NRA is too radical [Archive]

a completely inoffensive name

12-30-2010, 08:31

I wish it were so.

But Chicago, New York City, and others will fight to the end to deny people their rights.

The NRA is far from moot. States like California restrict semi-auto firearms to ridiculous levels (no detachable magazines, no pistol grips, etc.), others deny people the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Others want to impose draconian registration requirements.

New Jersey threw a man in prison for seven years for having an unloaded pistol in the trunk of his car.

Obama does what he can (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/05/The-OAS-Firearms-Convention-Is-Incompatible-with-American-Liberties)to oppose gun rights.

We're a long way from being able to own and carry semi-auto handguns and rifles in the entire nation.

EDIT: Not to mention truly moronic laws about how some semi-auto rifles legal to own and make in the US cannot be imported, or how a certain number of parts on each rifle have to be made in the US or it's illegal to own.

Double EDIT: Also, the ATF will throw you in jail for merely possessing the parts to assemble an 'illegal' rifle - one with a barrel that's to short, for example. And all the stupid laws against rifles with short barrels.

CR

Chicago and New York City can battle and fight all they want, but the greater war has been decided. The law is the law and judges will see to it that it is carried out. They are not threats to your ownership.

Clamoring over detachable magazines and pistol grips being banned is just as over the top as me hollering over the censorship of Carlin's Seven Dirty Words and declaring it to be an infringement of the First Amendment to the utmost extreme. The laws are moronic, of course, but it's not the tyranny coming to get ya over the hill as completely banning guns (or free speech) is. Those completely denying a gun to defend yourselves will also be washed away by the Supreme Court's ruling, it only takes time and enough lawyers. They are not a threat in the long run either. You will have to explain what "draconian" entails before I comment on that sentence.

The New Jersey case isn't black and white gun right infringement. There is a real discussion on the responsibility of gun owners. If an unloaded gun is left on the dashboard and someone breaks the car window grabs the gun and leaves that is now a black market gun with no way of tracing the user. That is irresponsible for a gun owner to simply leave his gun in such a place. Now granted this was in the trunk but if the law simply deemed the entire car as an irresponsible place to leave a handgun then the issue isn't tyranny, it is vague laws concerning responsibility.

That is what the NRA vanguard is for. Hire a lawyer and tear the bill apart in court. Nothing else needs to be done. No gun waving or speeches about cold, dead hands needed.

We're a long way from complete freedom from censorship, but that doesn't mean we lose our heads and think to ourselves it is all going to slip away from us at any moment.

Yes, your two edits are right in that they are moronic policies. However, the fact is you have your guns and they can't take them away from you under the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States which makes such laws and policies, an annoyance or hindrance, not tyranny.

Beskar

12-30-2010, 09:03

HoreTore

12-30-2010, 09:12

In America, the mental image of the gun is a man barricaded behind the sofa, protecting his family.

In the rest of the World, the mental image of the gun is a tool with the sole purpose of killing and violence.

Europeans believe in the rule of Law.

Americans believes it is the right of everyone to acts as prosecutor, judge and executor.

An even shorter version:

Europe: person > property

America: person < property

@WarmanCake: kudos from driving forth all the "paranoid USA government people" ~;) (like any of them will ever rebel....they're about as threatening as a moist sponge)

a completely inoffensive name

12-30-2010, 09:16

Europeans believe in the rule of Law.

Americans believes it is the right of everyone to acts as prosecutor, judge and executor.

I guess you didn't read the thread. Because I just described how the ruling in favor of gun rights is consistent with our adherence to the rule of law. The 2nd Amendment is the law and it applies whether we like it or not.

You want to talk about rule of law, lets talk about the riots in Greece over the austerity law their elected government passed. I guess as long as we are picking and choosing which laws are "good" to revolt over we can still say we submit to their rule.

HoreTore

12-30-2010, 09:19

I guess you didn't read the thread. Because I just described how the ruling in favor of gun rights is consistent with our adherence to the rule of law. The 2nd Amendment is the law and it applies whether we like it or not.

....And I don't see how that changes an americans desire to "settle things out of court" by executing a suspected criminal on the spot for the theft of a candy bar.

a completely inoffensive name

12-30-2010, 09:25

....And I don't see how that changes an americans desire to "settle things out of court" by executing a suspected criminal on the spot for the theft of a candy bar.

Well at least we don't have the Norwegian desire to touch little boys as shown by your post in the other thread (I can generalize too!). The left is supposed to be smarter and not resort to stereotyping in their arguments. We can't make a better society until we have mastered the complexity of it and we can't do that if we are making stupid arguments and statements like yours that are false and lead the conversation nowhere constructive.

rory_20_uk

12-30-2010, 12:56

Either citizens are allowed to purchase weaponry that would truly allow the possibility of overthrow of the government - which would include heavy armour, jets etc - or realise that some things have changed in the last 200 or so years. Just look how the world was created in the last 6,000... Why do some love their ancient documents and fail to treat them as living documents?

As others have said, first the purpose needs to be defined. Once this has been done either classes or individual guns need to be allowed or disallowed according to this. For example, perhaps certain guns are suited for home defence but not for hunting - a sighted rifle might be ideal for big game, but not the living room when a MP-5 is more versatile.

~:smoking:

Fisherking

12-30-2010, 15:22

I know a guy in Huston who has an F-16. I know of several groups who own tanks,(fireable tanks). Automatic weapons are more problematic but if you are willing to jump through the hoops, put in place by a government perhaps a bit paranoid about citizens taking up arms, then you can own them in most states.

Money, of course is a big issue if you want to acquire them.

Lemur

12-30-2010, 17:58

Yah, hate to be a wet noodle, but ACIN has it mostly right, the gun debate in America is pretty much over for a generation. We may fuss and fumble over the exact outline of the arrangement, but gun rights are now firmly in place, and nothing short of a constitutional amendment is going to change the status quo.

Crazed Rabbit is also right, it was the clear intent of the founding fathers to have citizens serve as both the primary defense and guardians of our liberties. Worth noting that a lot of them paired this belief with the notion that a standing army was incompatible with liberty (notable exception would be Alexander Hamilton, but then, he was a little crazy). So we have a standing army and an armed citizenship, which doesn't make a ton of sense, but who said we had to be consistent?

Freedoms from other countries that I would like to see imported: No-speed-limit autobahns from Germany. Now there is a form of liberty that I would like to see here! Also, drug decriminalization from The Netherlands. Any other freedoms we should consider importing?

Beskar

12-30-2010, 18:15

Also, drug decriminalization from The Netherlands. Any other freedoms we should consider importing?

You want the Portugal one. Drugs are illegal in the Netherlands but the only exception is Amsterdam.

HoreTore

12-30-2010, 18:38

The left is supposed to be smarter and not resort to stereotyping in their arguments.

Stereotypes refer to people. I'm referring to your current set of laws.

It's your laws that say you have a desire to execute burglars, if that is not the way the people feels, then the law should obviously be changed.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-30-2010, 19:00

Stereotypes refer to people. I'm referring to your current set of laws.

It's your laws that say you have a desire to execute burglars, if that is not the way the people feels, then the law should obviously be changed.

Again, you aren't getting the equation correct from our perspective.

Unlike Europe, much of which has steeped itself in the Marxist notion of labor's centrality to the politico-economic character of society, the USA, and its laws, are steeped in the Lockean tradition of life, liberty, and property as the central values.

Thus, the equation is NOT people < property, but instead people ~ property as property is a result of the effort/skills/capital/labor of the person owning it. As an extension of self, the defense of one's property is no more nor less reasonable than the defense of one's physical self or one's family.

Sadly, numerous localities in the USA limit this defense unduly, placing the burden of decision on the homeowner defending her property (is the thief still a threat? are they running away and 'inviolate?' etc.). Laws regarding defense of person and property vary a good bit.

Rabbit has nicely summarized the basics on the 2A. I am in complete agreement with him. If I wish to purchase a Stealth Fighter and have the coin to do so, then why should I not?

Hamilton may have been crazy, but he was not a dumbunny. I think he did have a few stray thoughts about following Napoleon's approach to power, though. The absence of a standing army of any size made that impossible.

Vuk

12-30-2010, 19:00

Stereotypes refer to people. I'm referring to your current set of laws.

It's your laws that say you have a desire to execute burglars, if that is not the way the people feels, then the law should obviously be changed.

Again our little communist friend from across the Atlantic demonstrates just how knowledgeable he is about American culture, society, and law. (or at least how many cheesy European stereotypes he believes)

On the subject of assault rifles, legal definition is completely messed up. No one seems to know exactly what an assault rifle is. I will be honest, I think that there is nothing wrong with allowing people to own fully automatic weapons. They really are not much more dangerous than semi-automatic. They are preferred by ignorant bozos who cannot aim, and therefore rely on spray and pray. A skilled shot with a bolt-action rifle or a revolver could take the average idiot with a full auto out if he ever decided to go on a shooting spree. If you are going to be a real threat to an armed and competent person, you are going to have to know how to aim and hit accurately. Semi-auto, 3 shot-burst, and even bolt-action are preferable to full auto for this. Full-auto has its uses, but is not the end all thing that people think. It just means that someone is gonna aim less, have to reload more often (more chances to get them), and think that they are tougher. How many times do you here about school shooters who go in with auto weapons and cannot kill more than 3-4 people expending several mags. I remember reading before about some Marine who went on a shooting spree with a bolt-action rifle and killed (if I recall correctly) about 30 people in a few mins. What matters is not the weapon to a great extent, but the person operating it. A skilled shooter if he wanted to go on a shooting spree could probably kill just as many or more people with a semi-auto. Automatic weapons seriously are not all that they are made out to be. They uses are primarily military oriented (such as massed suppressing fire), and there is a reason that most guns used by the military are select fire.
Chances are that if a person who knew what they were doing went on a shooting spree with such a weapon, they would mostly use sa or 3sb.

The media just likes to scare people.

Brenus

12-30-2010, 19:01

Question: Do you have the right to mine fields in US? Mines are weapons? Or Hand Grenades?
That would be fun in the US Towns....

Fisherking

12-30-2010, 19:02

Stereotypes refer to people. I'm referring to your current set of laws.

It's your laws that say you have a desire to execute burglars, if that is not the way the people feels, then the law should obviously be changed.

I think you are confusing peoples desire to protect their homes from invasion by arming themselves with a desire to murder, what you see as defenseless, criminals.

I would assert that people have the right to protect the lives of themselves and others under their care. There are strict laws regarding the use of deadly force. Protection of property is entirely secondary. You must have a reasonable certainty that your life is in danger. People shooting a fleeing subject are usually brought up on charges.

It does not matter what implement or tool you use, for the most part.
Protecting your self is pretty much instinctual. (fight or flight)

Is it against the law in Norway to defend your self from assault?

HoreTore

12-30-2010, 19:08

Thus, the equation is NOT people < property, but instead people ~ property

Ah yes, of course, sorry 'bout that Seamus. We've been down that road quite a few times, a mix-up like that really shouldn't happen...

Anyway, as you know, the rest of my point still stands of course. As it is simply how things are viewed when property isn't connected to your person like that....

Fisherking: If I meant murder, I would've said murder, wouldn't I?

drone

12-31-2010, 01:37

Question: Do you have the right to mine fields in US? Mines are weapons? Or Hand Grenades?
That would be fun in the US Towns....
If I'm not mistaken, explosives are considered ordnance, guns are considered arms. Two different kettles of fish. And booby-trapping of any sort is highly frowned upon.

Seriously, you Euros all think it's the wild west on this side of the pond. We do have laws about killing people over here, you need a really, really good reason. And "He needed killing" isn't one of them.

Money, of course is a big issue if you want to acquire them.
And maintenance. It's all well and good to own an Apache helicopter, but those monthly tune-ups aren't easy. Along with storage space and municipal paperwork for a fuel depot, a hangar, tow cart, the gentle understanding of the FAA, etc.

rory_20_uk

12-31-2010, 01:53

So, the only thing that could even transiently threaten the state is a corporate army where the equipment is "loaned" by a "sponsor" to the individuals.

~:smoking:

Crazed Rabbit

12-31-2010, 02:54

Chicago and New York City can battle and fight all they want, but the greater war has been decided. The law is the law and judges will see to it that it is carried out. They are not threats to your ownership.

Clamoring over detachable magazines and pistol grips being banned is just as over the top as me hollering over the censorship of Carlin's Seven Dirty Words and declaring it to be an infringement of the First Amendment to the utmost extreme.

The 2nd Amendment was confirmed by only one vote in the SCOTUS, on the most basic and fundamental interpretation.

A change in just one judge could lead to rulings that bans on semi-auto rifles are okay, that draconian registration regulations are alright (for safety!).

It's true that the tide has turned. But the battle for gun rights is far from over.

The New Jersey case isn't black and white gun right infringement. There is a real discussion on the responsibility of gun owners. If an unloaded gun is left on the dashboard and someone breaks the car window grabs the gun and leaves that is now a black market gun with no way of tracing the user. That is irresponsible for a gun owner to simply leave his gun in such a place. Now granted this was in the trunk but if the law simply deemed the entire car as an irresponsible place to leave a handgun then the issue isn't tyranny, it is vague laws concerning responsibility.

So leaving your gun in your car should lead to seven years in jail? I'm sorry, but criminally punishing people for not doing what the state decides is "enough" to prevent theft is a form of infringement.

Such laws are designed to make it potentially criminal to even own a gun by a law abiding citizen, and thereby deter ownership.

Why do some love their ancient documents and fail to treat them as living documents?

That 'ancient document' has led to one of the longest lasting democracies in the world. The way to change it is by going through the prescribed amendment route, not declaring it to be a 'living' document and ignoring the rule of law to suite your own needs.

CR

PanzerJaeger

12-31-2010, 02:55

In America, the mental image of the gun is a man barricaded behind the sofa, protecting his family.

In the rest of the World, the mental image of the gun is a tool with the sole purpose of killing and violence.

Europeans believe in the rule of Law.

I've never understood the smug, self-righteous attitude this issue brings out in Europeans; not to mention the wildly inaccurate depictions of America that highlight a serious lack of knowledge on the subject.

One could just as easily say that Europeans don't love freedom as much as Americans do, or that they have outsourced their personal safety to strangers whose response times are completely dependent on current traffic congestion.

Those are just talking points though.

The hard truth is that increasingly liberal gun laws yield marginally higher gun crime rates, and every society has a bit different cost/benefit analysis on the subject. Europeans in countries that have very restrictive gun laws can walk down the street knowing that they have little to fear from gun crime. Americans can walk down the street knowing that they have little to fear from gun crime as well, albeit with a .000X higher chance than their European counterparts, and a bit more freedom.

Also, gun ownership in America is not supported solely by anti-government, militia types. In fact, the main reason for gun ownership is personal safety.

Consider a young woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. She can get a restraining order, but the police can only take action against the man after he has broken it, and response time can often be well over 10 minutes - plenty of time for all sorts of awful acts. In America, the young woman has the option to invest in a level of personal protection that the police simply cannot supply.

Tellos Athenaios

12-31-2010, 03:33

Americans can walk down the street knowing that they have little to fear from gun crime as well, albeit with a .000X higher chance than their European counterparts, and a bit more freedom.
Your chance referral is not quite correct: in the USA you are not yet 10^5 times more likely to be killed by a bullet than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Thankfully, in Virginia you still have to have a really, really good reason. ~;) Sorry, drone. :embarassed:

Seriously though: you are significantly more likely in the USA to be shot by someone, than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Significantly more likely, not just a bit more likely.

However the quick google statistics are made a bit more complicated by other issues: homicide rates, and of course criminal gangs and the like.

PanzerJaeger

12-31-2010, 03:49

Your chance referral is not quite correct: in the USA you are not yet 10^5 times more likely to be killed by a bullet than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Thankfully, in Virginia you still have to have a really, really good reason. ~;) Sorry, drone. :embarassed:

Seriously though: you are significantly more likely in the USA to be shot by someone, than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Significantly more likely, not just a bit more likely.

However the quick google statistics are made a bit more complicated by other issues: homicide rates, and of course criminal gangs and the like.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) is an interesting list of countries by firearm-related death rate per 100,000 people. Is a .00007 chance per year of being killed by a gun versus a .0000036 (using the Netherlands) chance worth the price (ignoring the fact that such deaths are disproportionately skewed towards the inner city and gang violence)? Perspective is key... ~;)

a completely inoffensive name

12-31-2010, 03:58

The 2nd Amendment was confirmed by only one vote in the SCOTUS, on the most basic and fundamental interpretation.

A change in just one judge could lead to rulings that bans on semi-auto rifles are okay, that draconian registration regulations are alright (for safety!).

It's true that the tide has turned. But the battle for gun rights is far from over.

One vote is all you need. And each case sets precedent. No lower federal judge is going to go against the SCOTUS and accept a ban on only certain types of guns. And it is very unlikely that they are going to have another gun case where one judge is going to switch sides. Usually once the SCOTUS makes a decision, they move on to other cases talking about different subjects.

So leaving your gun in your car should lead to seven years in jail? I'm sorry, but criminally punishing people for not doing what the state decides is "enough" to prevent theft is a form of infringement.

Such laws are designed to make it potentially criminal to even own a gun by a law abiding citizen, and thereby deter ownership.

Depending on where you leave the gun in your car, yes you should be jailed for a while. CR, get your head out of the ideological cloud, when you have a gun you have a responsibility as with all freedoms. You should be jailed for leaving you gun out on a table at Applebee's and then heading off to the bathroom. When you put the gun in an unreasonable situation for being stolen, the consequences are someone taking the gun and shooting some person they hate, dropping gun somewhere and potentially leaving no evidence. You are partly responsible for that death. I don't see how you can argue that it is ok for a gun owner to leave the gun anywhere.

Your second sentence is really over the top. Holding no accountability is not the same as freedom.

That 'ancient document' has led to one of the longest lasting democracies in the world. The way to change it is by going through the prescribed amendment route, not declaring it to be a 'living' document and ignoring the rule of law to suite your own needs.

CR

Umm, be careful CR. The only reason why the 2nd Amendment was incorporated was because about 110 years ago, the SCOTUS did use the Constitution as a living document by rejecting the philosophy that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government and set the precedent for enforcing the Bill of Right's onto the individual states. The Constitution needs to be treated as a living document because society changes at a faster pace then the Constitution can be changed to adapt to it. Your gun right's victory is because of that living treatment, whether or not you recognize it or appreciate it.

a completely inoffensive name

12-31-2010, 04:13

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) is an interesting list of countries by firearm-related death rate per 100,000 people. Is a .00007 chance per year of being killed by a gun versus a .0000036 (using the Netherlands) chance worth the price (ignoring the fact that such deaths are disproportionately skewed towards the inner city and gang violence)? Perspective is key... ~;)

By your own link, England/Wales is reported with a .46/.38 compared with 10+ for the US. That is significant...

Louis VI the Fat

12-31-2010, 04:28

If I wish to purchase a Stealth Fighter and have the coin to do so, then why should I not?It's so funny you should say that. Because, as coincidence would have it, I have just started up a self-defense company.

I have bought several hundred nuclear warheads in Central Asia. I've connected a remote control on them. With a single button on your cellphone you can control all of them instantly. You get to decide their targets. There are enough warheads to destroy the whole of the US with a single push of a button.

I've made the service available for $1.99 a yea, via an apps for you iPhone. I've called it iArmageddon. I'm counting on three hundred million subscribers in America before the end of next year.

What do you think? Is that a good idea? Should it be legal?

quadalpha

12-31-2010, 07:15

Nothing is empirically good or bad, nothing as emotionally complicated as the wish to defend oneself and the wish to wield power can be so simply categorised. The concept of good and evil is an aesthetic but flawed philosophy and they are both in reality encompassed and replaced by humanity.

I should have put it this way: is it more dangerous to live in a country where people can legally own firearms or not?

What are the statistics on firearms uses in self-defence compared to firearms used aggressively? Until that is established, this talk about needing them for self-defence is just hand-waving.

I believe the point about "living document" applies on the level of shaping the debate on such issues. A large part of the current public debate seems largely focused on reconstructing the intent of the writers; the supporters of gun rights tend to say "we need gun rights because the founding father meant this and this." I think it's not a great generalisation to say we all agree that "guns are needed for citizens to be able to overthrow the government" is less realistic today than when the document was written.

rory_20_uk

12-31-2010, 11:47

Consider a young woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. She can get a restraining order, but the police can only take action against the man after he has broken it, and response time can often be well over 10 minutes - plenty of time for all sorts of awful acts. In America, the young woman has the option to invest in a level of personal protection that the police simply cannot supply.

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.

Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.

There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.

~:smoking:

Crazed Rabbit

12-31-2010, 16:37

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

Including being of limited or no danger to criminals. Tasers are one shot weapons which are only effective in the right conditions even when they do hit - OR they require the user to be in grappling range. Pepper spray is useless for thwarting a determined attack - it just irritates the skin, it doesn't physically impede someone.

Also, in some cities tasers have been outlawed, and single woman carrying them for protection have been arrested. One city in Washington (where it's legal to openly carry a pistol if you're older than 21 with no permit, and getting a concealed carry permit is easy) has done this, and more elsewhere.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.

So she's drunk enough to have her judgement seriously affected, but sober enough to draw and double tap somebody in an instant?

Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.

There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.

You know, we already have laws allowing concealed carry of firearms. And the hypothetical scenarios you lay out remain just that - hypothetical and nonexistent.

As it turns out because of the physics of weapons, something needs to be effect 25m away if it's to be effective at all.

I should have put it this way: is it more dangerous to live in a country where people can legally own firearms or not?

The majority of firearms deaths come from drug related gang violence. Staying out of the drug trade and not being in a gang reduces your risk considerably.

What do you think? Is that a good idea? Should it be legal?

I think we shouldn't based laws on extreme hypothetical scenarios with no chance of happening.

Depending on where you leave the gun in your car, yes you should be jailed for a while. CR, get your head out of the ideological cloud, when you have a gun you have a responsibility as with all freedoms. You should be jailed for leaving you gun out on a table at Applebee's and then heading off to the bathroom. When you put the gun in an unreasonable situation for being stolen, the consequences are someone taking the gun and shooting some person they hate, dropping gun somewhere and potentially leaving no evidence. You are partly responsible for that death. I don't see how you can argue that it is ok for a gun owner to leave the gun anywhere.

Your second sentence is really over the top. Holding no accountability is not the same as freedom.

I did not argue that it's okay for a gun owner to leave their gun around. Rather, that while being stupid they should not be liable for a criminal complaint for something like that - which directly results in no harm to anyone. The harm comes from the actions of others. I do not think people should be prosecuted on the chance somebody else may take their gun and do bad things with it.

Umm, be careful CR. The only reason why the 2nd Amendment was incorporated was because about 110 years ago, the SCOTUS did use the Constitution as a living document by rejecting the philosophy that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government and set the precedent for enforcing the Bill of Right's onto the individual states. The Constitution needs to be treated as a living document because society changes at a faster pace then the Constitution can be changed to adapt to it. Your gun right's victory is because of that living treatment, whether or not you recognize it or appreciate it.

I thought SCOTUS incorporated rights because of the 14th amendment. :inquisitive:

CR

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

12-31-2010, 19:30

'too'

Please define 'assault rifle'.

For example, An AK-47 maybe...... :idea2:

The purpose of the second amendment is not for hunting, nor even self defense, but to provide citizens the means to overthrow a tyrannical government (as evidence, I would submit the many statements of the founders about this. Arguments that a civilian uprising would be impossible are both irrelevant - such arguments do not change the constitution as written - and suspect, considering how well the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing).

Using a definition of assault weapons as select fire rifles (for example, the US Army M4, which fires the 5.56 cartridge in both semi-auto and fully automatic fires), they are arguably the most protected weapon under the second amendment, because they are the primary modern infantry weapon.

And what do you mean, can't be defended as legitimate civilian weapons? They're just tools, and how they are used is up to who is using them.

CR

Good luck overthrowing a government,escaplly in Europe.:laugh4:

quadalpha

12-31-2010, 19:39

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.

Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.

There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.

~:smoking:

Alternative scenario: Young woman pulls pistol on stalker, who pulls out the AK he was carrying for self defense.

Tellos Athenaios

12-31-2010, 20:38

Good luck overthrowing a government,escaplly in Europe.:laugh4:

We do that on a regular basis. It's called general election.

Crazed Rabbit

12-31-2010, 21:08

For example, An AK-47 maybe...... :idea2:

When was the last time a legally owned AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime?

EDIT: Heck, when was the last time any AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime? And why don't you say just why such weapons can't be used by civilians?

CR

rory_20_uk

12-31-2010, 23:27

Although the AK-47 is the best known, there are several others that have supplanted it over the years, and I imagine that there are few AK-47s that are used.

~:smoking:

Crazed Rabbit

01-01-2011, 00:09

My point is, real assault weapons (fully automatic fire capable) of any make are hardly ever used in crime. Even rifles of all types make up less than 5% of weapons used to kill in the US.

So how about less imagining and more hard facts for evidence semi-auto or assault rifles are actually involved in crime?

CR

Ice

01-01-2011, 00:13

Although the AK-47 is the best known, there are several others that have supplanted it over the years, and I imagine that there are few AK-47s that are used.

~:smoking:

Assuming access to guns, the top ten types of guns involved in crime in the U.S. show a definite trend in favoring handguns over long guns. The top ten guns used in crime, as reported by the ATF in 1993, included the Smith & Wesson .38 Special and .357 revolvers; Raven Arms .25 caliber, Davis P-380 .380 caliber, Ruger .22 caliber, Lorcin L-380 .380 caliber, and Smith & Wesson semi-automatic handguns; Mossberg and Remington 12 gauge shotguns; and the Tec DC-9

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 1994, included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and was a response to public concern over mass shootings.[102] This provision prohibited the manufacture and importation of some semiautomatic firearms that exhibitied military style features such as a folding stock, pistol grip and flash suppressor, as well as magazines holding more than ten rounds.[102] A grandfather clause was included that allowed firearms manufactured before 1994 to remain legal. A short-term evaluation by University of Pennsylvania criminologists, Christopher S. Koper and Jeffrey A. Roth, did not find any clear impact of this legislation on gun violence.

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

a completely inoffensive name

01-01-2011, 01:15

I did not argue that it's okay for a gun owner to leave their gun around. Rather, that while being stupid they should not be liable for a criminal complaint for something like that - which directly results in no harm to anyone. The harm comes from the actions of others. I do not think people should be prosecuted on the chance somebody else may take their gun and do bad things with it.

So if a criminal wanted to hand guns off into the black market, all he would have to do is buy a bunch of guns legally, take them and then leave them somewhere for a bit and have someone "steal" them. Then he gets off free because it isn't his actions that will cause those guns to be used violently it's the people he worked with who "stole" them. This sort of reasoning, leaves loopholes for criminals for the benefit of what, the freedom to leave your gun where you wish?

I thought SCOTUS incorporated rights because of the 14th amendment. :inquisitive:

CR

It is their interpretation of the 14th Amendment that gave them the legal basis to incorporate the Bill of Right onto the States. But this interpretation did not suddenly appear along with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, for many years after its ratification, the SCOTUS still held that the Bill of Rights is only for the Federal government, see United_States_v._Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank) from 1875.

In fact take a look at that case very carefully CR. Let's go over the holding of that case from 1875:
The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

So the precedent since the beginning of the country was that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States and even after the 14th Amendment this view was given as the legal doctrine to be enforced.

In fact the first case of incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not happen until 1925, with Gitlow_v._New_York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York) when that SCOTUS made their own interpretation of the 14th Amendment to allow incorporation. They went against precedent that stemmed all the way back to the founders and treated the Constitution as a living document, able to given new interpretations. And if it wasn't for treating it as a living document, well CR, Chicago would still be asking for your guns.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

01-01-2011, 01:40

When was the last time a legally owned AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime?

EDIT: Heck, when was the last time any AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime? And why don't you say just why such weapons can't be used by civilians?

CR

North Hollywood shootout-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

In my hometown of Pittsburgh PA-
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23813856/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Stop being paranoid about the government, you guys will never have a case to overthrow them you nuts.:idea2:

Enjoy the new year.

:balloon2:

PanzerJaeger

01-01-2011, 02:20

By your own link, England/Wales is reported with a .46/.38 compared with 10+ for the US. That is significant...

Is it?

Eliminating suicides brings America's stat to approximately 7. Now, in the range of 0-7, the difference is highly significant. However, in the range of 0-100,000, I would argue that it is not.

My point being that while you do have a statistically higher chance of being shot and killed in America than in Europe, the actual chance that you will die by gunfire in either place is highly remote.

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

Certainly. I wouldn't trust my life to pepper spray (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IpBySqIBc&feature=related). :dizzy2:

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Why would the girl in the example walk home alone? I understand that you are reaching to try and invalidate the example, but such hypotheticals should at least make sense.

For example, An AK-47 maybe...... :idea2:

An example is not a definition.

What characteristics of the AK-47 make it more dangerous and/or deadly than other firearms?

What about hunting rifles like this? Would you ban them?

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/1291310248KzAQxX1.jpg

rory_20_uk

01-01-2011, 03:07

Are you suggesting that in the course of a year there are no women who unwisely walk home alone?

And why be afraid when you've got a semi-automatic pistol in one's handbag - I thought that these guns make people safe?

~:smoking:

Crazed Rabbit

01-01-2011, 04:31

North Hollywood shootout-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Semi-auto rifles illegally modified into assault rifles. Can you explain how making assault rifles illegal would have stopped that?

In my hometown of Pittsburgh PA-
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm

Wrong. It was a semi-auto rifle, not an assault rifle.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23813856/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

That is a stupid article written by a stupid reporter. It is thin on facts and long on fear mongering. All incidents cited are of semi-auto weapons, not assault rifles.

None of your links are examples of the criminal misuse of a legally owned assault rifle.

Stop being paranoid about the government, you guys will never have a case to overthrow them you nuts.:idea2:

What's paranoia got to do with it? And you haven't even begun to explain why assault rifle use cannot be defended. Also, what is and is not a 'legitimate civilian weapon'?

CR

Seamus Fermanagh

01-01-2011, 18:53

It's so funny you should say that. Because, as coincidence would have it, I have just started up a self-defense company.

I have bought several hundred nuclear warheads in Central Asia. I've connected a remote control on them. With a single button on your cellphone you can control all of them instantly. You get to decide their targets. There are enough warheads to destroy the whole of the US with a single push of a button.

I've made the service available for $1.99 a yea, via an apps for you iPhone. I've called it iArmageddon. I'm counting on three hundred million subscribers in America before the end of next year.

What do you think? Is that a good idea? Should it be legal?

For a Frenchie? Consult French law on the subject. I'm not informed well enough on that system of laws/rights/etc. to speak ot the issue.

Here in the USA? You have a personal right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution has NOT been interpreted as you having a right to a private army to enforce your will, or a private nuclear arms service for that matter. Multiple subscribers for such a service would probably not fly. So my thoughts are such that, if you can personally buy and use such weapons, then so be it. The government should not be able to infringe upon such. They may have some grounds for denying an indirect provider service from giving you access to such weapons -- while not preventing outright ownership. Gun rental isn't big over here, at least in terms of exiting the range with the weapon still in hand.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-01-2011, 19:10

Is it?

Eliminating suicides brings America's stat to approximately 7. Now, in the range of 0-7, the difference is highly significant. However, in the range of 0-100,000, I would argue that it is not.

Actually, PJ, if you run the chi square on it, you would quickly determine that a .4 versus a seven is highly significant statistically. What that cannot prove, of itself, is whether firearms are the cause of INTENTIONAL deaths. However, even there, recent statistics suggest that you are more than thrice as likely to be intentionally killed in the USA as you are to be killed intentionally in the UK. The question is whether the difference is firearms, culture, or both.

My gut reaction is to view firearms as one of the reasons for the difference. Such weapons are readily available, lethal even with limited or no training in their use, and often very portable. The ready availability of such tools suggests that, when drunk or upset, the typical American is far more likely to have a gun available with which to vent their frustrations than is the typical Brit. The likelihood of an attack of some form is probably pretty similar in both cultures, but the Yank is likely more lethally armed and more likely to kill the person who has angered them. Moreover, the ready availability of weapons yields a higher number of accidental gun deaths (though there is nothing in the data to suggest that we're more likely to have such accidents than some other culture, only that we have more weapons per person and hence more accidents).

Personal firearms are a right and a guarantor of rights and freedoms. In strict terms of physical safety, the confiscation of all such weapons and their restriction to government military use only is likely to result if fewer deaths.

To me, the right is worth the price.

PanzerJaeger

01-01-2011, 20:21

Actually, PJ, if you run the chi square on it, you would quickly determine that a .4 versus a seven is highly significant statistically. What that cannot prove, of itself, is whether firearms are the cause of INTENTIONAL deaths. However, even there, recent statistics suggest that you are more than thrice as likely to be intentionally killed in the USA as you are to be killed intentionally in the UK. The question is whether the difference is firearms, culture, or both.

Again, while the difference may be statistically significant, that does not mean that the average American has a significant chance of being killed by gunfire in the traditional sense of the word. Gun control advocates mix the two to try to create public anxiety over guns, which is likely the reason that our European friends have such a skewed understanding of American life.

Speaking of stats, here are a few (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp) that I found interesting.

* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

* In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.[33] [34]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/dc.jpg

* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional.[35]

* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.[37]

* In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate, the applicant had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be "satisfied" that the applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate" and did not pose a "danger to the public safety or to the peace." The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.[38]

* In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.[39]

* In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.[40]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/england.jpg

† Homicide data is published according to the years in which the police initially reported the offenses as homicides, which are not always the same years in which the incidents took place.
‡ Large anomalies unrelated to guns:
2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death in a shipping container en route to the UK
2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold Shipman was exposed for killing his patients
2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in manslaughter charges
2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th London subway/bus bombings[41]

* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]

* In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration.[43] [44] [45]

* In the wake of Chicago's handgun ban, at least five suburbs surrounding Chicago instituted similar handgun bans. When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban in June 2008, at least four of these suburbs repealed their bans.[46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

* In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that Chicago's ban is unconstitutional.[51]

* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]

* In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.[56]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/chicago_handguns.jpg

* On October 1, 1987, Florida's right-to-carry law became effective.[103]

* This law requires that concealed carry licensees be 21 years of age or older, have clean criminal/mental health records, and complete a firearms safety/training course.[104]

* As of July 31, 2010, Florida has issued 1,825,143 permits and has 746,430 active licensees,[105] constituting roughly 5.4% of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older.[106]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/florida.jpg

* Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.[108]

* From the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law through July 31, 2010, Florida has revoked 5,674 or 0.3% of all issued permits. Of these:

• 522 permits were revoked for crimes committed prior to licensure

• 4,955 permits were revoked for crimes committed after licensure, of which 168 involved the usage of a firearm.[109]

* In January 1996, Texas's right-to-carry law became effective.[110]

* This law requires that concealed carry licensees be at least 21 years of age (or 18 years of age if a member or veteran of the U.S. armed forces), have clean criminal/mental health records, and complete a handgun proficiency course.[111]

* In 2009, Texas had 402,914 active licensees,[112] constituting roughly 2.4% of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older.[113]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/texas.jpg

* Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower.[115]

[/QUOTE]

And finally...

* In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.[120]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/accidents.jpg

So it appears that the unfortunate case of our young woman double-tapping her friend by mistake would be an exceedingly rare event. :book:

Brenus

01-01-2011, 21:15

So, the streets of the US are so unsafe that you need to carry a small firearm (or a tank for shopping).
Don’t bother about a supposed will from the Federal Government to take you Freedom away. It is already done.
If you can’t wander in the streets without a full gear and back-up, well, I understand why Bush believed and still believes that the Iraqis are better now that before.

So in fact, all the mobs and gangsters can have all the weapons they are ready to pay for?
Guys, awake, they will win… And they will be ready, not you… They will not hesitate to shoot to innocent by passers… You will…
And when the police will arrive, they won’t no the bad from the goods, and with all theses bullets flying over…

One think scared me: I was at the Airport when a stupid man drove his car in, hoping blowing-up some people. The reaction was to send untrained Police officers armed with submachine gun. I hope without bullets in the magazine because I can’t imagine what effect would be if a terrorist started to shoot to people. My guess is the Police Force would have kill more innocent than the terrorist.
And even if the terrorist just pretend to have a gun…

Ok, you have your weapon. In the shop centre, hoops, bullets start to fly. Because you are courageous, you go and you see several people shooting at each others and, well, because you have now your weapon in hand, both side not knowing (at least one) in which camp you are shoot at you. To whom you answer?

ajaxfetish

01-01-2011, 21:32

Actually, PJ, if you run the chi square on it, you would quickly determine that a .4 versus a seven is highly significant statistically.
Statistical significance and practical significance are often conflated, and this I think is one situation where it is particularly likely. It sounds like the chances of being killed by firearm violence are unquestionably higher in the US than in Europe. The question is, are they enough higher for it to matter?

Ajax

edit:

So, the streets of the US are so unsafe that you need to carry a small firearm (or a tank for shopping).
Don’t bother about a supposed will from the Federal Government to take you Freedom away. It is already done.
If you can’t wander in the streets without a full gear and back-up, well, I understand why Bush believed and still believes that the Iraqis are better now that before.

Nice dystopian fantasy. Have you ever been to the US?

Louis VI the Fat

01-01-2011, 22:04

Unlike Europe, much of which has steeped itself in the Marxist notion of labor's centrality to the politico-economic character of society, the USA, and its laws, are steeped in the Lockean tradition of life, liberty, and property as the central values.

Thus, the equation is NOT people < property, but instead people ~ property as property is a result of the effort/skills/capital/labor of the person owning it. As an extension of self, the defense of one's property is no more nor less reasonable than the defense of one's physical self or one's family.Why do communists drink herbal tea?

Because proper tea is theft!

:drummer:

PanzerJaeger

01-01-2011, 22:59

So, the streets of the US are so unsafe that you need to carry a small firearm (or a tank for shopping).

Oh boy. This is a perfect example of the lack of understanding I was talking about.

So in fact, all the mobs and gangsters can have all the weapons they are ready to pay for?
Guys, awake, they will win… And they will be ready, not you… They will not hesitate to shoot to innocent by passers… You will…
And when the police will arrive, they won’t no the bad from the goods, and with all theses bullets flying over…

One think scared me: I was at the Airport when a stupid man drove his car in, hoping blowing-up some people. The reaction was to send untrained Police officers armed with submachine gun. I hope without bullets in the magazine because I can’t imagine what effect would be if a terrorist started to shoot to people. My guess is the Police Force would have kill more innocent than the terrorist.
And even if the terrorist just pretend to have a gun…

Ok, you have your weapon. In the shop centre, hoops, bullets start to fly. Because you are courageous, you go and you see several people shooting at each others and, well, because you have now your weapon in hand, both side not knowing (at least one) in which camp you are shoot at you. To whom you answer?

To carry a weapon in public, every state (IIRC) requires a permit. Part of obtaining that permit is attending and passing a class on proper firearms handling and appropriate usage.

In said classes, people are taught that firearm use is only acceptable as a last resort when the operator's life or the life of another is clearly in danger. They are taught that one should only draw and discharge one's weapon when every other avenue has been rendered unacceptable - including calling the police, giving up personal property, and fleeing. Such instructions preclude jumping into a firefight, guns ablaze.

I too must ask whether you have ever been to the United States. Surely just a few days in country would eliminate such Wild West fantasies.

TinCow

01-02-2011, 01:19

I used to be a big control control advocate, but changed my mind when I realized that the situation is a Pandora's Box. Like it or not, guns are already everywhere in the US. It's impossible to get rid of them, so pointless to even have the argument. What can be done is to place proper checks on purchasing weapons so that people cannot purchase them when they are mentally ill or in a temporary rage. The rules implementing those checks are very weak in some states, but they can be improved. Banning them outright is just pointless.

As for the assault weapon thing... no one commits crimes with those things. The issue is handguns, pure and simple.

rory_20_uk

01-02-2011, 01:36

It sounds like you are in favour of control, but view that banning is not realistic. I think that there are further refinements that should be made in terms of regulating storage and implimenting "smart" features that are coming into all other walks of life but remain firmly out of guns.

~:smoking:

Brenus

01-02-2011, 11:03

“Nice dystopian fantasy. Have you ever been to the US?”
Yes I did.
And I don’t think you need a weapon in the US streets…you, guys, are the ones who think so.

“Oh boy. This is a perfect example of the lack of understanding I was talking about.” Just reading what is posted… Girl alone in the street needs a gun, shoot to people walking on my garden, right to have a nuclear bomb, right to have minefields, right to defend against my neighbours’ nuclear bomb…

“In said classes, people are taught that firearm use is only acceptable as a last resort when the operator's life or the life of another is clearly in danger”: Yeah, and in classes people are taught to be polite, no swearing, to be respectful of the elders and to never hit a woman. And we all obey the rules…

Stop kidding, please:
I was in the Army. And I know what is this strange feeling to have weapons in your hand. The power of Death and Life, the fear mixed with “Respect” when you arrived in a village during a night exercise, faces blackened, dirty, smelly but with your Assault Rifle…
Do you ever, ever, experiment this Power when an Armoured Division deployed in an open plain, with the ground shacking under your APC’s caterpillars.
We speak here not of freedom, and the respect of the Constitution…
We speak of the NRA greed and money in one side.
And we speak of weapons on the other. I like weapon. I like to carry weapon. I like to use weapons. I use a lot of them, from missile (Milan) to 20 mm canon, gun, machine guns, riffle assault rifles, grenade (all of them), mines, learned how to blow-up bridges, buildings, railways. I used flamethrower (rule is to use it only on obstacle, not on human, yeah right), learned how to strangle people, knife them in the back etc. I was a trained soldier…

So, you can tell me you want to have weapons. I understand the feeling.

But, to pretend it is to defend your rights that no body want to take from you, please…
Have more faith in your Army and Soldiers…
In France the last Coup failed because the soldiers and most of the Hierarchy refused to follow…

In allowing weapons for all, you in fact increase the danger on you freedom. You give power to individual the right to shoot who they want (even after the classes) when they want.
Those who read me know I am a leftist, a combat one. I have no past of criminality; even I am a “veteran”.
So if I was a US citizen, a part the left side, I am a perfect citizen.
So I would have the right to have weapons.
So I would be able to create a group (armed) that is more a threat for you than a Federal imaginary will to take your freedom away…

In a pure Robert Heinlein "Starship Troopers" books (not movie, please) fashion...

And this is true for all political and religious groups, extremist or not…
Free access to weapons is the door from simple accidents to organised plots (private militias to mobsters).

drone

01-02-2011, 14:53

In allowing weapons for all, you in fact increase the danger on you freedom. You give power to individual the right to shoot who they want (even after the classes) when they want.
No, we give the power to the individual the ability to shoot who they want. There is no right to taking another life. The actions you take with your firearm will be judged based on the circumstances and the laws of the locality.

Tellos Athenaios

01-02-2011, 15:00

Which is like telling a little innocent girl: “Here, you see this? That is an apple. It tastes great. Don't eat it.”

Fisherking

01-02-2011, 15:14

Which is like telling a little innocent girl: “Here, you see this? That is an apple. It tastes great. Don't eat it.”

What?

People don’t usually put themselves in danger just so they can shoot someone.

What makes you think that all Americans are a bunch of Hollywood trigger-happy cowboys?

Beskar

01-02-2011, 15:19

What makes you think that all Americans are a bunch of Hollywood trigger-happy cowboys?

American movies?

Tellos Athenaios

01-02-2011, 15:32

People don’t usually put themselves in danger just so they can shoot someone.

Please read:

No, we give the power to the individual the ability to shoot who they want. There is no right to taking another life. The actions you take with your firearm will be judged based on the circumstances and the laws of the locality.

We're well past the self defence argument now. You are, apparently, given the ability to shoot who you want but you are expected not to exercise that ability. Which is not at all unlike telling people how to get the apple and then telling them to no do that anyway.

Fisherking

01-02-2011, 16:42

Please read:

We're well past the self defence argument now. You are, apparently, given the ability to shoot who you want but you are expected not to exercise that ability. Which is not at all unlike telling people how to get the apple and then telling them to no do that anyway.

The Constitution of the United States gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. There is no right to shoot whom you will.

This is more of a deliberate misunderstanding or misreading rather than what is a right.

Americans tend to mistrust government and have more faith in their fellow citizens.

Evidently those in Europe tend to put faith in their governments but distrust their neighbors.

In my experience your fellow citizens are far more likely to help you without seeking power over you than is any government.

Tellos Athenaios

01-02-2011, 18:19

The Constitution of the United States gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. There is no right to shoot whom you will.

This is more of a deliberate misunderstanding or misreading rather than what is a right.
Please read again. If that were my understanding, I'd've omitted “not” somewhere in my apple story wouldn't I?
My issue is that from a self-defense perspective guns are not that useful: as Brennus hinted at those who you would trust with a gun are those who would think twice about using it, but the situations wherein a gun is truly useful mean those people won't get that opportunity because the other type doesn't. In other situations, guns are overkill --literally. Much more useful to go on a self-defense course if you feel you need it.

EDIT: I should add that I apply the logic of “time and a place for everything” on guns. This leads me to think that you can play with guns to your hearts content, but not en plein public: that hobby does not belong there. So I strongly disagree with the notion that the “right to bear arms” implies the right to do that wherever you please.

Americans tend to mistrust government and have more faith in their fellow citizens.

Evidently those in Europe tend to put faith in their governments but distrust their neighbors.

Really? Or perhaps it goes without saying that self-defense should be completely and utterly necessary, that there is a basic guarantee of your safety?

In my experience your fellow citizens are far more likely to help you without seeking power over you than is any government.
In my experience you help other people out about as much as other people help you out. But then again, that's small things. The help from government is a completely different relationship. Mainly because the government does not expect something equal in return; government is like a charity here. Incidentally, that is the basis for this part of government.

Don't mistake that for the other part of government which says “thou shalt not murder” to you: that part is the bit where your current and past society tells you what is and more often what is not accepted behaviour. But I take it you don't actually have a problem with that.

Crazed Rabbit

01-02-2011, 18:56

Which is like telling a little innocent girl: “Here, you see this? That is an apple. It tastes great. Don't eat it.”

So killing people without cause is being compared to eating a tasty apple?

I think I need to reiterate something for our non-American friends: your doomsday scenarios and worrying about people going about shooting others because they can (just like others go about running people over with cars just because they can :rolleyes:) are totally without basis. We know this to be true because most states allow people to carry a concealed weapon with a permit. Some, Alaska and New Hampshire, allow anyone 21 or older to carry a concealed gun without any permit so long as they aren't a convicted criminal.

And still these states do not resemble your imagined dystopias.

In terms of self defense, the facts (http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff_table7.html)state that using a gun for defense means you're less likely to be injured.

Or perhaps it goes without saying that self-defense should be completely and utterly necessary, that there is a basic guarantee of your safety?

And no one should be starving or sick in this world either. Let's not base policy on unattainable utopias, shall we?

CR

Tellos Athenaios

01-02-2011, 20:17

So killing people without cause is being compared to eating a tasty apple?

I think I need to reiterate something for our non-American friends: your doomsday scenarios and worrying about people going about shooting others because they can (just like others go about running people over with cars just because they can :rolleyes:) are totally without basis. We know this to be true because most states allow people to carry a concealed weapon with a permit. Some, Alaska and New Hampshire, allow anyone 21 or older to carry a concealed gun without any permit so long as they aren't a convicted criminal.

And still these states do not resemble your imagined dystopias. To reiterate then, we do not need to make any assumptions about dystopias just yet. We merely have to observe a few key things:
(1) The probability of armed violence rises with the general availability of arms (and population size/density). Thus the absolute rates of violence tend to rise accordingly, as well.
(2) The non-violent (well at least not violent towards your fellow humans) use of arms are limited to a few specific settings; e.g.: sport.
(3) Those settings do not include the wider public space, not even the confines of a home.
(4) Violence using arms does occur in the public space.
Ergo, there is no pressing benefit particular to guns from allowing the use or possession of these in public space, but there is a definite cost to it.

In terms of self defense, the facts (http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff_table7.html)state that using a gun for defense means you're less likely to be injured. Because the other person will be? The facts also state you're less likely to be injured in certain places where guns are de facto banned and self-defense using guns is therefore not an option. Vastly less likely, in fact; see the point I reiterated above.

And no one should be starving or sick in this world either. Let's not base policy on unattainable utopias, shall we?
Which isn't the case at all. The law/policy is based around the fact that people who want to enjoy guns for whatever it is about guns that fascinates them can do so on, say, a shooting range or a hunt, and that banning guns outside of that use improves the conditions for all. Funnily enough, it works.

Seamus, at least, admits that to him to interpret the right to keep and bear arms unconditionally is worth 21000 deaths a year. (That's what the stat of 7 per 100K works out on the USA population rounded down to 300M.)

PanzerJaeger

01-02-2011, 20:37

Yeah, and in classes people are taught to be polite, no swearing, to be respectful of the elders and to never hit a woman. And we all obey the rules

Obviously the classes and/or common sense are paying off. In 2007, in a nation of 302 million people, there were 613 fatal firearms accidents. Again, it seems that these hypotheticals of people shooting their friends in a drunken stupor and jumping into random firefights and shooting innocents or being shot themselves are very rare.

Stop kidding, please:
I was in the Army. And I know what is this strange feeling to have weapons in your hand. The power of Death and Life, the fear mixed with “Respect” when you arrived in a village during a night exercise, faces blackened, dirty, smelly but with your Assault Rifle…
Do you ever, ever, experiment this Power when an Armoured Division deployed in an open plain, with the ground shacking under your APC’s caterpillars.

Just because you experienced some sort of weird power trip while handling weaponry does not mean that it is a common occurrence.

Which is like telling a little innocent girl: “Here, you see this? That is an apple. It tastes great. Don't eat it.”

Lol, what?

Which isn't the case at all. The law/policy is based around the fact that people who want to enjoy guns for whatever it is about guns that fascinates them can do so on, say, a shooting range or a hunt, and that banning guns outside of that use improves the conditions for all. Funnily enough, it works.

The stats say differently. Gun restrictions/bans here in the States and in Europe have had no noticeable positive effect on violence and public safety. It could even be argued that in some places they had a negative one.

Louis VI the Fat

01-02-2011, 21:36

“Nice dystopian fantasy. Have you ever been to the US?”

“Oh boy. This is a perfect example of the lack of understanding I was talking about.Don't worry. They all looked at me funny too, when I asked about nuclear arms to defend against government tyranny. They see things in a different light, the gun debate runs along different lines. :beam:

drone

01-02-2011, 21:36

American movies?
And we all know how accurate these are. :rolleyes:

Brenus

01-02-2011, 23:34

“Just because you experienced some sort of weird power trip while handling weaponry does not mean that it is a common occurrence.”
May be true, may be true…:laugh4:
But I won’t trust somebody carrying a weapon and who wouldn’t have the feeling of what power he/she is supposed to unleash or control…
And I spoke with colleagues and former colleagues/comrades in arms… The first time you’ve got your weapons, when you are finally allowed to carry a weapon, you feel something, like when the flag goes up the sky…
If you don’t, you miss something…

Beskar

01-02-2011, 23:43

And we all know how accurate these are. :rolleyes:

Well, he asked where you see Hollywood American Cow-boy Gunho... so they are pretty accurate at doing that.

Ice

01-03-2011, 01:11

And we all know how accurate these are. :rolleyes:

Yeah I know. I'm sure all the firearms in the movies the "The Town" and "Heat" were legally obtained.

drone

01-03-2011, 01:39

Well, he asked where you see Hollywood American Cow-boy Gunho... so they are pretty accurate at doing that.
No, he asked:

What makes you think that all Americans are a bunch of Hollywood trigger-happy cowboys?
People on this board constantly rail about how Hollywood portrays historical events. Why would you think they portray modern life without spicing it up some?

HoreTore

01-03-2011, 03:06

No, he asked:

People on this board constantly rail about how Hollywood portrays historical events. Why would you think they portray modern life without spicing it up some?

Why would one need movies, when you've got people like the 911-call about a guy who told the operator he was going to kill the guys who were looting some stuff from his neighbor? And the tons of people who supported him?

Seamus Fermanagh

01-03-2011, 04:48

Just a few points:

1. On one very important level, all of this argumentation is moot. The citizens and residents of the USA possess millions of weapons, most of them firearms. To this point, our Constitution has been construed (rightly in my opinion) to protect the personal ownership of arms by US citizens. ANY attempt to alter this would involve, on some level, an effort by government (local or federal) to cofiscate weapons from citizens. As TinCow has correctly pointed out, that simply will not happen. Even were the government to attempt it seriously, a civil revolt of unheard-of magnitude would be the result -- and many of those who bear arms for the government would not support the effort in the first place (and might well line up on the other side of the dispute). So this argument is really on a somewhat hypothetical level anyway.

2. TA makes some good points. However, as has been noted by historical researchers, for example W.E. Hollon's Frontier Violence: Another Look or Hill & Anderson's The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier, suggest that the rate of deadly violence -- by firearm or otherwise -- was significantly lower in the Old West than in a modern city. This despite the fact that firearms were virtually ubiquitous. Does this not undercut your first point?

3. Even if we accept the notion that the prevelance of firearms itself begets violence and more deadly violence, and therefore accept TA's argument that public safety is not better served by individuals protecting themselves, the reason for firearms was not, according to the founders, primarily for the purpose personal protection or of hunting, but to provide citizens with the werewithal to resist tyranny should it arise. It is this latter reason that leaves me inclined toward the opinion that almost any restriction of arms is unconstitutional.

a completely inoffensive name

01-03-2011, 10:06

2. TA makes some good points. However, as has been noted by historical researchers, for example W.E. Hollon's Frontier Violence: Another Look or Hill & Anderson's The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier, suggest that the rate of deadly violence -- by firearm or otherwise -- was significantly lower in the Old West than in a modern city. This despite the fact that firearms were virtually ubiquitous. Does this not undercut your first point?

If I remember correctly, in the book Freakonomics, the authors actually claimed that the data doesn't hold up that statement at all but it continues to be repeated because it is such a great talking point politically.

Vuk

01-03-2011, 17:15

My issue is that from a self-defense perspective guns are not that useful: as Brennus hinted at those who you would trust with a gun are those who would think twice about using it, but the situations wherein a gun is truly useful mean those people won't get that opportunity because the other type doesn't. In other situations, guns are overkill --literally. Much more useful to go on a self-defense course if you feel you need it.

Really? I have handled guns since I was five years old, and guarantee you that if it was necessary to protect my life or the life of my family, I would not hesitate for a moment. If you do not know when it is appropriate to use a firearm in self-defense, and you have questions about whether you could or not, it will still serve as a deterrent. How many times have people been able to hold criminals at bay while the police were called? Some times with an unloaded gun! :P

(1) The probability of armed violence rises with the general availability of arms (and population size/density). Thus the absolute rates of violence tend to rise accordingly, as well.
(2) The non-violent (well at least not violent towards your fellow humans) use of arms are limited to a few specific settings; e.g.: sport.
(3) Those settings do not include the wider public space, not even the confines of a home.
(4) Violence using arms does occur in the public space.
Ergo, there is no pressing benefit particular to guns from allowing the use or possession of these in public space, but there is a definite cost to it.

Which isn't the case at all. The law/policy is based around the fact that people who want to enjoy guns for whatever it is about guns that fascinates them can do so on, say, a shooting range or a hunt, and that banning guns outside of that use improves the conditions for all. Funnily enough, it works.

Oh really? No place in the home? So I guess the fact that I target shoot right out side my house and hunt in the property outside of my house isn't enough to make the house a place for non-violent (toward humans) gun use? Do I really have to drive for an hour to go to the nearest gun range when I could just shoot on my own property?

@Tellos Athenaios
You insist that guns cause violence and that if you give someone the means to kill someone they will. How do you explain that my father and mother, myself, and all five of my siblings have been shooting since we were children, and not only never had a firearm accident, but have never decided to go kill someone? I have over 30 guns in my house and thousands of rounds of ammunition, surely that is means enough for you, and yet all I have ever done is target shoot with them and hunt occasionally.
Your argument is really not a good one, because a car, your hands, a butter knife, a sharp stick, etc could all be effective means of killing an unarmed person. I guess that means that even Canadians and Euros have the means to kill people, and yet (shockingly) they do not!

Criminals own guns to kill people (and usually obtain them legally), the legal gun owner owns them to collect, to hunt with, to target/sports shoot with, etc.

Tellos Athenaios

01-03-2011, 20:02

suggest that the rate of deadly violence -- by firearm or otherwise -- was significantly lower in the Old West than in a modern city. This despite the fact that firearms were virtually ubiquitous. Does this not undercut your first point?

Such rates are a function of multiple inputs, one of them being the number of conflicts between people which depends on population density (for obvious reasons). One can surmise that this particular input is of a higher than linear order in population density. To draw a wildly inaccurate analogy here: since in a large modern city like Detroit there live about as many people as in the 13 founding states when the constitution was drawn up together, statistics from that time -- which, by the way, probably do not include figures from Native Indian populations -- are quite meaningless in the context of modern Detroit. A more fitting comparison would be Paris back in the day, with its ban on duels. (And when arms were eventually banned in the city of Paris, it resulted in a marked drop of all sorts of violent crime rates.)

3. Even if we accept the notion that the prevelance of firearms itself begets violence and more deadly violence, and therefore accept TA's argument that public safety is not better served by individuals protecting themselves, the reason for firearms was not, according to the founders, primarily for the purpose personal protection or of hunting, but to provide citizens with the werewithal to resist tyranny should it arise. It is this latter reason that leaves me inclined toward the opinion that almost any restriction of arms is unconstitutional.

This is a completely different argument. You could go down the historical context lane of arguments and then arrive at the conclusion that de-facto this particular argument/issue has been rendered completely and utterly irrelevant for well over a century now. Try and stand up against the tyranny of the USA armed forces & their evil taxes, and see how long exactly your prised weapons will last if they're determined to suppress you... ~;) Then the obvious question is: if the wherewithal to resist state tyranny has been rendered de-facto obsolete, why would this reasoning still apply to (fire)arms?

Now, I am not from the states so I might be lacking a certain emotion or attachment towards the USA constitution, but to me the utility of this argument is about as much as of complaining to the Federal Government for being “biased” towards American English when in fact American English is not even an official language of the USA. Or of that register of subversive groups plotting to overthrow the USA Federal government.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-03-2011, 22:32

Such rates are a function of multiple inputs, one of them being the number of conflicts between people which depends on population density (for obvious reasons). One can surmise that this particular input is of a higher than linear order in population density. To draw a wildly inaccurate analogy here: since in a large modern city like Detroit there live about as many people as in the 13 founding states when the constitution was drawn up together, statistics from that time -- which, by the way, probably do not include figures from Native Indian populations -- are quite meaningless in the context of modern Detroit. A more fitting comparison would be Paris back in the day, with its ban on duels. (And when arms were eventually banned in the city of Paris, it resulted in a marked drop of all sorts of violent crime rates.).

Clearer argument/analogy (though I'll substitute NYC vis-a-vis the numbers, since Detroit is at 25% of its former population these days).

Crazed Rabbit

01-04-2011, 03:37

To reiterate then, we do not need to make any assumptions about dystopias just yet. We merely have to observe a few key things:
(1) The probability of armed violence rises with the general availability of arms (and population size/density). Thus the absolute rates of violence tend to rise accordingly, as well.

That is not borne out by lower crime rates in cities with higher legal gun ownership (ie Seattle [lower crime] vs Chicago [high crime]). There's other factors of course, but it means the crime rate doesn't rise with gun ownership.

Indeed, across the US, violent crime has fallen as more handguns are owned and more people are able to carry concealed firearms.

(2) The non-violent (well at least not violent towards your fellow humans) use of arms are limited to a few specific settings; e.g.: sport.
(3) Those settings do not include the wider public space, not even the confines of a home.
(4) Violence using arms does occur in the public space.
Ergo, there is no pressing benefit particular to guns from allowing the use or possession of these in public space, but there is a definite cost to it.

Violence does not occur in the public space? Just where do muggings, assaults, and the like occur? :inquisitive:

Your final point rests on false logic.

Because the other person will be? The facts also state you're less likely to be injured in certain places where guns are de facto banned and self-defense using guns is therefore not an option. Vastly less likely, in fact; see the point I reiterated above.

Do they now? So Chicago and New York City are much safer than Seattle? Did Britain's gun injury rate go down or up after the handgun ban?

And by other person, do you mean the criminal attacker is more likely to be injured? If so, I must wonder why we should hesitate to do something that increases the safety of law abiding citizens because criminals would be more likely to be injured.

Which isn't the case at all. The law/policy is based around the fact that people who want to enjoy guns for whatever it is about guns that fascinates them can do so on, say, a shooting range or a hunt, and that banning guns outside of that use improves the conditions for all. Funnily enough, it works.

No, banning guns outside of ranges does not improve conditions. I don't know why the facts about defensive use of guns against criminals seem to be ignored, but I'll reiterate; a LOT of people use guns to defend themselves each year in the US. Banning guns would leave them injured or dead. And the people misusing guns - criminals - would not pay attention to your ban.

So, no, limiting guns to ranges doesn't help anyone.

Seamus, at least, admits that to him to interpret the right to keep and bear arms unconditionally is worth 21000 deaths a year. (That's what the stat of 7 per 100K works out on the USA population rounded down to 300M.)

Actually, only about 10-15k people are killed by people using firearms per year.

If I remember correctly, in the book Freakonomics, the authors actually claimed that the data doesn't hold up that statement at all but it continues to be repeated because it is such a great talking point politically.

Link please. I don't remember that from the book.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

01-04-2011, 04:13

Link please. I don't remember that from the book.

Google books doesn't have the specific page I wanted to quote available, but if you open the book to page 177, I believe it starts talking about the idea of "More Guns= Less Crime" and it debunks it on the following pages. I am back in Uni so my actually copy of the book is 7 hours away.

Crazed Rabbit

01-04-2011, 05:01

I do recall it looked at the "More Guns, Less Crime" book by Stephen Lott (IIRC), and that the conclusion for them was that it's a wash in the modern USA in terms of guns and crime. I might have a copy of the book in the house, I'll see if it addresses the Wild West in particular.

CR

Louis VI the Fat

01-04-2011, 10:35

I happen to have a copy of Freakonomics right in front of me right now. In a British Penguin edition. Chapter 4, on page 121, Lott is discussed, and basically dismissed.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

01-05-2011, 00:35

Just to clafiry from my OP I mean having a ban on assault rifles (AK-47's, AR-15's, those types) and not regular guns (pistols,hunting guns (since I do own shotguns from my grandfathers )

ajaxfetish

01-05-2011, 00:40

Just to clafiry from my OP I mean having a ban on assault rifles (AK-47's, AR-15's, those types) and not regular guns (pistols,hunting guns (since I do own shotguns from my grandfathers )

And just to clarify, the reason so many are finding fault with your argument is that regular guns (mostly pistols) are used in crime, rather than assault rifles.

Ajax

drone

01-05-2011, 01:10

And assault weapons are already de-facto banned.

Crazed Rabbit

01-05-2011, 02:38

Just to clafiry from my OP I mean having a ban on assault rifles (AK-47's, AR-15's, those types) and not regular guns (pistols,hunting guns (since I do own shotguns from my grandfathers )

You need to clarify further.

Assault rifles can fire in a fully automatic mode and are extremely restricted in the US.

Semi-automatic rifles, often called assault rifles by fear mongering or ignorant reporters, can only fire once per pull of the trigger, and there's a goodly number of them in the US.

Also - are you saying that you support banning only guns you don't own? What a selfish way to approach civil rights.

Finally, rifles, of either semi-auto or actual assault weapons, are very rarely ever used in crimes. So you should also clarify why you want to ban 'assault weapons'.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

01-05-2011, 02:44

I have the perfect solution. People want to ban assault rifles because the are afraid they kill people. However, handguns are what are really used in killing people, not rifles. So why don't we ban handguns and shotguns and have everyone buy rifles, semi and full auto?

Crazed Rabbit

01-05-2011, 02:52

Banning handguns is unconstitutional and would be ineffective. It didn't lower the crime rate in Chicago, NYC, or Washington DC.

Even a nationwide ban wouldn't work. There's over a hundred million handguns (IIRC) in the US and a cheap pistol is possible to make with some modern tools.

So you can't get rid of them, and you'd probably help criminals the most, by assuring them any law abiding citizen they attack will be nearly defenseless.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

01-05-2011, 03:58

Crazed Rabbit

01-05-2011, 07:14

Sometimes I can't tell. :shrug:

Also we haven't had a good gun control thread in a while and I want to get my shots (HA!) in.

I do wish Warman would clarify somethings.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

01-05-2011, 07:23

Sometimes I can't tell. :shrug:

Also we haven't had a good gun control thread in a while and I want to get my shots (HA!) in.

I do wish Warman would clarify somethings.

CR

That's alright. It's all good.

quadalpha

01-08-2011, 21:40

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html

Crazed Rabbit

01-08-2011, 22:11

From Quadalpha's article:

Richard Kastigar, a supervisor with the sheriff’s department, identified the gunman as a 22-year-old “with limited law enforcement experience.”

I wonder what that means.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

01-08-2011, 23:15

I am hearing conflicting reports on whether it was semi-automatic or automatic.

quadalpha

01-12-2011, 23:20

Data: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632599

Strike For The South

01-12-2011, 23:41

Louis VI the Fat

01-13-2011, 00:53

6 dead people should have no more bearing on gun rights than one dead person.

I AM FULLY AWARE GUNS CAN BE USED TO MURDER PEOPLE AND I STILL THINK WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OWN THEM. NO AMOUNT OF SOB STORIES WILL CHANGE MY MIND BECAUSE IF I WAS THE SUSEPTIBLE TO SUGGESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTEAnd what of one and a half million dead Americans since the end of the Vietnam war?

We need to run industrial deathcamps in Europe to reach those levels of civilian casualties.

I realise the gun debate in America is over. The gun lobby has won. Perhaps in a generation or two sanity can be restored again. For now, I am happy if we can keep America's gun culture from exporting itself.

England has very strict gun control laws. France much less so. America hardly any. The effect:

Gun Homicide (per 100,000)

Japan 0.03
Singapore 0.07
Taiwan 0.15
Kuwait 0.34
England/ Wales 0.07
Scotland 0.19
Netherlands 0.27
Spain 0.19
Ireland 0.30
Germany 0.21
Italy 1.16
Sweden 0.18
Denmark 0.23
Israel 0.72
New Zealand 0.22
Australia 0.56
Belgium 0.87
Canada 0.60
Norway 0.36
Austria 0.42
Northern Ireland 3.55
France 0.55
Switzerland 0.46
Finland 0.87
USA 6.24

Rates of firearms deaths for most countries are from:

United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
International study on firearm regulation (revised). Vienna: United
Nations, 1997.[tables 2.7, 6.2 and 7.1].

Beskar

01-13-2011, 01:41

No point talking sense to an American about guns, they live in a violent country where even bees kill and eat people alive. In the UK by comparison, bees are classified as "endangered species" and protected, because they cannot fend for themselves.

PanzerJaeger

01-13-2011, 02:25

[spoil]England has very strict gun control laws. France much less so. America hardly any. The effect:

This is false, at least in relation to Britain (I don't have data on France). Gun crime (and crime in general) has always been significantly lower in Britain (and Europe) than in the US, both before and after the restrictive laws were put in place. The difference has far more to do with culture than the availibility of guns.

* In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate, the applicant had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be "satisfied" that the applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate" and did not pose a "danger to the public safety or to the peace." The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.[38]

* In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.[39]

* In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.[40]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/england.jpg

† Homicide data is published according to the years in which the police initially reported the offenses as homicides, which are not always the same years in which the incidents took place.
‡ Large anomalies unrelated to guns:
2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death in a shipping container en route to the UK
2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold Shipman was exposed for killing his patients
2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in manslaughter charges
2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th London subway/bus bombings[41]

* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]

Crazed Rabbit

01-13-2011, 02:40

And what of one and a half million dead Americans since the end of the Vietnam war?

We need to run industrial deathcamps in Europe to reach those levels of civilian casualties.

I realise the gun debate in America is over. The gun lobby has won. Perhaps in a generation or two sanity can be restored again. For now, I am happy if we can keep America's gun culture from exporting itself.

England has very strict gun control laws. France much less so. America hardly any. The effect:

Gun Homicide (per 100,000)

Japan 0.03
Singapore 0.07
Taiwan 0.15
Kuwait 0.34
England/ Wales 0.07
Scotland 0.19
Netherlands 0.27
Spain 0.19
Ireland 0.30
Germany 0.21
Italy 1.16
Sweden 0.18
Denmark 0.23
Israel 0.72
New Zealand 0.22
Australia 0.56
Belgium 0.87
Canada 0.60
Norway 0.36
Austria 0.42
Northern Ireland 3.55
France 0.55
Switzerland 0.46
Finland 0.87
USA 6.24

Rates of firearms deaths for most countries are from:

United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
International study on firearm regulation (revised). Vienna: United
Nations, 1997.[tables 2.7, 6.2 and 7.1].

Hmm, maybe we ought to look at Switzerland. Most of the USA is due to gang violence, and conflicts over drugs. Stay out of that and the likelihood is significantly lower.

And hey, doesn't Northern Ireland have the same gun laws as England?

Also, IIRC roughly four times as many people die in car accidents in the USA.

CR

Lemur

01-13-2011, 05:23

IIRC roughly four times as many people die in car accidents in the USA.
Which is why we need autobahns. Now.

Shibumi

01-17-2011, 04:32

As a Swede growing up with state controlled TV I was very much against the US take on guns..

I have however changed my mind as of late. Most gun related traumas are dealt with within the lower class. Basically a Darwinistic favor, one might argue. Sure, more guns will lead to more meaningless deaths.. But then, I can trade 6 ghetto guys for me having a gun whenever I or my family is at risk.

So statistics - bleh!

It is more about who is saved, rather than what number is saved. It is more about who gets killed, than the number of slain.

PanzerJaeger

01-17-2011, 19:13

Strike For The South

01-17-2011, 19:43

A friend of mine was cleaning her shogun and blew her brains out in front of her family. husband and kids both.

:sad:

Doesn't change the fact she should've checked the breach and not pointed the end with the hole towards her

:angry:

Seamus Fermanagh

01-18-2011, 02:00

gaelic cowboy

01-18-2011, 02:20

And hey, doesn't Northern Ireland have the same gun laws as England?

Terrorism only accounted for about 3500 odd deaths in the North over 30yrs thats bombings, shootings and beating people to death.

Not to make light of the North but most US states could prob easy pass that in 30 yrs

Louis VI the Fat

01-18-2011, 03:08

Crazed Rabbit

01-18-2011, 07:02

Not gonna respond, Louis? :sad:

Also, your map includes not homicides but all deaths where people used guns. Since over 50% of people killed by guns in the US are suicides, that map is kind of useless. More rural people will use guns more often for suicide since they're more available. It's a useless graph.

The second chart ; correlation does not imply causation. So, your chart is meaningless. Also, it's still based on total deaths caused by people with firearms - including suicides. The whole chart is useless, as the suicides skew the data completely. Doubly useless.

Black ghetto gangstas don't kill people.

Republicans do. (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/)

CR

Louis VI the Fat

01-22-2011, 01:57

Hmm, maybe we ought to look at Switzerland. Most of the USA is due to gang violence, and conflicts over drugs. Stay out of that and the likelihood is significantly lower.

And hey, doesn't Northern Ireland have the same gun laws as England?

Also, IIRC roughly four times as many people die in car accidents in the USA.
Not gonna respond, Louis? :sad:In Switzerland, gun ownership is very much tied to being part of a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state etc etc.

A true citizen militia, the members of which bear arms - this is the Swiss understanding of the traditional republican right of citizens to bear arms. And not the modern interpretation of the 2nd that is best summed up as 'all the rights, none of the responsibilities'.

I claim the difference between Swizerland and America, in irresponsible gun use and the far higher US homicide rate, is owing to the difference in the responsibilities citizens are willing to accept for the right to be an arms bearing citizen, in particular, the demand to be part of a well-regulated militia in actual fact.

Gaelic discussed Northern Ireland already.

Car accidents are a tragedy. But they can hardly serve to justify another injustice. Also, gun ownership correlates with causing traffic accidents. People with guns cause far more traffic deaths than people without guns. :yes:

Crazed Rabbit

01-22-2011, 08:04

. In Switzerland, gun ownership is very much tied to being part of a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state etc etc.

A true citizen militia, the members of which bear arms - this is the Swiss understanding of the traditional republican right of citizens to bear arms. And not the modern interpretation of the 2nd that is best summed up as 'all the rights, none of the responsibilities'.

I claim the difference between Swizerland and America, in irresponsible gun use and the far higher US homicide rate, is owing to the difference in the responsibilities citizens are willing to accept for the right to be an arms bearing citizen, in particular, the demand to be part of a well-regulated militia in actual fact.

So gun ownership isn't the problem? And gun laws aren't the problem?

If you want to high-mindedly blame 'lack of responsibility' then blame the anti-gun politicians who do their best to prevent children from learning about guns from responsible teachers or parents. The gun culture of the US - the law abiding citizens who own guns - would gladly help defend their country, and teach responsibility to new shooters. But moronic government officials cry in hysterics about the dangers of guns and many kids learn about guns not from a class at school, like sex-ed, but from movies, gangster culture, etc.

Car accidents are a tragedy. But they can hardly serve to justify another injustice. Also, gun ownership correlates with causing traffic accidents. People with guns cause far more traffic deaths than people without guns.

:stare:

Correlation. Is. Not. Causation.

:stare:

Also, the comparison serves to highlight our irrational approach to dangers. People do not fear the most probable, but the most publicized danger. And they therefore approach danger irrationally; ie by wanting to ban guns.

CR

Louis VI the Fat

01-22-2011, 19:23

So gun ownership isn't the problem? And gun laws aren't the problem?

If you want to high-mindedly blame 'lack of responsibility' then blame the anti-gun politicians who do their best to prevent children from learning about guns from responsible teachers or parents. The gun culture of the US - the law abiding citizens who own guns - would gladly help defend their country, and teach responsibility to new shooters. But moronic government officials cry in hysterics about the dangers of guns and many kids learn about guns not from a class at school, like sex-ed, but from movies, gangster culture, etc.

:stare:

Correlation. Is. Not. Causation.

:stare:

Also, the comparison serves to highlight our irrational approach to dangers. People do not fear the most probable, but the most publicized danger. And they therefore approach danger irrationally; ie by wanting to ban guns.

CR* stares back :stare: *

'Gun ownership correlates with causing traffic accidents. People with guns cause far more traffic deaths than people without guns'. :yes:

This is true. People with guns cause more traffic accidents than people without. Whether this is owing to, or the result of, gun ownership is another manner - this causation is not established by mere correlation. Nor is it implied in the two statments above.

The correlation I think is owing to a common character trait. People who enjoy guns have a more agressive personality and are more willing to put the lives of others at risk. These arer also the people who tend to create most traffic accidents, at least most deadly accidents. Hence why gun owners create much more traffic accidents than people without guns.

Of course one can't ban either cars or guns. The former are needed because it is how people move around. The latter is needed because, well, because the NRA owns Washington, because a gun makes many men feel powerful and in control, and to erm...to defend against tyranny or something.

Louis VI the Fat

01-22-2011, 19:28

Aahhh..bliss. I have not dabbled in a good, old-fashioned gun debate for far too long.

I'm now also going to start an abortion and an evolution thread. It's been too long. :2thumbsup:

gaelic cowboy

01-22-2011, 19:36

Just open a thread called The EnormousUltimateMegaHugeGiganto Godwin Thread instead.

Tuuvi

01-23-2011, 06:17

* stares back :stare: *

'Gun ownership correlates with causing traffic accidents. People with guns cause far more traffic deaths than people without guns'. :yes:

This is true. People with guns cause more traffic accidents than people without. Whether this is owing to, or the result of, gun ownership is another manner - this causation is not established by mere correlation. Nor is it implied in the two statments above.

The correlation I think is owing to a common character trait. People who enjoy guns have a more agressive personality and are more willing to put the lives of others at risk. These arer also the people who tend to create most traffic accidents, at least most deadly accidents. Hence why gun owners create much more traffic accidents than people without guns.

Of course one can't ban either cars or guns. The former are needed because it is how people move around. The latter is needed because, well, because the NRA owns Washington, because a gun makes many men feel powerful and in control, and to erm...to defend against tyranny or something.

What makes you think people who like guns are more aggressive and more willing to put the lives of others at risk? I don't think this is true for most gun owners. When my grandpa taught me how to shoot, the first thing he told me was "the gun is always loaded". He would have been really angry with me and wouldn't have let me shoot if I wasn't careful with the gun. Anyone I've ever gone shooting with was just as conscious of safety. I enjoy shooting, but whenever I'm holding a gun around other people I feel a little nervous because of the potential to cause serious harm to another person.

a completely inoffensive name

01-23-2011, 06:55

Stereotypes about people with guns are just stupid. I know so many people who are really just great people, and they own guns. It doesn't mean jack about someone's personality if one owns a gun or not.

Louis VI the Fat

01-24-2011, 05:26

Statistics say very little about the individual, they reveal the larger pattern.

100 million Americans own a gun. Fifty thousand gun-related deaths. That means that 99,999,950 people kept their guns safe and used them responsibly. A truely overwhelming majority.
One does not need personal anecdotal evidence to show that an overwhelming amount of gun owners are responsible.

Still, gun owners do have smaller penises. :book:

...or such is apparantly the opinion of anti-gun crusaders.

I must say I am fine with being consistently called a 'crusader' in an article with academic pretences, in exchange for the author, a gun lobbyist, seriously adressing the problem of the public perception of gun oweners as being sadly underendowed. :beam:
PEJORATIVE CHARACTERIZATIONS OF GUN OWNERSHIP

1. The Penis Theory--{40}

Reviewing unsubstantiated, mostly "derogatory... speculative literature on the personality characteristics of gun owners", the NIJ Evaluation (p. 120) mentions "the psychoanalytic" view that "weapons are phallic symbols representing male dominance and masculine power." The idea of gun ownership as sexual aberration has been casually espoused by such anti-gun luminaries as Arthur Schlessinger, Jr., Harlan Ellison, Mike Royko and Joyce Brothers.{41} The only serious study endorsing this view is by psychiatrist Emmanuel Tanay who sees "the need for a gun" as serving "libidinal purposes ... to enhance or repair a damaged self-image...", and involving "narcissism..., [p]assivity and insecurity".{42}
There is no viable argument for the penis theory as against pragmatic explanations for gun ownership. Psychiatrist Bruce Danto rejects the penis theory because it fails to account for female gun ownership. In fact, 50% of those who own a gun for protection only are women (especially black women), even though women are much less likely than men to own guns for sport.{43} To say the very least, this pattern is more easily explicable by reference to women's felt need for protection than by feelings of penile inadequacy.
Dr. Danto also notes that the penis theory would predict that male gun owners would be inclined toward the largest barrel and bore weapons available. But the respective popularity of guns of different sizes uniformly appears to reflect purely pragmatic concerns.{44} The penis theory is equally incapable of explaining other demographic differentials in gun ownership. When all gun owners are counted (not just those who own for protection alone) survey evidence shows that
gun owners are disproportionately rural, Southern, male, Protestant, affluent and middle class... [and that] weapons ownership tends to increase with income, or occupational prestige, or both.{45} The explanations here are, once again, purely pragmatic; hunting is more an activity of rural people generally, and Southerners particularly, than of city dwellers; among urbanites, guns are most owned by the affluent because they are more likely to hunt -- and also to have the money to afford guns and property that they may feel the need to defend; most guns are owned for sport and males engage in gun sports more than females. As to Protestants, survey evidence shows them more likely to hunt than Catholics or Jews (Protestantism is most predominant in rural areas); and, beyond that, Protestants and gun owners both tend to be descended from older American stock, retaining cultural values redolent of the "individualistic orientation that emanated from the American frontier...."{46} In contrast, the penis theory has no explanatory value for these demographic trends. Are Protestants or the affluent or rural dwellers or Southerners more subject to feelings of penile inadequacy than Catholics or urbanites or the poor etc., etc.? In this connection it may be relevant to note that surveys show gun owners are no more hostile to feminism and the women's movement than are non-owners.{47}
Tanay's arguments for the penis theory validate only his own (self-admitted) fear and loathing of guns. He asserts that "The owner's overvaluation of his gun's worth is an indication of its libidinal value to him." Because Tanay never attempts to explain what "overvaluation" means, there is nothing to distinguish guns from the "overvaluation" involved in having other collectibles. People who do not share the passion marvel at the amounts of time and money that others who "over-value" them expend on such more or less intrinsically worthless items as old phonograph records, musical instruments, cars, political campaign buttons, stamps, coins and candelabra.{48} Much the same problem inheres in Tanay's evidence of "narcissistic investment":
Most of the dedicated gun owners handle the gun with obvious pleasure; they look after the gun, clean, polish and pamper it... speak of their love and respect for guns. So, of course, do most, if not all, collectors revere the objects they collect, cleaning and polishing them (if coins or antiques), encasing them (if coins or musical instruments) in velvet, suede or other attractive settings, etc. Are all collectors motivated by feelings of penile inadequacy? Or does Dr. Tanay's depiction of gun owners reflect only his own narrow-minded inability to evaluate the feelings of those who love and respect something he admittedly loathes? A final point of interest is Dr. Tanay's citation of Freud's view that weapons may symbolize the penis in dreams. This, Freud says, is true of dreams involving any long object (e.g. "sticks, umbrellas, poles, trees") but especially of objects that may be viewed as penetrating, and injuring ("knives, daggers, lances, sabers; firearms are similarly used...."). This passage refers to dreams in general without distinguishing gun owners from others. Dr. Tanay is perhaps unaware of -- in any event he does not cite -- other passages more relevant to his argument. In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual/emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons.{49} The probative importance that ought to attach to the views of Freud is, of course, a matter of opinion. The point here is only that those views provide no support for the penis theory of gun ownership.

2. Gun ownership as a cause of aggression --

Obviously some gun owners are highly aggressive, indeed violent, else the U.S. would not suffer hundreds of thousands of gun crimes each year. The question is: are gun criminals properly considered representative of all gun owners, or are they a tiny aberrant minority best understood in the context of the larger aberrant minority of criminals who, with and without guns, commit millions of violent crimes in the U.S. each year? Based on the recent NIJ felon survey it appears that criminals who used guns in their crimes either sporadically or regularly are among the "hardest" of offenders. Per capita they had committed not only a larger number of violent crimes (often while armed with knives or weapons other than guns) than other offenders, but more crimes of all kinds.{50}
Nevertheless the anti-gun "sagecraft" literature portrayed gun crime as more or less a necessary effect of gun ownership. In a series of articles Prof. Leonard Berkowitz asserted that guns arouse hostile and aggressive impulses in their owners. To prove this he conducted laboratory tests supposedly showing subjects' hostility levels rose particularly when others who annoyed them were associated with guns in various ways.{51} Evidence of this "weapons effect" is limited and erratic. Other psychologists have been unable to replicate Berkowitz's results; indeed, some found subjects less willing to express hostility against persons whom they associated with weapons.{52}
More important is that, no matter what the results, the design of these experiments precluded Berkowitz's conclusion that a weapon increases its owners' hostility and aggressiveness. For none of his experiments involved a weapon being possessed by the subject, i.e., the person whose hostility was being tested. In Berkowitz's tests the weapon was associated only with the person against whom hostility would run. Thus Berkowitz was testing not gun owner hostility but hostility against persons his college student subjects associated with guns.{53} Buss, Brooker & Buss did test the hostility level of both owners and non-owners after actually firing guns, but could find "no evidence that the presence, firing or long-term use of guns enhances subsequent aggression."{54}

3. Violent personality or attitude characteristics of gun owners

Another attempt to demonstrate the iniquity of gun owners concluded that they are "violence prone" -- based on survey data in which what the subjects actually approved was not illegal violence but the use of force necessary to stop crime or aid its victims.{55} A more recent study offers a more neutral assessment based on three national surveys: gun owners differ from non-owners only in being more likely to approve "defensive" force, i.e. force directed against violent attackers. In contrast, those exhibiting "violent attitudes" (as defined by approval of violence against social deviants or dissenters) are no more likely to be gun owners than non-owners. Interestingly, the holders of violent attitudes were less likely than the average gun owner to approve of defensive force (perhaps perceiving it would be directed against violent people like themselves).{56}
In addition to such directly relevant studies, there exists a substantial quantity of macrocosmic evidence against both the Berkowitz hypothesis that guns promote violent impulses and the alternative anti-gun hypothesis that gun ownership signifies a violent personality. If either hypothesis were true, it should follow that increased gun ownership would be highly correlative with violent crime, i.e. the more guns the more violence. Yet the consistent result of studies attempting to link gun ownership to violence rates is either no relationship or a negative one, i.e. that urban and other areas with higher gun ownership have less violence than demographically comparable areas with lower gun ownership.{57}

4. Paranoia, sexism and racism --

Anti-gun crusaders have traditionally derided gun ownership as a product of exaggerated, unrealistic public fears of crime.{58} Extreme, unrealistic fear of crimes may amount to mental illness and anti-gun crusaders do epithetically dismiss gun owners as paranoid and gun ownership as a "national paranoia".{59} Moreover, precautionary handgun ownership is commonly held to signify and promote irrational fears, intolerance and belligerence: "The mere possession of a gun is, in itself, an urge to kill, not only by design, but by accident, by madness, by fright, by bravado."{60}
Yet gun owners do not seem to be more fearful of crime than other members of the general public. Rather, polls and attitude studies suggest that gun owners may actually be less afraid than non-owners.{61} This lesser fear may be explained by findings of a study of "Good Samaritans" who had arrested criminals or rescued their victims. In contrast to the less than 33% of Americans who then owned any kind of gun, almost two-and-one-half as many of the Samaritans (81%) "own guns and some carry them in their cars. They are familiar with violence, feel competent to handle it, and don't believe they will be hurt if they get involved."{62}
So the charge of paranoia against gun owners seems not to be substantiated. What about the charges of intolerance, bigotry and belligerence? As to sexism, I have already noted that analysis of two national surveys shows gun owners no more hostile to feminism and the women's movement than are non-owners.{63} As to racism, the result of one local attitude study can be deemed to suggest that gun owners are likely to hold racist views.{64} But the asserted correlation between gun ownership and racism is not borne out by the several state and national studies of gun owner attitudes that have included questions designed to elicit racist views.{65} Analysis of another national poll reveals that, while liberals were less likely to own guns than the general populace, those liberals who own a gun were no less willing than other gun owners to use it if necessary to repel a burglar.{66}
The NIJ Evaluation pithily summarizes the contrast between partisan sagecraft and actual social science: ... even in much of the scholarly literature[,] the "typical" private weapons owner is often depicted as a virtual psychopath -- unstable, violent, dangerous. The empirical research [we have] reviewed leads to a sharply different portrait... There is no evidence suggesting [gun owners] to be an especially unstable or violent or maladapted lot; their "personality profiles" are largely indistinct from those of the rest of the population. [p. 122] http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-control.html