporting evidence, about a number of issues.
superB.
get it buzz all in your HEAD.
gunz not bad. GUNS not in your head.
Quote
1. Will increased firearms legislation have the desired effect of reducing incidents like these?

Because that is the most likely result of the S.H. shootings. The federal government will likely attempt to enact some version of the Brady Bill, perhaps requiring a few more hoops for firearms dealers to jump through, some states or cities will toughen their gun laws, while others may loosen them. I suspect a peicemeal solution like this will do little more than anger pro-gun activists while disappointing anti-gun ones while having little overall effect.
Yes, less gunz appropriate quanity?
how many redrumz/murders appropriate?
Quote
2. If there's no meaningful legislation from the Capitol, will we see more private citizens arming themselves, even teachers? If so, might this be the lesser of two evils?

Because mass shootings are not going away, and with each shooting the next crop of would-be killers will be further emboldened to enter a school shooting, if only because the last killer was so successful.  I think the prospect of elementary schools all over the US staffed with armed teachers is a disturbing one, but no less so than the notion that schools might be targeted specifically because they are "soft" targets.
yeah, educators shouldn't own armz because you are no educator!
U juz tink U iz EDUCATOR!
scrambled:get it buzz all in your HEAD.
scrambled:U juz tink U iz EDUCATOR!
Quote
3. If stats suggest that only banning guns entirely can reduce violence-related fatalities (as suggested by the cited Australia study), will the political climate in the US ever allow that to happen?

People are easily suaded by appeals to personal safety, and many in the US (rightfully) believe that the police are usually too far away to help when they are being assaulted. They also believe (incorrectly) that violent crime is on the rise in the US, has been for some time, and that they are in more danger than ever from the types of violence exemplified by Sandy Hook. given those two factors, it seems extremely unlikely that repealing the 2nd Amendment will ever happen.
bannz USelf not AMErIcan.
femalz CuN be merry canz? YES.
NOT australia WOMEN bcz DAY not merry.
AUSTRALIAM woman goodz aDmiz it SSelf.
gun good.
SSelf tink.
scrambled:get it buzz all in your HEAD.
scrambled:U juz tink U iz EDUCATOR?
Quote
4. Even if the 2nd Amendment were successfully appealed, in a country of over 300 Million people and almost as many (estimated) privately owned firearms, could a ban on firearms be physically enforced?

Especially considering the number of firearms in the hands of people who don't have a right to own them, haven't registered them, and will not give them up.
HELT!
HELT!
HELT!
SSelf.
scrambled:get it buzz all in your HEAD.
scrambled:U juz tink U iz EDUCATOR? SSelf.
Quote
5. A lot of people cite Switzerland as a model gun-ownership state. Fine. Should we abolish our army and have mandatory military service for all adults who want to own their own firearm? That would take care of the 'well regulated militia'. Anyone not in the militia, doesn't get a gun. Anyone in the militia, has compulsory training and military service when needed. Yes, I know how unlikely it sounds. If we're talking about actually trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment, this is about as likely. Might as well bring it up. Plus, we'd save a lot of money on the Army, I guess, with all the unpaid militia available. We stop policing the world and act only for defense.

The stats on gun violence in the US seem to suggest that per capita, we kill ourselves far more often than we kill each other, yet we do both at a much higher rate than in other industrialized nations. Anyone have other studies they can contribute to the discussion?
HELT!
HELT!
HELT!
SSelf.
scrambled:get it buzz all in your HEAD.
scrambled:U juz tink U iz EDUCATOR? SSelf.
bannz USelf not AMErIcan.
SS find U own shit, tell me WUT U learn.
Quote
Histrionics and name-calling not necessary. From either side of the fence. And if people have compelling arguments on either side (I really would like to hear from those who feel we should be encouraging gun ownership by responsible citizens would solve the problem) I welcome their input.
of course not name-calling not necessary!
Swiss person good in your opinion.
German person good in your opinion.
Russian person good in your opinion.
American person bad in your opinion.
Bezt one so FAR: EDUCATOR person bad in your opinion.
you know guns are bad because AMERICAN person ownz.
U din't lake me tillz now Becozz I am person.
wut is you?
good person bad person nation person?
fuk USelf no gunz 4U.
if you need me to translate I will, what are you thinking?
murder is cool in less numbers.../sarcasm..!<hint hint hint.
murder is not cool study any geographic area and you will discover murder longz b4 gun.
so give up.
b4 its too late. you no gunz is bad.
so don't get a gun becuz you are dangerous, right?
fuk USelf no gunz 4U. if DAT iz what U want.
or what makes you think you can responsibly own a computer? I really would like to know because if you can figure that out then maybe you will understand the 2nd amendment.
you own the 1st amendment.
uz sez stupid zhiz and tink none notice.
none diz da perzon no fuk USelf no gunz 4U n NO puter eeeedrrrr.
get it?
haha
I  ;D
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 20, 2012, 07:01:58 AM
ok, now you have defined "the kid".
"the kid" as "he" who is not always in control of his actions...

I have described "the kid" in the article I linked to.  You know.  The topic at hand.

if "the kid" isn't in control of "his" actions who is?

Nobody.  A lot of what we do isn't inside our control.  In cases of mental illness, that can extend to a lot of the things that otherwise usually do fall within conscious control.

I challenge you to choose not to wake up when someone pours cold water on you while sleeping.  After all, if you're not in control, who is - right?

and well, I hate to say it but I disagree with you that "Yes, it is needed. ...[rambling]...", but you know what kinda "troll" I am.. right?
anyways..

You originally said it was needed.  Now you're disagreeing that it was needed.   :o

what is the justification for the sentiment "Yes, it is needed.  Not having as many guns in the community would help.  Not being allowed to have one in the home would, too."?
hopefully you won't lose concentration and forget I asked at least 2 questions...

Well, if guns are harder for this kid to get ahold of, then he'll be less able to kill people when he loses control.  Some people would consider that effect to be a good thing.  Not you, apparently.

This thread your first introduction to the concept of mental illness, isn't it?
yep, and you display the illness well.
no gun 4u obviously.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 20, 2012, 07:06:58 AM
yeah I wasn't home schooled I was institutionalized.

can I call you an American citizen?
why the fuck not?
compartmentalize my ass you don't.
can I can call you dumbfuck?
why the fuck not?
oh you don't self identify as an American or self identify as a dumbfuck...
great.
well geuss what if you can't label you you can't label the murderers.
dumbfuck American.

ok, that is fine.
enemy of the entity known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
keep it up, I dare you.

whatever form necessary.
maybe I should set an appointment to waterboard your ass for a long long time.
oh you don't like me talking like that huh?
oh you do?
right on, if you like it sooo much get a towel and waterboard yourself but make sure there is somebody there so you do it right, I don't want you to get hurt.

wow, kudos to you too.
you obviously confuse the word gun with the word murder.
what method of conditioning would you suggest for an individual to experience that would enlighten them enough to admit the word gun is not equivalent to murder and then admit that murder is wrong and guns are not murder and murder is wrong and guns are not murder and guns are wrong and guns are not murder and...?
until they realized what they were saying was the truth that guns are not murder and murder is not guns and murder is wrong but guns are not wrong because guns don't kill people do they should shut the fuck up.
don't skip any words.
I want confirmation that you read every word in this post.
this is almost as bad as teaching a theist that they believe in dogma not reality,
at least a pacifist realizes that they can carry a gun without some idiot saying they can't because 3sigma doesn't understand that guns are not dangerous.
its the people like 3sigma that are dangerous, they have an opinion about guns and that opinion is guns are dangerous.
well guess what 3sigma maybe you shouldn't be around guns because guns are dangerous.

Sadly, I did read every word of this post, though it appears to be little more than incoherent spitting and snarling because you have no reasonable answer to my questions. What on Earth is all that nonsense at the beginning supposed to mean? Is that a veiled threat in there and why are you talking about waterboarding? I guess this is just your personal charm surfacing again.

The final part of your post almost makes sense. You seem to think I’m equating guns with murder as though they are the only means of murder. No, I’m not doing that. I’m asking you if you think restricting access to guns would reduce gun deaths? That’s a simple enough question with a pretty obvious answer.

You also seem to be falling back to that old trope, “guns don’t kill people; people kill people”. Yes, people kill people and the majority of the time they use guns to do it. In 2009, there were 16,799 murders (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm) in the US. Of those, 68% were firearm murders. In 2011, the number of murders was down to 15,953. Nearly 70% of those were firearm murders. Do you really think that severely restricting access to guns wouldn’t reduce the total number of people murdered? People use guns to murder because they are freely available, easy to use, they keep the murderer at a distance and they have been designed and refined specifically to be extremely effective at killing people.

Your behaviour in this thread prompts me to ask, do you live in the US? Are you a gun owner and, if so, how many guns do you own? Are you perhaps a member of the NRA as well?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: none on December 20, 2012, 07:12:25 AM
yeah I wasn't home schooled I was institutionalized.

can I call you an American citizen?
why the fuck not?
compartmentalize my ass you don't.
can I can call you dumbfuck?
why the fuck not?
oh you don't self identify as an American or self identify as a dumbfuck...
great.
well geuss what if you can't label you you can't label the murderers.
dumbfuck American.

ok, that is fine.
enemy of the entity known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
keep it up, I dare you.

whatever form necessary.
maybe I should set an appointment to waterboard your ass for a long long time.
oh you don't like me talking like that huh?
oh you do?
right on, if you like it sooo much get a towel and waterboard yourself but make sure there is somebody there so you do it right, I don't want you to get hurt.

wow, kudos to you too.
you obviously confuse the word gun with the word murder.
what method of conditioning would you suggest for an individual to experience that would enlighten them enough to admit the word gun is not equivalent to murder and then admit that murder is wrong and guns are not murder and murder is wrong and guns are not murder and guns are wrong and guns are not murder and...?
until they realized what they were saying was the truth that guns are not murder and murder is not guns and murder is wrong but guns are not wrong because guns don't kill people do they should shut the fuck up.
don't skip any words.
I want confirmation that you read every word in this post.
this is almost as bad as teaching a theist that they believe in dogma not reality,
at least a pacifist realizes that they can carry a gun without some idiot saying they can't because 3sigma doesn't understand that guns are not dangerous.
its the people like 3sigma that are dangerous, they have an opinion about guns and that opinion is guns are dangerous.
well guess what 3sigma maybe you shouldn't be around guns because guns are dangerous.

Sadly, I did read every word of this post, though it appears to be little more than incoherent spitting and snarling because you have no reasonable answer to my questions. What on Earth is all that nonsense at the beginning supposed to mean? Is that a veiled threat in there and why are you talking about waterboarding? I guess this is just your personal charm surfacing again.

The final part of your post almost makes sense. You seem to think I’m equating guns with murder as though they are the only means of murder. No, I’m not doing that. I’m asking you if you think restricting access to guns would reduce gun deaths? That’s a simple enough question with a pretty obvious answer.

You also seem to be falling back to that old trope, “guns don’t kill people; people kill people”. Yes, people kill people and the majority of the time they use guns to do it. In 2009, there were 16,799 murders (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm) in the US. Of those, 68% were firearm murders. In 2011, the number of murders was down to 15,953. Nearly 70% of those were firearm murders. Do you really think that severely restricting access to guns wouldn’t reduce the total number of people murdered? People use guns to murder because they are freely available, easy to use, they keep the murderer at a distance and they have been designed and refined specifically to be extremely effective at killing people.

Your behaviour in this thread prompts me to ask, do you live in the US? Are you a gun owner and, if so, how many guns do you own? Are you perhaps a member of the NRA as well?
all of your post is irrelevant.
you want to ban gunz.
so ban them for your SSelf.
quit fucking with "americans".
and "NRA" people.
I am not into GUNZ and it is none of your business what I am into is it?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 20, 2012, 07:44:05 AM
What is your problem, none? Why can’t you behave like a normal person and discuss this subject reasonably? What is it about this subject that has you posting incoherent nonsense and personal attacks? You certainly seem to have a chip on your shoulder about something.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on December 20, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
some rude thoughts on guns:

Guns and minds 
Quote
When I had that gun pointed in my face all those years ago, I didn't think, "Damn, I wish I had a gun, too." I didn't think, "Damn, I wish someone else with a gun would come along and save me." I thought, "Damn, I wish he didn't have a gun."
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2012/12/guns-and-minds-ive-had-gun-pointed-in.html

On guns, crazies make the law.
Quote
You got that? The FBI or DHS might pay you a visit if you quietly buy too much of a certain kind of fortified shit. If you are a child in a wheelchair, chosen at random at an airport, and you have fortified shit residue on your hands because you touched the wheels of your chair, you will be held until the truth about the fortified shit residue is ascertained.

But if you are on the terrorist watch list, you can buy all the goddamn guns you want, as long as you're not disqualified for other reasons (like not being a citizen, because legal immigrants don't need to be safe).
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2012/12/on-guns-crazies-make-laws-as-nation.html

Guns and the Constitution: "Keep and Bear," Not "Buy and Sell"
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2012/12/guns-and-constitution-keep-and-bear-not.html
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on December 21, 2012, 09:30:37 AM
Quote
Nancy Lanza, it seems, was suffering from the same fears that grip millions of Americans who believe that without firearms they will be slain on the streets or in their beds.
Quote
Even if his chances of success are slim in a Congress of gutless wonders who always think of their own survival first, he should demand a national moratorium on the sale of banana clip devices and the closing of loopholes that permit gun show operators to avoid the necessity of checking out their purchasers.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/thomasson17/thomasson17

Quote
The bullets used at Newtown, said Connecticut’s chief medical examiner, “are designed in such a fashion the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in” producing a “very devastating set of injuries.”

http://www.southernminn.com/faribault_daily_news/opinion/article_38478de5-15b4-57ce-94ea-cb683a2d3d52.html

The articles above by conservative columnists show that there may be some progress.  Instead of allowing this thread to move down the page into obscurity, at least until the next rampage, I should have the balls to keep bringing it back to the top.   I should pound this issue home until I get banned from this website, so people can go on happily arguing about the possible existence of a deity, while continuing to  ignore the problem with  guns in America that create a difficult debate that is just so, so hard for people.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on December 21, 2012, 12:40:42 PM
   So the NRA says every school in America needs to have an armed police officer. 
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20121221/US.Connecticut.School.Shooting.NRA/

Lets go with a simplified  gun plan to start.   At 98,817 schools in America, and, lets say, only a glock 18 at $507.00 a piece, instead of a 30 bullet Bushmaster at $729.99, that’s $50,100,219 for gun manufacturers.  Works for the NRA.

    Obviously simplified, let’s say $40,000 a year for each police officer, at 98,817 schools, that’s  $3,952,680,000 added to taxes.

   Let’s do it.  Let’s see if it saves lives.  Let’s see if we can put our money and this rationality where the NRA’s mouth is.  But let’s not wait.  Paying for the police officers is only $12.54 per American per year.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: mhaberling on December 21, 2012, 01:45:24 PM
I'm gonna throw in my 2 cents here... Different regions of this country have different cultures... My region is one in which this gun culture is strongest... And here might be a little insight... Most all  kids at about 6 are expected to take hunting safety classes and learn how to use a firearm... When you learn that this weapon will take a mans life when your not careful. That shooting someone is permanent and that is real... It is amazing how deep that sits in a person when they are taught that at such a young age
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 21, 2012, 04:02:43 PM
When I was in high school almost every student car/truck had a gun in it.  Many came to school straight from morning hunting.  There is not going to be an easy answer to this problem.  If congress can't even protect us from something they made themselves (fisical cliff)...how will they ever get any kind of meaningful gun control passed?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 21, 2012, 06:00:48 PM
Most all  kids at about 6 are expected to take hunting safety classes and learn how to use a firearm... When you learn that this weapon will take a mans life when your not careful.

…when you’re not careful? Not careful? Do you think Adam Lanza didn’t mean to kill twenty schoolchildren and seven adults by shooting them all multiple times with semi-automatic assault rifle?

News reports indicate that Nancy Lanza taught her children how to shoot and took them to gun ranges. She was reported to be a prepper as well so it is quite likely she impressed upon her children the fact that guns kill people.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: mhaberling on December 21, 2012, 06:22:03 PM
Most all  kids at about 6 are expected to take hunting safety classes and learn how to use a firearm... When you learn that this weapon will take a mans life when your not careful.

…when you’re not careful? Not careful? Do you think Adam Lanza didn’t mean to kill twenty schoolchildren and seven adults by shooting them all multiple times with semi-automatic assault rifle?

News reports indicate that Nancy Lanza taught her children how to shoot and took them to gun ranges. She was reported to be a prepper as well so it is quite likely she impressed upon her children the fact that guns kill people.

this is a discussion about the gun culture in america... i am aware it would do little in the case of the mentally ill or handicapped.. wasnt my point at all
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 21, 2012, 06:52:59 PM
this is a discussion about the gun culture in america... i am aware it would do little in the case of the mentally ill or handicapped.. wasnt my point at all

What would help in those cases? What is the most effective way to prevent people like Adam Lanza shooting schoolchildren? What would help reduce the other 30,000 gun deaths in the US each year? My suggestion is to severely restrict access to all guns by any private citizen. What’s your suggestion?

Would you suggest putting even more guns in the community as the NRA is doing? Shnozzola gave several good reasons why that is unworkable. More guns in the community just increases their availability to those who would use them for murder.

Would you suggest better screening of licence applicants or trying to identify potential mass shooters before they start shooting? Bear in mind that Adam Lanza didn’t have to pass any background checks for the guns he used. They weren’t his. They were legally owned by his mother and thus were easily within his reach. Adam Lanza was variously reported as being shy, quiet, keeping to himself, a computer nerd and mildly autistic (possibly with Asperger’s syndrome). Are you going to stigmatise everyone like that by labelling them as a potential mass shooter and placing them on a watch list?

Edit: My apologies, shnozzola, I misspelled your username.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: kin hell on December 21, 2012, 06:56:23 PM
   So the NRA says every school in America needs to have an armed police officer. 
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20121221/US.Connecticut.School.Shooting.NRA/



How lacking in foresight and guts,  they should just arm all the kids.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: HAL on December 21, 2012, 07:16:19 PM
...  they should just arm all the kids.

(http://www.atheistthinktank.net/HAL/threadbombs/hmmm.jpg)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on December 21, 2012, 08:48:23 PM
Quote
As the U.S. wages a debate on its gun laws, some Australians are urging Americans to consider their experience.
For Australia, the turning point came on April 28, 1996, when a lone gunman opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle in Port Arthur, a popular tourist destination in the state of Tasmania.

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167814684/australians-urge-u-s-to-look-at-their-gun-laws
______________________________________

Bill Moyers this past summer after Aurora:

Quote
"So why do we always act so surprised? Violence is alter ego, wired into our Stone Age brains, so intrinsic its toxic eruptions no longer shock, except momentarily when we hear of a mass shooting...."

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/bill-moyers-toys-better-regulated-guns
__________________________________________
Quote
After Newtown, anchored by Gwen Ifill, addresses such issues as access to guns and the politics of gun laws; mental illness in young adults; the science of detecting violent impulses; and how communities react to unspeakable tragedy

http://www.pbs.org/about/news/archive/2012/after-newtown/
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: mhaberling on December 21, 2012, 09:07:31 PM
this is a discussion about the gun culture in america... i am aware it would do little in the case of the mentally ill or handicapped.. wasnt my point at all

What would help in those cases? What is the most effective way to prevent people like Adam Lanza shooting schoolchildren? What would help reduce the other 30,000 gun deaths in the US each year? My suggestion is to severely restrict access to all guns by any private citizen. What’s your suggestion?

Would you suggest putting even more guns in the community as the NRA is doing? Shnozzola gave several good reasons why that is unworkable. More guns in the community just increases their availability to those who would use them for murder.

Would you suggest better screening of licence applicants or trying to identify potential mass shooters before they start shooting? Bear in mind that Adam Lanza didn’t have to pass any background checks for the guns he used. They weren’t his. They were legally owned by his mother and thus were easily within his reach. Adam Lanza was variously reported as being shy, quiet, keeping to himself, a computer nerd and mildly autistic (possibly with Asperger’s syndrome). Are you going to stigmatise everyone like that by labelling them as a potential mass shooter and placing them on a watch list?

Edit: My apologies, shnozzola, I misspelled your username.

I dont know if there are any easy answers
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 24, 2012, 10:07:04 AM
(12-24-12) 2 NY firemen shot to death responding to a fire today.  But it is too soon to discuss gun control.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: kaziglu bey on December 24, 2012, 10:16:56 AM
(12-24-12) 2 NY firemen shot to death responding to a fire today.  But it is too soon to discuss gun control.
If only we allowed God back into our fires, this would never have happened.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 24, 2012, 10:18:23 AM
True, and arm our firemen.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: kaziglu bey on December 24, 2012, 10:21:12 AM
True, and arm our firemen.
Shouldn't they have water guns?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 24, 2012, 04:25:08 PM
At the end of every fire hose there should be an AR-15 that just randomly fires into ... the fire ... just to make sure that anything is dead and roasted.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 26, 2012, 09:54:52 PM
Every American home should be equipped with a setup like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQpfQd1397E


(http://goo.gl/Xqx51)

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jetson on December 26, 2012, 10:15:08 PM
Wow.  So that's what a semi-automatic can do?  Pump 3 rounds at 10 different targets, for example?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 26, 2012, 11:00:03 PM
I don't think any of my neighbors would fuck with me if I had one of those available.

Did you notice the associated ads?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 26, 2012, 11:08:29 PM
I don't think any of my neighbors would fuck with me if I had one of those available.

Did you notice the associated ads?


You'd better come live where I do, Chronos. I've got a better class of neighbor. No shooting is necessary. It is soooooo much cheaper this way.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: mhaberling on December 27, 2012, 01:35:56 AM
Every American home should be equipped with a setup like this

No, it ways twenty three pounds and has a poor center of gravity...  The clip is bulky a multiple clip system attached to the weare would be faster and not inheed gun accuracy, for urban combat of the best compromise between accuracy and shot speed is a ACOG scope with a fiber optic recital, lazer is cool but under mounted flashlight is more practical... All of this coupled with a lockable bump stock for optional automatic fire... and you have the optomum home defense weapon.

Trijicon ACOG: 1,059.99
Sauer RM400-16B-EC-OD(actual rifle): 1,099.99
under mount flashlight: 24.99
bump stock: 369.00 (for fully automatic fire)

extra clips not included total comes to... 2553.97 for one top notch home defense / urban combat weapon load out...
Ammo price not specified, however shoots standard NATO rounds so surplus ammo availible...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 27, 2012, 02:01:41 AM
I will always wonder what the fascination with guns is. I know one man who owns literally thousands, and I know others who have dozens. Being as I neither fear for my life or have the hots for ending the lives of others, I guess I'm just in a strange world where lead flying through flesh as hundreds or thousands of feet per second has no appeal.


I'm a positive kind of guy with no need to power trip or hide in a cocoon or pretend I'm invulnerable with a glock strapped to my leg. I guess I should apologize up front for not meeting media stereotypes for being a white male. Maybe I'm gun-gay or something.


I wouldn't spend fifty cents for a bent up tennis racket at a garage sale for the purpose of protecting myself. I have never been able to work up the fear necessary to justify spending money on, well, fear. As I have said before, I would rather die tomorrow in a mugging and never felt fear before that than die of old age with an arsenal at my side and the fear of everything inculcated into my every cell.


I'm not saying that there is nothing dangerous out there. I know there is. I guess I just don't attract it. I've had one bike stolen and the door lock on my car destroyed so that the bad guy could steal an empty daypack. That is all the crime I have suffered. And I can't think of a reason to invest in firepower and sniper scopes if that is all I have to deal with.


I don't have a key for my cottage. There is a lock on the door but I've never used it. I go away for weeks at a time without the least bit of worry about the computers and such inside. Now I'll admit that when I lived on the edge of an inner city ghetto area in the midwest, I did lock my door. But I still didn't give any thought to owning a gun, even though I worked as a volunteer right in the heart of the official poor peoples zone.


I literally didn't think about it once.


So yea, I know that when the revolution starts, I'll get popped on day one. Which is fine because I wouldn't want to hang around for the post-apocalyptic world we all fear anyway. I would dislike Mel Gibson as much as I disliked the guy wearing spiky things all up and down his torso and armed with a crossbow. None of that stuff is of any importance to me.


I value being human. Not seeing how far removed from my natural state I can get.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on December 27, 2012, 08:43:36 AM
Chris Rock's solution:

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4114423/Gun+Control/
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 27, 2012, 08:59:40 AM
Some gun group is offering 200 teachers in Utah free 6 hr. training so they can carry in the classroom.  6 hrs.  That should do it.

Now Ohio is following their example.

I keep thinking back to my teachers K-12 grades.  I can't thing of many I would want armed in the classroom...or at all.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 27, 2012, 10:10:39 AM
Some gun group is offering 200 teachers in Utah free 6 hr. training so they can carry in the classroom.  6 hrs.  That should do it.

Now Ohio is following their example.

I keep thinking back to my teachers K-12 grades.  I can't thing of many I would want armed in the classroom...or at all.


I predict that if we get guns into teachers hands, there wlll be more than 20 accidental deaths a year in schools due to these guns. And if New York policemen can shoot up 15 civilians in a shootout with a bad guy, how many innocents do you suppose the teachers can harm. What with so many available.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jetson on December 27, 2012, 10:11:50 AM

I keep thinking back to my teachers K-12 grades.  I can't thing of many I would want armed in the classroom...or at all.

My first grade teacher used to kiss us on the cheek before she put us on the bus ride home.  I guess in this new world she would have frisked us!
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 27, 2012, 11:12:51 AM

I keep thinking back to my teachers K-12 grades.  I can't thing of many I would want armed in the classroom...or at all.

My first grade teacher used to kiss us on the cheek before she put us on the bus ride home.  I guess in this new world she would have frisked us!
No, she would be arrested for inappropriate acts with minors.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: kin hell on December 27, 2012, 05:40:15 PM
home defence as religion

you don't need to go to church for pews


pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pewpew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pewpew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pewpew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew 

spraying for redemption

praise the load


creating a better world one gun shop at a time

now I feel safe.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 27, 2012, 08:05:48 PM
I don't think any of my neighbors would fuck with me if I had one of those available.

Did you notice the associated ads?


You'd better come live where I do, Chronos. I've got a better class of neighbor. No shooting is necessary. It is soooooo much cheaper this way.

But you live in Big Gun Country!
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 27, 2012, 08:16:59 PM
I will always wonder what the fascination with guns is.

I don't get it, either, but I know people who buy all sorts of crazy things. However, most of their hobbies do not involve collecting things which are designed to rip through human flesh.


I have never been able to work up the fear necessary to justify spending money on, well, fear. As I have said before, I would rather die tomorrow in a mugging and never felt fear before that than die of old age with an arsenal at my side and the fear of everything inculcated into my every cell.

I'm not sure I ever thought about it to that extent, but it is an apt explanation of my thoughts on the matter.


I'm not saying that there is nothing dangerous out there. I know there is. I guess I just don't attract it. I've had one bike stolen and the door lock on my car destroyed so that the bad guy could steal an empty daypack. That is all the crime I have suffered.

I had some ingrate break out the window of my car while it sat on the street in front of my house. He could have only had the intent to steal the car, but the shattering window must have made such a racket that he ran off. The car alarm never sounded because it wasn't designed to sound for breaking glass. That car later ended up in salvage anyway.

I don't have a key for my cottage. There is a lock on the door but I've never used it.

Nope, can't go that care-free here.

I grew up in a place where neither we nor our neighbors ever locked our doors when we went on vacation. That changed one day when a burglar broke into one of the houses (by busting out a window, the dumbass didn't even check the doors). That was the day my parents had to replace the skeleton key lock on the front door ... after they found the skeleton key and discovered it no longer worked.


I value being human. Not seeing how far removed from my natural state I can get.

I just find it ironic that Christian ads are displayed next to videos for advanced weaponry.

What Would Jesus Do?

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 27, 2012, 08:17:53 PM
Chris Rock's solution:

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4114423/Gun+Control/


Good point.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 27, 2012, 08:25:45 PM
Some gun group is offering 200 teachers in Utah free 6 hr. training so they can carry in the classroom.  6 hrs.  That should do it.

Now Ohio is following their example.

I keep thinking back to my teachers K-12 grades.  I can't thing of many I would want armed in the classroom...or at all.

While I love teachers and the teaching profession, and while I know that there are some drawbacks to both, most of the teachers I have known in my life are not sufficiently equipped to properly handle confrontations with parents (or maybe they are just hamstrung by management).

The only ones I could imagine carrying firearms are the ones who, in fact, were quite well trained in the use of firearms. We had two teachers in my high school who were former military members who were with the National Guard. They would mysteriously leave their teaching duties behind for 3-5 weeks at a time ... one was a former Army Ranger, another a former Navy Seal ... but we learned that they were called back to service from time to time to do work for the CIA. They always could afford nicer houses, cars and vacations than most of the other teachers ... they were also a bit suspicious of everything around them ...

Anyway, that was my school's contribution to gun violence.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 27, 2012, 08:26:46 PM
I predict that if we get guns into teachers hands, there wlll be more than 20 accidental deaths a year in schools due to these guns. And if New York policemen can shoot up 15 civilians in a shootout with a bad guy, how many innocents do you suppose the teachers can harm. What with so many available.

Well, maybe the NRA has a secondary agenda to reduce the US population?

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 27, 2012, 08:35:19 PM
I predict that if we get guns into teachers hands, there wlll be more than 20 accidental deaths a year in schools due to these guns. And if New York policemen can shoot up 15 civilians in a shootout with a bad guy, how many innocents do you suppose the teachers can harm. What with so many available.

Well, maybe the NRA has a secondary agenda to reduce the US population?


I don't think its secondary...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 27, 2012, 09:00:54 PM

I don't have a key for my cottage. There is a lock on the door but I've never used it.

Nope, can't go that care-free here.



Well, keep in mind that I live in the middle of nowhere in Montana. The nearest bad buys are in Idaho and the nearest scary big animals are over a block away. When I lived in Indiana you bet I locked my house. Still no gun though.


Granted, I had to live with this guy standing 30 feet from my front door a few times last summer, but I couldn't shoot him under any set of circumstances.


(http://25.media.tumblr.com/9436460227f96c66d74465157ebfa47c/tumblr_mfpxi3XsTb1qz4baxo1_400.jpg)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on December 28, 2012, 08:42:24 AM
Some gun group is offering 200 teachers in Utah free 6 hr. training so they can carry in the classroom.  6 hrs.  That should do it.

Now Ohio is following their example.

I keep thinking back to my teachers K-12 grades.  I can't thing of many I would want armed in the classroom...or at all.

as if teachers haven't already had enough crap dumped on them and then been treated like garbage by the GOP.  They now want to make them the local swat team as well?

how long do you think it will take for a student to steal a gun or overpower a teacher and take the gun?  i'd put the over-under at about 2 weeks.

gun nuts are bottomlessly stupid.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 28, 2012, 09:24:51 AM
A cop's gun went off twice in a mall recently.  Cops are really trained.  HOw often do you think that might happen in the classroom?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jetson on December 28, 2012, 09:36:48 AM
A cop's gun went off twice in a mall recently.  Cops are really trained.  HOw often do you think that might happen in the classroom?

I bet there are lots of cases of cops being overpowered and had their weapons used against them.  I'm too lazy to search, but with their training and awareness, and their supposed reluctance to use weapons, giving guns to teachers is a recipe for disaster.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on December 28, 2012, 09:43:07 AM
I bet there are lots of cases of cops being overpowered and had their weapons used against them.

There are.  In the United States, at least, of all cases where police officers are shot, approximately one-third of them are shot with their own weapons.

Quote
I'm too lazy to search, but with their training and awareness, and their supposed reluctance to use weapons, giving guns to teachers is a recipe for disaster.

Any program for arming teachers would have to be entirely voluntary, of course, and anyone reluctant to use a firearm for defense (teacher or otherwise) should not be carrying one.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on December 28, 2012, 09:47:17 AM
Cops are really trained.

This is a common myth.  It varies by department and academy, but for the most part, police officers don't receive very much firearms training.  The last time I looked into it, the agency I found that required the most was the LA police academy, which required seventy hours of training time before an officer could go armed.  Most agencies' requirements that I found were significantly lower than that.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jetson on December 28, 2012, 09:51:26 AM
In San Antonio, my son is having a difficult time getting into the police academy.  The entry requirements appear to be designed to weed out the wanna-be's, and let the few who truly have the drive and desire to get through.  I don't have details, but there are education requirements, and physical requirements, as well as the background check stuff that gets pretty detailed from what I have been asked!

Anyway, given that scenario, I see that once a person becomes a police officer, the requirements are relaxed!  IOW, I see an awful lot of officers who are overweight, and probably too old to be "on the beat" in certain ways.  I mean, we need the best of the best on these police forces, not what I have seen over the years.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on December 28, 2012, 10:04:34 AM
In San Antonio, my son is having a difficult time getting into the police academy.  The entry requirements appear to be designed to weed out the wanna-be's, and let the few who truly have the drive and desire to get through.  I don't have details, but there are education requirements, and physical requirements, as well as the background check stuff that gets pretty detailed from what I have been asked!

Yes, I've heard it's a beast.  There's also a psych evaluation as well.  All of which I definitely approve of.

Quote
Anyway, given that scenario, I see that once a person becomes a police officer, the requirements are relaxed!  IOW, I see an awful lot of officers who are overweight, and probably too old to be "on the beat" in certain ways.  I mean, we need the best of the best on these police forces, not what I have seen over the years.

Yes, it is a bit troubling to see some of those guys out there.  There should be some kind of requirement that officers remain physically fit, at least until they're older and more likely to be officers or doing some other kind of desk duty.  A captain in his fifties being overweight, I don't have much of a problem with -- he's a lot less likely to get into fights or have to run after suspects or something.  A beat cop in his twenties or thirties is another matter.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on December 28, 2012, 10:46:12 AM
In other news, Chicago just reached 500 homicides on the year, in one of the most, if not the most, regulated gun markets in the US.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-reaches-500-homicides-fatal-shooting-18082567 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-reaches-500-homicides-fatal-shooting-18082567)

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on December 28, 2012, 11:07:17 AM
In other news, Chicago just reached 500 homicides on the year, in one of the most, if not the most, regulated gun markets in the US.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-reaches-500-homicides-fatal-shooting-18082567 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-reaches-500-homicides-fatal-shooting-18082567)

how many of them are gun related?  If it is the most regulated market in the US[1], what does that mean?  Keep in mind, "the most regulated" is a relative thing.  It still might not be regulated enough for the desired outcome.
 1. assuming it is.  I don't want to argue that point
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 28, 2012, 11:16:24 AM
In other news, Chicago just reached 500 homicides on the year, in one of the most, if not the most, regulated gun markets in the US.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-reaches-500-homicides-fatal-shooting-18082567 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-reaches-500-homicides-fatal-shooting-18082567)


The right wing got all upset about the mislabeled, misreported gun sting operation along the Mexican border, but I noticed that none of the NRA supporters care about the fact that there are 8,000 in the gun shops in the U.S. near the Mexican border. Which makes gun laws in Mexico sort of moot, bad guy-wise.



No matter how one feels on the issue, there is no way to ignore the fact that local or even state laws cannot control unlicensed weapons and sources outside of their jurisdiction. Bad guys can get guns easily, and thoses who disagree with current regulations can get guns easily too, even if they are otherwise law-abiding citizens. I don't know the answer, but piecemeal efforts by local governments to control the problem are not likely to be too terribly successful. For that matter, there are so many guns in this country that I don't see how any new laws can appreciably reduce the number of weapons unless we just get all anal on the issue like we've been doing with drugs for the last fifty years.


Though of course the drug war has worked out well, hasn't it...  :(
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on December 28, 2012, 11:19:03 AM
how many of them are gun related?

No idea, but I'd be willing to hazard a guess that it's well over 75%.

Quote
If it is the most regulated market in the US[1], what does that mean?  Keep in mind, "the most regulated" is a relative thing.  It still might not be regulated enough for the desired outcome.
 1. assuming it is.  I don't want to argue that point

Basically, and I'm totally stealing this from a anonymous source, so one cant take it for gospel......

Quote
The new ordinance allows handgun ownership in Chicago but establishes strict guidelines about who can apply for a permit. It prohibits gun shops within city limits and requires potential handgun owners to register their guns with the Chicago Police Department. In addition, it requires handgun owners to have both a city permit and a state firearms identification card.

The new ordinance also addresses where handguns can be stored, saying that home storage does not include a garage, front porch, or yard. Other excluded sites for storage are hotels, dorms, and group living facilities. For transport outside the home, guns would need to be broken down and not trigger ready.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0702/Chicago-passes-revised-gun-law-allowing-handgun-ownership (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0702/Chicago-passes-revised-gun-law-allowing-handgun-ownership)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on December 28, 2012, 11:22:56 AM
No matter how one feels on the issue, there is no way to ignore the fact that local or even state laws cannot control unlicensed weapons and sources outside of their jurisdiction. Bad guys can get guns easily, and thoses who disagree with current regulations can get guns easily too, even if they are otherwise law-abiding citizens. I don't know the answer, but piecemeal efforts by local governments to control the problem are not likely to be too terribly successful. For that matter, there are so many guns in this country that I don't see how any new laws can appreciably reduce the number of weapons unless we just get all anal on the issue like we've been doing with drugs for the last fifty years.

Though of course the drug war has worked out well, hasn't it...   


I agree, and when I hear people espousing that the US should follow in the footsteps of Australia, I cringe. Australia is basically an island, isolated, and has much more opportunity to control smuggling operations than we would here in the US. I think guns would still pour in over the Mexican border and straight to the black market.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 28, 2012, 11:32:12 AM
I just looked for Chicago statistics. Haven't found anything definitive yet, only that most of the deaths have been via "shootings". And also that the biggest percentage are gang related. Once you toss violent street gangs into the mix, gun laws become almost irrelevant because no new laws are going to directly affect their ability to get weapons.


Luckily they shoot each other more than others, but I've no doubt many innocent bystanders, including kids, have suffered.


For the heck of it, I looked compared how many die in Chicago traffic accidents each year. They seem to hover around 150 a year, give or take a few dozen. So three times as many people get murdered in Chicago each year as die in accidents.


I live in Montana. Last year we had 28 murders in the whole state, and around 200 auto fatalities. To the Chicago ratio is 3/1, murder/car death-wise In Montana it is closer to 1/8.


No wonder I don't have to lock my doors. I should probably stop driving though.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on December 28, 2012, 11:58:37 AM
I just looked for Chicago statistics. Haven't found anything definitive yet, only that most of the deaths have been via "shootings". And also that the biggest percentage are gang related. Once you toss violent street gangs into the mix, gun laws become almost irrelevant because no new laws are going to directly affect their ability to get weapons.

Luckily they shoot each other more than others, but I've no doubt many innocent bystanders, including kids, have suffered.

The numbers are staggering, but I'm thinking the problem that Chicago faces, along with more than couple of other cities, like Detriot and D.C., is poverty, the monetary chasm between the haves and the have-nots, and the lack of decent available education. 

Then again, I could be wrong. Here's an interesting article about Houston, TX, where violent crime has seen a marked decrease, yet Texas has some of the most lax gun control laws in the country. And Houston isn't exactly a poverty free city.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-murder-rate-drops-22-percent-3991494.php (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-murder-rate-drops-22-percent-3991494.php)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on December 28, 2012, 12:52:54 PM
The following link to the Rachel Maddow show from other night had a University of Missouri criminology professor with his take on gun control.  He starts at about 5 minutes in.  His first point about policing of criminal hot spots in large cities may be part of the downward trend that is showing up.  He also says it would not work for the random suburban mass killings we see.  He talks about restricting access to large capacity magazine clips as a necessary step.  If the US could only attempt ideas without getting all hot and bothered, and reject the same ideas if they do not work.  It seems our politics are too immature for that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#50301237  (15 second commercial)

 

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 28, 2012, 01:10:24 PM
In San Antonio, my son is having a difficult time getting into the police academy.

If he wants to pack heat, looks like a second option is to become a public school teacher.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on December 28, 2012, 01:14:37 PM
In other news, Chicago just reached 500 homicides on the year, in one of the most, if not the most, regulated gun markets in the US.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-reaches-500-homicides-fatal-shooting-18082567 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-reaches-500-homicides-fatal-shooting-18082567)

how many of them are gun related?  If it is the most regulated market in the US[1], what does that mean?  Keep in mind, "the most regulated" is a relative thing.  It still might not be regulated enough for the desired outcome.
 1. assuming it is.  I don't want to argue that point

Also, even if it is the most regulated market, by whatever measure you wish to make, that doesn't mean that people do not carry guns across state borders. Wisconsin and Indiana are quite close to Chicago, not to mention that a dozen other states are within an easy day drive of Chicago. Heavy regulations in one state have little impact when guns can be traded privately in other states with lax requirements.


Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jetson on December 28, 2012, 02:04:23 PM
Yeah, once a gun is used in a mass shooting, any relevant gun control laws in that area are pointless, since the gun could easily be brought in from outside of that jurisdiction.  Something needs to be done at the federal level, so that there is something universal across all jurisdictions.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on December 28, 2012, 02:34:35 PM
Yeah, once a gun is used in a mass shooting, any relevant gun control laws in that area are pointless, since the gun could easily be brought in from outside of that jurisdiction.  Something needs to be done at the federal level, so that there is something universal across all jurisdictions.

But how would we stop guns coming in from outside our jurisdictions? As PP alluded to, we cant even stop drugs from coming in, even after billions of dollars spent and multiple federal agencies aimed[1]primarily at enforcing the law.
 1. (pun intended)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman on December 28, 2012, 04:24:45 PM
Have any of you or your family members been threatened with violence? Have any of you been shot at or attacked with intent to kill you? Have any of you feared consequences of crossing a violent gang?

If so, what did you do? Were you satisfied with the ability of the police to protect you?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 28, 2012, 05:30:59 PM

When I give this problem serious thought, I keep concluding that we are too large a society to solve any of our truly vexing problems. The best we can hope to do is create yet another stop-gap measure that some tiny percentage of the population insists will solve the problem. And as ineffective as whatever solution that may be, it will be watered down so thoroughly by legislation that is probably makes things easier for those that cause the problem.


We are too big. Too many people, too few ideas, too many vested interests, too little concern for those who are not exactly like us. We can at times agree what to call our problems, but never about what to do about them.


The vested interest business is booming these days. It is all lawyered up and far more concerned about proving a point than accomplishing sh*t. I mentioned in an earlier post the 8,000 gun shops within easy driving distance of the Mexican border. The shops that sell a huge percentage of the guns that make it south across the border and kill so many. The NRA thinks that any additional monitoring of those shops or any additional monitoring of gun buyers in those shops, is harrassment of the highest order. They are blind to the fact that an inordinate number of gun sellers are camped there for the reason of quick profit from legal, but often nefarious, gun purchases. The NRA’s goal, guns in every pocket and members in every household, is of far more importance to them than actually solving any gun-related problem. This theme, of selfishness, self-centered righteousness, refusals to compromise, buying political power, damning all opponents and generally redefining and refining what a horses ass is, dooms everyone outside of that circle to suffer whatever it is that they define as wonderful.


Besides guns, this applies to the pharmacutical industry, the pesticide industry, the power industry, the oil industry, the agricultural industry, the auto industry, and just about every other endeavor that employees more than five people or one lawyer. Every one of these vested interests knows that they have opponents and they are often times more geared up to fight off their enemies than they are to accomplish their prime mission. The NRA, so concerned about the second amendment that they want it added to the ten commandments, complains when someone uses rights under the first amendment to speak out against that organization. The auto industry fought reduced emissions, safety features, and other governmental requirements even as lives were being saved. Pharmacutical companies insist that their high prices are caused by all the research and all the trials required by government, but the minute one of their medicines can’t make a couple of billion dollars a year for them, they stop making them, despite the fact that there are people who need those drugs to survive.


So, in short, the powerful ones, who flex their muscles and bluster around (usually in the form of press releases), know all too well that excuses are far more useful than reasons, profits are more useful than kindness, insisting is more useful than caring and that the only bad markets are fair markets.


And of course, this is exactly how they want me to feel. You know, helpless. Because it makes their job that much easier if I keep myself down so that they don’t have to.


We vote for people, then the powerful use them against us. Nothing gets done. People, including children die, and the only thing we normal folks can do is chant the words “Woe is us” over and over.


Someone tell me I’m wrong. Please.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 28, 2012, 05:38:44 PM
I wish you were but you are spot on. :(
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on December 28, 2012, 05:39:00 PM
Have any of you or your family members been threatened with violence? Have any of you been shot at or attacked with intent to kill you? Have any of you feared consequences of crossing a violent gang?

If so, what did you do? Were you satisfied with the ability of the police to protect you?

When I was in high school, I was bullied pretty heavily.  The violence was quite severe, and even went so far as, for example, other students holding me underwater in the swimming pool in PE class, bringing me very close to drowning on more than one occasion.  More often than not, faculty and/or staff were standing right there watching it and did not lift one finger to help me.

I also faced violence at home.  My father routine picked me up bodily off the floor and threw me across the room, slamming me into walls, screaming profanity at me.  My mother, sitting right there watching the whole thing, could have sold tickets.  When this violence was reported to family counselors -- people who are required by law to contact the authorities when they hear of such things -- they, too, were utterly indifferent, doing absolutely nothing about the situation.

In light of that (and many other things I could relate, but I should think that those two items are enough), anyone who attempts to convince me that I do not need a gun to protect myself is going to have a very hard time of it.  I know, from past experience, that when I get attacked, I cannot rely on anyone else for help -- I will have to handle the situation myself.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: kin hell on December 28, 2012, 05:59:39 PM
Parking  I regretfully concluded some  time ago that humanity (as a species) is incapable of developing a species wide rationality.

Python's immortal line "We are all individuals" condemns us. The Cassandra tragedy although told as a "curse" of one person (Cassandra who could see the future, but who's warnings were never credited ) is in fact mis-told. As "all individuals" everybody feels like a Cassandra. Every single person believes they see the truth, and that clamour of individual insights is the psychotic ocean roar that drowns out any possibility of sustained system wide rational direction.

We (species) are mad.

I will answer further when I can, but I am rushing out ................pursuing my individual needs.
I just thought I'd briefly sadly say I have to agree with your first two paras (not enough time to read the rest yet)



Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman on December 28, 2012, 06:03:20 PM
The violence was quite severe, and even went so far as, for example, other students holding me underwater in the swimming pool in PE class, bringing me very close to drowning on more than one occasion.  More often than not, faculty and/or staff were standing right there watching it and did not lift one finger to help me.

Wow, it's like you were in the same swim class I was. I had a crazy guy there who for some reason just didn't like me. His favorite thing to do was to sucker punch me every chance he got. I was pretty tough then too and it was a fairly even match, but I never got the chance to finish it. The coach would see us fighting and threaten both of us despite my wanting nothing to do with him. No one would help and rat him out, because they were scared of him. He finally got thrown out of school for fighting with someone else. I hope karma has dealt with him..
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: bgb on December 28, 2012, 06:14:37 PM
 How about a national registry for felons? Track those who can't have a gun.  Cross checked with gun registration to find lawbreakers. I have a gun for work.  Hope to never use it for protection.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 28, 2012, 06:16:38 PM
Pianodwarf,  I am sorry that kind of thing happened to you.  No one should have to have things like that happen.  And to make it worse...adults did nothing.  It makes me mad and I was not even there.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on December 28, 2012, 06:18:06 PM
Just saw on CNN where the gun buy back program in LA just had a military rocket launcher turned in to get $200 bucks.  See where this is going?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman on December 28, 2012, 06:42:14 PM
I think a tax deduction for gun safes would do well. Perhaps even require that an owner owns a safe before the sale of particularly dangerous firearms. My personal experience is that everyone that owns a gun safe uses them, but many who would like them, cannot afford them.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on December 28, 2012, 06:42:48 PM
Pianodwarf, I am very, very sorry to hear that.  I begin to see where you are coming from on gun control.  I had braces on both legs in elementary school and got the bullying, so I get that.  But what I was extremely lucky to get was good parents that cared.  I do not take it for granted because I know my childhood was more rare than it should be. 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 28, 2012, 06:54:09 PM
Kin, I think I've got it.


We need to outlaw sanity. That will make it an illegal substance and suddenly huge portions of our population will want some. They'll look long and hard for sources and illegally distribute it through intricate back channels. Our prisons will start filling with people who pleaded sane and then politicians will start doing it secretly even as they denounce the idea that it should ever be legal. Some will claim they were only using a wide stance in the restroom and others will say there were having an affair, not actually thinking, as was charged. It will be chaos, and some people will know how to spell it.


Forty or fifty years from now, there will be talk of legalizing it and the majority will gasp at the idea. Two or three decades later sanity will be the norm.


But we've got to start somewhere...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on December 28, 2012, 07:30:30 PM
I think guns would still pour in over the Mexican border and straight to the black market.

They would need to step up their trade significantly.

According to ATF statistics (http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/050412-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-statistical-update-2012.pdf) (834 KB PDF), in 2009 there were 5,555,818 firearms manufactured in the US. Of those, 194,744 were exported. Another 3,607,107 firearms were imported, giving a balance of 8,968,180 firearms going into the domestic market. In 2011, there were 3,252,404 handguns, rifles and shotguns imported into the US. Only 4,284 (all of them shotguns) were imported from Mexico.

So, at the moment, Mexico supplies only 0.13% of US firearms imports and an insignificant 0.048% of domestic firearms consumption. Of course, that’s only the legal trade. If Mexico were going to satisfy the US demand for guns, they would need to import significantly more than the $47 million (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2012/eng/Small-Arms-Survey-2012-Chapter-08-Annexe-8.2-8.3-EN.pdf) (329 KB PDF) they import now—most from the US, by the way. The US currently imports $1.75 billion of firearms annually, mainly from Brazil and Europe. Though, I guess the 5,441 US gun manufacturers, lacking a domestic market, would be only too happy to sell guns to Mexico so that they could be smuggled back into the United States.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 28, 2012, 08:43:20 PM
According to wikipedia, 64,000 guns from the US have been recovered from drug cartels. In the last 6 years, at least 50,000, and perhaps as many as 100,000, have been killed in the drug wars there.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico


The article also notes that about 1/8th of the Mexican army desserts each year, many of them joining the cartels who pay better and have hotter uniforms or something.



The recovered guns are presumably only a small percentage of what is actually down there, gun wise , given the level of violence that continues in that country.


We can't know the numbers precisely, and if the gun shops close to the border were closed down, that would not stop the cartels, who presumably have contacts throughout the US and can still get them, even if they are purchased in Minnesota. But hey, if it makes it a little bit harder, I'm all for it.


The whole thing sucks, and those of us who are dependent on the internet for our information are presumably being left out of the loop when it comes to what is actually happening. But I would rather guess than get into the middle of the whole thing and have a better picture.



Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on December 28, 2012, 09:32:15 PM
Someone tell me I’m wrong. Please.

for about the last 12 years I find myself repeating the phrase "man, we just cannot keep going on like this..."

I've said it before and nothing has made me think otherwise - homo sapien will be extinct within 150 years.  The only question is how much life is left on the planet after...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: mhaberling on December 29, 2012, 04:07:20 AM
Someone tell me I’m wrong. Please.
Your wrong... Its the opposite... We are know arguing over things and shouting over what people used to kill eachother over... Even in this country... We are in the most exciting time in human history, Technology is advancing faster than any of us can possibly understand and are starting to, for the first time in human history, learn to adapt to change instead of a specific change... We are now learning to embrace the Chaos instead of just cap it off...

There is now a group called distributive defense that is designing weapons that in ten years could be made in home 3d printers... Rendering all gun regulations almost completely useless...And in this era of unrestricted freedom we finally get to do what has been needed for a long time, Deal with the issue of violence and weapons as a society... Not just make more regulation or pass another bill to "fix" it. No we get to look at ourselves and ask how can we deal with this without surrendering our rights to the state.. How can we be grownups about shit instead of wining to the politicians to fix everything...

Welcome to the chaos... You can sit in the corner and wish it away or you can stand up and embrace it, either way the greatest era of us as a people is starting, that is with or without you... That goes for all of you who are complaining about our society...

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: DVZ3 on December 30, 2012, 03:19:34 PM
Hey everyone,

I've been following this a little bit and just have to chime in...

My mom and step dad are both 'claimed to be' very religous and christian.  They are great however, knowing I don't agree with their hard stance on god and/or an afterlife;  I do not on both counts and they know this (they don't agree of course).

But it actually disgusts me that both these loving people in my life are now posting all these FB posts about everyone should be armed.... teachers should be armed..... guns, god, and it's all good etc....

I'm sickend by it; especially seeing all the recent news and of course knowing history and where this is all headed to.  They want a 'theocracy' (god runs all man and country) and we can look to where that leads..... Why don't they get that!?  We know where it leads just look at other coutries where this applies you idiots!!!!!


Anyways, I guess I'm just venting.  They say history repeats itself over and over and over.... But I thougth we we all as a group were supposed to smarter than this.  But who am I kidding.  I know and realize the bigger group in charge thinks/knows that they are right so now us other who 'know' they are wrong have to just sit back and cringe..... and watch the dismal outcome of all the people who 'know' what they think is right...

As an atheist.... "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do...."
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on January 20, 2013, 03:31:55 PM
This post on gun control, making rounds on the internet, is from a facebook account, and is so well written that I wanted to post it:
 
Quote
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.
 
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 “In order to conquer a country, you must first disarm its citizens.” In fact, Hitler made it his position to enable guns to be obtained more easily. http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp
 
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
 
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?
 
Fourth, there are not more people being killed with baseball bats than guns. If you disagree with that because you saw a picture stating otherwise on the internet, then I would like to offer you the chance to buy some oceanfront property in Arizona and I’ll throw in the Brooklyn Bridge for free. There is no magical solution for solving the problem of gun violence. THAT is what we need to solve. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp
 
We don’t ban cars that are used in DUI related deaths, but we do enact regulations regarding blood alcohol limits, prosecute people who enable a drunk driver to operate a vehicle after serving them, promote a DUI campaign raising awareness and educating drivers on the dangers of driving while intoxicated. All of which has reduced DUI related fatalities by over 40% in a decade. http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-statistics
 
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 find the fact that more children are killed in the US by guns than in the entire Middle East region, very disturbing.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I find it disturbing that there are more guns privately owned in America than the next SEVENTEEN countries combined.
 
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.
 
Banning all firearms is NOT the answer, which is exactly why it’s not being proposed. This country has enacted laws that didn’t work before, so they’ve been revised, repealed, reformed, etc. It’s ludicrous to think that as a society, we evolve, but the laws governing us cannot? 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.”.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. 

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on January 20, 2013, 03:37:50 PM
Post above clearly thought out.  Nice job.

Did anyone see that there were 3 different shootings at gun shows yesterday during "Gun Appreciation Day"?  The so called experts can't even keep from shooting each other and themselves.  And they want teachers to be armed in a classroom full of kids.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jynnan tonnix on January 20, 2013, 03:41:22 PM
Do you have a link to it from facebook? I'd like to repost it with credit given where due.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on January 20, 2013, 04:03:03 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
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jynnan tonnix 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman 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/ (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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma 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 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24137.msg537939.html#msg537939) earlier in this thread. What’s yours?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman 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?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman 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..
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers 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/ (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?" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/21/nra-full-statement-lapierre-newtown)  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 [wiki]Bushmaster XM-15[/wiki].  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 (http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf), page 13.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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".

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante 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,
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos 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.



Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jetson 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola 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?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman 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?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: DumpsterFire 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
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante 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
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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/

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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:


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 (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 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers 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 (http://=http://muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/x503828937/THE-PEOPLE-SPEAK-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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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 [wiki]Timothy McVeigh[/wiki].  [wiki]Terry Nichols[/wiki].  [wiki]Ted Kaczynski[/wiki]. [wiki]Nidal Malik Hassan[/wiki].  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/


Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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. 

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces 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.





Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yly7-8vcxo

here's a shooting and reload and shoot revolver - 12 shots  in under 3 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDyiJVoVxWg


Try timing a walk across the room between any of these shots..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw

Take the you tube claims of fastest with a grain of salt. We don't really know.. but they are fast.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers 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
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on January 22, 2013, 01:32:47 PM
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

interesting essay on the origins of the second amendment: to protect slave patrols in the south.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on January 22, 2013, 01:43:22 PM
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

interesting essay on the origins of the second amendment: to protect slave patrols in the south.

There's all kinds of historical stuff regarding the Second that a lot of people aren't aware of.  Early gun control laws, for example, were primarily intended to keep blacks and Hispanics disarmed.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on January 22, 2013, 03:26:33 PM
If I may be perfectly honest, I like guns. I like most of the people I know that like guns. And, presently, they're all law abiding, upstanding, responsible citizens. Many of these folks carry a gun on their person most of the time. Some are highly trained, some not so much. Some are ex-military, some are active military, and some are single women living alone. But, I don't fear them owning, or carrying a gun in my vicinity or my community. I'm from Colorado, with a heavy military presence, a heavy hunting and sport shooting atmosphere, and also a heavy "rugged individualist" attitude. We like guns. I've lost a respected aquaintence to a gun. I've also lost a very close friend to a gun. I still like guns.

I don't see the US enacting too much more restrictions, simply because the populace doesn't want it to happen. It's so deeply ingrained in our culture that most Americans cannot fathom a world without them. And many, and I mean a large portion, would not willingly surrender, or even register their guns, damn the consequences. We have Sherriff's offices all over the nation proclaiming that they will not enforce many of the regulations being discussed, we have states attempting to put measures on their laws to make it illegal to enforce these regulations. Much of that may be posturing and sabre rattling, to be sure, but the sentiments run deep.

I don't believe rate of fire, or magazine capacity for that matter, will dramatically reduce gun violence. Sure, some of the "massacres" may be avoided, but that's a small drop in a large bucket of blood. Mass shootings are an indication of mental illness. I can't see any way around that. If someone goes on a killing spree, whether by gun, car, bomb, or other, they're obviously not right in the head. They needed help. And yes, Mama Lanza should have realized this and taken the proper precautions. Hopefully, this incident will provide some perspective to others who may find themselves in similar sitautions.

Incidents of gun violence is what needs to be reduced, and what should be addressed. How do we reduce the murder rate in Chicago? Simply by reducing the rate of fire? Sure, maybe a few more people will live, carrying the scars of their wounds, but the problem is still not being addressed. The problem is not legal access to guns. The problem is not those people with carry permits. The problem there is criminal.

Limiting illegal access to guns is the best place to start. Gun safes perhaps should be a requirement. Punishment for straw purchases/illegal sales should be severe. Illegal possession should be severe. Use of a firearm during a criminal act should carry separate severe punishment. Federal laws, as opposed to state laws, should be a requirement. Background checks and waiting periods should be a requirement.

There are things I've missed, I'm sure. But I wanted to throw some of those things out there, so my stance would be clearer.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on January 22, 2013, 04:31:54 PM
If I may be perfectly honest, I like guns.

Me too. They're cool and fun.  But they are also incredibly dangerous.

I like most of the people I know that like guns.

Not me. I have friends who have guns and I like them.  But I know many more people who have them and most of them are assholes. 

And, presently, they're all law abiding, upstanding, responsible citizens.

All of the ones I know are law abiding.  My friends are responsible.  For some of the people I know, it is only a matter of time before they shoot someone. They have paranoid fantasies they seem to want to realize.

Many of these folks carry a gun on their person most of the time.

I live in NJ, which has highly prohibitive carry laws.  So no one I know carries a gun.  Gratefully.  Frankly, I would not feel safe in a restaurant where any significant percentage of the patrons were armed.  To be honest, I don't even like being around cops that much because, who the heck knows?  They are walking around with potential death on their hips.

The atmosphere here is obviously different.  I think that is true in any case where you are comparing sparsely to densely populated areas.  I grew up in a very rural area where practically everyone had a gun.  That was probably okay.  But in these here parts, if the same percent of the population carried guns, it would be a daily bloodbath.

I don't see the US enacting too much more restrictions, simply because the populace doesn't want it to happen.

You're probably right.  But remember, my list was predicated on me being King.  And while you might be against my ascendency to the throne based on my gun policy, you might want to consider how it balances with my Feeding-xians-to-lions policy.

Also remember, despite what the NRA wants, an overhwleming majority of the populace wants some kind of better control over guns.

It's so deeply ingrained in our culture that most Americans cannot fathom a world without them.

Maybe we need to work on doing something to diminish our gun culture?  I think it affects our whole outlook on life.  I think it is partly responsible for our general acceptance of war as foreign policy. 

I don't believe rate of fire, or magazine capacity for that matter, will dramatically reduce gun violence.

I think we are looking at it from opposite sides.  I think those who want it should have to justify why it is needed in the first place.  If I understand, you want  a justification for banning it.  And while you don't believe it will do anything, we won't have actual data unless we try it.  I don't think I'm an ideologue.  I want to do what works.  So if we try some approach for five years, study it and find it to be pointless, then I would be willing to cease doing it.

Sure, some of the "massacres" may be avoided, but that's a small drop in a large bucket of blood. Mass shootings are an indication of mental illness. I can't see any way around that. If someone goes on a killing spree, whether by gun, car, bomb, or other, they're obviously not right in the head. They needed help. And yes, Mama Lanza should have realized this and taken the proper precautions. Hopefully, this incident will provide some perspective to others who may find themselves in similar sitautions.

I agree.  That was my stated goal.

Incidents of gun violence is what needs to be reduced, and what should be addressed.

Agreed.

The problem is not legal access to guns. The problem is not those people with carry permits. The problem there is criminal.

I do not know that that is the case.  I've heard this said, but I have not seen data.  Either way, I agree with the items that followed.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on January 22, 2013, 05:01:16 PM
If I may be perfectly honest, I like guns.

Me too. They're cool and fun.  But they are also incredibly dangerous.

Sounds like motorcycles.

I don't see the US enacting too much more restrictions, simply because the populace doesn't want it to happen.

You're probably right.  But remember, my list was predicated on me being King.  And while you might be against my ascendency to the throne based on my gun policy, you might want to consider how it balances with my Feeding-xians-to-lions policy.

Tempting, I must admit.

Also remember, despite what the NRA wants, an overhwleming majority of the populace wants some kind of better control over guns.

Yes, some. But, methinks, not as much as is currently being tossed about on forums, blogs, and social media. I could be wrong, but at this point, I'm trying to be a realist, and pragmatist.

It's so deeply ingrained in our culture that most Americans cannot fathom a world without them.

Maybe we need to work on doing something to diminish our gun culture?  I think it affects our whole outlook on life.  I think it is partly responsible for our general acceptance of war as foreign policy.

No doubt. And I have to wonder what role religion plays, because I wouldn't be surprised it's significant, given the close ties of the GOP and believers.

I don't believe rate of fire, or magazine capacity for that matter, will dramatically reduce gun violence.

I think we are looking at it from opposite sides.  I think those who want it should have to justify why it is needed in the first place.  If I understand, you want  a justification for banning it.  And while you don't believe it will do anything, we won't have actual data unless we try it.  I don't think I'm an ideologue.  I want to do what works.  So if we try some approach for five years, study it and find it to be pointless, then I would be willing to cease doing it.

Fair enough, which I think is part of the reason that the 1994 Assault Weapon ban was only slated to last 10 years. However, even if the new ban were more restrictive, and had loopholes closed, there are still millions of high capacity magazines already out there. Were we to somehow round them all up and destroy them, there's virtually no chance of ever getting them back, even if the law banning them proves unsuccesful in reducing gun deaths.

That being said, I don't have a well thought out justification for keeping them. I never have.

The problem is not legal access to guns. The problem is not those people with carry permits. The problem there is criminal.

I do not know that that is the case.  I've heard this said, but I have not seen data.  Either way, I agree with the items that followed.

I'm out of time today, but I'll work on looking for that data later this week. I may not be able to find national reports that haven't been tainted by the NRA, but merely local reports from law enforcement agencies. Fair?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: 3sigma on January 22, 2013, 05:11:06 PM
According to the FBI 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.

It would be helpful to know how many of those firearm murderers were gun owners using their own gun. I think it is likely that a high percentage of domestic violence gun murders are committed by legal gun owners using their own gun. There are around 30,000 gun deaths in the US each year (murders, suicides and accidents). Most of those are suicides and I’m guessing most of those people used their own guns.

So, here is a question for everyone here. How many of those gun deaths where the shooter is a legal gun owner would be prevented by the measures suggested by people here so far?  Are gun safes, trigger locks, registration, insurance, training, magazine size restrictions, etc. going to reduce significantly the number of gun deaths where the shooter is a legal gun owner? I don’t think so.

What measures would reduce the number of gun deaths caused by legal gun owners? The obvious answer is to reduce the number of guns available.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Graybeard on January 22, 2013, 06:08:28 PM
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

Quote
Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

For more on the perceived difficulty of relating statistics to deaths, see [wiki]Arthur Kellerman[/wiki]
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 22, 2013, 06:54:48 PM
The hard part is getting people to connect death with the problem. The NRA does not seem to see dying as an issue. They can sort of concede that some innocents will indeed die every year, but the important part is that tens of thousands of gun owners will get to shoot other human beings out of season, and that is the more relevant factoid.

If you are a gun owner, you get to picture yourself as a hero, and as you read the monthly columns in the gun magazines that detail all those wonderfully gory details regarding perfectly innocent gun lovers and their success at aerating bad guys, they get to live that exciting lifestyle vicariously. And you get to hope that you too will get to shoot some black dude walking down the street looking suspicious. What higher aspiration could any human have than to kill a bad guy or someone else who isn't like you. Its right up there with being born again, but the monthly dues are a little smaller. Though ammo costs negate that advantage.

Being kind and considerate of other humans is all well and good as long as it is convenient. Like in a chick-flick or something. But this is real life, where everyone is your enemy and danger is around every corner.That is, if you can manage to make enough enemies and irritate enough folks around the corner.

This paranoia stuff isn't as easy as it looks. Sometimes you really gotta work at it.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on January 22, 2013, 07:03:58 PM
Honestly, I have no objection to gun ownership as a matter of principle.  My concern is primarily about responsibility.  Gun owners who are responsible, who keep their guns locked up when they're not using them, who practice proper gun safety, nothing wrong at all with them.

The problem is everyone else.  Someone who sees a gun as a toy to be played with.  Someone who thinks it makes them tough, or cool.  Someone who's careless with what is, after all, a deadly weapon.  There are plenty of examples of ways in which people can be, are, stupid with guns.  So I think regulations and restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business using them are not a bad thing.

@ParkingPlaces:  I'll bet most of those people - including the ones who write those columns - have never actually killed other human beings.  If they had, they wouldn't be acting like it's a game.  You don't see soldiers who served in combat duty in a war - and who shot other soldiers for their country - acting like that.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 22, 2013, 07:13:40 PM
@ParkingPlaces:  I'll bet most of those people - including the ones who write those columns - have never actually killed other human beings.  If they had, they wouldn't be acting like it's a game.  You don't see soldiers who served in combat duty in a war - and who shot other soldiers for their country - acting like that.

Agreed. Like all fantasies, they sound much better on paper (or in the mind) than they ever are in real life. I've had real girlfriends, so I know.  ;D
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on January 23, 2013, 03:26:28 AM
Can you guys agree that since you've never killed another person, you have very little room for your prejudice? Or shall we presume you actually have experience?

Either way, it's a non sequitor, and I expect so much more substance from both of you.

But don't let my opinion stop your rhetoric. Heavens no.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on January 23, 2013, 07:36:09 AM
Well, at least the latest school shooting was different.  This time it was 2 armed guys shooting at each other.  I guess as more and more of us arm this will become so common it won't even make the big time news.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on January 23, 2013, 08:46:31 AM
Can you guys agree that since you've never killed another person, you have very little room for your prejudice? Or shall we presume you actually have experience?

Either way, it's a non sequitor, and I expect so much more substance from both of you.

But don't let my opinion stop your rhetoric. Heavens no.
What was the point of this post?  The way it comes across, it sounds pretty insulting, so I'd prefer that you explain it rather than me jumping to conclusions.

Like it or not, some gun advocates do actually pull the kind of crap ParkingPlaces and I were talking about.  It's not just rhetoric.  It isn't most of them, but it doesn't need to be.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on January 23, 2013, 09:05:44 AM
I live in NJ, which has highly prohibitive carry laws.  So no one I know carries a gun.  Gratefully.  Frankly, I would not feel safe in a restaurant where any significant percentage of the patrons were armed.  To be honest, I don't even like being around cops that much because, who the heck knows?  They are walking around with potential death on their hips.

The atmosphere here is obviously different.  I think that is true in any case where you are comparing sparsely to densely populated areas.  I grew up in a very rural area where practically everyone had a gun.  That was probably okay.  But in these here parts, if the same percent of the population carried guns, it would be a daily bloodbath.

New Jersey is like that. It's basically Texas, minus armadillos, plus Italian restaurants. Oh, and neighbors are only 2 feet away, sometimes less.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on January 23, 2013, 09:06:58 AM
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

But carrying a condom doesn't increase the chances of getting fucked.  Why is that?

Nevermind, I digress ...

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on January 23, 2013, 09:07:52 AM
The hard part is getting people to connect death with the problem. The NRA does not seem to see dying as an issue. They can sort of concede that some innocents will indeed die every year, but the important part is that tens of thousands of gun owners will get to shoot other human beings out of season, and that is the more relevant factoid.

It's the far right's Second Amendment Solution to end entitlements for Social Security and Medicare ...



Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on January 23, 2013, 10:30:17 AM
What was the point of this post?  The way it comes across, it sounds pretty insulting, so I'd prefer that you explain it rather than me jumping to conclusions.

Take it however you like, but I thought the message was fairly clear. Disregard it if you don't feel it carries any weight.

Like it or not, some gun advocates do actually pull the kind of crap ParkingPlaces and I were talking about.  It's not just rhetoric.  It isn't most of them, but it doesn't need to be.

Duly noted.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on January 23, 2013, 10:56:21 AM
Don't presume to judge others for their attitudes until you know the reasons behind them, Dante.

My father was accidentally shot and almost killed when he was a child, by some other children being careless with a gun they'd found left out.  If he had even been a few years older, he would have died.  All because the adult who owned the gun couldn't be bothered to make sure it was secured, and because some kids didn't respect the dangerous nature of the weapon they were holding.  They didn't take it seriously, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were playing something like "shoot the bad guy".

The idea of a person writing something which glorifies the slaying of another human being, simply because they're a "bad guy", is pretty infuriating to me.  It's bad enough when such things are written by people who have actually killed other people, but it's worse when you get that kind of "cowboy mentality" from someone who has shot and killed another person.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on January 23, 2013, 11:07:55 AM
1,136 killed with guns in the US since Sandy Hook and counting.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman on January 23, 2013, 12:21:55 PM
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.
So they guard them with guns because there have been attacks on them but that's different because school children have never been attacked? When the presidents kids are in school, do you think the SS sits beside the kids in each class or in the back of the room and at the doors of the school? No, I don't think its a good idea either to add guns to the school except one patrolman perhaps to guard entryways. I don't think criticizing the NRA's remarks as insane is accurate, but I don't agree with all of them.
Quote
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/ (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...
So tell me what is so offending about a bayonet mount, or a pistol grip on a rifle? Unless you're worried about the ever increasing bayonetting murders, then yes that description is exactly a description of someone defining assault weapons as "militaristic-y" And please tell me why a telescoping stock is such a fear? Inquiring minds want to know.

Quote
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.
.. 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.
You're right. I don't like these games, but I don't think they are direct causes of the violence. I disagree with him.
Quote

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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5PLnlRVqKQ

So this kid couldn't hose down a mob of people with a couple of rifles.. right..
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on January 23, 2013, 02:43:04 PM
So they guard them with guns because there have been attacks on them but that's different because school children have never been attacked? When the presidents kids are in school, do you think the SS sits beside the kids in each class or in the back of the room and at the doors of the school? No, I don't think its a good idea either to add guns to the school except one patrolman perhaps to guard entryways. I don't think criticizing the NRA's remarks as insane is accurate, but I don't agree with all of them.
A single guard isn't going to cut it.  The elementary school I went to had at least four main entrances.  And it wasn't a particularly big school.  Not counting the schoolyard and parking lot, it covered maybe two city blocks by half a block.  Larger schools have more entrances.  No, you'd need at least two guards per shift even for a school that size.  More, if you were actually serious about catching a potential shooter before they had the chance to do anything.  And each one of them would have to be armed.

Quote from: Brakeman
So tell me what is so offending about a bayonet mount, or a pistol grip on a rifle? Unless you're worried about the ever increasing bayonetting murders, then yes that description is exactly a description of someone defining assault weapons as "militaristic-y" And please tell me why a telescoping stock is such a fear? Inquiring minds want to know.
Forgive me, I felt you would be knowledgeable enough about assault rifles to recognize that all three of those are components of an assault rifle without me having to spell it out for you.  It isn't about just looking "militaristic-y", it's about identifying what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon.  If you aren't capable of recognizing this fact, then perhaps you should refrain from this kind of inane derisiveness.  It should go without saying that if you are capable of that, then you should be able to recognize that being derisive doesn't really help your case much.

Quote from: Brakeman
You're right. I don't like these games, but I don't think they are direct causes of the violence. I disagree with him.
Fair enough.  But that's part of the problem.  When the NRA releases an official statement which puts much of the blame on things like violent video games and movies, to the point of calling them the lowest form of pornography, then they get taken seriously by a lot of gun owners.  I hope you'll agree that that sort of rhetoric doesn't help the situation much.

Quote from: Brakeman
So this kid couldn't hose down a mob of people with a couple of rifles.. right.
A person who is highly skilled with a lever-action rifle might be able to do so, but it takes a lot of time and training to get that good.  The majority of people are not capable of such a feat.  And in any case, whether or not it's possible to do so with a lever-action rifle is not the point.  I hope you will at least acknowledge that it is much easier for a person to hose down a room full of people with an automatic weapon, or even a semi-automatic weapon, than it is for them to do so with a lever-action rifle.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on January 23, 2013, 02:52:27 PM
Quote from: Brakeman
So tell me what is so offending about a bayonet mount, or a pistol grip on a rifle? Unless you're worried about the ever increasing bayonetting murders, then yes that description is exactly a description of someone defining assault weapons as "militaristic-y" And please tell me why a telescoping stock is such a fear? Inquiring minds want to know.
Forgive me, I felt you would be knowledgeable enough about assault rifles to recognize that all three of those are components of an assault rifle without me having to spell it out for you.  It isn't about just looking "militaristic-y", it's about identifying what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon.

I think you missed Brakeman's point.  He was asking you to explain what, specifically, about a telescoping stock, bayonet mount, or pistol grip makes a rifle more dangerous, and/or less "appropriate" for private ownership, than a rifle lacking those features.

I don't really understand this myself.  It isn't as if mounting a bayonet on a rifle is a common practice.  A pistol grip serves only to make the rifle more comfortable to hold.  And a telescoping stock's only purpose is to allow people of different sizes to be able to fire the same rifle comfortably -- I'm five foot eleven, for example, and would probably want the stock fully extended, while my (now ex) girlfriend, at five two, would probably prefer that the stock be shorter.  None of these things (with the possible exception of the bayonet mount, although even that is pretty questionable in my opinion) makes a rifle any more deadly than a rifle that doesn't have them.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on January 23, 2013, 03:00:42 PM
My father was accidentally shot and almost killed when he was a child, by some other children being careless with a gun they'd found left out.

I'm glad he survived. I was almost killed by my brother when I was a toddler. He returned from a hunting trip and brought a rifle into the house that he thought was unloaded. It went off into the ceiling coming up through the floor next to my bed. The hole is still in the floor to this day.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on January 23, 2013, 03:06:54 PM
I'm glad he survived.

Me, too.  Ugh.

Quote
I was almost killed by my brother when I was a toddler. He returned from a hunting trip and brought a rifle into the house that he thought was unloaded. It went off into the ceiling coming up through the floor next to my bed. The hole is still in the floor to this day.

I'm sorry to hear that... unfortunately, that's not as rare as it should be, even among properly trained people.

A friend of mine is an ex-Marine (veteran of Gulf War I), and he told me that during boot camp, they had a routine for clearing a rifle prior to stowing it and locking it up.  You had to go over to this big metal barrel full of sand, then pull out the magazine and empty the chamber of the rifle, all the while keeping the muzzle pointed directly at the barrel of sand.  You might think that after all that training about safe handling and so forth, there wouldn't be any bullets in there if you were to sift thru the sand.  You would be wrong.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on January 23, 2013, 05:03:05 PM
I'm not sure that I would consider those components of an assault rifle either.  But my point was that instead of complaining about proposed laws which would incorporate those things into assault rifle bans, he should have pointed out why you shouldn't use those to define what an assault rifle is.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on January 23, 2013, 05:13:57 PM
I'm not sure that I would consider those components of an assault rifle either.  But my point was that instead of complaining about proposed laws which would incorporate those things into assault rifle bans, he should have pointed out why you shouldn't use those to define what an assault rifle is.

Ah, I understand... got it.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on January 23, 2013, 05:28:18 PM
I'm sorry to hear that... unfortunately, that's not as rare as it should be, even among properly trained people.

My father was very safety oriented, but still the accident happened. I can only imagine what stupid things people do when they intend to fire but something else goes wrong.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nam on January 23, 2013, 09:17:04 PM
I dislike it in films when they say "Drop the weapon", I heard a back-stage commentary by a gunhandler who said, "Never ask someone to drop a gun unless you know 100% the gun isn't loaded. Dropping it, especially on a hard ground can make it go off." [paraphrased]

-Nam
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman on January 23, 2013, 10:27:56 PM
Quote from: Brakeman
You're right. I don't like these games, but I don't think they are direct causes of the violence. I disagree with him.
Fair enough.  But that's part of the problem.  When the NRA releases an official statement which puts much of the blame on things like violent video games and movies, to the point of calling them the lowest form of pornography, then they get taken seriously by a lot of gun owners.  I hope you'll agree that that sort of rhetoric doesn't help the situation much.
Again I agree with you, but I have heard the same rhetoric about games and movies from both sides of the gun question.
Quote
Quote from: Brakeman
So this kid couldn't hose down a mob of people with a couple of rifles.. right.
A person who is highly skilled with a lever-action rifle might be able to do so, but it takes a lot of time and training to get that good.  The majority of people are not capable of such a feat.  And in any case, whether or not it's possible to do so with a lever-action rifle is not the point.  I hope you will at least acknowledge that it is much easier for a person to hose down a room full of people with an automatic weapon, or even a semi-automatic weapon, than it is for them to do so with a lever-action rifle.
Having shot lever action rifles for years, I disagree with you. While in Mississippi I used to take some of the Korean college students shooting at a range not too far from the university. I taught them how to fan with a six shooter and spray with a lever action.  They loved it! A guy who had never shot a gun in his life was shooting only a second or two slower than that boy. What separates that 13 year old from any joe that's had the gun in his hands is merely fractions of a second per shot group. What makes him really good is that he can consistently hit a small target while doing it. It takes no aiming skills to hit someone in the same room as you. I could teach anyone on here to shoot 13 shots in less than 5 seconds easy, probably 4 seconds for most. Empty 2 rifles in less than 10, without a problem, all within a day.
Sadly, it's a fool's game to rush anybody whose mind is on the moment trying to kill without emotion. That 13 year old boy isn't old enough to have had years of training, his arms have probably only been long enough to shoot that rifle for a couple of years.

I'm NOT a NRA member. Also, I have complained about the "Crazies in the "gun culture"" probably longer than you.  I was raised in a very gun loving area in the mountains of East Tennessee and I grew up loving shooting. I started reloading my own bullets at the ripe old age of 14 because my dad wouldn't buy me the quantity of big bore rifle cartridges that I liked to shoot. We didn't have a mall or other city fun, so me and my friends would shoot. We'd shoot just about anything whether it moved or not. (Although I've never shot a deer in my life) We even hunted butterflies with BB guns and 22's just to improve our quickness of aim, and yes, I'm talking in flight.
Me and two of my neighborhood boys would shoot in the daytime and reload at night all summer long.
I used to reload for lots of my friends too so I have a pretty big collection of bullet reloading equipment.
All that being said, the guns and rifles to us were fun, like our bicycles, but we didn't worship them. We didn't try to take them with us anywhere they didn't belong, and we never really thought much about hurting anyone with them. We never shot "body" silhouettes until our very late teens or twenty's. We much better liked shooting eggs or anti-acid tablets. We hunted occasionally but had great empathy for the animals. I shot a rabbit once while hunting with a friend. I shot the rabbit on the run with a 45 LC rifle, and while my friend ooh'd and ahh'd over my shot, I got sick because I didn't really want to kill it. I never went rabbit hunting again either. So as you may be able to see, I had the "gun nut" love of guns, but I did not like their love of killing that you find in today's hunter community and I did not like the "make my day" type of guys that you often find in the "self protection" community.

As I've gotten older and the quiet neighborhood that I grew up in disappeared into suburbia, I realized the world will never be the same as during my childhood. I am not like the people that I see nowadays frequenting the gun ranges, we are not from the same cloth anymore.

In the same light, I see inner city kids with nothing to live for who have access to guns.

I read in the papers about drunks shooting guns, a practice that is all to familiar in rural society.

I too see the need to stem gun violence. I have written my congressman and several gun enthusiast websites to promote simple locking up of the guns in gunsafes and have been met with thundering apathy or totally off the wall rants. I am beginning to think that neither side wants to solve anything, they just want to hate and be angry.

I hope that this community will use their critical, skeptical thinking skills while reading and thinking about both sides of the gun issue just like they do about the god issue. The blind men swore their truth about the qualities of an elephant because of the side of the issue they were exposed to and were acquainted with.
I really don't have an axe to grind too much. While I do own a Chinese SKS which some may call an assault rifle, and a 45 Thompson which others might call an assault rifle, they are the least favorite of my collection and I haven't shot either in many years.  I won't sell them because I don't ever want one of my guns falling into the wrong hands. So if my daughters don't marry a great responsible guy or if my one grandson doesn't grow up to be exceptionally stable, I'll probably weld them up or bury them with me.. I don't know which.. :P
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: DumpsterFire on January 24, 2013, 12:58:50 AM
Quote from: Brakeman
So this kid couldn't hose down a mob of people with a couple of rifles.. right.
A person who is highly skilled with a lever-action rifle might be able to do so, but it takes a lot of time and training to get that good.  The majority of people are not capable of such a feat.  And in any case, whether or not it's possible to do so with a lever-action rifle is not the point.  I hope you will at least acknowledge that it is much easier for a person to hose down a room full of people with an automatic weapon, or even a semi-automatic weapon, than it is for them to do so with a lever-action rifle.

I gotta agree here, Brakeman. You bring up a lot of great points, but concluding that its useless to ban assault weapons because a handful of world-class shooters could do as much damage with a more traditional gun is a non-sequitur. That's like saying everyone who owns a guitar will be able to play Eruption.

The amount of skill required to do what the shooters in your videos do is enormous. Not to mention that the type of person who would possess the dedication and discipline necessary to acquire such skill would be extremely unlikely to go on a random killing spree in the first place.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman on January 24, 2013, 07:18:13 AM
Quote from: Brakeman
So this kid couldn't hose down a mob of people with a couple of rifles.. right.
A person who is highly skilled with a lever-action rifle might be able to do so, but it takes a lot of time and training to get that good.  The majority of people are not capable of such a feat. ..

I gotta agree here, Brakeman. You bring up a lot of great points, but concluding that its useless to ban assault weapons because a handful of world-class shooters could do as much damage with a more traditional gun is a non-sequitur. That's like saying everyone who owns a guitar will be able to play Eruption.

The amount of skill required to do what the shooters in your videos do is enormous. Not to mention that the type of person who would possess the dedication and discipline necessary to acquire such skill would be extremely unlikely to go on a random killing spree in the first place.

The video we were referring to was the lever action shooting that the 13 year old boy starred in. Again, the difference between that boy's rate of fire only and Park's, the Korean guy that I taught how to shoot would have been measured in milliseconds per shot. You simply pull the trigger with the same motion that you close the lever. You bounce the lever against the open stop. Anybody can do it with a few minutes instruction (provided the lever action isn't too stiff - which can be adjusted). The hard thing is to aim while doing it. Yo Yo Ma is a famous celloist but any random 10 year old may be able to move the bow back and forth faster than he. The skill is in directing the furious movement toward an outcome.
If I still owned a lever action rifle I would post a video of it. But don't take just my word for it. Stop by any well stocked gun range and ask someone to shoot a 44 or 45 lever action rifle as fast as they can go and record it.  Then tell them to bounce the lever against it's stop and trigger upon closing and see the difference. Either way, you won't be able to twitch your toes between the shots.

My point of  describing the high rate of fire is not to directly attack the banning of semi automatic weapons using a "rate of fire" criterion. My point was to show that it would be a muddy and lesser effective determination than it appears to novices. Check out this "slide fire" or "bump fire" rifles. They are every bit as fast as full-auto machine guns, but are legal because a trigger pull is technically required between each shot. It gets around the "semi-auto" rule by being able to vibrate against the trigger finger. It's a terrible weapon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBAyOAiUIM

 "Assault weapons" is a ill defined term as I said before. Banning for "rate of fire" is a great deal more sensible than "militaristic-y" looking, or just choosing a random brand. But when classifying the guns by rate of fire, whose rate do you use? Mine, a fairly seasoned speed shooter, or yours? If you choose the novice, then guns like the above would get through because you wouldn't know how to get even the "slide" fire gun above to work. If you choose the pro, then even the mid 1800's guns will fail. It's just not as black and white as you would like it to be.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: DumpsterFire on January 24, 2013, 09:45:24 AM
Wow, I had never heard of a bump rifle before. Scary stuff, indeed.

I certainly agree that firearm regulation is not a completely black and white issue, but there must be some criteria which could be agreed upon. As you mentioned in your reply, it wouldn't be prohibitively difficult for the average person to be able to shoot the lever action rifle at a high rate of fire, but to do so with accuracy takes a great deal of practice. Most people would have to decide between speed or accuracy, because they sure as shootin'[1] wouldn't be able to do both.

The biggest issue with guns such as the AR-15 is they immediately give the average person the ability to fire very quickly with decent accuracy, effectively turning anyone with ill intent into a very efficient killing machine. We don't see mass shootings happening via lever action rifle because such a weapon is not so easy to use.

At the very least, as Screwtape said earlier, why can't we just try certain regulations on a trial basis to see if they are effective? If semi-auto weapons were banned and suddenly every nutjob started using lever action rifles to go on killing sprees, then obviously we would have to rethink things. That seems reasonable to me.
 1. yes, stupid pun intended
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on January 24, 2013, 11:16:55 AM
I think the key isn't to obsess over banning guns (or components of guns) to begin with.  A gun locked up in a gun safe isn't dangerous to anyone, no matter whether it's a Sharps rifle or a machine gun.  It still takes someone to pull the trigger or otherwise set it off (even if by negligence).  So, teach that person to respect the gun, and show them the consequences of using it foolishly, and they're much less likely to make the decision to use it to kill to begin with.

That isn't the whole solution, of course, but I think it's going to have to be part of it.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman on January 24, 2013, 12:32:05 PM
I think the key isn't to obsess over banning guns (or components of guns) to begin with.  A gun locked up in a gun safe isn't dangerous to anyone, no matter whether it's a Sharps rifle or a machine gun.  It still takes someone to pull the trigger or otherwise set it off (even if by negligence).  So, teach that person to respect the gun, and show them the consequences of using it foolishly, and they're much less likely to make the decision to use it to kill to begin with.

That isn't the whole solution, of course, but I think it's going to have to be part of it.

Amen, er .. I mean Yes, I agree.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on January 25, 2013, 10:12:09 AM
The problem is not legal access to guns. The problem is not those people with carry permits. The problem there is criminal.

I do not know that that is the case.  I've heard this said, but I have not seen data.  Either way, I agree with the items that followed.

As promised. These aren't the greatest, most current of scientific studies, and they're not in complete agreement, but they do make the point.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txt (https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txt)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on January 27, 2013, 11:18:30 PM
Thanks Dante

I think your sources are a mixed bag and either of us could cherry pick bits out to support our arguments.  For example:

Quote
  • Greater gun availability increases the rates of murder and felony gun use, but does not appear to affect general violence levels.
  • Self-defense is the most commonly cited reason for acquiring a gun, but it is unclear how often these guns are used for self-protection against unprovoked attacks.

or
Quote
In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.

would support my points

this:
Quote
o According to the latest available data, those who use guns in violent crimes rarely purchase them directly from licensed  dealers; most guns used in crime have been stolen or transferred between individuals after the original purchase.

is ambiguous.  The part about "transferred between individuals" is completely legal in many states.  I'm inclined to think the majority of guns used in crime are acquired that way, rather than stolen, as it is a much simpler and easier way to get a gun.


But I'd rather not do that.  I'd rather say, it's a mixed bag and highly subject to interpretation.  I would like to see congress repeal its taboo on studying gun violence and let the chips fall where they may.  I want to do what works. And what we are doing now is not working.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on January 28, 2013, 11:01:02 AM
related article on NRA and congress trying to stymie research into gun violence for the last 17 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/what-we-dont-know-is-killing-us.html

Quote
In the absence of reliable data and data-driven policy recommendations, talk about guns inevitably lurches into the unknown, allowing abstractions, propaganda and ideology to fill the void and thwart change.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on January 28, 2013, 11:43:21 AM
The bottom line to all of this is this:  Sandy Hook has worn off on us.  Those who thought this had to be a turning point are starting to see that there will be no turning point.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on January 28, 2013, 04:48:48 PM
Thanks Dante

I think your sources are a mixed bag and either of us could cherry pick bits out to support our arguments.  For example:

Quote
  • Greater gun availability increases the rates of murder and felony gun use, but does not appear to affect general violence levels.
  • Self-defense is the most commonly cited reason for acquiring a gun, but it is unclear how often these guns are used for self-protection against unprovoked attacks.

or
Quote
In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.

would support my points

this:
Quote
o According to the latest available data, those who use guns in violent crimes rarely purchase them directly from licensed  dealers; most guns used in crime have been stolen or transferred between individuals after the original purchase.

is ambiguous.  The part about "transferred between individuals" is completely legal in many states.  I'm inclined to think the majority of guns used in crime are acquired that way, rather than stolen, as it is a much simpler and easier way to get a gun.

"Completely legal", I think, is probably a misnomer. Yes, the private sale of firearms between individuals is currently legal, but some of the buyers are buying illegally, and they know it. Some of the sellers are selling to illegal buyers, and they know it too. So, it's still illegally obtaining the firearm. As are "strawman" purchases. Eliminating the "gun show loophole" goes a long way toward preventing this illegal access to munitions.

I'm not, or at least didn't mean to, suggest that all guns used illegally were obtained by theft.

But I'd rather not do that.  I'd rather say, it's a mixed bag and highly subject to interpretation.  I would like to see congress repeal its taboo on studying gun violence and let the chips fall where they may.  I want to do what works. And what we are doing now is not working.

I'm down with that.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on January 29, 2013, 08:04:08 AM
I'm not, or at least didn't mean to, suggest that all guns used illegally were obtained by theft.

Ah, I see.  Thanks for the clarification.  I agree, the gun show loophole should be closed.

Has it been pointed out already that 5 people were shot at 3 gun shows on gun appreciation day?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-appreciation-day-five-injured-at-three-different-gun-shows-20130119,0,2727285.story

I do not know if that is typical, high or low for gun show accidental shootings. 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on January 29, 2013, 10:55:39 AM
I have a buddy who I think had to shoot and kill a guy last night.  I not have any details yet but will later...I think.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on January 29, 2013, 12:25:25 PM
a little gem from the bottomless pit

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=16020.0
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Seppuku on January 29, 2013, 07:09:14 PM
A bit late to the game but I feel the need to share my opinion. :)

I understand that folks take pride in their freedoms and feel they shouldn't be punished for the actions of the few. I wouldn't have guns completely banned, but I definitely think they should be regulated. I am talking as somebody overseas and not a resident of the US of course, but I think the issue seems to come down to gun culture more than gun law. Certain types of guns are legal (though regulated) here in the UK and other parts of Europe too, enough for somebody to kill someone be it in rage or self defence, yet, we lack a gun culture, it is not in our advertisements, people who sell guns are few and far between and it's a tiny minority who have guns, probably hence gun crime is so low, we still have violent crime (and we're pretty high in that regard) and some of it can be worse than the US, but we do score much lower for murders and having looked at the stats of other countries there's a similar correlation. It's late, so I'm not about to dig out my stats, but if you want them, I'd be happy to oblige when I am willing to spare more time. Also, I still have the right to own a gun, just like I have the right to drive a car. Both can be (and are used) to kill, cars have a whole bunch of regulations and laws to improve the safety of the driver and the safety of others. Heck, your car has to be fit to be driven by law, if it doesn't pass it's MOT, you can't drive it. Arguably, there's more regulations on cars than there are guns...and guns are the ones that were designed for killing.

To me, it's a terrible sign when there's a tragic killing following gun crime people's responses are along the lines of "somebody else should have had a gun", "there should have been an armed security guard in that school" or "that cinema". I remember seeing somebody trying to argue how in a dark room with lots of people panicking with gunshots fired that somebody, as equally panicked and untrained with a firearm should open fire at the shooter. For me, it's a sign of sad times where people feel guns are a necessary part of their lives - I can understand people wanting guns for sport, but it's worrying when it's for self defence. What worries me more is that schools have metal detectors, it's not the 'concern for a child's safety' that worries me, but the fact that there's enough of a threat that one of those kids might be packing and set loose on dozens of people. It's a totally different thing here, we still get the gun crime and people who use guns for sport or heck, even collect are still able to...my next door neighbour likes going shooting and he enjoys it. It's just telling when you've got a country that very promotes guns so vigorously seems to be also be threatened by it.

I think gun culture is a double edged sword, on one hand it may offer protection for certain situations, it becomes a catalyst for others. I am sure it shouldn't be so easy for somebody to buy a semi-automatic rifle to gun down several people at once. People obviously have a limit because you don't see people walking around with RPG's or driving tanks...I don't see people so frothingly defend their right to 'bear arms' for such arms, yet, when it comes to guns they already legally own, it's about defending civil liberties. So the line is drawn somewhere, so people don't believe in the right to 'bear any arms', in which case the first amendment really shouldn't be used as an argument, instead people will need to find someway of justifying why the line is where it is.

It's all a very difficult situation regardless, I think something should be done in terms of legislation to help reduce the problem, but I don't think it should stop there as where there's gun crime, there's not only a gun but a criminal. Violent crime seems to come more from those with difficult social backgrounds and they need improving, find ways to take away the motive too. Also, try to promote the idea of a gun being used as a tool for self defence less, tone down on the paranoia...heck, pretty much do away with things like Fox News who are brilliant at feeding paranoia.

Obama taking on gun control is a very bold action and it will be a very difficult road for him to walk on, but I hope he's the right man to pull it off.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on February 04, 2013, 12:00:08 PM
Turns out the murderer's mom was a survivalist loon. 
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/sandy-hook-prepper-movement.php

Quote
Her sister, Marsha Lanza, was the first one to mention that Nancy Lanza had an interest in survivalist culture.

“Last time we visited with her in person we talked about prepping and you know, are you ready for what can happen down the line when the economy collapses,” Marsha Lanza told a local reporter. According to the Daily Mail, Marsha Lanza said the “survivalist philosophy” helped explain why there were so many guns in her sister’s house.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on February 04, 2013, 12:12:26 PM
I think this is what comes of the stand your ground laws.  People start to think they can just shoot anyone on their property, so those who have fantasized about it do.

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/georgia-man-shot-dead-after-pulling-wr
Quote
A group of friends in Lilburn, GA said they were going to pick up a girl who lived in the area to go ice skating around 10 p.m. when their GPS system sent them to the wrong home.

“The guy came out. He went in again and he came out with a gun in his hand and he shot into the air,” 15-year-old passenger Yeson Jimenez said.

The teens say after Sailors fired that one shot into the air, the driver got scared and tried to turn around. That's when Sailors allegedly fired the second shot, killing their friend.

They wen't to the wrong house and didn't even get out of the car.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on February 04, 2013, 02:24:53 PM
It does seem like a lot of these gun owners seek out opportunities to actually shoot another individual.  It is like a thrill or some sort of high to do so.  That is where we have gone as a country.  A culture of killing.

Irony is that guy in Texas, the American sniper who has 150+ kills in the wars, getting killed on a gun range.  Turns out it is more dangerous at home than at war.

Any chance of this nation becoming enlightened disappeared long ago.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on February 12, 2013, 02:58:17 PM
Twice now in the last week (On a Tues and Sunday) our local paper has had a full page ad from "a concerned citizen" listing the mass shootings over the last few years and stating that each one was a result of the person being a "registered democrate".  I did not pay much attention to it but now I'm seeing people on line say the same thing.  Sounds like something one of those groups like the NRA or Koch Bros would push out at this time with gun control measures coming up for discussion.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on February 19, 2013, 04:42:09 PM
Wasn't sure if I should put this here or Nick's Missouri thread. 

Missouri makes it a felony to even propose gun safety legislation
http://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0633I.htm

never mind that it violates both the Missouri and US constitutions.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 19, 2013, 05:32:02 PM
When ones reality is so distorted that all viable solutions sound silly, it is time for a brain transplant. Or in this case, it is time for a brain implant.

The dude is taking his paranoia way to seriously...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on February 19, 2013, 06:52:00 PM
Making it illegal to even propose a law on something?  That won't end well.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari on February 19, 2013, 07:49:50 PM
Now they just need to make it illegal to propose that that law be repealed (and include a provision making it illegal to repeal the law doing so, in itself), and the law will be shielded for good!  Huzzah!
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on February 19, 2013, 09:46:08 PM
It's all nuts around here.  Across the river in Kansas there is a new bill to make high schools that teach any type of climate change info to give equal time to climate deniers.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Seppuku on February 20, 2013, 04:16:52 AM
Wasn't sure if I should put this here or Nick's Missouri thread. 

Missouri makes it a felony to even propose gun safety legislation
http://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0633I.htm

never mind that it violates both the Missouri and US constitutions.

Wow, just...wow.

How do you guys even deal with such stupidity? My brain hurts.


Do these people not realise it's legal to own a gun in the UK (and other countries)? But there are reasons why we're not shooting as many people. One: the strict regulations. Two: there isn't a gun shop on every corner. Three: we lack this paranoid gun culture. Or at least I would suggest it's those 3 things as they're the 3 differences I can see between the two. It's not unreasonable to impose strict regulations, I mean you have to jump through more hoops to drive a car than own a gun, when it should be the other way round because one is meant as a mode of transportation and the other is a device meant to kill others, though both can be used for that same purpose. But the regulations for driving a car reduces the number of people killing others by accident and it also allows an examiner to assess whether somebody is a safe driver or not. Of course you can never assess when somebody's going to purposely murder somebody and at least cars don't have a paranoid culture where people feel the need to run somebody over because they're worried they might be there to steal their corn. Unfortunately, with stricter regulations on guns I don't think it's going to help with that paranoid gun culture, but it would certainly be a start.

With how things work here, we can have people who like shooting guns as a hobby or going hunting not being negatively affected. There's no reason for an established society to have citizens armed to protect themselves, it's that culture that's absurd. Another country with similar gun laws (and culture) to the US is South Africa and like the US, they suffer a higher number of cases of murder and a lot more gun crime and their problem is even worse than the US's.

Murder with firearms in the US: >9000, in SA: >31,000
Murder with firearms in the UK: 14, in Japan: 47, in Switzerland: 68

The reason for the countries I've picked is due to their gun law and how guns are viewed. In the US and SA, guns are a part of culture of protection, where a gun is viewed as necessary by some as part of self defence and also where gun laws are relaxed and guns aren't so difficult to acquire.

The UK, we have stricter gun laws, we have done since the 80's, we are guilty of suffering from violent crime too, but we have much fewer murders than the US and SA (SA's is much worse than the US too). But in the UK, you can legally own a gun, however, you need to acquire a gun license. But a gun isn't bought in the UK for self-defence, because it's not necessary and you can't just walk down the street packing. Also, it's not as easy to acquire a gun, we can't just walk into a store a view an arsenal and select a gun like you would selecting a video game.

Japan, is similar to the UK. People generally own guns for hunting and other sport too, not self defence. Gun laws are also stricter.

Switzerland, there is a gun culture, but it is a different kind of gun culture, they are a part of compulsory militia conscriptions and not personal self defence, but like the UK and Japan, if you own a gun you need a legally valid reason to and gun law is similar to that of other European countries. Japan & Switzerland also have lower murder rates.

However, the problem with murder stats is you've got to consider what's legally defined as murder, because killing isn't necessarily defined as murder or even manslaughter. Cases could plea a man innocent if a gun was allegedly shot in self-defence and it was deemed legal to do so, aren't there laws in some states that are like that?


But I don't understand the paranoid notion that somebody needs to own a gun to protect themselves. I understand it to the degree if you live in a rough neighbourhood where guns are already a big problem and people are using them to kill, heck even then a gun could end up doing more harm than good, but I understand why somebody in that kind of situation would want to own a gun. But It will be very difficult for the US to tackle that issue, I'm sure.

However, cases like ones Screwtape has highlighted are highly unnecessary and are born out of people's paranoia that everybody's out to get them and therefore they need a gun to protect themselves...or maybe just an excuse to shoot somebody.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Graybeard on February 20, 2013, 06:13:30 AM
Murder with firearms using the figures above:

in SA: >31,000, population 48,500,000 - incidence = 1:1,564
in the US: >9000,  population 300,000,000 -incidence = 1:33,333
in Switzerland: 68, population 7,250,000 - incidence 1:106,616
in Japan: 47, population 128,000,000 - incidence = 1:2,723,000
in the UK: 14, population 60,000,000 - incidence = 1:4,285,000

To reach US levels of murder by firearm, the UK, with 1/5th of the population, would have to have ~1,800 such murders or 5 per day. These figures above are in rough alignment with this [wiki]List of countries by firearm-related death[/wiki] rate of homicides per 100,000 population.

It is an inconvenient truth that, in the UK, the majority of homicides by firearm is committed Black on Black - as it is in the US. Of these UK crimes, the vast majority are drug related. They are drug related because the Black gangs control a very high proportion of the domestic drug trade. (See Operation Trident in the UK - do not visit Wiki, the page is not helpful.) Other players in drug crime are Turks and West Africans - there are no figures for either of these countries, but traditionally they do not use firearms, relying more on brutality.

The majority of the UK drugs gangs are Caribbean based, and this propensity to carry and use weapons is shown in [wiki]List of countries by firearm-related death rate[/wiki] - See Jamaica. This seems to be carried over from their own culture.

Back in the US, [wiki]Race and crime in the United States[/wiki] gives a somewhat unclear analysis, but does go into the postulated causes of crime. The US census bureau shows that of 13,000 victims of homicide there were ~6,600 White and 6,500 Black - however, there are 2 considerations: 1. the relative populations work out at 80% White and 13% Black.(from [wiki]Race and crime in the United States[/wiki] 2. The peak ages for being killed are 20 - 35 years and between those ages, it is 5 times more likely that you are dead and male.

A minimum age for a man to be in possession of a gun would therefore seem to be 36 years. I find that to be reasonable.

A small but interesting download confirming the above in the form of a .zip file is here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221 (read the "readme.txt flie" to find what is what (Excel or similar needed)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: kaziglu bey on March 03, 2013, 12:48:58 PM
Let me preface this by saying: I do not currently own a gun, unless you consider a Crosman C11 BB gun to be a gun. I don't. The reason I do not own a gun is that it is currently out of my financial means. However, many of m family members own guns, and I enjoy going shooting. I realize that herein the US, the2nd amendment gives us the right to own and carry firearms.

That being said, what the HELL is wrong with so many gun owners? Why is it not possible for me to go on Facebook and not be bombarded with posts saying "Obama wants to take away our guns! Obama is Hitler! You'll take my guns over my dead body!" (Paraphrasing here a bit, but I can almost guarantee that every American on this site has heard such statements at least once in the past 4 months).

Here's a crazy scenario:  What if, at the end of President Obama's second term (remember, he won both the popular and electoral votes, two elections in a row), these same lunatics still have their guns? Can we expect any sort of apology that is anywhere near as genuine as their outrage at a nonexistent problem? I highly doubt it, that would require far too much moral integrity and intellectual honesty which, I am sad to say, anyone who has Ted Nugent as their poster child probably does not possess.

Will they admit that they were wrong? Will they admit that they were duped by the NRA into stockpiling weapons and ammo? Will they realize the negative effect that this has had on our society? Will the NRA themselves publicly apologize, and admit that they have been deliberately stirring the pot and preying on peoples fears in order to stuff their own pockets?

Furthermore, will they same individuals submit themselves for evaluation for mental disorders? Since that seems to be about the only area of agreement between the two sides of this "debate", that those with a history of mental illness should get a second look before they are able to purchase guns, is this really so much to ask? Especially when you consider that, according to the DSM, a great many of these individuals would likely qualify as having a paranoid personality disorder based on the folliwng criteria:
1.Pervasive suspiciousness of being harmed, deceived or exploited:
2. Unwarranted doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates:
3. Hidden meanings read into the innocuous actions of others:
4. Grudges for perceived wrongs:
5. Angry reactions to perceived attacks on character or reputation:

Note that I left out those symptoms least likely to be relevant in these cases. Can anyone honestly say that a large majority of the most vocal opponents of gun control (i.e. those who say things like "you'll take my guns over my dead body" or those who parade around in public with AK-47s carrying flags that say "Come and take em!" or those who frequently equate President Obama's committment to reducing gun violence in America to Hitler's disarming policies, or those who somehow think that their deer hunting rifle would be effective against M1 tanks and Blackhawk helicopters) would not meet 4 of these criterion? If, in fact, they were determined to be mentally unfit to own a weapon, would they be a "responsible gun owner" and relinquish possession of their firearms and be happily prevented from acquiring them in the future, as they themselves suggest ought to be done in the case of dangerous mental illness?

It also can't help escape my attention that we have heard similar rhetoric before. After President Obama's first successful election, the Ted Nugents and the James Yeagers of America were out in full force, stocking up on as many guns and as much ammo as possible, because "The black guy is going to take our guns from us!" (Note: No such thing occurred during President Obama's first term. False alarm perhaps?). Or after the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, when the battle cry was "Clinton will take our guns!". To the amazement of no one expect those in need of a strong dose of anti-psychotics, gun owners are STILL gun owners. Imagine that.

Of course, if one even tries to point out that no, the President does not have any plans to take all of your guns away, we are splattered with ad hominems and straw mans and non-sequiturs and and all around pervasive ignorance and paranoia.

In the city where I live, as well as many other cities in the US, there was recently a "Day of Resistance" in which gun owners gathered in Perry Square, the park in the middle of downtown Erie. One of the speakers said that gun owners are open to debate and discussion about guns, saying ""Open, legitimate discussion is how this country came into greatness".

Honestly, who is he kidding? Whenever anyone says "Let's have a discussion about how to reduce gun violence in America", the reaction of the same types of folks attending this rally is always "You'll take my guns over my dead body! Obama is Hitler!". It is also important to note that one of these gun owners was carrying a flag depicting what looks like an assault rifle, with the words "Come and take it!".

How is this embracing "open, legitimate discussion" when their only reaction, EVER, is to gather in public carrying AK-47s and daring people to try to take them away? That would be like the Westboro Baptist Church saying that they are open to discussion about homosexuality while carrying "God hates fags" signs. How can any rational, clear minded person take this seriously? How can it be ignored that members of the same type of crowd are the ones who are just itching to shoot people? How is it that these folks think that the 2nd amendment only means that they have a right to start a revolution if they don't agree with the policies of the current administration? Note that the second amendment says no such thing. Why should anyone who actually wants to have a legitimate discussion about a legitimate problem can't do so because they are justifiably afraid of a gun toting mob?

It can't escape my attention that the only "solutions" offered from that side are more guns, arming teachers, less regulation, no background checks, and overthrowing the government. Who is it that is really trying to have an honest discussion here? Those that also admit that better tracking of potentially dangerous mentally ill persons would be, in my submission, reluctant to admit that man on their side would probably qualify as one of these potentially dangerous mentally ill persons.

And lets not ignore the fact that the most dangerous mentally ill persons are those that have not and are not receiving treatment, and therefore have probably not ever even been identified as such by anyone qualified to do so, and hence would be able to purchase whatever the hell they want.

Yet ANOTHER point that can't escape my attention is that the same crowd that criticizes the President for having armed guards are always the ones who, in not so subtle ways, suggesting that the President is "in season" and making actual threats to kill to the President and others as well. The fact that they are utterly unwilling and incapable of seeing any difference at all in the security level necessary to protect the President of the most powerful country on earth, and the security level needed to protect kindergartners from lunatics like Adam Lanza, suggests to me that the education system has utterly failed them.

Note also that none of this same crowd was upset about Bush's Patriot Act. Oh no, that was just a necessary security measure to protect us from those terrible terrorists. But when President Obama extended for an additional four years certain provisions of this act, the right questioned whether his use of an autopen to approve these measures was constitutional. ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!

And to bring this all full circle and actually relate it to religion, it also can't help escape my attention that those who most loudly protest any form of gun control are largely the same ones who want this to be a Christian country, who threaten and harass minorities, who wave Confederate flags while calling themselves the "Party of Lincoln" (not sure if this is irony or just tragedy), who want Israel to have sole control of the middle east, and who shoot members of Sikh temples, atheists, and blow up abortion clinics. If one were to make a Venn Diagram of these groups, it would likely be three circles imposed over one another.

Finally, I submit that NONE of these things would even be issues if the discussions about such things were dominated by rational, secular humanists interested in actual honest conversations about real problems. Using paranoia and fear and intimidation and threats in response to imaginary problems is indistinguishable from religion, and it is those tactics that are being exploited by the Ted Nugents of America.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on March 03, 2013, 01:36:10 PM
Their response will be just like religion...always an excuse.  I imagine it being something like this..."because we were strong and stood with the NRA Obama had to back down and his plan was stopped, but we continue to be vigilant in the face of government oppression".

Also, I had to share this.  I heard it while driving on I29 the other day.  Seems a guy got shot in the leg when his dog bumped the gun in the seat of his pickup and it fell on the floor of the pickup and went off.  They guy said he did not even know it was loaded.  Responsible gun owner or his dog standing his ground...take your pick.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: kaziglu bey on March 03, 2013, 01:43:00 PM
Their response will be just like religion...always an excuse.  I imagine it being something like this..."because we were strong and stood with the NRA Obama had to back down and his plan was stopped, but we continue to be vigilant in the face of government oppression".
I would not be at all surprised if this was the case. A completely manufactured and dishonest assessment of what actually happened. I suppose if we don't set the bar too high for these folks, we wont be disappointed. Orcs will, after all, behave like orcs.

Quote
Also, I had to share this.  I heard it while driving on I29 the other day.  Seems a guy got shot in the leg when his dog bumped the gun in the seat of his pickup and it fell on the floor of the pickup and went off.  They guy said he did not even know it was loaded.  Responsible gun owner or his dog standing his ground...take your pick.
Wow, that is just pathetically stupid. It reminds me of the accidental shootings by supposedly "responsible" gun owners at gun shows recently. I realize that accidents will happen, because we don't live in an ideal world, but I submit that someone being accidentally being shot by their freaking DOG because they were too stupid to realize that their gun was loaded is not, in fact, an accident. If a so called "accident" could be prevented by a minimum level of responsibility and intelligence, it is no really an accident. That's why it bothers me when, for example, a person runs a stop sign and hits a car, it is called an "accident". No, it is an entirely predictable and preventable outcome of running a stop sign.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 03, 2013, 01:53:56 PM
At least there is one delicious bit of irony. Who has the most complete database of gun owners? The NRA. What if that organization is a shill for the commie hitler loving black led government?

Just sayin'...

Gun nuts should be carrying signs that say "There can never be too much paranoia!". Because that is all too often their view.

When people think they live in a free country and want to prove it by shooting anyone who doesn't freely agree with them, then something is wrong.

But we already knew that.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on March 06, 2013, 03:17:01 PM
A really good article/interview posted today, giving, IMO, very clear insight into the mindset of many American "gun nuts". Don't worry, it's a short read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/what-liberals-need-to-understand-about-gun-guys/273736/?google_editors_picks=true (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/what-liberals-need-to-understand-about-gun-guys/273736/?google_editors_picks=true)

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on March 06, 2013, 07:28:44 PM
2,498 killed in the USA from guns since Sandy Hook...and counting.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: su27 on March 07, 2013, 06:37:23 AM
2,498 killed in the USA from guns since Sandy Hook...and counting.

I'm just curious - how many killed by cars in the same time?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on March 07, 2013, 08:17:08 AM
2,498 killed in the USA from guns since Sandy Hook...and counting.

I'm just curious - how many killed by cars in the same time?

Extrapolating from the year 2011, the latest year for which data is available, and assuming that the rate at which motor vehicle deaths have been declining in recent years is remaining constant, then approximately 6,900, or perhaps a few hundred fewer than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 07, 2013, 09:49:43 AM
I'm just curious - how many killed by cars in the same time?

I'm not sure.  But I know it used to be a lot more. Then, because so many people were dying in car accidents, we passed laws to make cars safer.  We added seat belts, antilock brakes, airbags, crumple zones, safety glass, and lots of other features.  We have cars inspected periodically to make sure they are roadworthy.  We regulated car safety to the benefit of everyone. 

Do you see where this point is heading? 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari on March 07, 2013, 11:54:33 AM
If only we'd made it illegal to study car accidents...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 07, 2013, 01:13:29 PM
I forgot to add, we register vehicles, require insurance, and licence drivers to make sure they can drive to a minimum level of safety. 

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on March 09, 2013, 08:41:57 AM
Several communities have passed laws mandating that all citizens arm themselves.  A community in Georgia just did this week.  I thought how strange.  To mandate that someone carry health insurance is socialist...mandate to be armed must be All American.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on March 09, 2013, 09:21:57 AM
^ It's a dual plan. If you get too sick to afford care, you can just put a bullet through your brain.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: su27 on March 09, 2013, 04:39:45 PM
Several communities have passed laws mandating that all citizens arm themselves.  A community in Georgia just did this week.  I thought how strange.  To mandate that someone carry health insurance is socialist...mandate to be armed must be All American.

Is crime rate raising in these communities or going down?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on March 09, 2013, 05:27:25 PM
Several communities have passed laws mandating that all citizens arm themselves.  A community in Georgia just did this week.  I thought how strange.  To mandate that someone carry health insurance is socialist...mandate to be armed must be All American.

Is crime rate raising in these communities or going down?
Dont know.  For the most part they seem to be small towns in rural areas.  So I would say probably neither.  It is just a reaction to the gun histeria in the country.

I don't know about your community but the thought of everybody in mine being armed is not a good thing.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 11, 2013, 10:39:44 AM
gun fails episode 8, from Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/08/1190858/-GunFAIL-VIII

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on March 12, 2013, 06:21:19 PM
2605 killed with guns in USA since Sandy Hook and counting.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: kaziglu bey on March 12, 2013, 11:13:08 PM
2605 killed with guns in USA since Sandy Hook and counting.
Nope, no problem with gun violence at all. Nothing to see here. NRA! NRA! You'll take my guns over my dead body! Gun control is socialism, just like Hitler!
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: su27 on March 13, 2013, 08:31:34 AM
2605 killed with guns in USA since Sandy Hook and counting.

Are these only innocent people killed by madmen or also kills that prevented rape or murder?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 13, 2013, 08:39:35 AM
Are these only innocent people killed by madmen

Madmen?  Really?

Quote
or also kills that prevented rape or murder?

A lot of them are accidental.  Some of them are robberies where the dead guy may or may not have even been armed.  Castle laws.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on March 20, 2013, 07:36:00 AM
In the 3 months since Sandy Hook more people have dies (2793) from guns  in the USA than died in 9/11.  In his state of the union speech Obama asked for at least a vote on gun control for the victims of guns.  Looks like that won't happen either.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: su27 on March 20, 2013, 09:48:09 AM
In the 3 months since Sandy Hook more people have dies (2793) from guns  in the USA than died in 9/11.

But we don't really know if these numbers show criminals shooting innocent people (or other criminals) or innocent people defending their lives?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Mrjason on March 20, 2013, 09:53:28 AM
In the 3 months since Sandy Hook more people have dies (2793) from guns  in the USA than died in 9/11.

But we don't really know if these numbers show criminals shooting innocent people (or other criminals) or innocent people defending their lives?

there are nonlethal ways to defend lives
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 20, 2013, 10:06:06 AM
su,

you keep saying that, as if you expect all 2800 of them to be people defending themselves.  That is actually a very rare occurrence.  Here (http://www.dailykos.com/news/GunFail) is a collection of hundreds of shooting new stories.  Almost none of them involve self defense.  Most of them are stupid and tragic accidents involving irresponsible idiots who probably should not have guns despite not being criminals. 

I think that by saying we should keep guns away from criminals is too low a bar.  They should also be kept from irresponsible idiots. 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on March 20, 2013, 10:41:18 AM
you keep saying that, as if you expect all 2800 of them to be people defending themselves.  That is actually a very rare occurrence.

People defending themselves with firearms is actually quite common.  Estimates vary quite a bit, but the best estimates I've seen put the number at somewhere between 100,000 and 370,000 such cases per year in the United States.  The thing is, though, that in something like 92% of those cases, what happens is that the would-be victim simply brandishes a gun, and the criminal flees -- the gun is not fired at all.  And in most of the remaining cases, the only shot fired is a warning shot.  Private citizens use a tremendous amount of self-restraint when it comes to actually shooting someone in self-defense because they know perfectly well that doing so can ruin your life, even if the criminal doesn't die.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 20, 2013, 10:46:21 AM
People defending themselves with firearms is actually quite common. 

I'm extremely skeptical of those numbers for a lot of reasons.  But the point I was making was different.  Nick posted actual shooting numbers.  su27 seems to think a lot of those people are shot out of self defense.  My point was, they probably are not.  Which kind of coincides with your point.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on March 20, 2013, 11:01:27 AM
People defending themselves with firearms is actually quite common. 

I'm extremely skeptical of those numbers for a lot of reasons.

The numbers you should be skeptical of are the ones coming from biased sources.  The NRA likes to say 2.5 million times a year, for example, but that number has been challenged for various methodological reasons and is almost certainly much too high.  The figure of 100,000 times a year, however, comes from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is administered by the federal government.  The higher end of the range comes from people who have been critical of the NCVS methodology, however, I'm not sure what, specifically, their criticisms are (and what their biases might be), so I don't know how much stock to put into them.  I am comfortable using NCVS numbers, though.

Quote
But the point I was making was different.  Nick posted actual shooting numbers.  su27 seems to think a lot of those people are shot out of self defense.  My point was, they probably are not.  Which kind of coincides with your point.

Yes, it does.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: su27 on March 20, 2013, 02:17:03 PM
su27 seems to think a lot of those people are shot out of self defense.  My point was, they probably are not.  Which kind of coincides with your point.

I don't think anything - I just ask. It's quite important to know how many of these cases were policemen shooting to save lives, isn't it?
Also pianodwarf has a good point on the cases where just showing the gun prevented crime.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 20, 2013, 04:13:38 PM
I don't think anything - I just ask.

No?  Okay.  Well, it kind of sounded that way.  But I guess I was mistaken.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: su27 on March 20, 2013, 04:32:32 PM
I don't think anything - I just ask.

No?  Okay.  Well, it kind of sounded that way.  But I guess I was mistaken.

Well, I'm obviously pro-gun, right? I like "my house is my castle" rule. And I'm an IPSC shooter.
But I live in a country that has heavy restrictions on gun access. The law here is bad - the right to own a sport gun is a subject of a clerk decision who may or may not give you permit, depending of his mood. It is almost impossible to get a permit for carrying gun in self-defence - you have to be killed first (twice, if possible) and then maybe a clerk will consider that you really may need a gun.
It is another side of your "too much guns" problem. The solution is not simple - look at the London after banning all guns - is it really safer with criminals still having them and gangs of bored unemployed "chavs" with screwdrivers and baseball bats?

P.S. But I agree it is too easy to go to the shopping center and buy automatic weapon. I know not everyone is ready to own a gun.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on March 20, 2013, 09:16:54 PM
We went to war in Iraq because of WMDs (that were not there), yet in our own country assault rifles are designed to kill a lot of people quickly...I would call those WMDs...yet our politicians think anyone should be able to own and use those.  There was a headline front page pic today of all the Sandy Hook kids killed with a headline "Shame on US".  We are a sick people.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 21, 2013, 05:15:43 PM
I'm just curious - how many killed by cars in the same time?

Lemme come back to this^.  I heard a great piece on NPR today. 
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/03/21/174851371/colorado-doctors-treating-gunshot-victims-differ-on-gun-politics

The first sentence:
Quote
n Colorado, more people die from gunshots than car crashes.

Is it okay to do something about guns now?


Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on March 21, 2013, 06:56:00 PM
I'm just curious - how many killed by cars in the same time?

Lemme come back to this^.  I heard a great piece on NPR today. 
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/03/21/174851371/colorado-doctors-treating-gunshot-victims-differ-on-gun-politics

The first sentence:
Quote
n Colorado, more people die from gunshots than car crashes.

Is it okay to do something about guns now?

I don't think Colorado roads were suddenly made safer for driving.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on March 22, 2013, 12:35:13 PM
Quote from: screwtape link=topic=24137.msg547967#msg547967

The first sentence:
Quote
n Colorado, more people die from gunshots than car crashes.

Is it okay to do something about guns now?

Also in the article you linked:

Quote
More than three-quarters of all firearm deaths in Colorado during 2004-2011 were suicides.
Nearly half of all suicide deaths involved the use of a firearm. Suicide deaths by firearm are
primarily among males (87 percent) and the White Non-Hispanic racial/ethnic group (88
percent).

Do you think "doing something about guns now" would eliminate these deaths?

I'd be willing to concede that perhaps some of these deaths would not have happened without access to firearms, but suicidal, mentally depressed people tend to find a way, if they don't find help.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Seppuku on March 22, 2013, 02:45:53 PM
In the 3 months since Sandy Hook more people have dies (2793) from guns  in the USA than died in 9/11.

But we don't really know if these numbers show criminals shooting innocent people (or other criminals) or innocent people defending their lives?

there are nonlethal ways to defend lives

Would this be why countries where there isn't a gun culture like this the murder rates are generally lower? Like the UK, Japan and various European countries?

The difference between murder rates in countries with a strong gun culture, like the US and SA and in countries where guns aren't really a part of people's lives or culture is quite alarming.

I say gun culture, because guns are technically legal in many of these countries, including the UK and Japan, of course, regulation is much higher too, but it's not completely illegal. If I wanted to own a gun, I could do so legally, however, I'm not going to buy it with the paranoia that it's a tool I need to use to protect myself, because there's no culture of such paranoia. Instead if I was going to buy one, it'd be more likely that it'd be for hunting or for other sport, I might even be a farmer shooting game (like the farmers in my village). I would be restricted to guns that are suitable for hunting, I wouldn't be able to buy semi-automatics or heck, even an easily concealed handgun.

Interestingly, the UK has higher violent crime per capita than the US, but you're a lot more likely to walk away from violent crime in the UK alive as most of our violent crime are assaults. Our murder rate is much lower. You can walk away from an assault quite safely and probably quite easily prosecute the offender if you're able to ID them well enough. Add a gun to the situation and you're talking about a situation that is easily escalated to something far worse. In some cases you may scare an attacker, in others it'd be more lethal, perhaps the attackers feels the need to defend themselves are pulls their gun out too.

In other cases, people use 'self defence' as an excuse to pull the trigger, when it was completely unnecessary, for example, the attacker was unarmed. With this gun culture, you are given people that power.

I don't think guns should be completely banned, I just think there needs to be high regulations, I don't think there needs to be a gun culture of 'it's for self defence', because in my eyes that argument is bullshit. I feel much safer in a country where I'm more likely to get assaulted and walk out alive than a country where I'm less likely to get assaulted but more likely to end up dead.

Of course, there are countries where there's a lack of gun culture and murder and other violent crime is lower. But I am using my own country as an example here.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 22, 2013, 02:56:34 PM
Do you think "doing something about guns now" would eliminate these deaths?

I think the statistic is having a gun in your home makes you 3-5 times more likely to die by gunshot than if you didn't have a gun.  So yeah.  Based on those numbers, doing something could prevent as many as 60-80% of those suicides.

I think it also depends heavily on what we do about guns.  I'm not saying they need to be banned altogether, although I would not oppose that.  But I think we need to set a higher bar for who we allow to own guns.

Personal opinion here - I do not think many gun related injuries and deaths are so much planned and premeditated as they are stupid accidents or "crimes of passion".   Some guy gets pissed off at his friend because he took the last piece of pizza, and because he happend to have a gun in his hand, his friend ends up dead. 

The gun is an extremely convenient and effective tool.  No other tool does what a gun does as well as a gun.  If it did, our military would use those tools instead. Whether you are depressed about your miserable life or pissed at your wife for nagging you to stop drinking so much beer and get a job, a gun is the wrong thing to have in your hand at the moment.  It makes impulsive suicide or killing extremely easy.  It takes a lot more to kill a person (or yourself) with a knife or a hammer or a bomb (since you'd have to make it from scratch) or your bare hands than it does with a gun. 

Quote
I'd be willing to concede that perhaps some of these deaths would not have happened without access to firearms, but suicidal, mentally depressed people tend to find a way, if they don't find help.

Two points on that one.  First, I disagree with "they'll find a way no matter what" argument, whether it be suicides or criminals.  I don't think people are all that determined to kill themselves or other people.  I think in the overwhelming majority of cases, someone ends up dead because a gun is handy and efficient. 

If we made a list of all the ways to kill yourself or other people, they are all more difficult than just shooting someone.  And in this country, we have made it ridiculously easy to have that option available. You could kill yourself by firing up the lawn mower and rigging it up to fall on your head.  But that takes thought and effort, and by time you are half way into it you probably won't feel like going through with it.  But if you had a gun, it would be over in a flash.  No effort.  No opportunity to reflect.

And sure, you could kill your idiot neighbor for parking on your property by stabbing him with a kitchen knife.  But that requires you get up close and personal and take the chance that he takes the knife from you.  Plus, I think most people do not have the stomach to actually stab someone.  That might make you rethink your need to make your neighbor stop breathing.  If you had a gun, you could put him down from 30 feet away without hardly thinking about it.  And you certainly would not have to look into his eyes as you do it.

Second, I definitely and vigorously agree with you that we need to do a better job helping these people.  From that article:
Quote
I see patients every day that are right on the edge of being unstable and are out there in the environment, and they describe problems with access to medications, problems with access to psychiatric care or substance abuse care, problems with access to homes or to shelter," says Colwell. "But they don't describe problems with access to guns.

I think that is a huge problem on both ends of it.   

Overall, I don't really care if idiots accidentally shoot themselves.  In fact, I'm kind of glad they do.  But the problem is idiots take out a lot of bystanders.  If idiots only hurt themeselves, I'd be all for passing out free guns.



edit he --> his
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Seppuku on March 22, 2013, 03:26:34 PM
Quote from: Screwtapes
Personal opinion here - I do not think many gun related injuries and deaths are so much planned and premeditated as they are stupid accidents or "crimes of passion".   Some guy gets pissed off at his friend because he took the last piece of pizza, and because he happend to have a gun in his hand, he friend ends up dead. 

The gun is an extremely convenient and effective tool.  No other tool does what a gun does as well as a gun.  If it did, our military would use those tools instead. Whether you are depressed about your miserable life or pissed at your wife for nagging you to stop drinking so much beer and get a job, a gun is the wrong thing to have in your hand at the moment.  It makes impulsive suicide or killing extremely easy.  It takes a lot more to kill a person (or yourself) with a knife or a hammer or a bomb (since you'd have to make it from scratch) or your bare hands than it does with a gun. 

I would pretty much say this. It's this kind of thing that makes points like, "if they wanted to kill some they would have found another way of doing it" moot, because we are talking cases where the crime wasn't pre-meditated. If the majority of these crimes were pre-meditated, then perhaps I would understand the argument. Yes, if a person really wanted to murder somebody, they could. If a person loses their cool, misjudges a situation or is intoxicated then it's a completed different situation. I'd argue a gun means the difference between an assault and a murder. A gun isn't necessity for self-defence, unless it's of course it'll defend you against another gun. In this situation, I would only understand a person's feel to need a gun if they were in a neighbourhood where there's a lot of gun crime. Making the cause of the problem its solution.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on March 23, 2013, 07:33:04 AM
Do you think "doing something about guns now" would eliminate these deaths?

I think the statistic is having a gun in your home makes you 3-5 times more likely to die by gunshot than if you didn't have a gun.  So yeah.  Based on those numbers, doing something could prevent as many as 60-80% of those suicides.

I don't think I agree with your numbers, seeing as though not even half of Colorado suicides were by bullet. But both our thoughts on the subject are mere speculation, so I'm not going to get hung up on it.

Quote
Two points on that one.  First, I disagree with "they'll find a way no matter what" argument, whether it be suicides or criminals.  I don't think people are all that determined to kill themselves or other people.  I think in the overwhelming majority of cases, someone ends up dead because a gun is handy and efficient. 

Again, I must point out that, according to the link you provided,  not even half of Colorado suicides were by bullet. So the remainder of CO suicides were by some other lethal means. I don't believe that those people were more determined, and more grossly inconvenienced, than those with access to firearms. I do hope it's obvious that I wouldn't stand behind the blanket statement of "they'll find a way no matter what" to be all inclusive with regards to suicides or crime. Of course a lack of access would stop some, perhaps many, of said actions.

The rest of your post I cannot disagree with. I would, however, point out that your original posting of the link to CO bullet deaths felt disingenuous, and smacked of the fear mongering that doesn't lead easily to rational discourse. But maybe that's just because I live in Colorado.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on March 23, 2013, 09:38:05 AM
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/481312_2925096263780_1775015314_n.jpg)

Quote
Punxsutawney Phil, the King of the Groundhogs was found dead from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound after predicting an early spring
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on March 23, 2013, 11:46:45 AM
Serves the little rat f*cker right.  We are waiting on a 4 to 7 snow at this very moment with some places getting maybe 12 inches.  This is late March.  Enough already.  Is there a Sun God out there I can pray to?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on March 23, 2013, 12:38:55 PM
16 yr old boy shot and killed his 12 yr old brother in Orlando today.  2nd child killing in the last few days there.  Both listed as accidental.

After the NRA showed its power in congress there will not be any meaningful gun control in this country.  As someone on FOX said, "Obama wants to take our guns away.  How are we suppose to protect ourselves when Syria and Iran attack us?"  See...you can't fight stupid.

I'm going to change my view on guns now.  They will be with us forever so it is just a way to thin the heard.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Seppuku on March 24, 2013, 06:21:49 AM
Quote from: Nick
After the NRA showed its power in congress there will not be any meaningful gun control in this country.  As someone on FOX said, "Obama wants to take our guns away.  How are we suppose to protect ourselves when Syria and Iran attack us?"  See...you can't fight stupid.

You can't be serious. Really? REALLY!? I know I shouldn't surprised, because I know Fox say stupid things and I know what the Murdock mafia is like (we've got some of it in the UK), but even then...

Shame the US doesn't have any laws that would make Fox accountable for what they say and do. I considered it quite the victory when News of the World went down in the UK (one of Murdoch's lot) and some of the dodgy journalists went down, though sadly, Piers Morgan walks free. ;) Though he spends most of his time in the US, so he's your problem now. :P
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Tonus on March 24, 2013, 06:51:39 AM
One of the things I love about the USA is its willingness to allow anyone to say whatever nonsense they wish, with fairly few limitations.  Remember that the USA is still largely very conservative and religious, and those groups would prefer (to put it mildly, in the case of the latter) to silence dissenting voices.  The same laws that protect Fox News when they say something ridiculous about the President have also allowed the press to investigate and report on legitimate wrong being done or attempted by past Presidents.

As for guns, I doubt we'll ever ban them outright, it's a deeply-rooted cultural issue.  For some people, attempts to legislate gun ownership strikes at the core of American cultural values.  Trying to take them away would be tantamount to a declaration of war on the populace itself.  That's why most gun legislation is restricted to limiting magazine sizes and how to categorize what an assault weapon is.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 25, 2013, 08:17:35 AM
Based on those numbers, doing something could prevent as many as 60-80% of those suicides.

I don't think I agree with your numbers, seeing as though not even half of Colorado suicides were by bullet. But both our thoughts on the subject are mere speculation, so I'm not going to get hung up on it.

Come on, man.  I'm not the smartest guy here, but give me a little credit.  I was not suggesting better gun restrictions would prevent suicides that did not occur by guns. 

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on March 25, 2013, 08:52:29 AM
Based on those numbers, doing something could prevent as many as 60-80% of those suicides.

I don't think I agree with your numbers, seeing as though not even half of Colorado suicides were by bullet. But both our thoughts on the subject are mere speculation, so I'm not going to get hung up on it.

Come on, man.  I'm not the smartest guy here, but give me a little credit.

Dont sell yourself short, friend.

I was not suggesting better gun restrictions would prevent suicides that did not occur by guns.

I didn't mean to suggest you were. Mea culpa. I meant to suggest, if I'm reading your post correctly, that lack of access to guns would NOT have cut bullet related suicides by 60-80%. And to reiterate, I do believe that lack of access would indeed have an effect, but I don't believe it would be 60-80%. I think it would be a much lower percentage, but we're both just speculating.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 28, 2013, 10:14:31 AM
2009 study on the relationship between owning a gun and getting shot. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

Quote
After we adjusted for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.16, 17.04) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.
...
In assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 5.45 (95% CI = 1.01, 29.92) times more likely to be shot.
...
On average, guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur,33,57 the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely.

article discussing these results.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

lots of interesting stuff in this one:
Quote
men exposed to firearms before an experiment had much higher testosterone levels and were three times more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour relative to the subjects not primed with a weapon.

Quote
women who purchased guns were 50% more likely to be killed by an intimate partner.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on March 28, 2013, 10:31:25 AM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

That article does not give an explanation of what it considers to be a successful self-defense use of a gun.  As I said before, over 90% of all uses of guns for self-defense involve the gun merely being brandished, and the criminal fleeing -- no shot is fired at all.  The report does not indicate whether it includes such cases or not.  The language used in the report suggests (although not with certainty) that such cases are not addressed.

Aside, by the way: if a person who has a gun is more likely to get shot than to be able to use it to protect himself, does that mean that police officers and law abiding citizens shouldn't have any guns, and convicted criminals should have all the guns they want so that we can wait for them to get killed?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 28, 2013, 11:30:18 AM
That article does not give an explanation of what it considers to be a successful self-defense use of a gun.

Good question.  I'm not sure. Since it was an analysis of gunshot incidents, I presumed it was "not getting shot".

The report does not indicate whether it includes such cases or not.

I don't think so.  It looked at 3000+ cases of people being shot in the Philly area.  So if shots were not fired, it was not captured in the data.

I think all those cases where a gun was brandished to scare off or prevent a crime are difficult to quantify and I am extremely skeptical of the numbers.  Unless someone comes up and announces his or her intent to rob you, you are guessing at motivations.  "I saw a guy with lots of tattoos who kept looking at me.  When he approached, I pulled out my Glock.  He ran away.  Wooooo!  Second Amendment!"  Maybe he wanted to rob you.  Maybe he thought you were an old friend.  Maybe he thought you were hot.  Tough to say.

Aside, by the way: if a person who has a gun is more likely to get shot than to be able to use it to protect himself, does that mean that police officers and law abiding citizens shouldn't have any guns, and convicted criminals should have all the guns they want so that we can wait for them to get killed?

I cannot tell if that is humor, sarcasm or what.

Of course I don't think crimials should have guns.  Nor mentally ill people.  Nor irresponsible assholes.  That latter category includes a minimum of 50% of the human population.  They are also over represented in gun injuries.

I think these numbers tell me anyone who wants to buy a gun for self defense should think twice.  Because chances are, it won't help you.  And in a confrontation with someone else with a gun, it makes you 4 times more likely to be killed than if you didn't have one.  Maybe the key is to just leave your gun at home?

As for police, I have a growing paranoia about them.  With the proliferation of video cameras in phones it is easier than ever to document police abuse and corruption.  And there is so much of it I have come to fear and loathe police.  It appears that a significant portion of them fall into the "irresponsible assholes" category.  Given that, I do think police should be more like those in the UK, where their guns are locked up in their cars and they need permission from HQ to take them out.  Based on that study about how just seeing a gun makes men more agressive, I think that would be a safer (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) approach.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: kindred on March 28, 2013, 11:57:32 AM
@screwtape

So guns are tools that allow a person to off himself in his moment of weakness before he gets to his senses? But isn't one's mental wellness one's own responsibility? So wouldn't the person that killed himself be responsible? Where's the problem their? I fail to see the problem here.

A person has total freedom over their own choices  unless it negatively impacts others, right? We may influence other people but we aren't allowed to curtail their freedom even for their own good. As far as I know, being suicidal isn't considered being insane so we can't restrict a persons access to firearms and curtail their freedom even if its for their own good unless they somehow gave us permission to stop them because they trust our judgement above their own.

Personally, I think that the problem with guns is that they work alot like cars except guns aren't as important to as many people. They both serve an important function, transportation and defense against wild animals(humans included). The problem is that when improperly used, they don't just hurt the idiot that made the mistake, they hurt innocents too.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on March 28, 2013, 12:05:54 PM
I don't think so.  It looked at 3000+ cases of people being shot in the Philly area.  So if shots were not fired, it was not captured in the data.

That was my impression as well.

Quote
I think all those cases where a gun was brandished to scare off or prevent a crime are difficult to quantify

They certainly can be.  The fact that estimates vary so much is a pretty good indication of that, even when you consider the biases of the people who claim to this or that set of numbers.

Quote
and I am extremely skeptical of the numbers.

I can understand that.  And as much as I like to believe that I'm a scientific skeptic -- and in most areas, I am -- I also have to admit that there are areas where my biases can be hard to overlook.  This is one of them, which is why I always try to make an extra effort to maintain my objectivity.  It's not easy.

Quote
Unless someone comes up and announces his or her intent to rob you, you are guessing at motivations.

Sometimes it might be.  Other times, it isn't.  If you're talking about a home invasion, for example, motivations aren't difficult to guess.

Quote
"I saw a guy with lots of tattoos who kept looking at me.  When he approached, I pulled out my Glock.  He ran away.  Wooooo!  Second Amendment!"

I don't know how often that happens, but I do know that it's a good way to get arrested.  In most jurisdictions, brandishing a firearm without justification is at least a misdemeanor and in some jurisdictions a felony.  "Brandishing", in some jurisdictions, even includes things like sweeping your coat back and letting your sidearm show by accident when you reach into your pocket for your keys or something.

Quote
Aside, by the way: if a person who has a gun is more likely to get shot than to be able to use it to protect himself, does that mean that police officers and law abiding citizens shouldn't have any guns, and convicted criminals should have all the guns they want so that we can wait for them to get killed?

I cannot tell if that is humor, sarcasm or what.

It was an attempted reductio ad absurdum: if guns are more dangerous to those who possess them, then obviously criminals should have them and police officers shouldn't.  The idea is to possibly make you think about some things, since that notion is obviously ridiculous, as you say.

Quote
Of course I don't think crimials should have guns.  Nor mentally ill people.  Nor irresponsible assholes.  That latter category includes a minimum of 50% of the human population.  They are also over represented in gun injuries.

OK, good.

Quote
I think these numbers tell me anyone who wants to buy a gun for self defense should think twice.  Because chances are, it won't help you.  And in a confrontation with someone else with a gun, it makes you 4 times more likely to be killed than if you didn't have one.  Maybe the key is to just leave your gun at home?

If you want to argue that it's OK to use firearms for self-defense at home but not in public, I can understand that.  I don't agree, but there is a lot to be said for that stance, and I'm not concerned to refute it.

Quote
As for police, I have a growing paranoia about them.

So do I.  A friend of mine who just finished law school advises not talking to police at all, ever, unless you're doing something like reporting a crime.  I'm inclined to agree with him.

Quote
With the proliferation of video cameras in phones it is easier than ever to document police abuse and corruption.

I don't know if you've been following this or not, but there have been quite a few cases where people were recording police carrying out their duties, and the police have ordered them to stop and confiscated their equipment, and even arrested them, if they didn't.  It's very worrisome.  Courts have reiterated that police going about their duties in public places have no expectation of privacy and that it's perfectly legal to record them, but a lot of cops don't like that, and it's still happening.

Quote
And there is so much of it I have come to fear and loathe police.  It appears that a significant portion of them fall into the "irresponsible assholes" category.  Given that, I do think police should be more like those in the UK, where their guns are locked up in their cars and they need permission from HQ to take them out.  Based on that study about how just seeing a gun makes men more agressive, I think that would be a safer (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) approach.

I agree with this as well, especially inasmuch as in the United States, one out of every three cops who gets shot in the line of duty is shot with his own weapon.

I believe you were the one a while back who pointed out the strange dichotomy that a lot of cops and soliders have, right?  Where they take tremendous pride in their self-sacrifice for protecting our safety and freedoms while simultaneously sneering at us and saying that we don't deserve them?  That doesn't just make me angry, it also makes me very, very nervous.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 28, 2013, 01:05:05 PM
So guns are tools that allow a person to off himself in his moment of weakness before he gets to his senses?

sometimes.

But isn't one's mental wellness one's own responsibility? So wouldn't the person that killed himself be responsible? Where's the problem their? I fail to see the problem here.

Well, I think it depends what our assumptions are.  If one assumption is the suicidee is of sound mind, there might be no problem.  But I think that is often not the case.  I think often suicide is due to treatable mental distress, for lack of a better word.  I don't want to say mental illness because I don't think that is always the case.  But I think someone who is suffering from acute depression over something they may get over could act rashly.  And a handy gun would make that an irreversible decision.

Obviously, this does not apply to all cases of suicide.  Some people are very sick and suffering and they have their mental capabilities.  I am in favor of them making their own decisions.

A person has total freedom over their own choices  unless it negatively impacts others, right?

Yes, but that assumes they are capable and free to make rational decisions.  Azdgari and I had a long discussion about this as it pertained to body modification.  Among my points was someone who is anorexic is not capable of making rational decisions regarding food and eating.

We may influence other people but we aren't allowed to curtail their freedom even for their own good.

Actually we are.  We do it for children.  We put people with Alzheimers and Dementia in hospitals against their will every day. We do the same for the mentally retarded and in some cases the mentally ill as well.

As far as I know, being suicidal isn't considered being insane

The two groups intersect.
http://greenwich.patch.com/articles/state-police-armed-suicidal-grandmother-holding-two-children-prompts-amber-alert-c86a57e6

The problem is that when improperly used, they don't just hurt the idiot that made the mistake, they hurt innocents too.

Word.  As I've said, if idiots with guns only hurt themselves, I'd be handing out free guns. 

related to that:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/27/free-shotguns-arizona/2026123/
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on March 28, 2013, 01:22:26 PM
So do I.  A friend of mine who just finished law school advises not talking to police at all, ever, unless you're doing something like reporting a crime.  I'm inclined to agree with him.

Me too.  Some time ago a read an essay by a lawyer that said never, ever talk to the police without a lawyer.  He pointed out that in the Miranda Statement there is nothing that says they will use your words to exonerate you.  They will only be used against you.  That may have been a link you provided.


I don't know if you've been following this or not,

yes.  This is actually what got me started on my dubious attitude toward cops.  One youtube video after another of cops threatening people with cameras.  They lead to videos of cops behaving very unprofessionally, which lead to cops behaving violently. 

There was one where three black teens were videoing themselves in a Walmart parking lot.  There happened to be a cop in the background.  He flipped out and got out his tazer.  The kid ultimately turned off his viddy.  It absolutely boiled my blood.  My impulse would have been to take the tazer and shove it up the cop's ass.

There was also a good one from the UK where the guy with the camera absolutely knew his stuff and was more than the cops could handle.  A cop went to put his hand over the camera and the guy asked "What do you think you are doing?  You can't touch that."  If I can find it, I will link it. He actually has numerous videos like that.  In one, the cops come to his house to ask him why he is video taping in public.  He basically tells them to get bent.

I agree with this as well, especially inasmuch as in the United States, one out of every three cops who gets shot in the line of duty is shot with his own weapon.

I think the article I linked said cops only hit their targets 34% of the time.  I'd feel a lot better if they had crossbows.

I believe you were the one a while back who pointed out the strange dichotomy that a lot of cops and soliders have, right? 

yep.  right wingers too.  They demand I leave the US for not loving it sufficiently when they are the ones taking a shit on the bill of rights.  Except the 2nd amendment, natch.  I find that to be more unAmerican.  I love telling them to move to China.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on March 28, 2013, 09:48:01 PM
The report does not indicate whether it includes such cases or not.

I don't think so.  It looked at 3000+ cases of people being shot in the Philly area.  So if shots were not fired, it was not captured in the data.

I think all those cases where a gun was brandished to scare off or prevent a crime are difficult to quantify and I am extremely skeptical of the numbers.  Unless someone comes up and announces his or her intent to rob you, you are guessing at motivations.  "I saw a guy with lots of tattoos who kept looking at me.  When he approached, I pulled out my Glock.  He ran away.  Wooooo!  Second Amendment!"  Maybe he wanted to rob you.  Maybe he thought you were an old friend.  Maybe he thought you were hot.  Tough to say.

An auto insurance actuary doesn't keep track of near misses because nobody keeps track of near misses. You can only measure what is recorded. Likely there is nothing worthwhile achieved by the tracking of near misses, assuming one could do so.



As for police, I have a growing paranoia about them.  With the proliferation of video cameras in phones it is easier than ever to document police abuse and corruption.  And there is so much of it I have come to fear and loathe police. 

Hmmm. I am not anywhere near that yet, but I am annoyed when they ask us to do things for which they have no right to ask. They abuse the respect of their positions when they do things like that.

It appears that a significant portion of them fall into the "irresponsible assholes" category.

For assholeishness, I refer to the above.


Given that, I do think police should be more like those in the UK, where their guns are locked up in their cars and they need permission from HQ to take them out.  Based on that study about how just seeing a gun makes men more agressive, I think that would be a safer (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) approach.

I don't think there is any doubt that possessing a weapon of greater intensity makes the holder more aggressive in his/her behaviors.



Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on March 29, 2013, 07:05:29 AM
ON TYT last night they had a segment with Cheech of Cheech and Chong.  He suggested a way to solve the gun issue was to have everyone who wants to own a gun have to buy insurance for the gun.  Insurance companies would charge based on the damage done by different guns.  Like malpractice insurance.  Interesting idea.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on March 29, 2013, 07:22:41 AM
ON TYT last night they had a segment with Cheech of Cheech and Chong.  He suggested a way to solve the gun issue was to have everyone who wants to own a gun have to buy insurance for the gun.  Insurance companies would charge based on the damage done by different guns.  Like malpractice insurance.  Interesting idea.

Some jurisdictions are looking at that.  I don't recall offhand whether it's been implemented anywhere.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on March 31, 2013, 06:06:47 AM
ON TYT last night they had a segment with Cheech of Cheech and Chong.  He suggested a way to solve the gun issue was to have everyone who wants to own a gun have to buy insurance for the gun.  Insurance companies would charge based on the damage done by different guns.  Like malpractice insurance.  Interesting idea.

Some jurisdictions are looking at that.  I don't recall offhand whether it's been implemented anywhere.

I am not aware of any such requirement.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 01, 2013, 09:07:05 AM
Article on background checks.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/nra-privacy-fever-dreams-article-1.1303004#ixzz2PBST2zAQ

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 01, 2013, 10:23:56 AM
weekly Gunfails
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/29/1196319/-GunFAIL-XI?showAll=yes

57 incidents.  Some of them involve idiots accidentally shooting guns through their walls into other people's houses.  Several of them are lucky and don't hit people.

#11 has a pretty righteous rant about that.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jynnan tonnix on April 01, 2013, 11:15:39 AM
As a matter of curiosity, since I know basically nothing about guns (never had any need or the least bit of interest in owning one)...How much pressure do you actually need to put on the trigger to fire? It seems strange that so many guns go off "accidentally" when, at least the way I would imagine it, pulling the trigger would have to be a fairly deliberate move. Why have your finger on the trigger at all if you are not planning on firing? Can they go off any other way?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 01, 2013, 11:27:43 AM
As a matter of curiosity, since I know basically nothing about guns (never had any need or the least bit of interest in owning one)...How much pressure do you actually need to put on the trigger to fire?

The force is measured in foot-pounds, and the amount of force necessary varies from model to model.  A Glock handgun, for example, typically requires about five or six foot-pounds.  A typical .380 "mousegun" might require as much as twelve or thirteen.  At the other end of the scale, with a double-action revolver, if you cock the hammer first, it can be as little as around two foot-pounds (but only if you cock the hammer; if you don't, the force required is significantly higher).

Quote
It seems strange that so many guns go off "accidentally" when, at least the way I would imagine it, pulling the trigger would have to be a fairly deliberate move.

Most "accidents" aren't really accidents in the sense that you're probably thinking.  In almost every such case, it's not an accident, it's someone being a smogbrain.  For a gun to truly go off by accident (for example, by dropping one on the floor, or something like that) is extremely rare.

Quote
Why have your finger on the trigger at all if you are not planning on firing?

You may not know much about guns, but you have a lot of common sense.  :-)  "Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire" is, in fact, one of the four basic rules of gun safety.

Quote
Can they go off any other way?

Theoretically, yes, but in practice, as I said, it's very rare.  It's almost always due to human error.  On the few occasions when it does happen, it's usually because there's some kind of mechanical malfunction with the gun itself that prevents the usual safety devices from functioning properly.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 01, 2013, 11:28:26 AM
As a matter of curiosity, since I know basically nothing about guns (never had any need or the least bit of interest in owning one)...How much pressure do you actually need to put on the trigger to fire?

Not much, depending on the gun. 5 to 8 pounds, sometimes less. Some Dual Action guns have more, in that the trigger pull actually sets the hammer, then releases it.

Quote
It seems strange that so many guns go off "accidentally" when, at least the way I would imagine it, pulling the trigger would have to be a fairly deliberate move. <snip> Can they go off any other way?

They can go off accidentally, but it's very very unlikely. I'd bet that 99.9% of the time guns fire, somebody pulled the trigger.

Quote
Why have your finger on the trigger at all if you are not planning on firing?

Gun safety 101, rule 1. Don't put your finger iniside the trigger guard if you're not planning to pull the trigger.

edit: PD beat me to it.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 01, 2013, 12:38:15 PM
The force is measured in foot-pounds,

[engineer] Technically, that is a measure of energy.  In the english units, which suck, Pounds can be mass or force.  However, in the context of foot-pounds, it is generally assumed to be force, since there is no reason for distance and mass to be together as a descriptor.  distance times force is work, aka, energy.
[/engineer]


Most "accidents" aren't really accidents in the sense that you're probably thinking.  In almost every such case, it's not an accident, it's someone being a smogbrain.  For a gun to truly go off by accident (for example, by dropping one on the floor, or something like that) is extremely rare.

They can go off accidentally, but it's very very unlikely. I'd bet that 99.9% of the time guns fire, somebody pulled the trigger.

That is what I thought.  So, in your experienced opinions, would you say that in cases where a gun owner says "the gun just went off", it is most probable the gun owner is full of crap?  Not that they intended to shoot anyone, but that they were doing something stupid and possibly criminally negligent at the time.

My opinion is anyone who accidentally shoots anyone, including themselves, should be a candidate to have their gun owning rights revoked on grounds they are irresponsible idiots and a threat to society.

I am surprised by the number of incidents of people cleaning loaded guns.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 01, 2013, 12:47:16 PM
The force is measured in foot-pounds,

[engineer] Technically, that is a measure of energy.  In the english units, which suck, Pounds can be mass or force.  However, in the context of foot-pounds, it is generally assumed to be force, since there is no reason for distance and mass to be together as a descriptor.  distance times force is work, aka, energy.
[/engineer]

Sorry, my bad.  It's been a while since college.  And I was a philosophy major, anyway... physics was one of only two courses, I think it was, where I got anything below an A-minus.  Not one of my stronger fields of knowledge.

Quote
Most "accidents" aren't really accidents in the sense that you're probably thinking.  In almost every such case, it's not an accident, it's someone being a smogbrain.  For a gun to truly go off by accident (for example, by dropping one on the floor, or something like that) is extremely rare.

They can go off accidentally, but it's very very unlikely. I'd bet that 99.9% of the time guns fire, somebody pulled the trigger.

That is what I thought.  So, in your experienced opinions, would you say that in cases where a gun owner says "the gun just went off", it is most probable the gun owner is full of crap?

Yes.  (Who says there are no simple answers?)

Quote
My opinion is anyone who accidentally shoots anyone, including themselves, should be a candidate to have their gun owning rights revoked on grounds they are irresponsible idiots and a threat to society.

I agree.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 01, 2013, 01:19:17 PM
guys with assault rifles show up to counter-protest a gun safety demonstration
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/03/28/1791361/men-with-loaded-rifles-intimidate-moms-gathered-at-gun-safety-rally/

I have a problem with this.  These guys are assholes and are just making the problem harder.  The gun nuts are cheering them on, while people who aren't gun nuts feel intimidated.  Picture this: abortion rights activists protesting and armed.  Anti-abortion rights activists show up to counter protest.  Also armed.  What is the real difference between that and the Bloods and Krips showing up at the same block?

Plus, you cannot tell the dangerous paranoid schizophrenics from the non-dangerous paranoid schizophrenics until it's too late.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 01, 2013, 02:22:07 PM
I have a problem with this.  These guys are assholes and are just making the problem harder. 

Absolutely agree, but these types of people likely have zero interest in solving the problem. They're there soley to feed their 2nd amendment egos, standing around going "look what I can do!" It seems on par with claiming 1st amendment rights after yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

You can't fix stupid.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 02, 2013, 05:08:43 PM
guys with assault rifles show up to counter-protest a gun safety demonstration
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/03/28/1791361/men-with-loaded-rifles-intimidate-moms-gathered-at-gun-safety-rally/

I have a problem with this.  These guys are assholes and are just making the problem harder.  The gun nuts are cheering them on, while people who aren't gun nuts feel intimidated.

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps a few more incidents where the paranoid schizophrenics show up at peaceful gatherings is what it will take to make more Merkins wake up to reality.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman on April 02, 2013, 07:08:49 PM
what it will take to make more Merkins wake up to reality.

You so funny!  Merkins don't like reality, it scares them. They like simplistic sound bites and feel good superstition, like a sky daddy that will take care of them and that America is always number 1.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on April 02, 2013, 08:29:28 PM
..... while people who aren't gun nuts feel intimidated. 

   If you post against guns you don't want to be accused of propaganda, piling on, but if the Texas DA and his wife and a deputy are shot to death, they are still shot to death, whether  it's reported to often or not.  It is happening over and over and over.  Maybe the media should stop, so people can whisper to each other during the funerals standing out  in the cemeteries - " shhh, they were shot."  Much like George Dubya not wanting photographs of soldiers coffins coming in at Dover Air Force Base.  Shhh, its war, just ignore it.  It really isn't a problem if we don't know what to do about it.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 03, 2013, 02:51:45 PM
Ah, data!  There aint nuthin I loves more than data!

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AmericaUnderTheGun.pdf

Gun laws appear to work.  There is a correlation between states that have lax gun laws and the number of people killed therein.   Yeah yeah yeah, correlation is not causation.  I know that. 

It is not a perfect study.  I would like to have seen a regression analysis that accounted for poverty and education and probably a couple other factors.  Because, not coincidentally, all the states with the lax gun laws and high gun murder rates also happened to be the stupidest and poorest states.

But, we can say that having strict gun laws does not cause high rates of gun violence, as many gun nuts would have us believe.

more on that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/us/report-links-high-rates-of-gun-violence-to-weak-laws.html?_r=0

A study mentioned in that did include "poverty, unemployment, sex and race, education, population density, violent deaths unrelated to firearms and household firearm ownership."
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390
It pretty much concurs with CAP study.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 03, 2013, 03:10:58 PM
In going back reading this thread, it occurs to me that I've not been nearly gracious enough to Dante and pianodwarf.  I would like to thank you both for disagreeing with me in the kindest and most impersonal ways, and for the occasions on which you have demurred points.  I really appreciate that. 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 03, 2013, 03:19:27 PM
In going back reading this thread, it occurs to me that I've not been nearly gracious enough to Dante and pianodwarf.  I would like to thank you both for disagreeing with me in the kindest and most impersonal ways, and for the occasions on which you have demurred points.  I really appreciate that.

Thanks.  I've been practicing.  (Not a joke.  This is one of my "hot button" topics, and I don't like it when the rational skepticism I've worked so hard to achieve gets fogged up.  I'm kind of like Sarek on this one.  "I confess that my logic is uncertain where firearms are concerned.")
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 03, 2013, 03:34:40 PM
In going back reading this thread, it occurs to me that I've not been nearly gracious enough to Dante and pianodwarf.  I would like to thank you both for disagreeing with me in the kindest and most impersonal ways, and for the occasions on which you have demurred points.  I really appreciate that.

Thanks.  I've been practicing.  (Not a joke.  This is one of my "hot button" topics, and I don't like it when the rational skepticism I've worked so hard to achieve gets fogged up.  I'm kind of like Sarek on this one.  "I confess that my logic is uncertain where firearms are concerned.")

Aye, seconded, pd. I've had to delete and rewrite more than one response, but I do appreciate having my viewpoint challenged and learning new things as well, so a reasoned debate with reasonable people is always appreciated. So thanks, screwy.

Gun laws appear to work.  There is a correlation between states that have lax gun laws and the number of people killed therein.   Yeah yeah yeah, correlation is not causation.  I know that. 

It is not a perfect study.  I would like to have seen a regression analysis that accounted for poverty and education and probably a couple other factors.  Because, not coincidentally, all the states with the lax gun laws and high gun murder rates also happened to be the stupidest and poorest states.

But, we can say that having strict gun laws does not cause high rates of gun violence, as many gun nuts would have us believe.

I've yet to have time to read the links in detail, but I did notice right off the bat that there are some states in the [strong laws] bracket with some of the most gun violent cities, i.e: Michigan (Detriot) and Illinois (Chicago). There are large parts of certain cities in Cali and Jersey that aren't particularly safe, either.[1]
 1. Just an observation.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 03, 2013, 11:14:29 PM
what it will take to make more Merkins wake up to reality.

You so funny!  Merkins don't like reality, it scares them. They like simplistic sound bites and feel good superstition, like a sky daddy that will take care of them and that America is always number 1.

Not to cross-reference another thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24682.msg548796.html#msg548796), but that describes a significant portion of my Facebook news feed.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 04, 2013, 07:24:05 AM
Thanks.  I've been practicing. 

Aye, seconded, pd.

good on ya both.

I've yet to have time to read the links in detail, but I did notice right off the bat that there are some states in the [strong laws] bracket with some of the most gun violent cities, i.e: Michigan (Detriot) and Illinois (Chicago).

For sure.  There are reasons for that.  In the case of Chigaco, part of that is because Illinois borders three states a with lax gun laws - Indiana, Kentucky and Missouri. 

So Chicagoan villains can easily get around illinois gun laws.  I sort of see states without good gun laws as kids whose parents don't get them vaccinated.  They are putting the vaccinated ones at risk too by giving the disease a place to hide out.   It is hard to make gun laws that prevent the wrong people from getting guns work when there are so many loopholes. 

This was one of the reasons Mayor Bloomberg sued Virginia gun dealers.  A lot of the guns used for crime in NY come from Virginia, Pennsylvania or other neaby states with weaker laws.

There are large parts of certain cities in Cali and Jersey that aren't particularly safe, either

Yes.  I think those areas would benefit from the other ideas you had to help stop gun violence.  Addressing poverty and unemployment.  I do not think only restricting guns solves the problem.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 04, 2013, 08:57:25 AM
I don't know if you've been following this or not, but there have been quite a few cases where people were recording police carrying out their duties, and the police have ordered them to stop and confiscated their equipment, and even arrested them, if they didn't.  It's very worrisome.  Courts have reiterated that police going about their duties in public places have no expectation of privacy and that it's perfectly legal to record them, but a lot of cops don't like that, and it's still happening.

new thread
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24693.0.html
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 05, 2013, 11:41:17 AM
Anyone read the NH gun law?  What are your thoughts?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 05, 2013, 12:26:10 PM
Anyone read the NH gun law?  What are your thoughts?

Got a link?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 05, 2013, 12:45:54 PM
Couldn't find a good one that just had the law in it.  Every one I checked was a lot of extraneous "reporting".  Feh.  Reporters.  Ego maniacs.  I'll keep looking.  +1 to anyone who finds it first.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 05, 2013, 01:05:19 PM
Couldn't find a good one that just had the law in it.  Every one I checked was a lot of extraneous "reporting".  Feh.  Reporters.  Ego maniacs.  I'll keep looking.  +1 to anyone who finds it first.

I'm not finding anything on NH, but Connecticut was making news this week having just passed some new measures.

I cant find a link to the actual law, but according to the news sources I'm reading, it's pretty much ,
I don't think the banning those particular weapons will have any effect on bullet related deaths.

The magazine limit has a grandfather clause letting those with higher capacity mags to keep them if they are willing to register them. Dumb. And unenforceable, I think. I also think that this won't have any effect on bullet related deaths.

Universal background checks may help reduce bullet related deaths if and only if, as you've alluded to before, it's federal, and not state by state.

edit to add:

One thing I've found lacking in all of these new and proposed laws is reinstating a waiting period. I think I recall seeing some stats where a small percentage of bullet related crime, and a large percentage of bullet related suicides declined when states had this law on the books.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 05, 2013, 02:04:37 PM
oh jesus christ.  I meant connecticut.  why in the world I said new hampshire, I don't know.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 08, 2013, 09:44:52 AM
more humor and tragedy.  gun fail part 12
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/05/1198090/-GunFAIL-XII


edit-
 which are your favorites?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 08, 2013, 07:06:32 PM
which are your favorites?


All of them.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on April 09, 2013, 08:15:30 AM
4 year old in Tenn shoots and kills deputy's wife.  The deputy was showing 2 of his guns to a relative and sat one on the bed.  The kid picked it up and killed the deputy's wife. 

And they want to arm teachers???   and everyone possible.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on April 09, 2013, 05:33:00 PM
Dammit, now we have to regulate exacto knives.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20130409/US--Texas.College-Stabbing/?

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on April 09, 2013, 08:15:19 PM
Dammit, now we have to regulate exacto knives.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20130409/US--Texas.College-Stabbing/?
No one was killed.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 10, 2013, 02:21:17 PM
A compromise has been reached by a couple politicos on background checks, so it looks like it might go to vote.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/manchin-toomey-background-checks-compromise-reid#13656211699611&action=collapse_widget&id=3398514 (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/manchin-toomey-background-checks-compromise-reid#13656211699611&action=collapse_widget&id=3398514)

Seems to have a pretty big loophole in it though.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 10, 2013, 03:32:33 PM
I'm glad they are getting something done, but what the house does to it remains to be seen.  The loophole is still huge enough to enable straw sales and all manner of skuduggery.  I really think all guns should be registered. That is the only way to have accountability for people who illegally transfer guns.

Btw, Dante, you should check out the Rude Pundit.  He has issues with the Gun Guy, whose article you linked. 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 10, 2013, 03:48:25 PM
Btw, Dante, you should check out the Rude Pundit.  He has issues with the Gun Guy, whose article you linked.

Ok, done. I didn't find RP to be particularly insightful, nor rational. Mostly he came across as a pompous prick.

Was there anything in either article you wanted to discuss?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 10, 2013, 11:26:46 PM
Clerk Beats Gun-Toting Robber With Baseball Bat (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17694089-chicago-justice-clerk-beats-gun-toting-robber-with-baseball-bat?lite)

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 11, 2013, 09:47:30 AM
Was there anything in either article you wanted to discuss?

I probably should have mentioned that the RP really didn't like Gun Guy.

I thought the gun guy made some good points in the interview. But I also thought he made some goofy statements. "Respect gun guys because we need them to be custodians of the guns because guns are so dangerous."  I don't get that.  That sounds like a circular argument.   And he dodged every effort to get him to explain himself.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 11, 2013, 10:33:44 AM
I probably should have mentioned that the RP really didn't like Gun Guy.

Nah, I figured they probably weren't going to be in agreement. I don't much care for RP's schtick tho. I was also disappointed that the RP didn't really have any argument against what GG was saying, but instead just made blanket statements, refuting strawmen.

Quote
I thought the gun guy made some good points in the interview. But I also thought he made some goofy statements. "Respect gun guys because we need them to be custodians of the guns because guns are so dangerous."  I don't get that.  That sounds like a circular argument.   And he dodged every effort to get him to explain himself.

Yeah, the interview wasn't nearly as good as the article I linked earlier. I don't recall if he said that line in his article, and right now I'm too lazy to go look it up again, but I agree he said some things in the interview that were.....off the wall? The interviewer seemed more than a little disingenuous towards the GG too, which probably contributed to that.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 11, 2013, 05:30:51 PM
Normally I am not a fan of Piers Morgan, but this loon makes him look adorable. 
http://www.upworthy.com/angry-gun-advocate-loses-it-live-on-cnn-in-the-most-bizarre-interview-ever

Why is this guy speaking for gun owners and not, say, Dante?  I honestly think people who behave like this should not be allowed near guns, scissors, knives, old people, children or glass.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 14, 2013, 08:04:43 AM
Technically, I am. But, unfortunately, I'm so devilishly handsome, the powers that be don't want me on tv.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 15, 2013, 08:52:23 AM
gun fail 13
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/12/1199518/-GunFAIL-XIII?showAll=yes

my faves are 46 and 48.  I was surprised that several were not that far from me.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 16, 2013, 07:19:59 PM
But 49 is a shortcut to the ... heart ... of the problem ...

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 16, 2013, 08:02:52 PM
P.S. But I agree it is too easy to go to the shopping center and buy automatic weapon. I know not everyone is ready to own a gun.

I came to this dance late.  You cannot go to the shopping center anywhere in the United States and buy an automatic weapon.  Semi-automatic, yes, if you pass a background check.  It takes a special permit to own an automatic weapon legally in the US.

su27 - How did strict gun laws, and possibly prohibition (I don't know that much about your country's history) work for Europe in the late 1930s?

Odin, Armed King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari on April 16, 2013, 08:18:00 PM
Yeah.  Gun restrictions were the real reason for the Second Reich.   &)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 16, 2013, 08:49:23 PM
Yeah.  Gun restrictions were the real reason for the Second Reich.   &)

Actually, with a little research, it doesn't appear that strict gun control in Germany even existed, much less had anything to do with the rise of the Nazi party.  I withdraw that comment.

I stand by the rest.  Folks should know the actual laws of a country before they try to debate them.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 17, 2013, 04:07:19 AM
It appears that the easiest thing to do to a populace is to disarm them of their common sense, and the best way to do that is to arm them with as many firearms as possible. More guns = fewer brains.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: magicmiles on April 17, 2013, 04:15:48 AM
gun fail 13
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/12/1199518/-GunFAIL-XIII?showAll=yes

my faves are 46 and 48.  I was surprised that several were not that far from me.

Re/ 48: How in the hell does a shooting range end up within shooting distance of a school? That's almost too crazy to believe.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari on April 17, 2013, 05:26:35 AM
I read the linked article.  It doesn't say that they were at a shooting range.  Maybe they were practicing informally.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 17, 2013, 05:43:58 AM
It appears that the easiest thing to do to a populace is to disarm them of their common sense, and the best way to do that is to arm them with as many firearms as possible. More guns = fewer brains.

I was considering entering this debate, as a gun owner, recreational shooter, and 2nd Amendment supporter - i.e., the sacrificial Christian among the atheists.  But, with comments like the above, from a Global Mod whatever that is, I can tell the debate is meaningless.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 17, 2013, 08:47:47 AM
But, with comments like the above, from a Global Mod whatever that is, I can tell the debate is meaningless.

Hi Odin.

If you've read this thread you'd see that both sides of this topic are represented, though it appears the pro-regulation crowd is slightly larger.  At least one moderator is among the pro-gun group. It has been a civil discussion all around and there has been no abuse by staff, as far as I can tell. 

So I wonder where this passive-agressive comment of yours comes from.  Do you fear censorship?  If so, why?  No one here has been censored for their opinions.  Do you fear being banned?  If so, why?  No one here has been banned for their opinions.  Don't look for convenient excuses to not engage.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 17, 2013, 09:40:11 PM
It appears that the easiest thing to do to a populace is to disarm them of their common sense, and the best way to do that is to arm them with as many firearms as possible. More guns = fewer brains.

I was considering entering this debate, as a gun owner, recreational shooter, and 2nd Amendment supporter - i.e., the sacrificial Christian among the atheists.  But, with comments like the above, from a Global Mod whatever that is, I can tell the debate is meaningless.

Odin, King of the Gods

Global Moderators know a lot. They have opinions, too.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 17, 2013, 09:42:10 PM
A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/opinion/a-senate-in-the-gun-lobbys-grip.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0&pagewanted=print) by Gabrielle Giffords

Quote
Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on April 18, 2013, 06:05:01 AM
Arizona just passed a bill that would require police departments that have that "turn in your gun and get cash" program to resell the guns to gun dealers instead of destroying them like in the past.  Seems kind of dumb to take them in and then put them back on the streets...but then it is Arizona.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Quesi on April 18, 2013, 07:03:13 AM
Below, a list of the Twitter handles of all of the senators who voted no on the measure, excluding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who voted against the amendment on procedural grounds. Find their information and let them know how you feel. For a full roll call, click here.
•Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) -- @SenAlexander
•Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) -- @KellyAyotte
•Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) -- @SenJohnBarrasso
•Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) -- @MaxBaucus
•Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) -- @SenatorBegich
•Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) -- @RoyBlunt
•Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) -- @JohnBoozeman
•Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) -- @SenatorBurr
•Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) -- @SaxbyChambliss
•Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) -- @SenDanCoats
•Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) -- @TomCoburn
•Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) -- @SenThadCochran
•Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) -- @SenBobCorker
•Sen. Jon Cornyn (R-Texas) -- @JohnCornyn
•Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) -- @MikeCrapo
•Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) -- @SenTedCruz
•Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) -- @SenatorEnzi
•Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) -- @SenatorFischer
•Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) -- @JeffFlake
•Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) -- @GrahamBlog
•Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) -- @ChuckGrassley
•Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) -- @SenOrrinHatch
•Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) -- @SenatorHeitkamp
•Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) -- @SenDeanHeller
•Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) -- @SenJohnHoeven
•Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) -- @jiminhofe
•Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) -- @SenatorIsakson
•Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) -- @Mike_Johanns
•Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) -- @SenRonJohnson
•Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) -- @SenMikeLee
•Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) -- @McConnellPress
•Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) -- @JerryMoran
•Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) -- @lisamurkowski
•Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- @SenRandPaul
•Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) -- @robportman
•Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) -- @SenMarkPryor
•Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) -- @SenatorRisch
•Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) -- @SenPatRoberts
•Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) -- @marcorubio
•Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) -- @SenatorTimScott
•Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) -- @SenatorSessions
•Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) -- @SenShelbyPress
•Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) -- @SenJohnThune
•Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) -- @DavidVitter
•Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) -- @SenatorWicker
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/senate-background-check-bill_n_3104250.html
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 18, 2013, 07:26:45 AM
Arizona just passed a bill that would require police departments that have that "turn in your gun and get cash" program to resell the guns to gun dealers instead of destroying them like in the past.  Seems kind of dumb to take them in and then put them back on the streets...but then it is Arizona.

I think the idea is twofold: 1) the police department raises money for itself, and 2) due to the background checks, the guns are only resold to non-prohibited persons.

In any event, there are a lot of other jurisdictions that have rules that are far, far worse.  Some, for example, mandate that any firearm that was used in a crime must be destroyed.  It's surprising how many people don't see what the problem is with that.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 18, 2013, 08:02:31 AM
Some, for example, mandate that any firearm that was used in a crime must be destroyed. 

It's like a tiger that bit a person.  Now it has the taste for humans, or crime in the case of guns.  It has to be put down.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 18, 2013, 08:47:52 AM
Some, for example, mandate that any firearm that was used in a crime must be destroyed. 

It's like a tiger that bit a person.  Now it has the taste for humans, or crime in the case of guns.  It has to be put down.

It's hard to tell sometimes whether you're being serious or not.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 18, 2013, 09:00:43 AM
Some, for example, mandate that any firearm that was used in a crime must be destroyed.  It's surprising how many people don't see what the problem is with that.

I don't see the problem with that. Irrational? Yes. But not a problem. What am I missing?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 18, 2013, 09:08:22 AM
Some, for example, mandate that any firearm that was used in a crime must be destroyed.  It's surprising how many people don't see what the problem is with that.

I don't see the problem with that. Irrational? Yes. But not a problem. What am I missing?

What you're missing is that law enforcement should first make an effort to identify the rightful owner of the firearm and return the gun to him.  If the owner cannot be identified, that's one thing; if the lawful owner was negligent in some way regarding how the gun was used in the commission of the crime, than that, too, would be one thing.  However, if (for example) it's a gun that was initially lawfully owned, then stolen from the owner's house and subsequently used in a homicide or robbery, then the rightful owner of the gun has the right to have the gun back after all the criminal proceedings and everything are over with.  In such a case, the government has no more right to destroy the gun than the burglar had to steal it in the first place.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 18, 2013, 09:24:29 AM
In such a case, the government has no more right to destroy the gun than the burglar had to steal it in the first place.

I can agree with that. Thanks.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 18, 2013, 10:14:12 AM
It's hard to tell sometimes whether you're being serious or not.

Once a gun gets accustomed to a life of crime, it just can't go back.  They call that "recidivism".  I've heard of gun rehab programs, but they don't work.  Like those Pray Away the Gay classes.  You put that criminal gun in the hands of a law biding citizen, before he even knows what's going on he's holding up a liquor store.  There's only one thing to be done. 

Kind of like in the bible where it says you have to stone to death the man and the animal that participated in, uh, unnatural acts.  Once a ewe has had some man-love, a ram just won't satisfy.  She'll be out shaking her tail at every shepherd in the field, tempting them into her manger.  Plus, once word gets around to the other shepherds that a ewe puts out, fugetaboutit.  They'll be lining up around the block. 

Not killing it would be crueler by far. 

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on April 18, 2013, 07:55:41 PM
President Obama after the senate stops the gun vote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1liUQ4imjCQ

Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn on why he voted no:

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=177825289&m=177825276
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 18, 2013, 10:07:58 PM
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=177825289&m=177825276

I heard this today.  I was disappointed with Siegel.  Coburn was full of shit and Siegel let him off the hook.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 19, 2013, 05:11:23 AM
Classy ...

(https://public.dm1.livefilestore.com/y1pDw46_lo0jD3LRTG4EwFWIAJEeOvi5rzQEGVa_4FOEVM2sPiRbIP4Nda7B6Rwe1R3/instapundit-to-giffords.png?psid=1) (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/04/18/malkin-award-nominee-57/)

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 19, 2013, 05:21:35 AM
Shrill hype from a traitor ...  Why I'm for the Brady Bill (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html)

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 19, 2013, 06:03:51 AM
The state of Maryland just passed some fairly strict new gun control laws that will be going into effect on October 1st.  There's a huge run on firearms right now as a large number of people rush to buy the guns they want before the law goes into effect.  The state police agency responsible for backgrounding (an already intensive process that will become even more so under the new law) is swamped with applications -- they are receiving 800 a day, and even working 21 hours a day, seven days a week, with additional personnel added to the division, they're only able to process 300 a day and are rapidly falling behind.  I bought a Beretta 92A1 on April 6th.  Best guess right now is that I'll probably be able to pick it up sometime around mid or late June.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 07:15:12 AM
Don't look for convenient excuses to not engage.

How about if I just try to point out the misinformation in the posts, and in the various sides of the debate?

No one can walk into a gun store in the US and walk out with a fully automatic weapon.  Semi-automatic, yes.  It takes a special permit to legally own an automatic weapon in the US.  Even a top Al-Qaeda operative stated that his followers should take advantage of these loopholes and purchase fully automatic weapons.  Can't be done.       http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

I belong to a shooting club, with skeet, trap and sporting clays ranges.  Our membership, about 1,000 total, includes mostly high-tech engineers, managers, computer specialists, numerous PhDs including retired college professors, CPAs, attorneys, etc.  Not exactly Chronos' average profile?

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 07:17:10 AM
The state of Maryland just passed some fairly strict new gun control laws that will be going into effect on October 1st.

Not exactly in the misinformation category, but an aside and expansion.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/beretta-leaves-maryland-following-stricter-gun-laws

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 19, 2013, 08:30:13 AM
How about if I just try to point out the misinformation in the posts, and in the various sides of the debate?

You can participate in whatever way you are comfortable.  Your input on this topic is welcome.

No one can walk into a gun store in the US and walk out with a fully automatic weapon.

I was aware of this.  If someone has said otherwise, I missed it.

I belong to a shooting club, with skeet, trap and sporting clays ranges.  Our membership, about 1,000 total, includes mostly high-tech engineers, managers, computer specialists, numerous PhDs including retired college professors, CPAs, attorneys, etc.  Not exactly Chronos' average profile?

True.  But that also is not representative of the general population either.  I invite you to read the Gun Fail links I have posted in this thread.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 19, 2013, 08:35:54 AM

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/beretta-leaves-maryland-following-stricter-gun-laws


I'm not clear on exactly why Beretta is leaving.  Does the law make it impossible for them to do business there?  Is it illegal for them to produce or transport their product?  Or are they just being being vindictive assholes?  The article is not clear.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 19, 2013, 08:54:19 AM
I'm not clear on exactly why Beretta is leaving.  Does the law make it impossible for them to do business there?  Is it illegal for them to produce or transport their product?  Or are they just being being vindictive assholes?  The article is not clear.

It's a combination of factors.  The law does not make it impossible for them to do business here, but it is going to ban a number of products that the company makes.  Beretta is angry about the fact that their employees are going to be manufacturing products that they will be prohibited from owning, and that they will not be able to sell in the state they are located in.  Maryland is also among the more gun-hostile states in the union, and Beretta resents the fact that they are manufacturing products in a state where the state already places so many restrictions on ownership and use of those products .  (For example, in Maryland, if you have an unloaded, locked handgun in the trunk of your car, and you stop anywhere, regardless of the reason -- even if it's to fill your car's gas tank or just go the bathroom somewhere -- you are committing a felony.)  As the restrictions are now about to become even tighter, Beretta is increasingly feeling that it is no longer welcome in Maryland.  I would feel the same way if I were them.

Maryland in general is also not known for being a very business-friendly state in any event, between regulations, taxes and so forth, but that's probably only a secondary consideration at best.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 12:30:27 PM
P.S. But I agree it is too easy to go to the shopping center and buy automatic weapon. I know not everyone is ready to own a gun.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 12:48:44 PM
I'm not clear on exactly why Beretta is leaving.  Does the law make it impossible for them to do business there?  Is it illegal for them to produce or transport their product?  Or are they just being being vindictive assholes?  The article is not clear.

With the research I did on Jeffery Reh, it was pretty evident why they are considering leaving.  “Why expand in a place where the people who built the gun couldn’t buy it?” said Jeffrey Reh, general counsel for Beretta.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/berettas-future-in-maryland-tied-to-states-gun-control-debate/2013/02/23/bcc56c62-7776-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html

They are vindictive assholes who don't want to reward a state that makes some of their products illegal to own in that state?  Do you all see the kind of bullshit rhetoric folks try to get away with in a debate like this?

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 12:55:06 PM
True.  But that also is not representative of the general population either.  I invite you to read the Gun Fail links I have posted in this thread.

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?

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 12:57:55 PM
I don't understand why we need the kind of guns that can do this kind of damage.  Rifles and hand guns are fine.  These things have no purpose xcept this kind of stuff.

Nick, what exactly do think an AR-15 is?  Is it not a rifle?

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 01:03:58 PM
Nobody here seems willing to suggest banning guns. Why not? There are around 30,000 people killed and 75,000 injured by firearms each year in the US. Here’s my proposal to reduce the carnage.

Ban private ownership of all firearms and airguns unless a person can provide a genuine reason and demonstrate a genuine need to own a gun. Genuine reasons would include pest control, hunting, target shooting or collecting. Self-defence would not be considered a genuine reason.

The approved firearm would be the least powerful weapon required for the task—for example, a single-shot .22 for pest control on farms. Applicants would need to demonstrate a genuine need for a more powerful weapon. Only professional hunters would be allowed semi-automatic weapons. Target shooters would need to compete in a specified minimum number of matches each year to retain their licence. Collectors’ weapons would be rendered permanently inoperable by plugging the barrel and welding the action. Only registered collectors would be allowed to own replica firearms.

All gun owners would be licensed through a rigorous process including a probationary period and each firearm would be individually registered to the owner by serial number. Additional firearms would only be allowed if the owner could demonstrate a genuine need to own more than one firearm. Owners must have secure storage for the firearm.

The currently existing weapons in private hands would be surrendered and destroyed. Fair compensation would be paid and financed with a levy on all taxpayers.

So, what do people think of this proposal? Do you think it is reasonable, desirable or feasible? Would you vote for this? If not, what are your objections?

Here is my objection.  I am a US citizen. 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Odin, Americanized Nordic King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 01:09:07 PM
I would support it 3sigma.  Sounds like a great way to clamp down on this so that every single person has to go through a bit more hassle.  Sure beats the current setup of multiple gun shows per city, per week, where one can walk out with an ICBM in their trunk.   ;D

Bullshit, as per my other posts.  My hometown holds one gun show every quarter.  It is a fair sized city in the US, in the top fifty in population.  You can't acquire an ICBM (hell, not even the North Korean knucklehead can get these!), nor legally acquire a fully automatic weapon.  You also cannot legally acquire a handgun without a permit, in my state.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 01:22:38 PM
Enough flood for today.  I tried to use logic to counter posts which seemed illogical to me, without interjecting my own opinion.  It appears that it was not possible to do so, but I believe I came close.  Flame away.

3sigma - Are you a US Citizen?  It's an important question, given that you propose repealing the 2nd Amendment. 

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on April 19, 2013, 02:39:43 PM
I see lots of rhetoric in the various posts Odin has made, but I think he's letting himself get carried away somewhat.  For example, let's take his citation of the Second Amendment:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Emphasis mine.  It seems to me that a lot of people pretty much ignore the entire first half of the Second Amendment, including Odin.  I think gun ownership is okay, but I also think it should be regulated, and indeed, the wording of the Second Amendment strongly suggests that the intent was to regulate gun ownership via militia membership, and in exchange, you couldn't just arbitrarily disarm people.

As for Beretta moving, let's be honest here - it isn't as if Maryland is preventing Beretta from selling any of its products in general.  They just can't sell specific kinds of guns within Maryland's borders.  They aren't being forced to move, they're choosing to move because they are upset with Maryland's laws regarding gun ownership.  And while that's their decision, let's not pretend that there isn't at least some vindictiveness there.  "You aren't going to let me sell everything I make here in this state?  Well, then, I'll just move my company to a different state instead."

Regarding the AR-15, it is a rifle, a semi-automatic gun with a magazine.  However, it was also used to murder children at an elementary school.  Is it any surprise how many people are reacting?  I personally don't see the point in all the fuss about limiting magazine size.  When you get right down to it, a reasonably skilled shooter can switch magazines in only a few seconds; small-capacity magazines wouldn't have spared any of those children from being murdered.  While I realize it's largely an effort to be seen as doing something after a massacre like that, I'm of the opinion that half-baked responses are worse than no response at all.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 19, 2013, 02:50:01 PM

As for Beretta moving, let's be honest here - it isn't as if Maryland is preventing Beretta from selling any of its products in general.  They just can't sell specific kinds of guns within Maryland's borders.  They aren't being forced to move, they're choosing to move because they are upset with Maryland's laws regarding gun ownership.  And while that's their decision, let's not pretend that there isn't at least some vindictiveness there.  "You aren't going to let me sell everything I make here in this state?  Well, then, I'll just move my company to a different state instead."

Let me preface this by stating that I've done zero research on Beretta, but it seems to me a very rare company that makes moves just to be vindictive. That runs completely contrary to most business models I've witnessed, where all decisions are based on revenues.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 03:16:06 PM
I see lots of rhetoric in the various posts Odin has made, but I think he's letting himself get carried away somewhat.  For example, let's take his citation of the Second Amendment:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Emphasis mine.  It seems to me that a lot of people pretty much ignore the entire first half of the Second Amendment, including Odin.  I think gun ownership is okay, but I also think it should be regulated, and indeed, the wording of the Second Amendment strongly suggests that the intent was to regulate gun ownership via militia membership, and in exchange, you couldn't just arbitrarily disarm people.

from    http://ivn.us/2012/12/21/second-amendment-individual-rights-vs-collective-rights/

Throughout most of U.S. history, the Second Amendment was not viewed as protecting an individual right. It wasn’t until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment addresses an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller.
 
In a 5-4 decision, the justices on the high court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. by dividing the amendment into separate, but equal clauses.
 
“The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause,” Justice Scalia wrote in the court’s opinion. “The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.”
 
To simplify what he said:
 
“The Amendment could be rephrased, ‘Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’”
 
The majority opinion stated that not only is the right to bear arms an individual right, separate from military service or service in a collective body, but the phrase “keep and bear” means individuals have a right to possess and carry in the event of confrontation.

Ergo, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Quote
As for Beretta moving, let's be honest here - it isn't as if Maryland is preventing Beretta from selling any of its products in general.  They just can't sell specific kinds of guns within Maryland's borders.  They aren't being forced to move, they're choosing to move because they are upset with Maryland's laws regarding gun ownership.  And while that's their decision, let's not pretend that there isn't at least some vindictiveness there.  "You aren't going to let me sell everything I make here in this state?  Well, then, I'll just move my company to a different state instead."

Yes, and it is their prerogative to be vindictive.  Why continue to do business in a hostile state environment?  Why not move to a more gun-friendly state?  I would bet if you made product X, and your home state outlawed product X, you would also not be too happy with that state. 

Quote
Regarding the AR-15, it is a rifle, a semi-automatic gun with a magazine.  However, it was also used to murder children at an elementary school.  Is it any surprise how many people are reacting?  I personally don't see the point in all the fuss about limiting magazine size.  When you get right down to it, a reasonably skilled shooter can switch magazines in only a few seconds; small-capacity magazines wouldn't have spared any of those children from being murdered.  While I realize it's largely an effort to be seen as doing something after a massacre like that, I'm of the opinion that half-baked responses are worse than no response at all.

Here we can disagree.  An AR-15 with a five-round magazine is no more deadly than any semi-automatic hunting rifle, like say a Remington Model 750 in .270 Winchester caliber, with a five-round magazine.

End of rhetoric.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 03:19:45 PM
Let me preface this by stating that I've done zero research on Beretta, but it seems to me a very rare company that makes moves just to be vindictive. That runs completely contrary to most business models I've witnessed, where all decisions are based on revenues.

Dante and jaimehlers,

You clearly don't understand the attitudes of family-owned businesses, like Beretta.  They are very protective of their brands and products.  As I stated above, why stay in a clearly hostile business environment?

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 19, 2013, 03:30:29 PM
Let me preface this by stating that I've done zero research on Beretta, but it seems to me a very rare company that makes moves just to be vindictive. That runs completely contrary to most business models I've witnessed, where all decisions are based on revenues.

Dante and jaimehlers,

You clearly don't understand the attitudes of family-owned businesses, like Beretta.  They are very protective of their brands and products.  As I stated above, why stay in a clearly hostile business environment?Odin, King of the Gods

Money. It's why businesses are businesses.

But, if they really are relocating because of their convictions, I have no problem with that either.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on April 19, 2013, 03:54:09 PM
Odin, that Supreme Court decision didn't happen in a vacuum.  It happened because of organizations which viewed gun ownership as an individual right, and who were able to get a slim majority on the Court to agree with them.  Those people and groups basically ignore the first part of the Second Amendment by separating it into two clauses.  "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" doesn't really say a lot by itself.  A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...?  While I'd agree that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, it doesn't really say much in a legal sense.  It needs the other half, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" in order to make proper sense.

In other words, it's just playing word games with the Constitution, and I flat out don't buy it.  I'm glad you pointed that out, though, because it's more proof that many 'conservatives' are playing fast and loose with the Constitution so they can do what they want with it.  We saw the same thing with Citizens United, where a similar 5-4 majority declared that a corporation was a person and thus used it to justify allowing unlimited spending by those corporations during election cycles.

Regarding Beretta, I don't really care.  If they want to be vindictive, that's their responsibility, I'm not going to give them a bye or excuse their actions for it.

And regarding magazine sizes, my point was that there's no reason to limit them because it's pretty easy to switch magazines if you know how to do it.  Indeed, I segued into the point that it would have been better to wait until the hysteria died down before they started passing laws, rather than passing half-baked laws to appease that hysteria.  I don't know what you were responding to here, it certainly isn't anything I said.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari on April 19, 2013, 03:57:17 PM
And regarding magazine sizes, my point was that there's no reason to limit them because it's pretty easy to switch magazines if you know how to do it.  Indeed, I segued into the point that it would have been better to wait until the hysteria died down before they started passing laws, rather than passing half-baked laws to appease that hysteria.  I don't know what you were responding to here, it certainly isn't anything I said.

Because you disagree with his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, everything else you say must be disagreed with as well.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 05:34:10 PM
I personally don't see the point in all the fuss about limiting magazine size.  When you get right down to it, a reasonably skilled shooter can switch magazines in only a few seconds; small-capacity magazines wouldn't have spared any of those children from being murdered.  While I realize it's largely an effort to be seen as doing something after a massacre like that, I'm of the opinion that half-baked responses are worse than no response at all.

This is what I was responding to, regarding magazine sizes.  I don't think you have shot many semi-automatic guns, and you also have not thought this issue through, it appears to me.

Three 30-round AR magazines obviously hold 90 rounds.  It takes 18 5-round magazines to total 90 rounds.  I would suggest it is much easier to carry 3 30-round AR magazines than it would be to carry 18 5-round magazines.  It would also be more effective and efficient, from a killing perspective, to change magazines just 2 times to fire 90 rounds than to change magazines 17 times.

That being said, I believe that limiting magazine capacity is the most effective way to prevent mass shootings.  However, there are about 3 million AR-15 type weapons held by US citizens.  The majority have magazine capacities of 20 and/or 30 rounds.  Pandora's Box has been opened, and cannot be closed.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Brakeman on April 19, 2013, 09:02:48 PM

Three 30-round AR magazines obviously hold 90 rounds.  It takes 18 5-round magazines to total 90 rounds.  I would suggest it is much easier to carry 3 30-round AR magazines than it would be to carry 18 5-round magazines.  It would also be more effective and efficient, from a killing perspective, to change magazines just 2 times to fire 90 rounds than to change magazines 17 times.

That being said, I believe that limiting magazine capacity is the most effective way to prevent mass shootings. .

So why doesn't the U.S. Army issue 30 round clips?

 The army wants their soldiers to be as lethal as possible, but they know that a practiced reload takes very little time and the small clips are easier to manage and don't become entangled with objects while being waved around.

Watch this shooter and tell us how you would wrestle him to the ground while he's reloading..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 19, 2013, 09:42:08 PM
I belong to a shooting club, with skeet, trap and sporting clays ranges.  Our membership, about 1,000 total, includes mostly high-tech engineers, managers, computer specialists, numerous PhDs including retired college professors, CPAs, attorneys, etc.  Not exactly Chronos' average profile?

My average profile? I don't understand. Please elaborate.



Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 09:53:41 PM
It appears that the easiest thing to do to a populace is to disarm them of their common sense, and the best way to do that is to arm them with as many firearms as possible. More guns = fewer brains.

Perhaps I misunderstood?

Odin
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 19, 2013, 10:11:18 PM
So why doesn't the U.S. Army issue 30 round clips?

 The army wants their soldiers to be as lethal as possible, but they know that a practiced reload takes very little time and the small clips are easier to manage and don't become entangled with objects while being waved around.

Watch this shooter and tell us how you would wrestle him to the ground while he's reloading..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ

Not sure where you are getting your info on Army M4 magazine capacities.  It looks like 30 rounds to me.

http://www.military-today.com/firearms/m4.htm

Also, that speed reloader is one shooter in a few million.  It's like comparing a PGA Tour Pro with a weekend duffer.  They don't play the same game.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on April 19, 2013, 11:39:43 PM
This is what I was responding to, regarding magazine sizes.  I don't think you have shot many semi-automatic guns, and you also have not thought this issue through, it appears to me.

Three 30-round AR magazines obviously hold 90 rounds.  It takes 18 5-round magazines to total 90 rounds.  I would suggest it is much easier to carry 3 30-round AR magazines than it would be to carry 18 5-round magazines.  It would also be more effective and efficient, from a killing perspective, to change magazines just 2 times to fire 90 rounds than to change magazines 17 times.

That being said, I believe that limiting magazine capacity is the most effective way to prevent mass shootings.  However, there are about 3 million AR-15 type weapons held by US citizens.  The majority have magazine capacities of 20 and/or 30 rounds.  Pandora's Box has been opened, and cannot be closed.
The Army issues assault rifles that have burst and fully-automatic settings.  I'm pretty sure those kinds of guns are not sold to civilians.  Come on, seriously, what do you take me for?

And it really isn't that difficult to switch magazines, given the way many firearms are designed.  We aren't talking about bolt-action rifles here.  Sure, a typical shooter won't be able to change clips in a second, but it won't slow them down very much.  Certainly not enough for unarmed, untrained civilians to rush him.

Personally, I think the best way to prevent mass shootings is to teach people how to use - and when not to use - them.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: DumpsterFire on April 20, 2013, 01:45:16 AM
Yes, and it is their prerogative to be vindictive.  Why continue to do business in a hostile state environment?  Why not move to a more gun-friendly state?  I would bet if you made product X, and your home state outlawed product X, you would also not be too happy with that state. 

The Jack Daniels distillery is located in a TN county that has been dry[1] since Prohibition, and they've been doing just fine for nearly a century.
 1. for anyone who may not know, dry means the sale of alcoholic beverages is illegal
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 20, 2013, 05:35:05 AM
The Army issues assault rifles that have burst and fully-automatic settings.  I'm pretty sure those kinds of guns are not sold to civilians.  Come on, seriously, what do you take me for?
 

I'm not sure what I said that makes you think I take you for something.  Fully automatic and burst-fire rifles are not available to the general public in the US.  I stated that several times.

Quote
And it really isn't that difficult to switch magazines, given the way many firearms are designed.  We aren't talking about bolt-action rifles here.  Sure, a typical shooter won't be able to change clips in a second, but it won't slow them down very much.  Certainly not enough for unarmed, untrained civilians to rush him.

Personally, I think the best way to prevent mass shootings is to teach people how to use - and when not to use - them.

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? 

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 20, 2013, 05:41:58 AM
The Jack Daniels distillery is located in a TN county that has been dry[1] since Prohibition, and they've been doing just fine for nearly a century.
 1. for anyone who may not know, dry means the sale of alcoholic beverages is illegal
 

It is their perogative to stay.  However, per Wikipedia:

When the company was later incorporated, it was incorporated as "Jack Daniel Distillery, Lem Motlow, Prop., Inc." This has allowed the company to continue to include Lem Motlow, who died in 1947, in its marketing, since mentioning him in the advertising is technically just citing the full corporate name. Likewise, the advertisements continue to say that Lynchburg has only 361 people, though the 2000 census reports 5,740. This is allowable because the entire label was trademarked in the early 1960s when this figure was the actual population cited by the Census Bureau; changing the label would require applying for a new trademark or forfeiting trademark protection. However, the census population includes all of Moore County, as the county and city governments are consolidated. Moore County, where the Jack Daniel's distillery is located, is one of the state's many dry counties. Therefore, while it is legal to distill the product within the county, it is illegal to purchase it there. However, a state law has provided one exception: a distillery may sell one commemorative product, regardless of county statutes.[12] Jack Daniel's now sells Gentleman Jack, Jack Daniel's Single Barrel, the original No. 7 blend (in a commemorative bottle), and a seasonal blend (on rotation) at the distillery's White Rabbit Bottle Shop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Daniel's

I also bet that distillery workers get some whiskey allowance every so often, though I can't easily find a reference to it.  Note that they moved out of TN at one point.

It's actually not a good analogy to compare sour mash whiskey production to gun manufacturing.  Sour mash and bourbon whiskey are almost exclusively distilled in KY and TN.  Distilleries were originally located there, in hilly or mountainous areas, to take advantage of the supply of clean waters in streams and rivers.  Read some about the history of sour mash and bourbon.

Odin, King of the Gods

PS - Odin has been known to consume these "Nectars of the Gods" upon occasion.  Gentleman Jack is one of his favorites. 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 20, 2013, 05:57:22 AM
So why doesn't the U.S. Army issue 30 round clips?

 The army wants their soldiers to be as lethal as possible, but they know that a practiced reload takes very little time and the small clips are easier to manage

Just an aside, by the way: the term is "magazine", not "clip".
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 20, 2013, 06:00:19 AM
So why doesn't the U.S. Army issue 30 round clips?

 The army wants their soldiers to be as lethal as possible, but they know that a practiced reload takes very little time and the small clips are easier to manage

Just an aside, by the way: the term is "magazine", not "clip".

Ah, another knowledgeable gun owner/user.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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. 

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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. 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin 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
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin 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
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin 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
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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? 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin 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
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos 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.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin 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!
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin 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
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante 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...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape 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.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin 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
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante 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?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 24, 2013, 08:54:07 AM
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.

I realize registration is not the same as repealing the 2nd Amendment.  But, this video shows how idiotic the average person is, and how little they listen.  It also shows what the real effect of gun registration would be.  No one who now owns guns, and who is not supposed to own guns, would register their guns.  Over a long period of time, say 100 years, registration could become more effective, as the owners of unregistered guns died off. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2diNojgJF9c

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 24, 2013, 09:02:48 AM
this video shows how idiotic the average person is, and how little they listen.

Holy cow.  That would be funny if it weren't so frightening.  The guy explicitly says, more than once, that his petition is to ensure that only criminals will have guns -- and these idiots sign it.  Yikes!

Quote
No one who now owns guns, and who is not supposed to own guns, would register their guns.

In fact, under Haynes v. United States, they cannot be required to do so.  The ruling in that case said that prohibited persons are exempt from gun registration laws because compelling them to register their guns would constitute a violation of their Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves.  Thus, when it comes to gun ownership, felons, wifebeaters, and so on have a greater right to privacy than the law-abiding.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 24, 2013, 09:03:49 AM
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.... Exactly. So why the 10 round limit then?

You got me, Dante.  I am at a loss to justify the limit.  Somehow it does make me feel good, especially if police were also limited to 10-rounders.  And, I pulled the 10-round limit from my colon.  To put AR-15s on a par with hunting rifles, the limit would need to be 5-rounds. 

As I have said, Pandora's Box has been opened.  How do we close it? 

By the way, the guns I own, with one exception, are target shotguns.  I shoot 12-gauge sporting clays, skeet and trap with an over-under shotgun, capacity exactly two, using 7.5 or 8 shot.  This gun would be deadly only within a 20 yard range, +/-.  I could shoot you at 150 yards and not break your skin.  (Yes, I could opt to use it with buck shot or slugs, and it would be more "deadly.")  Not all guns are equal.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on April 24, 2013, 09:09:57 AM
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.
You can make points without saying asinine, insulting things like "put on your big boy pants".  That is what I mean by your self-important attitude.  That is not the same thing as refraining from pointing out places where you disagree or where I got something wrong.  I don't mind when people disagree with me, and I certainly don't mind when they point things out to me that I got wrong.  I do mind when a person decides to cop an attitude while they're doing those things, because it's often just a way to make themselves look better - to show off, to boast, pick your verb.

When you denigrate me by telling me things like that, you're trying to puff yourself up at my expense.  Even when you're right, you come across as a self-important jerk.  What do you think happens when you cop that kind of attitude and end up being wrong?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 24, 2013, 09:12:53 AM
As I have said, Pandora's Box has been opened.  How do we close it?

We don't.  Among other things, with the increased availability of 3-D printers, it is going to become increasingly easy for people to manufacture their own gun magazines right in their own homes.  In fact, after I typed that sentence, it occurred to me that people are probably already working on that, and a Google search confirms that that's the case.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 24, 2013, 10:00:33 AM
No one who now owns guns, and who is not supposed to own guns, would register their guns.  Over a long period of time, say 100 years, registration could become more effective, as the owners of unregistered guns died off. 

I could not watch the vid.  blocked at work.

I don't think getting registration compliance would be that hard.  At hunting season, have a few state troopers with the game warden.  When he's checking for hunting licenses, the troopers can check for gun registration.  Spot sheck for registration at shooting ranges.  After a few guns are confiscated or a few people arrested, people will get the point.

And it does not have to be that draconian off the bat.  Phase it in.  Give people two years to do it.  During that time if they get caught with unregistered guns, it is just a misdemeanor or a ticket.  After that, heavy fines and confiscation.  After that, jail.

Register the mags too, so that people who actually need larger capacity clips can have them.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 24, 2013, 10:43:17 AM
You can make points without saying asinine, insulting things like "put on your big boy pants".  That is what I mean by your self-important attitude.  That is not the same thing as refraining from pointing out places where you disagree or where I got something wrong.  I don't mind when people disagree with me, and I certainly don't mind when they point things out to me that I got wrong.  I do mind when a person decides to cop an attitude while they're doing those things, because it's often just a way to make themselves look better - to show off, to boast, pick your verb.

When you denigrate me by telling me things like that, you're trying to puff yourself up at my expense.  Even when you're right, you come across as a self-important jerk.  What do you think happens when you cop that kind of attitude and end up being wrong?

Fine.  You have degraded into comments about my attitude, and nothing else.  You didn't even bother to respond to the rest of my post.  I have decided not to respond to any more of your posts.  Goodbye.  And, sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Odin, Kind King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 24, 2013, 10:46:01 AM
Register the mags too, so that people who actually need larger capacity clips can have them.

They're not serialized, so it'd be nigh impossible. Not to mention unnecessary.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 24, 2013, 08:11:54 PM
But guns?  What is the purpose of a gun? 

To shoot.  To kill or maim.  That is the purpose.  That is what guns are made to do.

Apparently you are not familiar with the target shooting sports.  Or hunting.  My 12-gauge over and under two shot sporting gun, loaded with 7.5 or 8 shot, is not lethal, at least not in the strictest sense.  It will kill small game at short range, and would also kill a person at very short range.  Beyond 40 yards or so, it probably wouldn't cause serious injury to a human, unless a shot went into the eyes.  Beyond 100 yards, it wouldn't even sting much.

All guns are not created equal, and should not be lumped together.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 24, 2013, 08:25:06 PM
In other news, Chicago just reached 500 homicides on the year, in one of the most, if not the most, regulated gun markets in the US.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-reaches-500-homicides-fatal-shooting-18082567 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-reaches-500-homicides-fatal-shooting-18082567)

how many of them are gun related?  If it is the most regulated market in the US[1], what does that mean?  Keep in mind, "the most regulated" is a relative thing.  It still might not be regulated enough for the desired outcome.
 1. assuming it is.  I don't want to argue that point

It has been "illegal" to own a handgun in Chicago for at least thirty years.

Maybe they should pass a new law that says, "It's now illegal to own a handgun in Chicago, and this time, we really, really, really mean it."

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 24, 2013, 08:35:32 PM
I live in Montana. Last year we had 28 murders in the whole state, and around 200 auto fatalities. To the Chicago ratio is 3/1, murder/car death-wise In Montana it is closer to 1/8.
 

Montana has 6.86 people per square mile.  Illinois has 232 people per square mile.  You'd have a hard time finding someone in Montana to kill!  [snicker]

The largest city in Montana is Billings, with an estimated 2012 population of a little over 151,000.  It's the only city in Montana with more than 100,000 people. 

Hell, on game day there are more than 151,000 people within a 5-mile radius of Wrigley Field.

Odin, King of the Gods

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 24, 2013, 08:39:08 PM
Also, even if it is the most regulated market, by whatever measure you wish to make, that doesn't mean that people do not carry guns across state borders. Wisconsin and Indiana are quite close to Chicago, not to mention that a dozen other states are within an easy day drive of Chicago. Heavy regulations in one state have little impact when guns can be traded privately in other states with lax requirements.

But, you are missing the point.  It is ILLEGAL to have the handguns in Chicago.  I'm sure things would change if we just told the citizens of Chicago what the law really says.  And, tell them handguns are illegal in Chicago, even if they were legally purchased in Indiana or Wisconsin.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 24, 2013, 08:45:34 PM
But, you are missing the point.  It is ILLEGAL to have the handguns in Chicago.  I'm sure things would change if we just told the citizens of Chicago what the law really says.  And, tell them handguns are illegal in Chicago, even if they were legally purchased in Indiana or Wisconsin.

It appears that you adhere to the position that we should repeal laws that criminals don't follow. Near every tree is a forest.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 24, 2013, 09:00:15 PM
But, you are missing the point.  It is ILLEGAL to have the handguns in Chicago.  I'm sure things would change if we just told the citizens of Chicago what the law really says.  And, tell them handguns are illegal in Chicago, even if they were legally purchased in Indiana or Wisconsin.

It appears that you adhere to the position that we should repeal laws that criminals don't follow. Near every tree is a forest.

That's not even close to what I was saying, Chronos.  The point is that a city with the most restrictive handgun laws in the country has a very high handgun homicide rate.  Passing another law to say that handguns are illegal in Chicago would not have much effect.

I dare say that if the war on drugs were eliminated, and drugs were all legalized, the murder rate in Chicago would drop dramatically.  Do you agree?

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Add Homonym on April 25, 2013, 01:38:05 AM

I realize registration is not the same as repealing the 2nd Amendment.  But, this video shows how idiotic the average person is, and how little they listen.  It also shows what the real effect of gun registration would be.  No one who now owns guns, and who is not supposed to own guns, would register their guns.  Over a long period of time, say 100 years, registration could become more effective, as the owners of unregistered guns died off. 


It's not a terribly useful video, because what it shows is a bunch of people signing a petition without being told anything. I don't know if it demonstrates that people will sign any petition, just to get rid of the tall fat guy.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 25, 2013, 05:19:59 AM
It's not a terribly useful video, because what it shows is a bunch of people signing a petition without being told anything. I don't know if it demonstrates that people will sign any petition, just to get rid of the tall fat guy.

I disagree.  They were told that they were signing a petition to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  And it would make sure only criminals had guns.  It was obvious the signers weren't listening.

Try this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1Zy_ASNyA

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 25, 2013, 09:32:56 AM
But, you are missing the point.  It is ILLEGAL to have the handguns in Chicago.  I'm sure things would change if we just told the citizens of Chicago what the law really says.  And, tell them handguns are illegal in Chicago, even if they were legally purchased in Indiana or Wisconsin.

That would change if there was a gun registry that recorded who bought them.  And if every gun buyer had to have a license.  They would go to Indiana, not have a licence and not be able to buy a gun.  Or they could buy a gun, but Chicago authorities would know a Chicago resident purchased a gun and possibly had one illegally.

I know you have worries about it, but do you see how practical it is?

Passing another law to say that handguns are illegal in Chicago would not have much effect.

Right.  You would have to have a comprehensive and consistent national policy to keep guns from leaking in from lax areas.  This is why mexican criminals cross the border to Arizona to buy their guns.  We bitch about cartel drug violence, but it is in part supported by guns sold here.

I dare say that if the war on drugs were eliminated, and drugs were all legalized, the murder rate in Chicago would drop dramatically.  Do you agree?

yep.  Also, if we had a better jobs program, better national health policy and a bunch of other really liberal, socialist ideas.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on April 25, 2013, 10:02:26 AM
Fine.  You have degraded into comments about my attitude, and nothing else.  You didn't even bother to respond to the rest of my post.  I have decided not to respond to any more of your posts.  Goodbye.  And, sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Thank you for illustrating the problem I was trying to get at so well.  Instead of curbing your attitude even a little, or being willing to discuss it at all, you'd rather stop talking to people who criticize you for it, because it's not "on subject".  And you think rude, asinine comments about me are "on subject", I suppose?  I didn't comment on the rest of what you wrote because I wanted to get this out of the way first.  Just as well, given that you would have ignored it otherwise, like you did the last time, and at least I have your measure now.



I found out about a meme being spread today on Breitbart's network (and naturally went viral on various conservative websites).  Apparently, hammers and clubs are used to commit more murders than guns - at least according to a person who smugly commented on my criticism of a person who wrote a letter suggesting "background checks" for screws, nails, etc, which were used as shrapnel in the Boston bombings.

Well, not quite.  It's actually just one category of guns, rifles.  Add shotguns into the mix, and the numbers swing the other way.  Add handguns into the mix, and there isn't even any comparison.

Not only that, but it's deceptive in other ways too.  A person armed with a hammer or club is not going to be able to murder dozens of people at a school, whereas you can do that with a firearm, whether it's a rifle, a shotgun, a handgun, or something else.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Add Homonym on April 25, 2013, 11:03:15 AM

I disagree.  They were told that they were signing a petition to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  And it would make sure only criminals had guns.  It was obvious the signers weren't listening.


Nothing is "obvious" because the preamble is never shown. They are always signing the petition as he is talking. He may have introduced himself as someone wanting to save trees.

It's pretty easy to manipulate vox pop interractions, by picking the dumbest people ->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpK6RipZkMs
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 25, 2013, 01:26:05 PM
That would change if there was a gun registry that recorded who bought them.  And if every gun buyer had to have a license.  They would go to Indiana, not have a licence and not be able to buy a gun.  Or they could buy a gun, but Chicago authorities would know a Chicago resident purchased a gun and possibly had one illegally.

I know you have worries about it, but do you see how practical it is?

The folks who go to Indiana and bring a handgun back into Chicago are criminals.  They are breaking the law in Chicago, as well as Illinois state law.

And get this - they are also breaking federal law, as well as the sellers are breaking federal law.  It is illegal under federal law for a hangun to be sold to someone from outside that state.  To veryify this (which I knew anyway), I called a Federal Firearms Licensee in Indiana.

The other way for a Chicago resident to obtain a firearm is to have an Indiana resident buy it, and then sell it to the Chicago resident.  This is illegal on the federal level, worse than above because they are not an FFL, and illegal under the straw buyer law. 

Do you see yet how much misinformation is out there?

{edit to clarify the law}  An Illinois resident could go to Indiana, pick out a handgun, pay for it, and go home.  The buyer would then have to find an Illinois FFL to accept shipment of the gun.  The gun is, in technical terms, sold from the Indiana seller to the Illinois FFL.  The Illinois FFL then has to transfer the gun to the Illinois buyer.  Further, in Illinois you have to have a Firearms Owner's Identification Card (FOID) in order to obtain the firearm from the FFL.  A background check is done before the FOID card is issued.  (I was visiting relative in Illinois once.  I could not handle handguns in a gun store because I didn't have the FOID card.)  I am making a leap of faith that a Chicago resident, during the time when handguns were illegal to own, could not have legally taken the transfer from the FFL.  http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/  {end edit}

Quote
Right.  You would have to have a comprehensive and consistent national policy to keep guns from leaking in from lax areas.  This is why mexican criminals cross the border to Arizona to buy their guns.  We bitch about cartel drug violence, but it is in part supported by guns sold here.

I hope you are starting to see that the laws are already in place.  Criminals ignore the laws.

Odin, King of the Gods

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on April 25, 2013, 03:00:39 PM
I hope you are starting to see that the laws are already in place.  Criminal ignore the laws.
The fact that criminals break laws is not in and of itself a good reason to repeal those laws.  That point comes when law enforcement is unable to effectively enforce those laws, whether it is because citizens routinely break them or because it is easy to bypass them.

Chicago is a good example of this, as Chicago's gun laws were significantly more restrictive than the state's laws regarding firearms (never mind surrounding states).  In effect, it made it fairly trivial to break the laws with a relatively small risk of being caught.  Even if every law-abiding citizen had obeyed Chicago's handgun ban, it would still have been terribly difficult to enforce the Chicago ban.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 25, 2013, 03:03:26 PM
I hope you are starting to see that the laws are already in place.  Criminal ignore the laws.
The fact that criminals break laws is not in and of itself a good reason to repeal those laws.

I don't think Odin is arguing that those laws should be repealed. He's arguing that any laws already on the books, and any subsequent laws, will be ignored entirely by criminals.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on April 25, 2013, 03:11:06 PM
I don't think Odin is arguing that those laws should be repealed. He's arguing that any laws already on the books, and any subsequent laws, will be ignored entirely by criminals.
The fact that criminals will not obey a law is also not a good reason in and of itself to not pass that law.  The questions are whether the law is effectively enforceable, and whether law-abiding citizens will comply with it.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 25, 2013, 03:13:16 PM
I hope you are starting to see that the laws are already in place.  Criminal ignore the laws.
The fact that criminals break laws is not in and of itself a good reason to repeal those laws.

I don't think Odin is arguing that those laws should be repealed. He's arguing that any laws already on the books, and any subsequent laws, will be ignored entirely by criminals.

Right.  And a big part of the problem with this is that the government doesn't even try to enforce many of the existing laws.

Probably the best example is the background check for gun purchases.  In the year 2010, for example, there were 73,000 denials, out of which there were only 13 guilty pleas.  The government just doesn't make it a priority, for whatever reason.  Things like this are a big part of the reason that gun rights advocates are so often opposed to creating new gun control laws: the government isn't even enforcing the ones we already have.  What point is there to adding additional steps to the background check if, after a denial, the convicted felon/wifebeater/drug dealer/whatever is simply allowed to walk out the door and go on his merry way?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 25, 2013, 03:18:32 PM
I don't think Odin is arguing that those laws should be repealed. He's arguing that any laws already on the books, and any subsequent laws, will be ignored entirely by criminals.
The fact that criminals will not obey a law is also not a good reason in and of itself to not pass that law.  The questions are whether the law is effectively enforceable, and whether law-abiding citizens will comply with it.

No, the question is whether the law does anythiing to help curb gun violence. Period. Otherwise, it's just more feel good bullshit that will do nothing EXCEPT make some otherwise law abiding individuals into criminals.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on April 25, 2013, 03:24:44 PM
No, the question is whether the law does anythiing to help curb gun violence. Period. Otherwise, it's just more feel good bullshit that will do nothing EXCEPT make some otherwise law abiding individuals into criminals.
That's what "effectively enforceable" means - that the law can accomplish its purpose.

And also, you shouldn't dismiss whether law-abiding citizens will comply with the law.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 25, 2013, 03:35:54 PM
And also, you shouldn't dismiss whether law-abiding citizens will comply with the law.

I can already tell you, many will not, depending on which laws you're speaking of. The majority of those many will not see any justification whatsoever to register their weapons, especially if the weapons were obtained without any kind of paper trail.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: jaimehlers on April 25, 2013, 03:41:59 PM
But how many?  A thousand, ten thousand?  A million?  Compared to how many gun owners that would be okay with a gun registration?

You see the point, I hope.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 25, 2013, 03:46:09 PM
But how many?  A thousand, ten thousand?  A million?  Compared to how many gun owners that would be okay with a gun registration?

You see the point, I hope.

You tell me; how many is too many?

ETA:

Sorry, I shouldn't have been so dismissive. My apologies.

The point I was looking for is, how many is too many to you? Is there a number where you would say it doesn't make sense to pass laws that even law abiding individuals will scoff at?

For numbers, we could start with probably all the Tea Baggers, nearly all neo-cons, a whole lot of general Repubs, and more than a couple of indepents/progressives. YMMV.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 25, 2013, 10:08:57 PM
I don't think Odin is arguing that those laws should be repealed. He's arguing that any laws already on the books, and any subsequent laws, will be ignored entirely by criminals.

Thanks.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 25, 2013, 10:10:07 PM
[Right.  And a big part of the problem with this is that the government doesn't even try to enforce many of the existing laws.

And, also, thanks.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 26, 2013, 08:57:01 AM
I hope you are starting to see that the laws are already in place.  Criminals ignore the laws.

Thanks for the info on the chicago-indiana gun smuggling.  There are laws that make it illegal, but there is absolutely no way to actually enforce the laws.  Right now there is no way to know who has guns, who they are selling them to, when they are doing it, where they are.  It is Somalia out there.

If we don't want certain people to have guns - and we agree some people shouldn't - we have to have a way to make sure they don't get them.  And when they do, we need to be able to take them away.  I think a lot of gun rights people are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in their approach.  It seems they agree the bad guys should not get them, but they oppose any means of solving the problem out of fear those same laws will be used to take their guns. 

Suppose you were king.  How would you fix it?




In the year 2010, for example, there were 73,000 denials, out of which there were only 13 guilty pleas.  The government just doesn't make it a priority, for whatever reason.

I'm not familiar with the law.  Is it illegal for people to apply for a gun and fail the background check?  I think it is also important to know why people are not being prosecuted.  It could be a caveat the NRA inserted where there is no obligation to inform police when a background check has failed.  Not saying that is the case, but they have done their best to water down all gun laws.



And also, you shouldn't dismiss whether law-abiding citizens will comply with the law.

By definition, law-abiding citizens will abide by the law.  I am sure there will be people who are not otherwise criminals that will ignore the law.  Which is why it will take time to register all the guns.  I think there needs to be a build up of trust so that lawful gun owners will understand it is not going to lead to a ban.

Penalties should exist, but start out low.  As time goes on the penalties should become harsher.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 26, 2013, 09:13:08 AM

In the year 2010, for example, there were 73,000 denials, out of which there were only 13 guilty pleas.  The government just doesn't make it a priority, for whatever reason.

I'm not familiar with the law.  Is it illegal for people to apply for a gun and fail the background check?  I think it is also important to know why people are not being prosecuted.  It could be a caveat the NRA inserted where there is no obligation to inform police when a background check has failed.  Not saying that is the case, but they have done their best to water down all gun laws.

I'm not absolutely sure, but no, I don't think it's illegal to apply for a background check. Nor should it be, IMO. I've an aquaintance who was convicted of possession way back in the 80's, when he was young and dumb. He's since become an upstanding model citizen, married, steady job, homeowner, doesn't abuse any substances, and still is denied the right to own. I wouldn't appreciate seeing him brought up on any charges simply for following the law, and the law is that he must pass a background check to obtain a weapon.

Or would you rather he go to jail just for checking? I'm pretty sure I already know your answer to that, but these are the kinds of complications that we're all dealing with.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 26, 2013, 09:20:19 AM
In the year 2010, for example, there were 73,000 denials, out of which there were only 13 guilty pleas.  The government just doesn't make it a priority, for whatever reason.

I'm not familiar with the law.  Is it illegal for people to apply for a gun and fail the background check?

When you fill out the form 4473 and declare that you are not a prohibited person in any way, you are required to swear that all of your answers are truthful.  If they aren't, you are committing the federal crime of perjury, which is a felony.  On the other hand, if you are a prohibited person, and say so truthfully on the form, that isn't illegal -- but then, of course, the gun dealer isn't going to sell you the gun.

Quote
I think it is also important to know why people are not being prosecuted.

It's more or less the same reason that a lot of other crimes don't get prosecuted: the government has limited resources and considers failed NICS checks to be a lower priority than most other things.

Quote
It could be a caveat the NRA inserted where there is no obligation to inform police when a background check has failed.

The background checks are performed by the FBI, which means that, by definition, law enforcement knows about any background check that results in a denial.  (Or an approval, for that matter.)  The NRA has nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 26, 2013, 09:30:59 AM
Or would you rather he go to jail just for checking?

I dunno.  In your friend's specific case, no.  But in other scenarios and in light of pianodwarf's clarification, I can see where I would want other people to.

The NRA has nothing to do with it.

Just to clarify, I understand the NRA is not involved in background checks.  However, they are heavily involved in influencing how laws are written.  That was what I meant. 

And thanks for the info.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 26, 2013, 09:40:35 AM
Just to clarify, I understand the NRA is not involved in background checks.  However, they are heavily involved in influencing how laws are written.  That was what I meant.

Right, I understand.  The NRA has somewhat mixed feelings about background checks.  They support them for licensed gun dealers performing gun sales and for other similar transactions, but they oppose them for things like a father passing away and willing his guns to his sons.  One thing the NRA has been vocally upset about is the lack of prosecutions for people who fail the background checks.  I find it pretty alarming as well; I would think any reasonable person would.

Quote
And thanks for the info.

Anytime.

If you're curious, by the way, this is the form you are required to complete for any firearms purchase:
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
This is only to meet the requirements under federal law.  State and local laws sometimes add additional stuff on top of that -- for example, here in Maryland, you are required to sign a release allowing the state to examine your mental health records (if any), and if you're buying a handgun, you also have to declare that you haven't purchased a handgun within the past thirty days.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 26, 2013, 12:21:03 PM
One thing the NRA has been vocally upset about is the lack of prosecutions for people who fail the background checks.  I find it pretty alarming as well; I would think any reasonable person would.

I guess I'm missing it. Prosecuted for what exactly?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 26, 2013, 12:34:42 PM
One thing the NRA has been vocally upset about is the lack of prosecutions for people who fail the background checks.  I find it pretty alarming as well; I would think any reasonable person would.

I guess I'm missing it. Prosecuted for what exactly?

Perjury, for lying on the form 4473.  Obviously this wouldn't apply in all cases of not passing the background check, but it should certainly apply in more than 13 out of 73,000.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 26, 2013, 01:17:56 PM
On paper, perjury kinda seems irrelevant compared to everything else the FBI has to deal with.  I can her NRA owned congressmen castigating the FBI for wasting time on tracking down perjury offenders when there are real criminals out there.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 26, 2013, 01:26:20 PM
On paper, perjury kinda seems irrelevant compared to everything else the FBI has to deal with.

IMO, it depends on which category of prohibited person the declined applicant is.  If it's someone who's been busted for smoking pot or who's been dishonorably discharged, that would probably be one thing.  If it's someone with a violent felony conviction or a restraining order for domestic violence, that's quite another.  In a case like that, I would say that the person should be prosecuted just to get them off the street, and to set an example.

Quote
I can her NRA owned congressmen castigating the FBI for wasting time on tracking down perjury offenders when there are real criminals out there.

The NRA is not cool with people trying to break gun laws or using guns to commit crime.  The NRA was and is, for example, a very strong proponent of programs such as Project Exile.  And, as I said before, the NRA is one of the voices yelling the loudest about the fact that no one is being prosecuted for failing a NICS check.  Even the Brady Campaign doesn't talk about it.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari on April 26, 2013, 01:30:34 PM
I'm out of the loop on the politics you bring up, PD...if the NRA are yelling for this to be done, who is pushing back the other way - politically?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 26, 2013, 01:37:22 PM
Thanks for the info on the chicago-indiana gun smuggling.  There are laws that make it illegal, but there is absolutely no way to actually enforce the laws.  Right now there is no way to know who has guns, who they are selling them to, when they are doing it, where they are.  It is Somalia out there.

I don't understand your logic.  Don't think I'm being condescending in explaining it further.  Right now there is a database of who has purchased guns legally in Illinois and Indiana.  An Illinois resident must have a FOID card in order to buy firearms or ammunition.  That law applies to private transactions, as well as purchases from dealers.  Therefore, there is a trail of transactions for guns that were originally purchased from an in-state dealer, or transferred in from out-of-state.  Sellers are required, by law, to keep a record of FOID transactions for ten years.

As for enforcing the law - if you passed a law that says all gun owners must register their weapons - how are you going to enforce that?  Folks who don't register their guns would then be breaking the law. 

See, in my opinion laws are in place already.  Enforcement is problematic, just like enforcement of drug laws.  Enforcement causes as many, and maybe more, problems than it creates. 

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 26, 2013, 01:42:28 PM
I'm out of the loop on the politics you bring up, PD...if the NRA are yelling for this to be done, who is pushing back the other way - politically?

Nobody.  There are basically three camps regarding this: the people who are complaining about it[1], the people who aren't talking about it[2], and the people who are making excuses -- or trying to explain, I guess, depending on your viewpoint -- for why it isn't happening[3].  I'm not aware of anyone who is opining that this is the way things actually should be.  I doubt many people feel that way, and even if they did, I don't think it's the kind of viewpoint that most people would want to air publicly because it wouldn't exactly be popular.
 1. e.g., the NRA
 2. e.g., the Brady Campaign
 3. e.g., the Justice Department
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Dante on April 26, 2013, 02:25:46 PM
One thing the NRA has been vocally upset about is the lack of prosecutions for people who fail the background checks.  I find it pretty alarming as well; I would think any reasonable person would.

I guess I'm missing it. Prosecuted for what exactly?

Perjury, for lying on the form 4473.  Obviously this wouldn't apply in all cases of not passing the background check, but it should certainly apply in more than 13 out of 73,000.

Thanks. I guess reading the form would've answered my question, kinda. Of course, maybe 72987 of the 73000 filled them out honestly?

Shit, I can't even type that with a straight face  &)
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 26, 2013, 02:56:40 PM
The NRA is not cool with people trying to break gun laws or using guns to commit crime. 

Not trying to use hyperbole here, but I do not see how that fits with their obstruction of background checks and every other effort to curb gum violence.  Even if they strenuously agree with project exile, is there not a big, fat loophole with gun shows, the internets and person-to-person sales?  And right now, it is very difficult to track down straw sales, correct?  Their shouting about lack of enforcement is not credible to me.

They may be supportive of people following the law, but they are also doing their best to eliminate the law, or failing that, castrate it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/01/never-mind-new-guns-laws-the-nra-keeps-weakening-the-existing-ones.html   
link in this one to the study by the Center for American Progress is pretty good.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/
Points out they got the charge of false record keeping reduced to a misdemeanor to make it less likely to be enforced.  Yay NRA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/13/nra-weakened-gun-control-laws
10 more ways they undermine the laws.  #7 & 8 are insane. 



I don't understand your logic.  Don't think I'm being condescending in explaining it further.  Right now there is a database of who has purchased guns legally in Illinois and Indiana. 

Thanks.  I don't take it as condescending.  I think I am missing something. I thought having a database was illegal?  Seriously.  ATF isn't even allowed to digitize their records.  So who has the database?

An Illinois resident must have a FOID card in order to buy firearms or ammunition.

So how are they getting the weapons and ammo?

That law applies to private transactions, as well as purchases from dealers.

But there is no way to know if the private transactors are doing that or not.

As for enforcing the law - if you passed a law that says all gun owners must register their weapons - how are you going to enforce that?  Folks who don't register their guns would then be breaking the law. 

I think you have to make the penalties for being caught with an unregistered weapon steep.  I think you have to make the penalties for illegally transferring a gun steep.  I think you have to spot check at hunting season and at shooting ranges.  Every time someone buys ammo, check to see if it matches the guns they have registered.  If not, they have some explaining to do. Or, a search warrant gets written out.

I think it will take time, but if you fix some of the problems highlighted in the links above, eventually you'll be able to get your arms around it.  This is a problem that has been allowed to grow to unmanageable proportions.  It is like the Blob.  It will not be solved with one law or in one day. 

See, in my opinion laws are in place already.  Enforcement is problematic, just like enforcement of drug laws.  Enforcement causes as many, and maybe more, problems than it creates. 

Come on, Odin.  You cannot just sit back and throw darts are all the ideas to fix the problem.  That is lazy.  You are shrugging your shoulders and giving up on keeping guns away from the bad guys and idiots.


Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 26, 2013, 03:28:28 PM
In the year 2010, for example, there were 73,000 denials, out of which there were only 13 guilty pleas.  The government just doesn't make it a priority, for whatever reason.

I'm not familiar with the law.  Is it illegal for people to apply for a gun and fail the background check?  I think it is also important to know why people are not being prosecuted.  It could be a caveat the NRA inserted where there is no obligation to inform police when a background check has failed.  Not saying that is the case, but they have done their best to water down all gun laws.

It could also be that in the budgeting affairs of the government, there are too many other things that need to be funded and this is considered a low priority, especially in light of the fact of the political hay made for prosecuting people. The gun lobby specifically, and the conservative right in general, are very good at painting the opposite picture of what is truly happening.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 26, 2013, 03:31:34 PM
The NRA is not cool with people trying to break gun laws or using guns to commit crime. 

Not trying to use hyperbole here, but I do not see how that fits with their obstruction of background checks and every other effort to curb gum violence.  Even if they strenuously agree with project exile, is there not a big, fat loophole with gun shows, the internets and person-to-person sales?  And right now, it is very difficult to track down straw sales, correct?  Their shouting about lack of enforcement is not credible to me.

They may be supportive of people following the law, but they are also doing their best to eliminate the law, or failing that, castrate it.

It's like crying out for the punishment of pot smokers all the while working to decriminalize marijuana. It's a smoke screen, if you will. (No pun intended)

The more laws that exist for the purchase and sale of guns, the fewer guns that will be sold. It's math.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 26, 2013, 03:32:55 PM
Not necessarily the gold standard of news, but hardly surprising: Pat Toomey Approval Rises After Gun Control Stand: Poll (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/pat-toomey-gun-control_n_3162710.html)

Quote
Sen. Pat Toomey's job rating is at a record high following the Pennsylvania Republican's sponsorship of legislation to expand gun background checks, according to a poll released Friday.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 26, 2013, 09:08:22 PM
Thanks.  I don't take it as condescending.  I think I am missing something. I thought having a database was illegal?  Seriously.  ATF isn't even allowed to digitize their records.  So who has the database?

I'll get back to you on this.


Quote
So how are they getting the weapons and ammo?

Illegally.  Another law won't stop that.

Quote
But there is no way to know if the private transactors are doing that or not.

But there is a law in place.  Isn't that what you want, more laws?

Quote
I think you have to make the penalties for being caught with an unregistered weapon steep.  I think you have to make the penalties for illegally transferring a gun steep.  I think you have to spot check at hunting season and at shooting ranges.  Every time someone buys ammo, check to see if it matches the guns they have registered.  If not, they have some explaining to do. Or, a search warrant gets written out.
 

Let's just throw out the 4th Amendment, along with the 2nd Amendment.  Is that what you are saying?  Registration is the issue.  I believe that registration flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment.  I believe that registration has been prohibited by court cases that interpreted the 2nd Amendment.  I'll also get back to you on that last issue.

Quote
Come on, Odin.  You cannot just sit back and throw darts are all the ideas to fix the problem.  That is lazy.  You are shrugging your shoulders and giving up on keeping guns away from the bad guys and idiots.

We already have laws for that.  Today, for all practical purposes, 50 million households holding 250 million guns were not responsible for one gun-related death.  At least in a statistically significant sense.

I think we all need to agree that this thread has run its course.  Let's get back to bashing god and allah, shall we?

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: DumpsterFire on April 27, 2013, 12:32:43 AM
Registration is the issue.  I believe that registration flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment.

Odin, I know you want to be done with this thread, but before you run will you please explain how having to register a firearm infringes on your right to possess it? It seems to me that the verbage "a well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment would support registration.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 27, 2013, 07:08:39 AM
Registration is the issue.  I believe that registration flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment.

Odin, I know you want to be done with this thread, but before you run will you please explain how having to register a firearm infringes on your right to possess it? It seems to me that the verbage "a well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment would support registration.

From a thread found during a google search:

The question is, are there any Constitutional restrictions on a federal gun registry?
 Well let's reason this out.

The 4th Amendament:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

A better question would be "what gives the federal government the right to regulate any 'affects' [sic?] of the people?"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/773920/posts

From a draft of the failed background check legislation:

SEC. 102. FINDINGS.
 Congress finds the following:
 (1) Congress supports, respects, and defends the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
 (2) Congress supports and reaffirms the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/tag/national-firearms-registry/

Even the Congressional bill proponents agreed that there is an existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.

Odin, King of the Gods
 
 
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 27, 2013, 07:28:09 AM
There have been suggestions in this thread that the US should require firearms owners to register their firearms, obtain insurance on them, among other "restrictions."  One poster is a proponent of repealing the 2nd Amendment.  (I didn't try to find the post, it's a long, tiresome thread.)

Hell, the Democratic-controlled Senate can't even muster 60 votes to pass a watered-down version of a law to close the "gun show loophole" (universal background checks).  How in the world can anyone believe that support exists for repealing an amendment that's been in place since Virginia became the 11th state to ratify the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791?  How can anyone really believe that the voters in 50 million American households are in favor of registration of their firearms. 

When discussing the "high rate" of gun homicides in the US, here is an often overlooked statistic.  Look at the graph at the top of this article.  Blacks have a ten-fold higher gun homicide rate than whites.  Also, look at rates in urban areas. 

http://wizbangblog.com/2013/04/06/gun-deaths-in-the-usa/

Someone above keeps saying there are 30,000 gun-related deaths per year in the US.  True, but about 2/3 of those are suicides. 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/01/20/the-gun-toll-ignoring-suicide/xeWBHDHEvvagfkRlU3CfZJ/story.html

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 27, 2013, 08:44:18 AM
Odin, I know you want to be done with this thread, but before you run will you please explain how having to register a firearm infringes on your right to possess it? It seems to me that the verbage "a well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment would support registration.

I want to be done with this thread as well, but just wanted to address this part.  GOA has a section on right to carry where, in part, your question is addressed.

Quote
6. CCW licenses register gun owners -- and licensing can lead to confiscation of firearms

a. Step One: Registration -- In the mid-1960s officials in New York City began registering long guns. They promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns. (18)
b. Step Two: Confiscation -- In 1992, a New York city paper reported that, "Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city's tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms. . . . Spot checks are planned [for other homes]." (19)
c. Foreign Countries -- Gun registration has led to confiscation in several countries, including Greece, Ireland, Jamaica and Bermuda. (20) And in an exhaustive study on this subject, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has researched and translated several gun control laws from foreign countries. Their publication, Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide, documents how gun control (and confiscation) has preceded the slaughter and genocide of millions of people in Turkey, the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Cambodia and others. (21)

7 . Constitutionally, officials cannot license or register a fundamental right

The Supreme Court held in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that the First Amendment prevents the government from registering purchasers of magazines and newspapers -- even if such material is "communist political propaganda." (22)

Source:
http://gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm

Lamont v. Postmaster General is a very interesting and important case, by the way, one which is worth being familiar with even outside of the context of the gun control debate.  SCOTUS held, among other things, that requiring anyone to register with the federal government to obtain certain types of reading materials would have a "chilling effect" on the people's First Amendment right to read whatever they want to.  The government tried to argue that they were not preventing anyone from reading anything and would never do so, they were just keeping lists of people who were reading communist publications.  SCOTUS held that even doing that much was a First Amendment infringement inasmuch as it would probably frighten some people into not reading those publications.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 27, 2013, 10:29:17 AM
The federal government has the power to regulate commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause). Any transaction of value between individuals or other legal entities (corporations) is subject to regulation by the federal government as long as it is an issue of interstate or foreign trade.

If I pay the kid down the street to mow my lawn, that transaction between individuals is not interstate trade (unless down the street means the kid lives in another state). No goods were sold, the kid is an independent contractor as I am not offering anyone regular employment. If I buy a mower from Lowe's, that is interstate trade. The mower is a mobile item and likely was not produced in the state in which I live and has further government restrictions placed upon it for other reasons (safety, environmental protection).

The purchase and sale of firearms is a transaction of value for goods that can and easily do cross state lines. Ergo, it qualifies as interstate trade. It can be regulated by the federal government.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 27, 2013, 10:30:57 AM
Furthermore, I would like to know why I cannot purchase and possess, and yes, even sell, hand grenades. They are hand-held and are certainly projected with my arm by use of a pin and firing mechanism. I see no difference whatsoever.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 27, 2013, 10:37:07 PM
The federal government has the power to regulate commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause). Any transaction of value between individuals or other legal entities (corporations) is subject to regulation by the federal government as long as it is an issue of interstate or foreign trade.

If I pay the kid down the street to mow my lawn, that transaction between individuals is not interstate trade (unless down the street means the kid lives in another state). No goods were sold, the kid is an independent contractor as I am not offering anyone regular employment. If I buy a mower from Lowe's, that is interstate trade. The mower is a mobile item and likely was not produced in the state in which I live and has further government restrictions placed upon it for other reasons (safety, environmental protection).

The purchase and sale of firearms is a transaction of value for goods that can and easily do cross state lines. Ergo, it qualifies as interstate trade. It can be regulated by the federal government.

The issue of the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment is in no way settled, based on my searches.  Your analysis is not exhaustive - just do a little searching. 

As to the question about the grenade - court cases ruled that sawed-off shotguns were not protected "arms" under the 2nd Amendment.  Regulation of grenades, bazookas, tanks, and similar weapons seems to be covered.

This is turning into an interesting exercise again.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: DumpsterFire on April 28, 2013, 03:39:18 AM
I don't think it is fair to conclude that registration leads to confiscation, but it would obviously make certain weapons easier to locate in the event they become banned. There are plenty of guns (I presume the majority, but it is difficult to know for sure) that are presently registered, as they have been for years, without incident.

There seems to be a whole lot of fear and worry on the pro-gun side over stuff that could happen, and it makes them resistant to even basic common sense proposals, such as universal background checks. It seems to me that if a background check is required for any gun transaction, it ought to be required for all gun transactions. I truly do not understand wtf is so threatening about that, and why the measure keeps failing to pass. I honestly would like to know the rationale behind it if any of you care to try and explain.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 28, 2013, 07:43:07 AM
I don't think it is fair to conclude that registration leads to confiscation, but it would obviously make certain weapons easier to locate in the event they become banned.

Read this out loud to yourself over and over until it sinks in.  Fair?  Locate?

Watch this warning from Canada.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dR9biSdGfE

Quote
There are plenty of guns (I presume the majority, but it is difficult to know for sure) that are presently registered, as they have been for years, without incident.

There is no registry of guns in the US, except for certain restricted guns, like fully-automatic weapons.

Quote
There seems to be a whole lot of fear and worry on the pro-gun side over stuff that could happen, and it makes them resistant to even basic common sense proposals, such as universal background checks. It seems to me that if a background check is required for any gun transaction, it ought to be required for all gun transactions. I truly do not understand wtf is so threatening about that, and why the measure keeps failing to pass. I honestly would like to know the rationale behind it if any of you care to try and explain.

Just watch the video a few more times, and then you'll understand.  If you don't understand, then you never will.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on April 28, 2013, 08:20:41 AM
The issue of the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment is in no way settled, based on my searches.  Your analysis is not exhaustive - just do a little searching.

Why don't you include yours here instead of saying "just do a little searching"?


As to the question about the grenade - court cases ruled that sawed-off shotguns were not protected "arms" under the 2nd Amendment.  Regulation of grenades, bazookas, tanks, and similar weapons seems to be covered.

Ergo, "arms" can be and are regulated and there is no reason whatsoever that your ability to purchase and keep firearms of any kind can also be regulated.


This is turning into an interesting exercise again.

If you say so.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 28, 2013, 11:25:18 AM
Why don't you include yours here instead of saying "just do a little searching"?

It's a fair question, Chronos.  But I spent about 2 hours last night reading some about the Commerce Clause, the 2nd Amendment case history, and the interplay.  The cases and analyses are too voluminous for a quick read. 

But, there seems to be a case that could come into review shortly.  It involves the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.  Apparently, the suits over this act could be reviewed by the US Supreme Court, and have some impact on the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amenment.

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/what-is-the-commerce-clause/


Quote
Ergo, "arms" can be and are regulated and there is no reason whatsoever that your ability to purchase and keep firearms of any kind can also be regulated.

No.  This issue is fairly settled, as no one seems to be fighting the control over grenades, sawed-off shotguns, fully-automatic weapons, ICBMs, etc.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: DumpsterFire on April 29, 2013, 02:55:18 AM
I don't think it is fair to conclude that registration leads to confiscation, but it would obviously make certain weapons easier to locate in the event they become banned.

Read this out loud to yourself over and over until it sinks in.  Fair?  Locate?

Watch this warning from Canada.
Perhaps I should have used the word 'logical' instead of 'fair', but I still stand by my statement. Registration does not inevitably lead to confiscation. If it did then every country requiring firearm registration would eventually disarm its citizenry, and that just isn't happening. Even the video example you posted states that Canada's AP-80 ban affected only "hundreds, maybe thousands" of gun owners[1], so its not like every Canadian was suddenly required to turn in all his guns. Apparently, the AP-80 is the only model of firearm that has been subject to confiscation in the 20 years that Canada has required registration.

Quote
There is no registry of guns in the US, except for certain restricted guns, like fully-automatic weapons.
My bad on that one, I had confused gun permits (of which I assume most gun owners possess) with gun registration.

Quote
Just watch the video a few more times, and then you'll understand.  If you don't understand, then you never will.
I'm not sure how a video that makes no mention of universal background checks is supposed to convince me that universal background checks are bad. Do you support background checks as they are presently utilized for certain gun transactions?
 1. although I admit enforcement of the ban was very poorly handled, and I think Canadian authorities should have at least provided monetary reimbursement for the confiscated weapons
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 29, 2013, 08:04:26 AM
Quote
So how are they getting the weapons and ammo?

Illegally.  Another law won't stop that.

That's not what I meant.  Who is selling them this stuff illegally?


Isn't that what you want, more laws?

I'd appreciate if you didn't do that. 

What I want is a reduction in gun violence and gun accidents.  I want people who should not have guns to not have guns.  And I would like it if the rest of gun owners weren't such obstacles to achieving that.

There are no rights that are absolute. There are limits to every other right guaranteed in the constitution.  We all seem to agree that free speech does not include printing slander, it does not include saying things that could immediately cause injury or loss of life.  We all agree that police can and should be able to search private property in the event of emergencies, or if there is probably cause.  So I don't see the fuss about limiting gun rights when there is a compelling public safety interest.


Let's just throw out the 4th Amendment, along with the 2nd Amendment.  Is that what you are saying?

First of all, what I suggested would not throw out the 4th amendment.  Secondly, what 4th amendment?  The patriot act, as well as numerous cases before the largely neocon[1] supreme court have pretty well made the bill of rights a token document.  And despite all the bravado and machisimo about guns being to prevent tyranny, gun guys didn't make a peep about it, let alone start an insurrection.  All talk, but no action.

We already have laws for that.  Today, for all practical purposes, 50 million households holding 250 million guns were not responsible for one gun-related death.  At least in a statistically significant sense.

That's a cop out.

 1. I'd call them conservative, but erosion of rights is not really a conservative thing
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 29, 2013, 09:12:40 AM
Watch this warning from Canada.

OMG, dude.  Terrible argument. Total non sequitur.  I agree the sentencing was unreasonably light.  And I agree the prosecutor may have been overly zealous.  But it in no way actually connects Canada's registry to his prosecution.  The problem is here:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/04/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun/
Quote
the Firearms Act is a poorly written mess.

It sounds like it contradicts itself.

And this silly video does not tell the whole story either.  First of all, he was acquitted.  Secondly...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/karen-selick/ian-thomson-charged-with-defending-self_b_2410861.html
Quote
... and scared the men off his property by firing over their heads.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/04/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun/
Quote
...armed himself with a .38 calibre revolver, stepped outside his home and fired three shots — one into his lawn, and two into a stand of trees.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers/
Quote
Canada allows people to claim self-defence for using force, including guns, to protect their life as long as the force is reasonable and they believe they have no other options.

“If the public are wondering can you run out of your house and [fire a handgun at an intruder], the bottom line is, according to the laws of Canada, no, you can’t,” said Constable Nilan Dave of the Niagara Regional Police Service, which charged Mr. Thomson. “That’s why the courts are there, to give a person an opportunity to explain their actions.”

I don't know about Canadian law, but my understanding is in the US you are not allowed to "scare people off" by mencaing with your gun or by shooting over their heads or aiming to wound.  You are allowed to shoot someone if you reasonably believe your life is in danger.  If his life was in danger, why was he not shooting at them?  If it was not in danger, why was he shooting at all?  I understand why there was at least an investigation.

Third:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers/
Quote
His collection of seven guns, five pistols and two rifles was seized, along with his firearms licence.
 

This is exactly what I want to have happen to someone who has been charged with a violent crime.  Without an accurate registry, they might not have known about any of the other weapons.  If it turned out he was a bad guy, he'd still have a ton of guns.

Last, the guys kind of an asshole himself.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers/
Quote
Then his neighbour’s chickens began showing up on his property. He warned his neighbour, then killed one of the birds.

I have never understood the kind of asshole who shoots neighbors pets just because they got onto their property.  I'm not saying shooting a chicken warrants firebombing his house.  I'm just saying, the guy looks like almost a big a part of the problem as his neighbor.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 29, 2013, 10:31:28 AM
It's time for last week's Gun Fail!  YaaaaY!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/27/1203495/-GunFAIL-XV

edit:
I love the ones when cops shoot themselves.

edit2:
#8 makes a good point about a national registry.  The NYT article shows one of the problems with not having universal background checks:
Quote
“He’s not perfect by any means, but he’s a good man,” the relative said. “He’s a God-fearing man. If what had happened there had happened here, and it hadn’t been times like now, everything would be O.K., because everybody would know him.”


No.  The guy is a fucking imbicile taking a weapon to a state where he is not permitted, through states where it is not permitted (NJ), hiding the weapon where anyone can and did find it, and then not owning up to it.  The dickhead should have been taken to the observation deck of the Empire State building and unceremonious thrown off.   

This is one of the huge problems I have with guns.  Many of the owners are irresponsible retards whose supposed rights come at the cost of the saftey of the rest of us.


edit3:
#1 has a bunch of problems discussed here rolled into one.  Mentally ill guy with access to a gun.  Cops shoot him (and the guy trying to restrain him) without notification despite the gun never being pointed at them, not being loaded and the guy only threatening to hurt himself.  And of course, it is ruled the cops were justified.  When are they not?
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 29, 2013, 12:25:32 PM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/29/17971041-parishioners-describe-chaos-during-stabbing-spree-at-new-mexico-church?lite

Quote
Capener stabbed people at the altar repeatedly, sending four churchgoers to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries, according to authorities.

Bold mine.  To the gun refrain of "if someone wants to kill you, they don't need a gun", I say, blah blah blah.  You do not often see the bolded part when the offender had a gun.

I bet everyone involved thought, "I'm glad he didn't have a gun."
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on April 29, 2013, 12:30:31 PM
I wish the forum software included a feature for ignoring threads.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 29, 2013, 04:37:15 PM
I don't know about Canadian law, but my understanding is in the US you are not allowed to "scare people off" by mencaing with your gun or by shooting over their heads or aiming to wound.  You are allowed to shoot someone if you reasonably believe your life is in danger.  If his life was in danger, why was he not shooting at them?  If it was not in danger, why was he shooting at all?  I understand why there was at least an investigation.

You have to be kidding me, right?  I won't even address the whole post.

Men were fire bombing his house.  He was a firearms instructor.  If he was a good instructor, and a good shot, he could have killed them and claimed self-defense.  Instead he fired over their heads and into a tree to scare them off.  And, he's somehow the bad guy?

When I was much younger, I studied and read tons about martial arts.  One of the basic tenants of some of the martial arts was:

"Defend yourself, without destroying others."

It seems to me that is exactly what he did.  And, yes he was acquitted.  After two years, and who knows how much expense?

Let me reiterate:  he killed a chicken, and then they were fire bombing his house.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 29, 2013, 04:42:48 PM
I wish the forum software included a feature for ignoring threads.

So do I.  I am drawn to it like a moth to a flame.  It's actually hard to believe we can all bash gods together, and yet be so different on some issues.

Not believing in an afterlife gives me more reasons to own guns.  I can sum it up in the quote attributed to General George S. Patton - "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."

I have guns in my house.  I am a lousy shot, at least with a handgun.  If you fire bomb my house, my goal will be for me to not die that day, and if you have to die, well, shit.  I am such a bad shot that I might just shoot you by accident, trying to shoot over your heads, into the ground, or into a tree.  Duck while throwing your fire bombs.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 30, 2013, 08:12:29 AM
I won't even address the whole post.

You really should.  Because the part of the post you did not address was the important part.  It was the part that said that case had absolutely nothing to do with a national gun registry.  Which was what you said you posted it for.

Men were fire bombing his house.  He was a firearms instructor.  If he was a good instructor, and a good shot, he could have killed them and claimed self-defense.

I'm with you.

Instead he fired over their heads and into a tree to scare them off. 

I explained the problems there.  If I am mistaken as to the law, then kindly point it out.  In pointing out the situation as I did, I was trying to show that there were real questions about his actions and possibly actual legal ramifications.  That he was arrested and tried was directly linked to those ramifications and not at all to the national gun registry.

I think he should have just shot them.  That could possibly have avoided the whole mess.

And, he's somehow the bad guy?

I didn't say he was The Bad Guy at all.  I made an effort to say he wasn't.  So this conclusion at which you have arrived is out of thin air and not contained in my posts.

"Defend yourself, without destroying others."

That's a nice idea, but not particularly practical or effective.  The martial arts I studied strongly advocated avoiding conflict and using violence only as a last resort.  But if you had to use violence, there was a saying: If you try to bruise me, I will make you bleed.  If you try to make me bleed, I will break your bones.  If you try to break my bones, I will take your life, but I will pray for your soul as I do it.

Let me reiterate:  he killed a chicken, and then they were fire bombing his house.

How to miss the point 101.  From what I've read, his neighbors were a real nightmare.  But he was also part of the problem.  Killing their animal only escalated the problem.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 30, 2013, 09:10:02 AM
OMG, dude.  Terrible argument. Total non sequitur.  I agree the sentencing was unreasonably light.  And I agree the prosecutor may have been overly zealous.  But it in no way actually connects Canada's registry to his prosecution.

There were four charges against Thomson: careless use of a firearm, pointing a firearm and two charges of careless storage of a firearm, one for each of the pistols he had removed from his gun safe (the second, a 9mm pistol, was never fired during the incident) [quoted from the article http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/04/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun/]

The first two charges were dropped, presumably because he was acting in self-defense.  That obliterates your argument about him shooting in the air or into the ground vs. killing them.  If you read all the articles carefully, you understand that the law in Canada required him to keep the handgun in a locked compartment, and his ammunition in a separate locked compartment.  It might not be tied directly to gun registration, but it at least indirectly shows the idiocy of Canada's laws. 

Quote
I don't know about Canadian law, but my understanding is in the US you are not allowed to "scare people off" by mencaing with your gun or by shooting over their heads or aiming to wound.  You are allowed to shoot someone if you reasonably believe your life is in danger.  If his life was in danger, why was he not shooting at them?  If it was not in danger, why was he shooting at all?  I understand why there was at least an investigation.

In my state in the US, you are allowed to use force against force.  Deadly force can be countered with deadly force.  You might beg to differ, but from my perspective four men hurling fire bombs at my house is deadly force.  He lived up to the highest martial arts (and gun arts) standard of defending himself, and his property, without destroying others.

Quote
His collection of seven guns, five pistols and two rifles was seized, along with his firearms licence.
 

Quote
This is exactly what I want to have happen to someone who has been charged with a violent crime.  Without an accurate registry, they might not have known about any of the other weapons.

You should be a policeman or prosecutor, then.  Everybody is guilty until proven innocent.  He was charged with crimes, not convicted of them.  Those charges were dropped.

Quote
If it turned out he was a bad guy, he'd still have a ton of guns.

No!  Say this over and over, until it sinks in.  "Bad guys don't obey the laws." There are bad guys in Canada who did not register their guns.  The Crown turned Thomson into a bad guy by charging him with these inane violations, and then used the registry to sieze his lawfully owned, and lawfully registered, guns.

Quote
I have never understood the kind of asshole who shoots neighbors pets just because they got onto their property.  I'm not saying shooting a chicken warrants firebombing his house.  I'm just saying, the guy looks like almost a big a part of the problem as his neighbor.

Chickens are pets in Canada?  I doubt it, but he probably should not have shot the chicken.  However:

Quote
(from your later post) But if you had to use violence, there was a saying: If you try to bruise me, I will make you bleed.  If you try to make me bleed, I will break your bones.  If you try to break my bones, I will take your life, but I will pray for your soul as I do it.

"If you shoot my chicken, I will fire bomb your house..."  Etc.

Odin, King of the Gods


Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 30, 2013, 10:34:05 AM
It might not be tied directly to gun registration, but it at least indirectly shows the idiocy of Canada's laws.

You are so close to being right, so let me help you over the hump. 

It definitely has nothing to do gun registration.  The only connect between this case and gun registration is that both have something to do with gun laws.  That's it.  That video was scare propaganda.

And it more than indirectly shows Canada's gun laws need to be re-written.  The verbiage of that law is a mess.  But that also has nothing to do with gun registration.

Repeat those two paragraphs out loud.  Then write them 10 times each.  It will help you come to grips with reality.

As for my argument being obliterated, nope.  My point was the incident should have been investigated. It was.  Whether the charges were dropped is incidental. 

In my state in the US, you are allowed to use force against force.  Deadly force can be countered with deadly force.  You might beg to differ, but from my perspective four men hurling fire bombs at my house is deadly force.

Who the heck are you arguing with?  Are you even reading my posts?  I'm the guy who said he should have shot them.

He lived up to the highest martial arts (and gun arts) standard of defending himself, and his property, without destroying others.

Except he didn't defend shit.  Last I checked, bullets do not make houses fire proof, nor do they extinguish fire. 

You should be a policeman or prosecutor, then.  Everybody is guilty until proven innocent.  He was charged with crimes, not convicted of them.  Those charges were dropped.

Really?  You want people who have been charged with violent crimes or gun violations to be able to keep their weapons until they are proven guilty?  A gang-banger out on bail for killing someone should get to keep his gun until after the trial?  A husband who assaults his wife gets to keep his guns until the after the trial? 

Does that really sound like good policy to you or does it sound preposterously stupid?  You know, after 9/11 they were saying things like "the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact". 

"Bad guys don't obey the laws."

Oh, well, fuck it then.  We should get rid of all the laws that bad guys ignore.  I guess we'll have to repeal murder laws (bad guys don't follow those). And we can repeal burglary, any kind of theft, rape.  Bad guys don't follow those either.  Gosh, you know, I cannot think of a single law bad guys do follow.   We should abolish all laws then.  Since we'll have no laws, we'll need no police either.  That will be a big savings.  Everyone will be on their own.  I guess we'll all need more guns then because the only justice for anyone will be the justice they can deliver for themselves.  Wild, wild west.

That is where this moronic idea logically leads.   

There are bad guys in Canada who did not register their guns. 

A lot of bad guys aren't bad guys until they are.  That is, not all bad guys have always been bad guys.  A person can follow the law and then not.  That is a problem with that kind of thinking.  You are thinking of them as intrinsicly Bad or Good, as if that is how they have always been and always will be, and it just is not so.  There are guys you would have called "Good", right up until the point they shot their mother in law in the face because of a drunken argument over his use of silverware.  And then they weren't.

I know a law is not going to solve 100% of the problem.  But it can make the problem easier to deal with.  And to do nothing is abject failure.

"If you shoot my chicken, I will fire bomb your house..." 

That's kind of funny.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on April 30, 2013, 05:09:06 PM
It definitely has nothing to do gun registration.  The only connect between this case and gun registration is that both have something to do with gun laws.  That's it.  That video was scare propaganda.

I disagree.  Canada's inane gun laws have everything to do with registration.  If you read the accounts of Thomson's arrest, you see that he was charged with careless use of a firearm, pointing a firearm and two charges of careless storage of a firearm, one for each of the pistols he had removed from his gun safe.  The first two charges were dropped, because he was obviously defending himself.  He was acquitted of the other two. 

The whole goal of the Canadian gun laws are to keep people from having free use of their firearms.  You have to keep a handgun locked in a box, and the ammunition locked in a separate box.  The whole idea is to prevent you from being able to use the firearm and ammunition.  Registration is an extension of those laws.  They are all degrees of the same idea.

I know you think registration is a good idea, in that it will help track weapons used in crimes.  But, in one of the articles it mentions that they confiscated his weapons.  I haven't been able to determine whether he got them back.  He wasn't a criminal, by the way.

Quote
Repeat those two paragraphs out loud.  Then write them 10 times each.  It will help you come to grips with reality.
 

Touche, but I believe I have a better grip on reality than you have.

Quote
As for my argument being obliterated, nope.  My point was the incident should have been investigated. It was.  Whether the charges were dropped is incidental.

Investigated?  He was arrested, his guns were confiscated, and he had to defend himself with his own money.  The fact that the most serious of the charges were dropped in paramount.  And the dumb-assed Crown pursued charges for improper storage even after the other charges were dropped.  That was vindictive.  Anti-gun folks didn't want him to own, and especially, use his guns, even in the process of defending himself. 

Quote
Who the heck are you arguing with?  Are you even reading my posts?  I'm the guy who said he should have shot them.

Here I disagree.  He did what a reasonable person should have done.  He called 911, and then used his firearms to dissuade the attackers without causing injury.Except he didn't defend shit.  Last I checked, bullets do not make houses fire proof, nor do they extinguish fire. 

Quote
Really?  You want people who have been charged with violent crimes or gun violations to be able to keep their weapons until they are proven guilty?  A gang-banger out on bail for killing someone should get to keep his gun until after the trial?  A husband who assaults his wife gets to keep his guns until the after the trial?

Allegedly killing someone, and Allegedly assaulting his wife.  As I said, guilty until proven innocent.   

Quote
Wild, Wild, West.  That is where this moronic idea logically leads.

Total nonsense. 

Quote
A lot of bad guys aren't bad guys until they are.  That is, not all bad guys have always been bad guys.  A person can follow the law and then not.

Under this logic, no one should be allowed to own a gun, because they could turn bad at any instant.

"If you shoot my chicken, I will fire bomb your house..." 

Quote
That's kind of funny.

We probably would get along fine in the real world.  Just don't fuck around with my guns, please.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nam on April 30, 2013, 05:46:39 PM
Nick's girlfriend (in photo) (http://vice.com/read/shooting-proud-legal-gun-owners-with-a-camera?utm_source=taboola&utm_campaign=galleries)

I kid, I kid.

Read the interview.

There's a great comment exchange in the comment area:

Some Russian white dude:

"I like my government like I like my guns. God free."

Some white dude holding a fish:

"I like my country free of assholes like you, racist fuck!"

Where's the racism?

-Nam
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: shnozzola on April 30, 2013, 06:36:12 PM
Give ‘bomb control’ a chance
                   - Clarence Page
Quote
He thought his wife was in love with another man, police say, so James McFillin of Baltimore decided to blow the other man up.

It was 1979 in Baltimore. McFillin wired two sticks of an explosive called Tovex 220 into the electrical system of a truck belonging to Nathan Allen Sr., killing Allen and injuring another man, prosecutors said.

What McFillin did not know was that his Tovex was “tagged,” as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would say. His two sticks were part of about 7 million pounds of explosives that manufacturers had laced with microscopic, color-coded plastic particles called “taggants” as part of a $5 million experiment to test the ability of taggants to identify explosives.

Quote
......... there is the classic NRA “slippery slope” worry: A program that requires keeping records on who buys explosives could ease the way to national gun registration. The gun lobby views gun registration as tantamount to confiscation, despite the many Supreme Court decisions that have upheld the constitutional right to bear arms

Quote
In a telephone chat, I asked William Kerns, president of Microtrace, the Minneapolis-based company that makes taggants, how he feels about the NRA’s concerns. He drew a distinct line of difference between firearms and explosives. “I’m a member of the NRA,” he said, noting that he was a retired captain in the Minneapolis Police Reserve, “and I don’t want to have to register my gun.”

However, when I asked him about concerns over the safety and stability of explosives to which taggants were added, he said, “They’ve been requiring it in Switzerland for about 30 years, and I haven’t heard any complaints.”

 http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/apr/30/give-bomb-control-chance/
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 30, 2013, 08:40:10 PM
I disagree.

You may be right, but I cannot see how and you've not connected the dots.  As it stands gun registration is here -->x


x<-- and this case is over here, with nary a dot between them.

Canada's inane gun laws have everything to do with registration.

Okay, lay it on me.

If you read the accounts of Thomson's arrest, you see that he was charged with careless use of a firearm, pointing a firearm and two charges of careless storage of a firearm, one for each of the pistols he had removed from his gun safe.  The first two charges were dropped, because he was obviously defending himself.  He was acquitted of the other two. 

okay.  Where does registration come in?

The whole goal of the Canadian gun laws are to keep people from having free use of their firearms.

1. That's an opinion, as far as I can tell, and stated as hyperbole.
2. Are you sure it's that and not something more to do with public safety?  Because it just sounds like angry name calling to me.

You have to keep a handgun locked in a box, and the ammunition locked in a separate box.

I thought that was basic gun safety.  Is it not?

The whole idea is to prevent you from being able to use the firearm and ammunition. 

See numbered points 1 and 2 above.

Registration is an extension of those laws.  They are all degrees of the same idea.

So you agree with what I said earlier - this case and gun registration in Canada are related only in that guns are involved. 

He wasn't a criminal, by the way.

I don't care.  I think when it comes to guns it is prudent to err on the side of safety.  While they are trying to figure it out, I do not see how public interest is served by leaving guns with the offender.

Now that he's acquitted, I think he deserves to get all of his guns back.


Here I disagree.  He did what a reasonable person should have done.  He called 911, and then used his firearms to dissuade the attackers without causing injury.

Well, isn't this peculiar?  You are clearly more pro-gun than me, yet I'm the one who would have condoned shooting the sons a bitches.  That made me chuckle.
 

Allegedly killing someone, and Allegedly assaulting his wife.  As I said, guilty until proven innocent. 

So in those situations you are saying those alleged offenders should be allowed to keep their guns?  With due respect, Odin, that's a horrible idea.  In reality, the results are dead women.

Here are cases where the men had restraining orders, but were allowed to keep their guns, and then killed people.  I understand there is a difference between a restraining order and being charged with crime.  But a restraining order does not require a trial, just a judge reviewing the evidence.  You are not proven guilty of anything.  Similarly, having charges brought against you also does not require a trial, just a prosecutor reviewing the evidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-14.htm
http://divorcesupport.about.com/b/2013/03/24/kenneth-ayers-kills-son-shoots-estranged-wife-then-takes-his-own-life.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/US/spa-massacre-estranged-husband-restraining-order/story?id=17529414#.UYBr7UrmzTo 
^this asshole shot 7 women, including his wife.  2nd Amendment, bitches!

There are lots and lots more.

Total nonsense. 

Yes, my friend, that is nonsense, and it is the logical extension of your argument.  Thus, the oft made argument - "The bad guys don't follow the law, so we should not have the law" - is nonsense.   

Under this logic, no one should be allowed to own a gun, because they could turn bad at any instant.

I was not making an argument.  It was an explanation.  A lot of "criminals" were by all appearances law abiding citizens.  And then something happened.  I don't know what.  Perhaps they were borderline personalities, hanging on by a thread.  Perhaps they became substance abusers.  Perhaps something wrecked their lives.  Maybe they found jesus.  I don't know.  But that is not the point.  Your assumption was that these "criminals" are all career criminals, bad to the core.  But that is not always the case. 

We probably would get along fine in the real world.  Just don't fuck around with my guns, please.

I'd like to go shooting with you.  I like to shoot guns.  They're fun.  But they are incredibly dangerous.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on April 30, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
Nick's girlfriend (in photo)

The jacked one with the Uzi & silencer or the dirt merchant breastfeeding?



To spare Odin and pianodwarf from having this pop up on their "new replies", Imma stop posting in this thread.  I hope.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nam on April 30, 2013, 11:37:23 PM
The main one of the girl at the top of the article; the ugly half-naked one.

Or maybe the guy with the rocket launcher.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on May 01, 2013, 05:27:09 AM
I just realized why the gun lobby is so dead set against any gun control, which might eventually lead to registration of all firearms, and it's not confiscation. Confiscation is just a ruse.

The thing they fear is taxes. If guns have to be registered, there will be a cost for registration -- a fee -- and that is essentially taxation. The subset of people who despise any kind of gun control very nicely fits with the subset of people who despise taxes in any form.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: naemhni on May 01, 2013, 06:02:44 AM
It's time for last week's Gun Fail!  YaaaaY!

Quote
Accidental shooting deaths have declined since 1981, with just 609 nationwide in 2010, the last year of available data. To say it another way, accidental deaths from guns have fallen nearly 70 percent in the last 30 years. This incredible success story has not received much attention because it is attributable, in large measure, to efforts of the NRA’s education and training division, which has led the way in providing firearm training to millions of men, women and children.

Full article:
http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2013/04/the_nra_and_its_impact_on_gun.html
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on May 01, 2013, 07:34:22 AM
You have to keep a handgun locked in a box, and the ammunition locked in a separate box.

I thought that was basic gun safety.  Is it not?

Not in my opinion.  If children, mentally handicapped folks (including anti-gunners [snicker]), or irresponsible adults are in the house, then guns need to have safety locks, trigger locks, or be locked in safes.  Making gun owners keep guns locked in a separate container from the locked ammunition makes the gun ineffective in most self-defense situations, Mr. Thomson from Canada notwithstanding. 

I have owned and used guns since my Dad took me hunting at about age 8, and I am now 59.  All the handguns I own are loaded right now.  The first thing I do when handling one of my guns, any gun, is to make sure it is unloaded.  Our gun club has been at its current location since 1965, and has never had a gun-related injury.  We now have 1,000 members.

I have to withdraw from this thread, as it is taking too much time and energy.  We will never agree on these issues.  I will fight new gun laws, that I believe are useless, because we already have enough laws.  I believe the ultimate goal of registration is further and further restriction of my gun rights, if not outright ban and confiscation.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on May 01, 2013, 07:40:54 AM
Almost forgot:  my parting shots. [edited and reposted below]
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Odin on May 01, 2013, 07:47:27 AM
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.

Here is my parting shot.  I would call 911, arm myself, and hide behind my bed watching the only door that enters my bedroom.  Anyone entering would have to outshoot me. 

Note to anyone reading this, who has guns for self-defense in your home.  Never take your gun with you and "sweep" the house looking for intruders.  It gives them the upper hand.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/01/29/fiorito_the_cops_came_and_took_my_gun.html

http://politichicks.tv/column/gun-control-or-pre-gun-confiscation/

I might read the replies, but I have to withdraw from this thread.  I will fight additional useless laws that are designed to further limit my gun rights.  It is obvious we will never agree on the issues at hand.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on May 01, 2013, 08:22:56 AM
http://politichicks.tv/column/gun-control-or-pre-gun-confiscation/

Quote
The gun control currently spreading across America would more aptly be called pre-gun confiscation or even more extreme, pre-genocide.

Seriously?  Don't insult me with this shit.  Not only is it hyperbole and emotionally charged propaganda, it is also factually wrong.  It's lies on top of lies.  She complains about California taking away guns.  They are.  From felons and the mentally ill.  Ooo, scary gummint takin' guns.

Also:
Quote
The United States is at war. It’s not a declared war; right now it’s a war of words and ideas. It’s a battle for the minds of Americans and it’s as fierce as any conflict we have ever fought in our history.

She goes on to name the "liberal media, politicians, politial pundits" etc as the enemy.  Frankly, the fact that she sees political disagreements between American citizens as a war and liberals as the enemy tells me we have more to fear from her and her ilk especially because they are armed. 

And look at her credentials: " Dr. Sharon Schuetz has a PhD in clinical Christian counseling."  woohoo.  There's someone to take seriously.

You shouldn't read this shit, Odin.  It rots your brain.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nam on May 01, 2013, 05:27:03 PM
Well, read it but don't take it seriously (in reference to agreeing with it).

-Nam
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on May 01, 2013, 10:41:01 PM
Here's How the Rifle That Just Killed a 2-Year-Old Girl Is Marketed for Kids (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/crickett-rifle-marketing-kids)

Quote
On Tuesday, inside a rural Kentucky home, a five-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his two-year-old sister. The boy had been playing with a .22 caliber single-shot Crickett rifle made and marketed for kids. The children's mother was reportedly outside the house when the shooting took place, and apparently didn't know that the gun contained a shell.

"Just one of those crazy accidents," said the Cumberland County coroner, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nam on May 02, 2013, 12:46:08 AM
So, the mother going to jail?

-Nam
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nick on May 02, 2013, 06:24:18 AM
3,743 killed by guns in the US since Sandy Hook.

Think that 5 year old will be a screwed up kid growing up?  His sister could have possibly been a potential wife down the road.  It is Kentucky.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Jag on May 03, 2013, 12:06:46 PM
I just read the story that Chronos linked above. I know this conversation has been going on for months and I'm quite late to the party. Apologies if what I say below is already well-covered territory - this is a long thread and difficult to parse in context to my thoughts on this.

First I want to state that I am not opposed to guns. I don't own any myself, but plan to have a handgun by year's end. I don't know enough about guns in general to get deeply involved in what regulations and restrictions make the most sense.

But I do have opinions related to the 2nd amendment. The first clause is often overlooked and I'm sure this observation has been made already. I'm looking to either be pointed close to the posts that cover this, or to see if my idea has merit if it's not already been discussed.

Amendment 2 in full states this: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm willing to concede that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clearly stated, and I'm not going to take either side on if the military reference was intended to set a limit on who is specifically being identified. I AM going to ask if the well regulated militia reference allows enough flexibility to require certain conditions rather than simple insisting that everyone who wants a gun is constitutionally entitled to own one. Guns are already dispersed across the country, so we may as well deal with that reality. We also should all be willing to admit that a complete lack of any restrictions is probably not the best choice for the country as a whole. I realize that only the irresponsible gun-owners are the ones to make the news, but there sure seems to be a lot of them, so there's no value in ignoring them as atypical - they exist in enough numbers to be worth noting.

For instance, can we legislate that all guns must be sold with a trigger guard (am I using the right term?)? Can we insist on mandatory gun safety training for every citizen by age 14 (14 is arbitrary, any age would do)? Can we legislate that any minor who can not prove that they have attended gun safety training be barred from handling firearms until such training is completed, or else the parent or parents are penalized in some way - call it negligence, or public safety violations? How much room to negotiate acceptable-to-most conditions does the first part of the amendment allow? And why do the politico's never talk about the first half of the damn thing?

Like all the hard issues under debate, there are no easy answers or these problems wouldn't still need attention. Politically, we seem to only approach these issues from the extreme edges, pretty much ensuring that nothing will change. I try not to get too cynical, but certain issues seems to have a rotation - same-sex marriage, abortion and gun control cycle by over and over, serving to distract the public from things that need both attention and political will to deal with. It makes me uncomfortably aware of just how much we get manipulated by the media and the government about almost everything.
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Nam on May 04, 2013, 11:43:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky4C6GyUzXc

I wish I lived in Romania.

-Nam
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: screwtape on May 08, 2013, 11:58:16 AM
protest in Washington DC with loaded guns.  http://www.salon.com/2013/05/03/a_march_on_washington_with_loaded_rifles/

sounds like someone is going to get shot.

Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Azdgari on May 08, 2013, 01:22:38 PM
As one of the commenters mentioned, all it would take would be a slingshot and some cherry bombs...
Title: Re: Guns again
Post by: Chronos on May 08, 2013, 07:05:57 PM
Very stupid maneuver.