Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sadly, a large infestation of stupidity in the Colorado legislature has led to the passing of multiple gun control laws (http://news.yahoo.com/fury-grows-over-colorados-gun-laws-195200513.html);

Universal Background Checks - and requiring money for those checks. (HB 1228, 1229)

(HB 1224) A ban on 'large capacity' (15+) magazines.

Both of these will be completely useless. They are knee jerk reactions to isolated, very rare, events that can be easily circumnavigated. Switching magazines takes a couple seconds. Criminals will get around checks like they get around laws against allergy medicine

However the gun control ()@*&$ are happy because it makes it much more difficult to buy and sell firearms from people, and because it begins the erosion of gun rights. These authoritarians will use the next publicized violent event as an excuse to ratchet down tighter - as New York state has now banned 7+ bullet magazines.

Furthermore, in Colorado's case the ban on 'large' capacity magazines is written so as to prevent the transfer (i.e. inheritance, gifts, etc.), sale, and purchase of nearly all magazines:
http://www.magpul.com/assets/docs/1224veto.pdf

NONE OF THIS WILL HELP. And these attacks on freedom are being pushed by authoritarians and statists like Bloomberg, mayor of NYC.

We are hardly a free country, and we're becoming less free as myopic masses of idiots will happily and readily give up their hard earned rights because some politician with an agenda says it will make them safer.

Some hick terrorist in the middle of a desert with an AK is no threat to America and American freedom. The real threat, looming like a glacier, is our authoritarian government and apathetic population.

CR

[Raz]

did you ever really think you were free to begin with?

[HoreTore]

Welcome, Colorado, to the civilized world.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Horetore, you mean well, but these types of efforts, in the context of the USA and its culture, are a little silly (albeit well-intentioned).

With more than 275 million firearms in private posession and with a full third of the US population in posession of guns, they are a nearly ubiquitous part of our culture. Firearms account for roughly 32,000 deaths a year (including accidents) in the USA.

As a side note, we have roughly 300 million motor vehicles in the USA, with over 90% of these in private possession (with 2/3+ of the households owning a vehicle) and roughly 35,000 deaths a year in motor vehicle accidents of one form or another.

Unlike a car, however, firearms only serve as weapons.

Magazine capacity size etc. isn't quite like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but....

To make a real difference in gun violence you would have to either 1) start confiscating firearms (Good Luck with That), or 2) start to address the cultural issues/mores/etc that are the cause of the violence for which guns are only a tool of expression.

[Lemur]

I'm having a mixed reaction over here. The magazine capacity thing will be utterly, completely pointless.

However, universal background checks are a good thing, despite the apocalyptic hysteria coming from the NRA (which appears to exist in a state of permanent crisis—must be good for fundraising or something).

A statement such as this ...


Criminals will get around checks like they get around laws against allergy medicine
... is an argument against all laws. Period.

Why criminalize murder? Murderers will just find a way around it! Why criminalize jaywalking, when you will only punish honest walkers? Why require drivers licenses, when criminals will just go ahead and drive without them? Why have any laws at all? Bad people will continue to be bad!

Laws cannot eliminate or end any sort of criminal behavior. That's not what they do.

-edit-

Also note that unlike "assault" weapon bans and magazine-capacity gimmickry, universal background checks enjoy massive support (http://www.ibtimes.com/gun-control-debate-85-gun-owners-favor-universal-background-checks-poll-1145613). Among gun owners, no less. So the screaming emo teen known as the NRA is way, way out of line with the opinion of their own putative constituency.

Quinnipiac University’s poll, conducted March 7, found that 88 percent of those surveyed support such checks while 10 percent oppose them. Among gun owners, that number is 85-13 percent, respectively.

[Whacker]

We are hardly a free country, and we're becoming less free as myopic masses of idiots will happily and readily give up their hard earned rights because some politician with an agenda says it will make them safer.

Some hick terrorist in the middle of a desert with an AK is no threat to America and American freedom. The real threat, looming like a glacier, is our authoritarian government and apathetic population.

CR

The threat isn't all our government. The threat to gun rights is our friggin society and culture. We're watching generations of self-entitled, spoiled, idiotic brats being raised (or more precisely NOT raised) by an increasingly ignorant generation. We tried/are trying universal healthcare and ended up going about it all wrong. We're raising generations of bullies and narcissistic fools.

The change needs to happen in our homes. Kids need to learn responsibility, respect, humility, self control, and a slew of other things that have gone by the wayside. Legislating gun control isn't the answer. Forcing people to buy insurance from corrupt businesses isn't the answer. Religion is not the answer (I'd say it's the opposite of the answer in fact).

We've got some real problems.

[HoreTore]

Horetore, you mean well, but these types of efforts, in the context of the USA and its culture, are a little silly (albeit well-intentioned).

While I don't really care that the hillbillies, stoners and skinheads of the US leads the fight on world overpopulation by culling their own numbers, I will always applaud those among you who show a commitment to decency, humanity and justice.

[Strike For The South]

The threat isn't all our government. The threat to gun rights is our friggin society and culture. We're watching generations of self-entitled, spoiled, idiotic brats being raised (or more precisely NOT raised) by an increasingly ignorant generation. We tried/are trying universal healthcare and ended up going about it all wrong. We're raising generations of bullies and narcissistic fools.

The change needs to happen in our homes. Kids need to learn responsibility, respect, humility, self control, and a slew of other things that have gone by the wayside. Legislating gun control isn't the answer. Forcing people to buy insurance from corrupt businesses isn't the answer. Religion is not the answer (I'd say it's the opposite of the answer in fact).

We've got some real problems.

OMG have you seen this Socrates quote?

[Greyblades]

Why do you need more than 5?

[Montmorency]

Why do you need more than one?

[Major Robert Dump]

They can take my freedoms, but they will never take my potato guns. Or my sour cream bombs.

[johnhughthom]

Why do you need more than 5?

6 people might break into his house.

Clearly the people behind this law understand that 15 people is the optimum number for a burglary, any more and they get in each other's way.

[Catiline]

It's like sneezing 8 times in a row, only the gun nuts need 15 rounds to get to their orgasm.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Okay, let's turn this thing the other direction. Question to those of you who support such gun control measures:

What level of personal firearm ownership (size, capability, etc.) is acceptable for self protection?

[Catiline]

In a sane country, none.

I read an endlessly entertaining thread yesterday elsewhere about what is appropriate to take on a first date in order to be fully prepared. There seemed to be a lot more votes for a gun than for a condom...

Who takes a date somewhere they think they'll need a gun?

[johnhughthom]

Maybe the gun is for protection from the date, rather than to protect them.

[Major Robert Dump]

In a sane country, none.

I read an endlessly entertaining thread yesterday elsewhere about what is appropriate to take on a first date in order to be fully prepared. There seemed to be a lot more votes for a gun than for a condom...

Who takes a date somewhere they think they'll need a gun?

Taking a date to the hood to go Ghetto Watching or to the small town to go Redneck Watching can be quite romantic and informative

[Lemur]

What level of personal firearm ownership (size, capability, etc.) is acceptable for self protection?
Realistically, given that there are more firearms than citizens in the USA, all talk of bans and confiscation is wildly unrealistic. Not to mention unconstitutional. So: let's get off that rocking horse, please.

"Assault" weapon bans are doomed to failure, given that fully automatic weapons are already (mostly) banned, and so "assault" bans inevitably focus on cosmetic features such as color, grip, muzzle bits, and so forth.

Magazine capacity bans are also doomed to failure, in their current forms. Given that the most popular handgun in the USA (the Glock 17) takes 17 round magazines out of the box, trying to force everyone to accept 10-round magazines is intrusive, counter-intuitive, and bound to fail. If someone wants to try to limit magazine size to, say, 20 rounds, they might be more likely to find support and (more importantly) compliance.

So those are the measures that are going to fail, one way or another. As for what is "acceptable" or what "ought to be," meh. Reality is what it is, our situation is what it is. The law should deal in realistic outcomes; unenforceable laws breed contempt, and laws that will not be complied with breed disrespect. To be avoided.

Universal background checks enjoy overwhelming support in both the gun owning community and non-gun owning community. Effort should be put into making this quick and easy. Anybody with a web browser and the proper credentials should be able to clear a buyer in minutes. (The NRA screams that this is the gateway drug to gun-grabbing and tyranny, but they scream that about everything. Hysteria is their default position. So I think it's wisest to ignore them.)

For some tangled reason involving weird amendments passed by paid-for congresscritters, the ATF is unable to effectively pursue straw buyers. Whatever welter of ill-intentioned legislation made that happen should be undone.

All research into gun violence is currently prohibited from Federal funding by law. Should be undone.

Gun dealers are not required to keep or show current inventories. Should be undone.

There are probably a few more common-sense moves that could be made to clean up the gun trade, but it's a workday, and that's all I got off the top of my head.

[Veho Nex]

I think people need to take a step back and look at this. Banning guns, magazines, bullets are not going to stop anyone. Right now it is easier (cheaper) for me to obtain a pistol illegally than it is for me to obtain one legally. I think one of the few ways we could move towards solving a lot of this is to require that anyone purchasing a firearm are required to take a series of firearm safety classes. If you are a parent your kid should be required to go by the age of 5.

I know not all deaths by firearms are accidents but how often could that accident be prevented if everyone involved had proper safety training. I learned to shoot and shoot safely from a young age and now I teach kids firearm safety and shooting skills as an adult leader for 4-H shooting sports. In over the 50 years that our oldest adult leader has been there not one accident has ever occurred for any of our members either during or after their stay with us.

As well as a proper understanding of firearms I agree 100% with if you are purchasing, receiving, or obtaining a firearm for ownership you should undergo a background check and a free psych evaluation. Spending 2 hours in a room answering questions is nothing compared to the hold on purchasing firearms. It's ignorance of the people that causes guns to be looked at as solely "weapons" instead of as tools or recreation items, kinda like a baseball bat. Sure it can be used as a weapon but so can many things.

[Major Robert Dump]

We should not have any laws ever because someone will just find a way around them

There have been hundreds of thousands of failed background checks which resulted in denial of firearms. How can anyone rationally argue that background checks are a failure?

And if you get denied, you get flagged. I know this, because I was denied over a court mistake many years ago, and I tried again before the error was fixed so I was denied again, then got it on the third time when my record was fixed. When I applied for my Secret Clearance, they sent an investigator to interview me as to why I tried to purchase a second time when I knew it was already illegal for me to own a gun, to which I had to prove to them it was all a mistake and I should have been able to legally purchase all along.

[Major Robert Dump]

I think people need to take a step back and look at this. Banning guns, magazines, bullets are not going to stop anyone. Right now it is easier (cheaper) for me to obtain a pistol illegally than it is for me to obtain one legally. I think one of the few ways we could move towards solving a lot of this is to require that anyone purchasing a firearm are required to take a series of firearm safety classes. If you are a parent your kid should be required to go by the age of 5.

I know not all deaths by firearms are accidents but how often could that accident be prevented if everyone involved had proper safety training. I learned to shoot and shoot safely from a young age and now I teach kids firearm safety and shooting skills as an adult leader for 4-H shooting sports. In over the 50 years that our oldest adult leader has been there not one accident has ever occurred for any of our members either during or after their stay with us.

As well as a proper understanding of firearms I agree 100% with if you are purchasing, receiving, or obtaining a firearm for ownership you should undergo a background check and a free psych evaluation. Spending 2 hours in a room answering questions is nothing compared to the hold on purchasing firearms. It's ignorance of the people that causes guns to be looked at as solely "weapons" instead of as tools or recreation items, kinda like a baseball bat. Sure it can be used as a weapon but so can many things.

the reason mandatory training will not be accepted by the pro gunners (even if it deflects attention from the ban hammer) is because if you attach one new set of administrative and cost stipulations to gun ownership, then why not others? Saying "you have to take a class" is in the same spirit as saying "you cannot have one at all" , not to mention the nightmare of trying to enforce such a law as an after-thought. The only way something like that would have even a slither of chance of working is if the course completion was attached to the background check. But considering straw purchasers are very rarely caught or prosecuted, I don't see how we could possibly make sure everyone in the house was educated before guns were allowed, since we cant even stop a wife from buying one for her felon husband or something like fast and furious cough cough

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lemur:

Be careful with those considered and reasonable posts, chap. You'll end up with a reputation for thoughtfulness and that simply cannot help a legal career.... ;-)


I'd like some kind of law enforced to keep the crazies from getting guns. Not sure how to really do that.

Point of my post earlier today was that, if you START at the "guns are an evil and private citizens shouldn't have them" point, then you have trouble contributing to a discussion regarding restrictions on guns. Your "vote" is pretty much a given.

[HoreTore]

Okay, let's turn this thing the other direction. Question to those of you who support such gun control measures:

What level of personal firearm ownership (size, capability, etc.) is acceptable for self protection?

Easy: none.

Use of violence is the domain of the state, not the individual.

And, might I add, the police force should also be unarmed. Weapons should be accessible only when absolutely necessary.

[Ibrahim]

In a sane country, none.

so you admit that it's necessary then? after-all, we hardly live in a sane country (the US, west bank, etc) , or world, do we?


Realistically, given that there are more firearms than citizens in the USA, all talk of bans and confiscation is wildly unrealistic. Not to mention unconstitutional. So: let's get off that rocking horse, please.

"Assault" weapon bans are doomed to failure, given that fully automatic weapons are already (mostly) banned, and so "assault" bans inevitably focus on cosmetic features such as color, grip, muzzle bits, and so forth.

Magazine capacity bans are also doomed to failure, in their current forms. Given that the most popular handgun in the USA (the Glock 17) takes 17 round magazines out of the box, trying to force everyone to accept 10-round magazines is intrusive, counter-intuitive, and bound to fail. If someone wants to try to limit magazine size to, say, 20 rounds, they might be more likely to find support and (more importantly) compliance.

So those are the measures that are going to fail, one way or another. As for what is "acceptable" or what "ought to be," meh. Reality is what it is, our situation is what it is. The law should deal in realistic outcomes; unenforceable laws breed contempt, and laws that will not be complied with breed disrespect. To be avoided.

Universal background checks enjoy overwhelming support in both the gun owning community and non-gun owning community. Effort should be put into making this quick and easy. Anybody with a web browser and the proper credentials should be able to clear a buyer in minutes. (The NRA screams that this is the gateway drug to gun-grabbing and tyranny, but they scream that about everything. Hysteria is their default position. So I think it's wisest to ignore them.)

For some tangled reason involving weird amendments passed by paid-for congresscritters, the ATF is unable to effectively pursue straw buyers. Whatever welter of ill-intentioned legislation made that happen should be undone.

All research into gun violence is currently prohibited from Federal funding by law. Should be undone. [bit of an issue]

Gun dealers are not required to keep or show current inventories. Should be undone.

There are probably a few more common-sense moves that could be made to clean up the gun trade, but it's a workday, and that's all I got off the top of my head.

I just have a problem with the bolded part. Namely that with the current situation in the federal government, how can you guarantee they will fund honest researchers, instead of any quack who'll tow the government line (assuming one)? consider the kind of researchers they used in 1937 when considering the Marijuana tax act: they weren't exactly "impartial", or even "qualified", if you know what I mean (one guy "proved" marijuana was deadly to humans, by directly injecting TCP into Dog brains IIRC.)



Be careful with those considered and reasonable posts, chap. You'll end up with a reputation for thoughtfulness and that simply cannot help a legal career.... ;-)


I'd like some kind of law enforced to keep the crazies from getting guns. Not sure how to really do that.

Point of my post earlier today was that, if you START at the "guns are an evil and private citizens shouldn't have them" point, then you have trouble contributing to a discussion regarding restrictions on guns. Your "vote" is pretty much a given.

at the end of the day, there really isn't at this time. at least none to my knowledge. how could one tell if a person wants to shoot up a school, or snap in a movie theater? often times, there's little warning of that, and from what I have seen, little attempt by the people who should to figure that out. that's assuming they are even "crazy" in the conventional sense (as some are). They may simply be people who just snapped, in which case, no symptoms at all--at least none detectable.

now with criminals I can see it working: if a person has a background of violent crime (assault, murder, kidnapping, robbery, etc), it's easy enough to keep guns from them legally--though it will inevitably create it's own problems with illegal firearms sales.

Point is, any rules on gun ownership should make it easier (IMHO) for innocent civilians to obtain weapons, than any criminal. any check or means to do that I would support entirely--which is why I'm not entirely averse to background checks in concept.



Easy: none.

Use of violence is the domain of the state, not the individual.

And, might I add, the police force should also be unarmed. Weapons should be accessible only when absolutely necessary.


really? tell that to the Syrians. Or the Chinese. or to the "undesirables" in Nazi Germany (Jews being a major category). or even Stalin's victims, or maybe the people of the Dzin empire (Qin in modern Chinese). Supposed your government isn't a tyranny. well, what happens if your government turns on you? think it's not likely? tell that to Sulla's victims. or those of Caligula, Caracalla, or Decius (if you're Christian).

look, I don't like guns, I don't own any, and have little interest in ever doing so. I think such violent people should be kept from harming others, and punished for those who have harmed people already. but what you say..is problematic. fact is, violence is no one's domain. otherwise, why is aggressive war illegal?

[Lemur]

with the current situation in the federal government, how can you guarantee they will fund honest researchers, instead of any quack who'll tow the government line (assuming one)? consider the kind of researchers they used in 1937 when considering the Marijuana tax act: they weren't exactly "impartial", or even "qualified", if you know what I mean (one guy "proved" marijuana was deadly to humans, by directly injecting TCP into Dog brains IIRC.)
The answer to bad research is not no research. Under current law, people who look at large-scale epidemiology and mortality are not allowed to even tabulate gun deaths. It's nuts, and should be changed.

(And yes, the NRA will howl that this is the beginning of Hitler and Stalin and the end of freedom. But since the NRA appears to be trying to live out The Boy Who Cried Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf), that's their problem, not ours.)

[Ibrahim]

The answer to bad research is not no research. Under current law, people who look at large-scale epidemiology and mortality are not allowed to even tabulate gun deaths. It's nuts, and should be changed.

(And yes, the NRA will howl that this is the beginning of Hitler and Stalin and the end of freedom. But since the NRA appears to be trying to live out The Boy Who Cried Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf), that's their problem, not ours.)


don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of research on the topic, and agree with the sentiment. I'm more concerned with accountability in this area. I've seen enough trouble in that part with research into drugs, into 9/11 (not so much the idea of investigating it, but the way the findings were dealt with--the motivation parts, not the attack itself: I'm not a "truther") and so on, to last a lifetime and a half.

[HoreTore]

so you admit that it's necessary then? after-all, we hardly live in a sane country (the US, west bank, etc) , or world, do we?



I just have a problem with the bolded part. Namely that with the current situation in the federal government, how can you guarantee they will fund honest researchers, instead of any quack who'll tow the government line (assuming one)? consider the kind of researchers they used in 1937 when considering the Marijuana tax act: they weren't exactly "impartial", or even "qualified", if you know what I mean (one guy "proved" marijuana was deadly to humans, by directly injecting TCP into Dog brains IIRC.)



at the end of the day, there really isn't at this time. at least none to my knowledge. how could one tell if a person wants to shoot up a school, or snap in a movie theater? often times, there's little warning of that, and from what I have seen, little attempt by the people who should to figure that out. that's assuming they are even "crazy" in the conventional sense (as some are). They may simply be people who just snapped, in which case, no symptoms at all--at least none detectable.

now with criminals I can see it working: if a person has a background of violent crime (assault, murder, kidnapping, robbery, etc), it's easy enough to keep guns from them legally--though it will inevitably create it's own problems with illegal firearms sales.

Point is, any rules on gun ownership should make it easier (IMHO) for innocent civilians to obtain weapons, than any criminal. any check or means to do that I would support entirely--which is why I'm not entirely averse to background checks in concept.




really? tell that to the Syrians. Or the Chinese. or to the "undesirables" in Nazi Germany (Jews being a major category). or even Stalin's victims, or maybe the people of the Dzin empire (Qin in modern Chinese). Supposed your government isn't a tyranny. well, what happens if your government turns on you? think it's not likely? tell that to Sulla's victims. or those of Caligula, Caracalla, or Decius (if you're Christian).

look, I don't like guns, I don't own any, and have little interest in ever doing so. further, like any half-sane person, I don't like people hurting each other in general--especially when initiating violence. I think such people should be punished. but what you say..is problematic.

The question asked was on self-protection, not about forming militias. That's a separate question, but my answer is still a big, fat "NO". Small arms in the hands of the general population has exactly zero relevance when trying to topple a dictatorship. Plenty of dictatorships have no real restrictions on gun ownership, and that's because it poses no threath whatsoever.

Once a rebellion is ongoing, gaining access to weapons is easy as all hell. Access to advanced weaponry is what counts, and gun ownership does not affect that in the slightest. In a revolution, small arms can be seen as similar to things like bandages, food supplies and such.

The Russian people were properly armed under Stalin by the way, could you please inform me how that stopped Gulag...? If you really want to pursue the "citizen militia"-angle, I have a much better idea for you: conscription. A conscript army will ensure that every citizen has military training, which is worth a hell of a lot more than a simple gun(warfare isn't as easy as point-and-shoot, you know). It will also ensure that the nations standing army isn't drawn from a small demographic(like how the Syrian army is drawn from the Alawittes, for example) thus making it harder to employ against its own citizens(in theory). But even that is largely irrelevant, except possibly when fearing a military coup.

[Ibrahim]

The question asked was on self-protection, not about forming militias. That's a separate question, but my answer is still a big, fat "NO". Small arms in the hands of the general population has exactly zero relevance when trying to topple a dictatorship. Plenty of dictatorships have no real restrictions on gun ownership, and that's because it poses no threath whatsoever.

I actually agree with that. I do find it amusing you said all that, when my response to you was over this part:


Use of violence is the domain of the state, not the individual.

The point I was actually making towards you is that violence is not, and should not, be the "domain" of the state (or any one person, group, or institution really--including "the people"), if only because of the potential of such institutions turning dictatorial/violent, as often happened in history. the stuff I mentioned were examples of when it is that way in practice. My belief is that at most, government should be preventing or minimizing the initiation of violence, not having a monopoly or carte blanche over it as you seem to imply. same applies to the people. it doesn't even have a monopoly (and shouldn't) over the prevention or minimizing of the initiation of violence or force in general: not every situation can be solved by a government agency (such as police or the military), as often they may not be close enough or at hand. sometimes it may even be that representatives of these agencies are the ones initiating the violence (e.g. bad cops, corrupt militaries, etc.)

Note that preventing and minimizing need not involve actual violence.

you can tell accordingly that it is my opinion in either case (government or people), that violence is only acceptable as self defense or defense of others(i.e. halting or reacting the initiation of force), and only if no other immediate option exists: it doesn't however make doing so "moral" or "OK", as non-violent methods are much better, and therefore inherently more "moral" and definitely "OK". And prevention is always better than the cure--as violence is not an option (ideally) in preventing force in general.

besides, my attitude about gun control itself has less to do with toppling dictatorships or any protection against tyranny (or even self defense in and of itself), and more to do with expediency (enforcement, whether it actually solves the problems it is intended to solve, etc), at least in the US. that and the fact that many people here don't have guns to kill with, but more as collector's items, target practice, or other non-violent actions: it makes no sense to me punishing a guy who owns an M-14 (15 round magazine) but never shoots it at people, for other people's actions. accordingly, while I don't like it when people insist on packing heat for self defense or to "fight tyranny", as long as they aren't actually shooting anyone in cold blood (or initiating force in general), I don't see the problem.

[HoreTore]

Ah, sorry, I realize not everyone is familiar with Weber.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence) is a nice wiki article on the concept my sentence referred to. Then sparkle that concept with a bit of collectivist communism, and you have my basic position.

[Papewaio]

They can take my freedoms, but they will never take my potato guns. Or my sour cream bombs.

I think you've been cream pied enough...

[Ibrahim]

Ah, sorry, I realize not everyone is familiar with Weber.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence) is a nice wiki article on the concept my sentence referred to. Then sparkle that concept with a bit of collectivist communism, and you have my basic position.

I know who he is (he also introduced the concept of the "protestant work ethic" in sociology: I took a sociology class when I was a freshman), and suspected already you were referring to him in part. I simply don't agree with the position based on his observation:

As I said, I don't believe government should have a monopoly over the use of force (or while we're at it, the delegation of who can use this power by said government). Anyone and everyone can be involved in this, and not require the permission or approval of government, so long as they themselves do not initiate force, or can be demonstrated with certainty or near certainty to intend initiation of force (which is where prevention comes in--which as I stated, should ideally never involve force). To give government that sole power to monopolize and delegate risks my concerns.


besides, as he himself said, his statement was an observation of politics in practice (in which case, he is pretty much on the tin here: governments do act that way), not how it should be (whether he thought it should be this way or not, is to me irrelevant: doesn't change my reservations). Just because it is, doesn't mean it should be. And just because it should be, and is possible, doesn't mean it is.

after-all, people must help one another, doesn't mean they actually always do.

at least, that's how I see it. :shrug:

[Strike For The South]

I have multiple firearms.

Why stop at just 1?

[HoreTore]

I know who he is (he also introduced the concept of the "protestant work ethic" in sociology: I took a sociology class when I was a freshman), and suspected already you were referring to him in part. I simply don't agree with the position based on his observation:

As I said, I don't believe government should have a monopoly over the use of force (or while we're at it, the delegation of who can use this power by said government). Anyone and everyone can be involved in this, and not require the permission or approval of government, so long as they themselves do not initiate force, or can be demonstrated with certainty or near certainty to intend initiation of force (which is where prevention comes in--which as I stated, should ideally never involve force). To give government that sole power to monopolize and delegate risks my concerns.


besides, as he himself said, his statement was an observation of politics in practice (in which case, he is pretty much on the tin here: governments do act that way), not how it should be (whether he thought it should be this way or not, is to me irrelevant: doesn't change my reservations). Just because it is, doesn't mean it should be. And just because it should be, and is possible, doesn't mean it is.

after-all, people must help one another, doesn't mean they actually always do.

at least, that's how I see it. :shrug:

....and my objection to this would be where the "collectivist communist"-part comes in.

I believe in the state. The state provides our safety. I don't want to be safe from "criminals", I want to be safe against people who want to "defend" themselves(or even worse; their property) against "criminals".

(now would be a good time to get your tin foil hats out, everyone)

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm having a mixed reaction over here. The magazine capacity thing will be utterly, completely pointless.

However, universal background checks are a good thing, despite the apocalyptic hysteria coming from the NRA (which appears to exist in a state of permanent crisis—must be good for fundraising or something).


I'm in favor of expanded background checks for private sales. I'm against any requirement to keep the records, but I wouldn't mind if there were spot-checks by ATF agents instead. I don't see a reason to exempt owners from a basic background check in the digital age. Having to do it in an FFL will protect sellers who now may have to tell a felon to go pound sand. It will also protect the buyer from giving his ssn and personal info to the seller and the endless fraud that this will prevent. I'll pay $10 for that. Make exceptions for buyers/sellers in the middle of nowhere to use their internet connection. Exemptions for spouses, children, and siblings.

No to mag limits, No to semi-auto bans - not even the scary looking ones. Guns for everyone, all over the world unless you are a violent felon, have multiple violent misdemeanors, are seriously mentally ill, or are an erratic substance abuser (even alcoholics should probably not have easy access)

National conceal carry as well. The gun is the great equalizer. It makes our betters remember that, even though they may be smarter than us, better looking, stronger, richer; able to dominate us - they are merely 1 minimally talented shot away from the dustbin of history. My signature shows that people of all ideologies can recognize this. Guns are truly the cornerstone of individual sovereignty.

Donate a few bucks to defense distributed so that we can make sure that the subjugated and downtrodden around the world can arm themselves against their oppressors.


EDIT: Also, as Lemur has been saying - as long as we are on our toes we have a great chance of beating the AWB back in the Senate, even if the Democrats wanted to experience the pain of passing the AWB. It doesn't look like it is even an option. I've been counting the Senate votes and It will extremely difficult for this Democratic Senate to support an "assault weapons" ban. I think that people are starting to get it, reluctantly. Count Manchin, Pryor, Baucus, Donnelly, Tester, Heinrich and all of the Republicans and you have 51 Senators against any AWB. These are just the very likely no's. It doesn't even bring in the fence sitters like Reid, King, Landrieu, Kaine, Leahy, Warner, etc. Even if they were able to get it past the Senate using the amendment process it would go up against an even more hostile GOP controlled House. I'm liking our chances more by the day.

[Lemur]

as long as we are on our toes we have a great chance of beating the AWB back in the Senate
Any national "assault" weapon ban was dead the moment it was proposed. Did you really think otherwise?

Individual states (such as Colorado) may try a few bad ideas, but there was never a realistic chance for national legislation.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Any national "assault" weapon ban was dead the moment it was proposed. Did you really think otherwise?

Individual states (such as Colorado) may try a few bad ideas, but there was never a realistic chance for national legislation.

I believe that most people are elected to office with a carefully constructed ideological cocktail which appeals to core demographics of their constituents. This is how they form coalitions. The personal feelings of Democrats and Republicans take a back seat to these interest groups. We've seen pro-life democrats cave to their party when it was never thought that they would. I think that the President is a smart man and his backers are smart and radically anti-gun. I'm sure that they have looked at procedural measure that I have not considered to ram this bill through. I'm also sure that they are engaging with hard diplomacy bordering on blackmail with pro2a dem senators and attempting to boost likelihood of primary challenges for them if loss to GOP is not at risk

Or it could all be a negotiation tactic meant to usher in expanded background checks. Either way, to pretend that it is a foregone conclusion is not helpful.

[Catiline]

Or people might demonstrate a modicum of intelligence and realise that Assault Weapons (the clue's in the name) don't belong in the hands of the public.

[Lemur]

the President is a smart man and his backers are smart and radically anti-gun
"Radically" anti-gun? I assume these radical gun-grabbers were behind all of the gun legislation of Obama's 1st term. And the reason that gun confiscation was put at the top of the agenda for the two weeks the Dems had a functional supermajority in the Senate. Oh ... wait ... hmm ...


hard diplomacy bordering on blackmail with pro2a dem senators
Do you any source whatsoever to back that up?

Here's the cool thing about getting excited about legislation that never had a chance of passing (who controls the House of Representatives, again?): You get to congratulate yourself and your team when it doesn't pass. It's like free money!


Assault Weapons (the clue's in the name) don't belong in the hands of the public.
You've got ½ a point. Any true military assault weapon has what's called selective fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire), meaning it can be fired in semi-auto mode, or some variation on automatic fire (3-round burst, what-have-you). With the exception of some grandfathered weapons (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090208100642AA1yRuX), all automatic weapons are illegal for private citizens in the USA. This are important. Selective-fire weapons are rare, rare, rare, and almost never recovered from crime scenes. (In fact, most gun crimes appear to be committed with cheap handguns. That's what research showed back when research was legal.)

So what do US politicos mean when they talk about "assault" weapons? They do not mean cognates for military assault rifles. Rather, they mean semi-automatic weapons that are cosmetically similar to military assault rifles. But I guarantee you that every single weapon they're talking about is semi-automatic, not selective fire.

This is one of several reasons why a national assault ban is DOA. I could go into it more, but it's a workday, and I try not to write WALLS OF TEXT when I have other, paying things to write.

[The Lurker Below]

Colorado taketh away, others...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

[Ironside]

Lemur:

Be careful with those considered and reasonable posts, chap. You'll end up with a reputation for thoughtfulness and that simply cannot help a legal career.... ;-)


I'd like some kind of law enforced to keep the crazies from getting guns. Not sure how to really do that.

Point of my post earlier today was that, if you START at the "guns are an evil and private citizens shouldn't have them" point, then you have trouble contributing to a discussion regarding restrictions on guns. Your "vote" is pretty much a given.

What you really need is allowing research on gun ownership and gun violence again, instead of NRA going neener, neener you can't research, since we got a court order on it. And then compromise from there.

Currently, it's "car's don't kill people, people kill people (and this is only stopped by personal responsibillity)" and "we forbid yellow cars to make us look like we're doing something and we have no freaking idea how to do a limited move effectivly".

[Major Robert Dump]

What this debate really needs is some unfunny "biting social commentary" from Jim Carrey that appears to be written by an 8th grader whose grandma tells him he is "funny" because she wants to support his efforts.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The threat isn't all our government. The threat to gun rights is our friggin society and culture. We're watching generations of self-entitled, spoiled, idiotic brats being raised (or more precisely NOT raised) by an increasingly ignorant generation. We tried/are trying universal healthcare and ended up going about it all wrong. We're raising generations of bullies and narcissistic fools.

The change needs to happen in our homes. Kids need to learn responsibility, respect, humility, self control, and a slew of other things that have gone by the wayside. Legislating gun control isn't the answer. Forcing people to buy insurance from corrupt businesses isn't the answer. Religion is not the answer (I'd say it's the opposite of the answer in fact).

We've got some real problems.

Bunch of old white men passed gun control laws, yep, it's all the fault of the younglings.

[Major Robert Dump]

I wonder how many people who do not support closing the background check loopholes did support voter IDs.

LOLZ all around.

Hey, those gunrunners at gun shows and in newspapers are small, family businesses, they can't afford to run BG checks. OH WAIT CAPITALISM, GET OUT OF THE WAY, BITCH

[HoreTore]

You've got ½ a point. Any true military assault weapon has what's called selective fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire), meaning it can be fired in semi-auto mode, or some variation on automatic fire (3-round burst, what-have-you). With the exception of some grandfathered weapons (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090208100642AA1yRuX), all automatic weapons are illegal for private citizens in the USA. This are important. Selective-fire weapons are rare, rare, rare, and almost never recovered from crime scenes. (In fact, most gun crimes appear to be committed with cheap handguns. That's what research showed back when research was legal.)

So what do US politicos mean when they talk about "assault" weapons? They do not mean cognates for military assault rifles. Rather, they mean semi-automatic weapons that are cosmetically similar to military assault rifles. But I guarantee you that every single weapon they're talking about is semi-automatic, not selective fire.

This is one of several reasons why a national assault ban is DOA. I could go into it more, but it's a workday, and I try not to write WALLS OF TEXT when I have other, paying things to write.

I have never in my life understood the fixation on full-auto vs semi-auto. Granted, I have only fired 7.62 AG-3's, but there the difference is basically like this:

Full auto: clip gone in a flash. No hits(almost).
Semi-auto: clip gone in about 5 seconds more. A reasonable number will hit its target, and I have reasonable control.

I can see someone having a blackout in a crowded public space doing more damage with full than semi, but that's because such a person won't be able to aim anyway. Also, these people are rare and usually restricted to knives at best. I can't see the columbine-kind of killer doing more damage with full auto, I think they'll be able to kill much more by lowering their rate of fire to semi-auto.

Or is the 5.56 so weak it makes aiming on full auto viable? I guess I'll find out in May, when I join the national guard...

[Major Robert Dump]

I think the fixation on the issue stems from the fact that lots of uninformed people, to include journalists from major networks and publications, present "assault rifle" in a manner that it is the same as a "machine gun", not unlike the way you convince a nation that some low grade chemical weapons and possible nuclear material=a nuclear missle.

The fixation is about making sure peoples ducks are in a row and they are dealing with facts

[HoreTore]

I think the fixation on the issue stems from the fact that lots of uninformed people, to include journalists from major networks and publications, present "assault rifle" in a manner that it is the same as a "machine gun", not unlike the way you convince a nation that some low grade chemical weapons and possible nuclear material=a nuclear missle.

The fixation is about making sure peoples ducks are in a row and they are dealing with facts

So...

Am I right in assuming that the US Army uses full auto "to scare" and semi-auto "to kill" with their 5.56, like we do(did) with our 7.62?

[Major Robert Dump]

So...

Am I right in assuming that the US Army uses full auto "to scare" and semi-auto "to kill" with their 5.56, like we do(did) with our 7.62?



The regulars do not use full auto assault rifles anymore, outside of 3 round burst. And even three round is highly discouraged. Its rarely used even in training. Standard issue do not have a full auto setting. We leave the full auto for the machine gunners. Joe regular does not need an automatic weapon. It is such a no-no that there is virtually no qualification mechanism to qualify or rate someone using 3 round burst.

For full auto we use the M249 (5.56) and the M240B(7.62). Those are machine guns. They are used for suppression and for killing. So you are half right. Nothing scares them into putting their heads down like a 249 and 240 singing together. throw in a 50 and u got a regular barber shop. The 249 is a beautiful weapon.

M16s are still used by some, perhaps some of them have auto settings, but I don't think so. I believe the last model of M16 they standardized only had 3 round and semi options as well. The only people we ever saw with M16s in Afghanistan were the afghans, usually with their chins on the barrel as they slouched and rested, and garrison, guard type US troops, i.e. The Air Force. FYI M16s unofficial name is "The Musket"

I am the wrong person to be answering these questions. My weapon of choice was jingle beads and crayons.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm probably in agreement with Lemur and MRD here if we push it a bit further than my agreements with the OP. I'm in favor of changes making gun laws more strict (as previously mentioned using private background checks with no record-keeping requirement) in some areas and less in others (as previously mentioned with national carry license). I'm against the AWB and mag limits. I'm negotiable to a permit/license on state-by-state basis for handguns and even some semi-auto mag fed rifles/shotguns. I don't believe that the government should know anything about the particular firearm beyond the basic ffl record, merely that you are licensed to own it generally and have gone through a slightly more rigorous process ie, inital prints, initial personal interview, basic mental health eval. I don't believe that you should have to get Federal permission to attach a stock to a handgun or have a 12 inch barrel on a rifle.

[Ibrahim]

well, HoreTore, I would love to continue the discussion on the merits of monopolizing the use of force by government/the state. needless to say, I'm impressed by your honesty. No need for a "tinfoil hat" metaphorically speaking...

I'm not quite sure though how collective communism is necessarily mutually exclusive to the right to defend oneself and others with whatever means necessary, without the necessary say-so of government.

EDIT: fear of accidentally killing innocent people is indeed a serious issue--though it is worth pointing out that I am not in favor of people blindly owning firearms. these should be used after the necessary background check (which I mentioned I'm not against fundamentally), and obviously after training and proper usage is enshrined in the person: after-all, we should be using force only when we the target initiates force--by which time it becomes clear who to defend against, rather than who not to harm. and as I must emphasize, my contention is simply that the state ought not to have a monopoly over violence (or force in general), not should it using it in an initiating role.

However, I still don't fully understand your sentiment, unless you are implying you don't and cannot trust people in general with such a thing. in which case it raises the question: what makes the people whom the state employs--soldiers and police (bearing in mind you are against police having firearms) any more qualified? they are people too, even with the training, and are just as likely to screw up--judging from the news anyhow...

[Ironside]

However, I still don't fully understand your sentiment, unless you are implying you don't and cannot trust people in general with such a thing. in which case it raises the question: what makes the people whom the state employs--soldiers and police (bearing in mind you are against police having firearms) any more qualified? they are people too, even with the training, and are just as likely to screw up--judging from the news anyhow...

... So wouldn't that be practical to limit the possibillity for screw ups to a minimum?

That's not counting violence escalation, the need to avoid attacks by creating a reputation, that going from self defense to offense is a fairly small step, etc, etc.

Basically, it's a question of different focus. If there's man-eating tigers running around on the street, of course you should need equipment to deal with it. But the issue is the tigers, not the equipment.
If things are working well, then you shouldn't be needing to be worried about the tigers enough to require the equipment. And most of the West has things working well enough for tigers to not be a serious issue and considers this to be a sign of that things are working.

The US attitude is more of that all induviduals should have heavy defenses vs tigers, no matter the cost. With the above focus, this attitude is already a failure.

And since violent crimes are different from tigers, you could ask what common sense tells you about the consequences from saturating a society with guns and telling them that it's ok to shoot people (but only during specific circumstances)?

I can tell that it's 19 times more likely for a cop to die in the line of duty in the US compared to the UK. There's been more cops killed in the US in 2013 (it's a calm start this year btw) than in the UK 2000-2013. Cause or counter cause?
It's certainly related to why the cops are more violent in the US.

[Raz]

Or is the 5.56 so weak it makes aiming on full auto viable?

It's pretty powerful when "downrange" is the length of a school hallway.


I'd like some kind of law enforced to keep the crazies from getting guns. Not sure how to really do that.

I thought this was already coming to fruition.

New York Law Targets Mentally Ill's Access to Guns (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/new-york-law-targets-mentally-ills-access-to-guns/) (Jan 15, 2013)

Gun Laws Focus on Mentally Ill (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/gun_laws_focus_on_mentally_ill.html) (March 16, 2013)

[HoreTore]

It's pretty powerful when "downrange" is the length of a school hallway.

As stated previously, I have only fired 7.62, so I don't have personal experience here. Still, judging from MRD's replies, I'm guessing it's not that different from 5.56.

Given that assumption, I'd still want semi-auto if I was a loony shooting kids down a hallway. I'm not going to play a numbers game, but I'm betting the number of dead kids will be significantly less with full auto than with semi auto.

The target(man-sized) I shot at when I tried full auto was at 30 meters. I don't remember the number of hits I got, but I seriously doubt it was more than 3(and I squeezed two times as opposed to holding it in the entire time). So, you can probably hit a few kids clustered together. There's no way you're going to hit the cluster of kids next to them, however. You won't be able to direct fire at them while shooting, and your clip will be spent in an instant. With semi-auto, they'll all be dead in 15 seconds.

[Major Robert Dump]

Full auto is for suppression and mowing down tight groups of people in close proximity. I would agree with Hore that from a marksmanship and ammo use standpoint, semi is going to be more effective. However, for people in a movie theater or people mobbed against a locked fire escape, a full auto weapon has the potential to kill/maim 30 or more people in a matter of 10 seconds. Another thing about full auto is that it makes it far more difficult to escape, hence, suppression.

But really, the ammo point is irrelevant since most of the time these guys have plenty of excess rounds. Perhaps they would have to reload faster, but very rarely do we hear or read about people who actually take down a guy while he is reloading. I believe it happened at the giffords shooting. don't think full auto would have made any difference at sandy hook, and I believe that he could have done just as much damage with a couple of pistols.

@Hore: 556 kicks less than a 762 no matter what the gun IMO. Full auto kicks more than semi no matter what the gun. The 249 can be accurately fired on full auto, even with one hand if u are a big guy. Of course by accurate I am using machine gunner tersm and mean at close range. 762 will also pierce and keep going. The 556 varies, but 556 nato does not pierce, it bounces around inside the victim. I saw a guy shot in the lower left bicep from the front with a 556, the round turned left and hollowed out his chest cavity. He was my friend. He was trying to get sent home early by having an "accident" in the latrine and shooting himself in the arm. didn't work out for him, and it was odd seeing a guy with an entry would in the front of his arm and a giant exit wound in his center chest.

Magazine limits are pointless unless we simply make everyone carry revolvers. None of the "assault weapons ban" type rules address things that are really overly functional. It is all cosmetic. A 22 original rifle can kill just as many people as a 22 with a fancy muzzle, a shortened stock and cool guy grips. That is how they are defining assault rifles. Full auto has not had anything to do with any of the legitimate arguments since the mcdonalds shooting in the 80s. I recall the branch davidians having illegal machine guns, but I don't think they used them and I don't believe anything the
Fed says about that anyway,

[Major Robert Dump]

If you ban semi auto and go back to double action I CAN PROMISE you that there will be more accidental shootings with revolvers because a cocked back hammer is the number one cause of revolver accidents, and it makes me cringe when people do it in movies.

[HoreTore]

Full auto is for suppression and mowing down tight groups of people in close proximity. I would agree with Hore that from a marksmanship and ammo use standpoint, semi is going to be more effective. However, for people in a movie theater or people mobbed against a locked fire escape, a full auto weapon has the potential to kill/maim 30 or more people in a matter of 10 seconds. Another thing about full auto is that it makes it far more difficult to escape, hence, suppression.

....but wouldn't a person using semi-auto still be able to whack those 30 people, just that he will use 20 seconds instead of 10? You can say that they'll have 10 more seconds to get away, but the semi shooter will have the ability to direct his fire after their movements... And then focusing on the "dangers of full auto" becomes rather irrelevant, doesn't it?

My point:
If you allow semi-automatic weapons, I see no reason to ban fully automatic weapons. If the image of a loon walking around with a machine gun killing hundreds of people is what upsets you, wouldn't it be more productive to look at the type of weapon, rather than its mode of fire? Ie., propose a ban on "military weapons", and allow "civilian weapons"(though good luck defining those)? Or just scrap weapon differentiating all together and look for alternative solutions.


ABB used a semi-automatic hunting rifle, by the way. 69 deaths, 66 wounded.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It sounds like we should be pushing to legalize new full auto production. It will be less dangerous, even in a crowded room and force a shooter to go through rounds faster, right horetore?

Soon people will be able to 3d print lower receivers with auto-seers, so who cares what the law says. People will just have them and that will be the end of it

[Ibrahim]

first off Ironsides, I was discussing the monopoly of violence concept. I was disputing that it should be the case with regards to the State: the gun control part was an aspect of it (my attitude of which is incidental to the first part). secondly, I don't see how your reply answered the question you are supposedly reading (which I suggest you read carefully). but since you did reply, and I found it interesting:


So wouldn't that be practical to limit the possibillity for screw ups to a minimum?

yes, but the circumstances in the US, preclude the outright (or cross the board) restriction or banning of firearms as a solution (the second Amendment being a big one). And even if they didn't, it's a non-solution (see below). Also, I had expressly stated (relevant to your question) that I'm not averse to people taking measures to use firearms responsibly when in cases of defense, and that I'm OK with background checks in principle. So yeah, I'm a firm believer in minimizing the chances of tragedy. but I accept that no matter what, we can't make evil never happen or even minimized purely by force of restrictive or regulatory law, as let's face it, loopholes with sinister consequences are inevitable, as are accidents. besides, look at the source below: people are already doing what they can, and it shows in the accidental deaths section.



That's not counting violence escalation, the need to avoid attacks by creating a reputation, that going from self defense to offense is a fairly small step, etc, etc.

first off, I'm not aware of many (or at the very least statistically relevant) examples of stable innocent civilians suddenly killing to create a "reputation", so as to intimidate people. that is the action taken more typically by criminal gangs and the criminally minded (like Lanza or the Aurora guy), unless you imply that Americans are generally that way--which goes back to the heart of my question). As to escalation of violence: as I said, training people on the responsible use of firearms is a must. if they go overboard, they can always be charged and punished for their actions. So a man who shoots another in the belly in self defense is acceptable, but then he going and shooting him in the head after he's gone down and no longer a clear threat is criminal, as he would be initiating (or rather, re initiating) force. bear in mind, I don't find it morally right for people shooting people in self defense: I only find it "acceptable": a point I made very clear earlier. you also assume that every self defense situation will end with people shooting their weapons: just having one cocked in your face is enough to scare most people (and in fact, that's how it usually ends). even crying out that you have one is surprisingly effective. Criminals, being people, typically have fear of dying. hard to grasp that not all criminals are like this guy (http://farcry.wikia.com/wiki/Vaas_Montenegro), but they aren't. :clown:


Basically, it's a question of different focus. If there's man-eating tigers running around on the street, of course you should need equipment to deal with it. But the issue is the tigers, not the equipment.
If things are working well, then you shouldn't be needing to be worried about the tigers enough to require the equipment. And most of the West has things working well enough for tigers to not be a serious issue and considers this to be a sign of that things are working.

No, it is not a question of focus/perspective. It shouldn't have to matter if there is a need for a firearm or not. I may not like it (neither do most Palestinians--look up our statistics)--I know you don't--but I respect the right people have to have weapons.

this is especially as you are ignoring why people often actually acquire firearms (which I specified earlier)--which I must add is typical (though not universal) for AR-15 users. people don't always buy them for self defense--be it from large predators or from violent criminals: they often buy it for sports, for collecting, and even for rural activities (here in Texas, rifles are commonly used for shooting feral pigs: they cause a lot of trouble, and are good sport in many cases). why deprive them of their weapons if they never intend, and likely never will, ever shoot at any person with them? should certain persons, who keep their weapons in a safe well away from a bedroom be held for it, even though they cannot practicably use it in defense from most criminals? Also, the firearms everyone is wetting their pants over, as Lemur pointed out, are rarely involved in gun violence in the US anyhow. there's a source at the bottom if you want to see. Also, if we're going to use your very logic, you'd still have to see my point, as some of the uses I mentioned are utilitarian (hunting (for food), culling feral pigs, etc). Self defense where applicable is technically speaking, a utilitarian task use too, isn't it?

besides, as I said earlier, such rules in the US are doomed to fail, due to the nature of the distribution of weapons here.



The US attitude is more of that all individuals should have heavy defenses vs tigers, no matter the cost. With the above focus, this attitude is already a failure.

what other people think is irrelevant to my thoughts here. And so what? they're free to do what they want as long as no one is initiating force with it. they can live with the consequences on their wallets.



And since violent crimes are different from tigers, you could ask what common sense tells you about the consequences from saturating a society with guns and telling them that it's ok to shoot people (but only during specific circumstances)?

depends. the US is already a violent place (where applicable), with the strictures placed as they are (e.g. the ban on automatics): banning or restricting guns ignores the actual causes of violence, and punishes civilians for what criminals do. It also fails to remove guns from criminals--at least in America. speaking of violence: you do realize most of the violence (including gun violence), is a largely a product of the war on drugs? (a government initiative) have you seen the crime rate along the border as a result (Juarez is one example)? or those of the inner cities? many of these places have some of the strictest regulations on gun ownership (Chicago being an oft-sited example)--and it hasn't made a dent (same applies in Mexico (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico). as a whole I might add, where gun laws are stricter). the mass murders at sandy hook, Virginia tech and Aurora? those are exceptions to the rule--horrible as they are. most murders are in the inner cities, and connected to the criminal life over there, which often revolves around illegal drugs and similar illicit activities. Similarly, the talk of banning "assault weapons" (a stupid and misleading term) doesn't address why the mass shootings (or more accurately, mass murders) happen: it isn't because there are guns, it's because something is wrong with the person doing it (terrorists, madmen, or what have you). And before you say it makes it possible or deadlier, let me remind you that the deadliest incident of this type didn't involve a single firearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_school_massacre). It instead involved a chemical fertilizer. you can also "ask" Timothy McVeigh if you want: 168 people dead with no more than fertilizer and gas, plus the truck to carry the resulting weapons (bombs). Guns just happen to be the most convenient means, here and throughout the Americas as a whole, regardless of how restrictive or permissive gun policy is in individual countries (the source is below, help yourself). Similarly in Europe, bombs are: just ask the people in London, or in Madrid. And if a person wants to do mass murder with a firearm, then no matter the restrictions (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/norway), they'll do it anyways. it's terrible, it sucks, but what can be done? it's clear restricting weapons doesn't do as much as people think.

also, let me tell you about common sense: "common sense", Among other things told people that the sun goes round the earth, or that mold and mice spontaneously appear in rotting materials (look it up), and so on. "common sense" only goes so far--namely no further than the realm of the seen--the obvious, and superficial. It doesn't help that "common sense" is too relative.... what is common sense to an Arab, is not to a European. what is to me, is not to you. what is to me (an Arab), is not to my Dad (another Arab). etc.


I can tell that it's 19 times more likely for a cop to die in the line of duty in the US compared to the UK. There's been more cops killed in the US in 2013 (it's a calm start this year btw) than in the UK 2000-2013. Cause or counter cause?
It's certainly related to why the cops are more violent in the US.

again, that is likely tied to the nature of crime in the US, as much as it is potentially due to restrictions or lack thereof. let's face it, the UK doesn't have a war on drugs approach, or the demand that the US has for illicit drugs, or the proximity to the major drug production centers in Latin America (which themselves are only there because of drug prohibition creating the need for a black market), and the resulting criminal activity.

this is relevant, seeing as how most of those same police, are dead from dealing with some of the effects of our criminal situation, not merely because of citizens having guns (who aren't even causing trouble for the most part)[put another way: it's the criminals who are doing most of the shootings, not Average Joe, and there are so many of them because of our stupid justice system]. further, the UK's cops have no firearms themselves, so there is even less need for criminals to use firearms to escape said cops. if there were a need for it, and a similar set of circumstances as in America, I'd guarantee you than no amount of restrictions will stop the resulting black market, and the homicides from guns, from shooting up like mad. it certainly didn't in Egypt before the Arab spring (which had a homicide rate comparable to Britain's, but with almost half being by firearms, compared to almost none in the UK), and it isn't doing so in Mexico, or Columbia, or the Philippines, India, Pakistan, or most other countries I can name from their sort (all of which, you can look up in the links given).

and this becomes even more starkly apparent, when you go to Latin America: homicide rates in Mexico are consistently higher for instance (including cop deaths), yet gun laws are stricter than those in the US--much stricter in some cases. Mexico BTW is similar in its approach to what gun control advocates are demanding these days: long arms of a military design are banned there. doesn't seem to have helped one bit. Hell, in some cases, it makes the situation harder for some people. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpIyaIHsJbc)

point is, correlation, is not the same as causation. UK's low gun deaths can be argued as being because of the restrictions, true. But also potentially because people there, simply have different circumstances than those in the US (or Egypt....).


US' figures on homicide, gun homicide, etc: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

[Ironside]

first off Ironsides, I was discussing the monopoly of violence concept. I was disputing that it should be the case with regards to the State: the gun control part was an aspect of it (my attitude of which is incidental to the first part). secondly, I don't see how your reply answered the question you are supposedly reading (which I suggest you read carefully). but since you did reply, and I found it interesting:

More clearly then. By restricting the amount of acccepted violence to a minimum, like you do with the monopoly of violence, you're reducing violence in total. By accepting a certain use of violence, you'll also get more violent criminals, because they reflect their own culture. That the US has surrendered the idea of the monopoly of violence for now, is a loss, even if it might be an adaptation for the current situation.

I've already pointed out my position on the US, allow more research to get decent laws on the issue. But don't pretend for a minute that the mentality to guns among criminals isn't influenced by the gun mentality among the population.


first off, I'm not aware of many (or at the very least statistically relevant) examples of stable innocent civilians suddenly killing to create a "reputation", so as to intimidate people. that is the action taken more typically by criminal gangs and the criminally minded (like Lanza or the Aurora guy), unless you imply that Americans are generally that way--which goes back to the heart of my question). As to escalation of violence: as I said, training people on the responsible use of firearms is a must. if they go overboard, they can always be charged and punished for their actions. So a man who shoots another in the belly in self defense is acceptable, but then he going and shooting him in the head after he's gone down and no longer a clear threat is criminal, as he would be initiating (or rather, re initiating) force. bear in mind, I don't find it morally right for people shooting people in self defense: I only find it "acceptable": a point I made very clear earlier. you also assume that every self defense situation will end with people shooting their weapons: just having one cocked in your face is enough to scare most people (and in fact, that's how it usually ends). even crying out that you have one is surprisingly effective. Criminals, being people, typically have fear of dying. hard to grasp that not all criminals are like this guy (http://farcry.wikia.com/wiki/Vaas_Montenegro), but they aren't. :clown:

Reputation here refers to regions where the legal control has lapsed a bit, say ghettos. And it's about appearing scary. Usually it's solved by that, but in some cases it ends up in violence. Our version of animal territory aggression and defense.
Escalation is when both parties have access to guns. Sure not all conflicts ends up with shooting (if nothing else, because robbery is a lesser crime than murder), but the odds of a conflict ending in killing increases.


No, it is not a question of focus/perspective. It shouldn't have to matter if there is a need for a firearm or not. I may not like it (neither do most Palestinians--look up our statistics)--I know you don't--but I respect the right people have to have weapons.

this is especially as you are ignoring why people often actually acquire firearms (which I specified earlier)--which I must add is typical (though not universal) for AR-15 users. people don't always buy them for self defense--be it from large predators or from violent criminals: they often buy it for sports, for collecting, and even for rural activities (here in Texas, rifles are commonly used for shooting feral pigs: they cause a lot of trouble, and are good sport in many cases). why deprive them of their weapons if they never intend, and likely never will, ever shoot at any person with them? should certain persons, who keep their weapons in a safe well away from a bedroom be held for it, even though they cannot practicably use it in defense from most criminals? Also, the firearms everyone is wetting their pants over, as Lemur pointed out, are rarely involved in gun violence in the US anyhow. there's a source at the bottom if you want to see. Also, if we're going to use your very logic, you'd still have to see my point, as some of the uses I mentioned are utilitarian (hunting (for food), culling feral pigs, etc). Self defense where applicable is technically speaking, a utilitarian task use too, isn't it?

besides, as I said earlier, such rules in the US are doomed to fail, due to the nature of the distribution of weapons here.

The alternative uses are almost entirely squished in between in this debate. Sweden is a hunting nation, so there's plenty of firearms. All weapons are licenced and registered. Handguns are almost impossible to get outside practice shooting in a gun range. Good luck getting anywhere near something like that in the US. And the limiter are guns for defense.


what other people think is irrelevant to my thoughts here. And so what? they're free to do what they want as long as no one is initiating force with it. they can live with the consequences on their wallets.

Wallets? You're in the life insurance buissness?


depends. the US is already a violent place (where applicable), with the strictures placed as they are (e.g. the ban on automatics): banning or restricting guns ignores the actual causes of violence, and punishes civilians for what criminals do. It also fails to remove guns from criminals--at least in America. speaking of violence: you do realize most of the violence (including gun violence), is a largely a product of the war on drugs? (a government initiative) have you seen the crime rate along the border as a result (Juarez is one example)? or those of the inner cities? many of these places have some of the strictest regulations on gun ownership (Chicago being an oft-sited example)--and it hasn't made a dent (same applies in Mexico (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico). as a whole I might add, where gun laws are stricter). the mass murders at sandy hook, Virginia tech and Aurora? those are exceptions to the rule--horrible as they are. most murders are in the inner cities, and connected to the criminal life over there, which often revolves around illegal drugs and similar illicit activities. Similarly, the talk of banning "assault weapons" (a stupid and misleading term) doesn't address why the mass shootings (or more accurately, mass murders) happen: it isn't because there are guns, it's because something is wrong with the person doing it (terrorists, madmen, or what have you). And before you say it makes it possible or deadlier, let me remind you that the deadliest incident of this type didn't involve a single firearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_school_massacre). It instead involved a chemical fertilizer. you can also "ask" Timothy McVeigh if you want: 168 people dead with no more than fertilizer and gas, plus the truck to carry the resulting weapons (bombs). Guns just happen to be the most convenient means, here and throughout the Americas as a whole, regardless of how restrictive or permissive gun policy is in individual countries (the source is below, help yourself). Similarly in Europe, bombs are: just ask the people in London, or in Madrid. And if a person wants to do mass murder with a firearm, then no matter the restrictions (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/norway), they'll do it anyways. it's terrible, it sucks, but what can be done? it's clear restricting weapons doesn't do as much as people think.

also, let me tell you about common sense: "common sense", Among other things told people that the sun goes round the earth, or that mold and mice spontaneously appear in rotting materials (look it up), and so on. "common sense" only goes so far--namely no further than the realm of the seen--the obvious, and superficial. It doesn't help that "common sense" is too relative.... what is common sense to an Arab, is not to a European. what is to me, is not to you. what is to me (an Arab), is not to my Dad (another Arab). etc.

Timothy McVeigh is in another category than the shooters. The shooters would not simply replace it with bombs, since the act of shooting (aka directly taking lives) is a major part of why they do it.
Well actual research is forbidden. But existing research does imply that common sense works here. Legal citizens and criminals does share a lot of cultural attitudes.


again, that is likely tied to the nature of crime in the US, as much as it is potentially due to restrictions or lack thereof. let's face it, the UK doesn't have a war on drugs approach, or the demand that the US has for illicit drugs, or the proximity to the major drug production centers in Latin America (which themselves are only there because of drug prohibition creating the need for a black market), and the resulting criminal activity.

Not that much kills in the border states. I do wonder why Georgia is such a cop killer state though.


this is relevant, seeing as how most of those same police, are dead from dealing with some of the effects of our criminal situation, not merely because of citizens having guns (who aren't even causing trouble for the most part)[put another way: it's the criminals who are doing most of the shootings, not Average Joe, and there are so many of them because of our stupid justice system]. further, the UK's cops have no firearms themselves, so there is even less need for criminals to use firearms to escape said cops. if there were a need for it, and a similar set of circumstances as in America, I'd guarantee you than no amount of restrictions will stop the resulting black market, and the homicides from guns, from shooting up like mad. point is, correlation, is not the same as causation. UK's low gun deaths can be argued as being because of the restrictions, true. But also potentially because people there, simply have different circumstances than those in the US (or Egypt....).

So you say that it's the gun attitude that is the underlying problem (with gun regulation as a patching, unless it influences the attitude). So how do you handle the underlying problem? Personally I would give the monpoly of violence as an example.

[HoreTore]

It sounds like we should be pushing to legalize new full auto production. It will be less dangerous, even in a crowded room and force a shooter to go through rounds faster, right horetore?

Basically.

The only sense I see in a ban on fully automatic, is if it's a just the first step of an eventual ban on all weapons. Ie the slippery slope. But even then, I don't consider "slippery slope"-bans to be an effective way of establishing complete bans. If you want to ban something completely, I believe you need to take rather big steps, ones which will have a real impact on day to day life.

[HopAlongBunny]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carrey

[drone]

My point:
If you allow semi-automatic weapons, I see no reason to ban fully automatic weapons. If the image of a loon walking around with a machine gun killing hundreds of people is what upsets you, wouldn't it be more productive to look at the type of weapon, rather than its mode of fire? Ie., propose a ban on "military weapons", and allow "civilian weapons"(though good luck defining those)? Or just scrap weapon differentiating all together and look for alternative solutions.
Oooooh, I could finally get that M2 I've been dreaming about. :hmg:

I still think any restrictions they make should also apply to LEOs.

[Lemur]

Oooooh, I could finally get that M2 I've been dreaming about.
Why sell yourself short? Go for an M1.

https://i.imgur.com/WojmBpj.jpg

[drone]

Why sell yourself short? Go for an M1.

It won't fit in the garage. And the mileage is atrocious.

[HoreTore]

I still think any restrictions they make should also apply to LEOs.

The police should also be unarmed.

[drone]

The police should also be unarmed.

If you are going to banhammer all guns, then yes, but that's not going to happen. There is no reason why the po-po gets to keep their ARs with 30 round mags if regular citizens cannot. LEOs are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ, why should they get access to the cool toys.

[Husar]

If you are going to banhammer all guns, then yes, but that's not going to happen. There is no reason why the po-po gets to keep their ARs with 30 round mags if regular citizens cannot. LEOs are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ, why should they get access to the cool toys.

They are not cool toys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

[HoreTore]

Armed US citizens are not contradicting a state monopoly on violence. They do not have the right outside of the State, it's a right the State has decided to give its citizens. Thus, even in the US the State has a monopoly on violence. For such a monopoly to be broken, there would have to exist forces in US territory outside US state control. Like a huge private army the US army couldn't take on. The best historical example would be the KKK and affiliated groups on the second half of the 1800's. Those groups threathened US stste monopoly of violence, but they were defeated. Thus, the monopoly was upheld.

That discussion, however, is quite different to the current political meaning of the term used in my own and Husar's country. It's been expanded and refined, and when we euroweenies use the term, we refer to its political meaning, not the sociological meaning.

I know I'm rambling. It's late. I may have a better reply tomorrow.

Oh, and Weber was a German who came up with explanations(like the work ethic) which put German people and its morals above everyone else. How unusual for a German academic of his time.

[Husar]

Armed US citizens are not contradicting a state monopoly on violence. They do not have the right outside of the State, it's a right the State has decided to give its citizens. Thus, even in the US the State has a monopoly on violence. For such a monopoly to be broken, there would have to exist forces in US territory outside US state control. Like a huge private army the US army couldn't take on. The best historical example would be the KKK and affiliated groups on the second half of the 1800's. Those groups threathened US stste monopoly of violence, but they were defeated. Thus, the monopoly was upheld.

That discussion, however, is quite different to the current political meaning of the term used in my own and Husar's country. It's been expanded and refined, and when we euroweenies use the term, we refer to its political meaning, not the sociological meaning.

I know I'm rambling. It's late. I may have a better reply tomorrow.

Oh, and Weber was a German who came up with explanations(like the work ethic) which put German people and its morals above everyone else. How unusual for a German academic of his time.

Yes, I read the article and the parts that said the state can allow private people to have weapons. And even the german state allows private people to have weapons. If they have a good reason and can prove it. Wanting to kill the government or the need to shoot a guy who is carrying your TV in the back are not considered good reasons. In a more American way I think it can be interpreted against free gun sales and more background and other checks. The liberals and NRA still won't like it of course since they believe in the virtue and law of lynch mobs, avengers and people who shoot their girlfriend through the bathroom door because they thought there was an intruder sitting on their toilet.

The way we've been taught in school thougj is indeed that the state should not give away too much of the monopole on violence so that it can still effectively maintain order and the rule of law. This is still the case even in the USA because the police adapted to the violence-ability of the citizenry by using tasers the first time a citizen says "no" and sending SWAT teams even to small-time and suspected criminals because they're afraid to die otherwise. If the homeowner is too tired to get that the police is coming instead of gangsters or the police fail to identify (everybody can say "police", even a gangster), there are often armed confrontations where people die.

It may be silly to think the US could have considerably fewer guns in 20 years but even guns don't last forever so as a long-term policy, more restrictions on guns would indeed work. Couple it with an amnesty for people who turn in their guns and you can already take a few away. Also how do pro-gun people think about just these measures being used in Iraq? Were the iraqi citizens deprived of their right to self-defense or was it necessary to prevent violence against the US oppressors? Would you rather have your government hand out weapons to Iraqis and Afghanis so that the upstanding good guys with guns can stop the bad guys with guns?

[ICantSpellDawg]

You guys are a bunch of statists. The state gives us nothing, we allow the state to exist and give it everything that it has. This is a new world and our experiment is working reasonably well. We don't have 2000 years of state tyranny that we are coming out from underneath like in Europe. We came from lawlessness and are building a new type of state, where the government does as little as possible, leaving the majority to the decisions of the individual.

Laws have no moral authority, merely the authority of force. Democracy with local decentralized systems have no moral authority over us as individuals, either. No state has any authority over you in any other way but force. We do well to create restrictions on that force to ensure that it stays on mission and not creep into much of our daily life. We do best to give it just enough oxygen to survive and serve lest it conquer us.

Of course, this requires an informed and responsible electorate

[Husar]

You guys are a bunch of statists. The state gives us nothing, we allow the state to exist and give it everything that it has.

This is no different from Europe. The state here is legitimized by the people, not the other way around. The only advantage you have is that you promote responsible citizenship a bit more, however, I don't see it working much better in practice given that you have a two party system. ~;)

[Raz]

So is it only USA that kicks up a fit if their guns get the banhammer?

Living in Australia, I can't really grasp the concept of such freely available guns - what's the point? Can someone fill me in on the details?
TBH I don't actually understand why so many Americans kick and scream with this sort of legislation: something to do with ancient rights for militia, back when standing armies were scifi.

[HoreTore]

The State is the People, and the People is the State.

The State isn't a concept seperate from its citizens, rather it is the collective will of the people.

(I am of course only speaking of the modern western democratic state)

[Papewaio]

You do not need a semi automatic to go pig hunting.

I've seen myself hunters in NZ take down wild boars with dogs to flush and knives to kill the boar.

=][=

Given the current premise that the second amendment is to defend against state tyranny then one thinks that it shouldn't be restricted to civilian weapons. It should be equivalent ones so that civilians have an equal footing vs the state.

Personally I think you should change the amendment to reflect modern society. Either make it regulated in the checked and licensed sense OR remove all regulation and explicitly make it an individuals right. It is an amendment, amend it as you will. Just make it make sense in a modern context, one where professional armies exist as the norm.

[drone]

They are not cool toys.
You obviously don't have access to a lot of gun porn. Magazines targeted to both LEOs and gun nuts portray them as such.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The State is the People, and the People is the State.

The State isn't a concept seperate from its citizens, rather it is the collective will of the people.

(I am of course only speaking of the modern western democratic state)

Horetore:

ICSD may have expressed himself in a fashion that didn't help his point, but his point is a good one. We yanks have always conceived of our rights differently than you have framed them in your comment above.

We have, traditionally, viewed our rights (freedom of speech, worship, to bear arms, etc.) as natural (some say God-given) rights and not as the collective will of the people. Our Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights, but articulates and confirms the government's inability to restrict those rights that we conceive as being an integral part of any individual.

Thus, the concept is not: State = the collected wit/wisdom/history of the people who comprise it, who in turn choose to accord certain rights to one another.

Instead, is is: People possess innate rights, establishing a collective state only as a means of protecting these rights (involved some minor restriction of those rights so that all may enjoy them without harming others) and accomplishing those things which are wholly impractical for the individual to provide for themselves.


I would also note, however, that I sense an increasing shift toward a definition of rights analogous to that you defined above among some of my fellow citizens. As a Lockean civil-contract type myself, I prefer the traditional definition.

[Major Robert Dump]

Whats happening in Greece is a pretty good argument against gun prohibition

[Papewaio]

It is because the US law system is based on a synthesis of UK law tradition with inspiration from the European Enlightenment. As such most US laws are based on stating what you can't do, not what you can.

Liberty is freedom within the law. Society does not equal individual freedom it equals liberty. A fair society makes those laws as fair as possible across all varieties of people (race, sex or creed).

=][=

IMDHO Gun access should be about maximizing liberty. It's a responsibility not vigilantism. It's a tool not for tooling around with.

As such I fall on the side that says anyone of sound mind who can govern their own affairs should be able to buy, store, manufacturer and train with any weapon. The licensing would be similar to a car license for the individual to show sufficient ability, alertness and no mental health issues.

However the responsibilty that comes with that would be hefty. I'd make it that you cannot weaponise any household with mentally ill yet physically capable members reside (so a mentally ill quadriplegic wouldn't trigger a result). I'd also make it that registered gun owners can be called up by the state for emergencies from natural disaster to man made. Not for their weapons, just for man power... As they should all be able bodied and sound of mind and helpful in a bush fire or hurricane cleanup.

[HoreTore]

Horetore:

ICSD may have expressed himself in a fashion that didn't help his point, but his point is a good one. We yanks have always conceived of our rights differently than you have framed them in your comment above.

We have, traditionally, viewed our rights (freedom of speech, worship, to bear arms, etc.) as natural (some say God-given) rights and not as the collective will of the people. Our Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights, but articulates and confirms the government's inability to restrict those rights that we conceive as being an integral part of any individual.

Thus, the concept is not: State = the collected wit/wisdom/history of the people who comprise it, who in turn choose to accord certain rights to one another.

Instead, is is: People possess innate rights, establishing a collective state only as a means of protecting these rights (involved some minor restriction of those rights so that all may enjoy them without harming others) and accomplishing those things which are wholly impractical for the individual to provide for themselves.


I would also note, however, that I sense an increasing shift toward a definition of rights analogous to that you defined above among some of my fellow citizens. As a Lockean civil-contract type myself, I prefer the traditional definition.

I wasn't talking about principle, I was talking about reality. And the reality is that the rights you have are the ones given you to the state, who in turn represent the collective will of the american people. The reason it's not the other way around, is that the US state has the ability to use violence to force you into obedience, as long as it acts in accordance with the collective will of the people. You cannot apply violence to force the state to recognize your rights, all you can do is try to change the collective will, which will in turn change the state.

If you want it otherwise, you would have to disassemble the state and it's ability to use violence, in effect making each of you a one-man state. And of course live in total isolation, because once you meet other people, your rights will be determined by the will of those you meet as well the power ratio between the two of you.

[HoreTore]

Whats happening in Greece is a pretty good argument against gun prohibition

You think giving guns to a few million nazi's and communist who are looking to establish dictatorships is a good idea...?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I wasn't talking about principle, I was talking about reality. And the reality is that the rights you have are the ones given you to the state, who in turn represent the collective will of the american people. The reason it's not the other way around, is that the US state has the ability to use violence to force you into obedience, as long as it acts in accordance with the collective will of the people. You cannot apply violence to force the state to recognize your rights, all you can do is try to change the collective will, which will in turn change the state.

If you want it otherwise, you would have to disassemble the state and it's ability to use violence, in effect making each of you a one-man state. And of course live in total isolation, because once you meet other people, your rights will be determined by the will of those you meet as well the power ratio between the two of you.

Sorry, for reasons I am having trouble articulating to myself, your response is pissing me off. I will therefore not respond at the present time with any counterpoints.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I wasn't talking about principle, I was talking about reality. And the reality is that the rights you have are the ones given you to the state, who in turn represent the collective will of the american people. The reason it's

How a State can "represent the collective will" of the American people is beyond me. I don't have and am not part of some collective will, I have an individual will. Again, a law that doesn't protect the will of the individual in the aggregate is a bad law. Laws do not have moral authority, but laws that protect the will of one against the abusive will of another are better. Laws against murder and theft protect the individual so that they can continue making choices. Laws against effective self-defense and soft drink containers do not do that. We need to share the planet, but we don't need to be going in the same direction.

The Ideal State is a tool to maintain individual rights in the face of large collectivist or natural threats to them. We need to come together to a minimal extent to protect us from the massive automaton of collective misery. I look forward to a world that doesn't need the State to educate individuals who can educate themselves, doesn't need a state to give their sexual relationship meaning, and doesn't need a state to protect them from scary looking guns or sodas or junk food. Even a state that doesn't need to protect you from crime.

[Ironside]

The Ideal State is a tool to maintain individual rights in the face of large collectivist or natural threats to them. We need to come together to a minimal extent to protect us from the massive automaton of collective misery. I look forward to a world that doesn't need the State to educate individuals who can educate themselves, doesn't need a state to give their sexual relationship meaning, and doesn't need a state to protect them from scary looking guns or sodas or junk food. Even a state that doesn't need to protect you from crime.

Ironically, that's only possible with a degree of monitoring and subtile influence that makes 1984 look like child play. Which tells a lot about an existing freedom vs control paradox. Depending on circumstances, increased control can mean increased freedom.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ironically, that's only possible with a degree of monitoring and subtile influence that makes 1984 look like child play. Which tells a lot about an existing freedom vs control paradox. Depending on circumstances, increased control can mean increased freedom.

1984 was an example of minarchism? BS

EDIT: I was thinking about 3d home production of fully automatic weapons, and it occured to me that 3D home printers will be available exclusively in the libertine West - placing statist or tyrranical governments at a major economic disadvantage. A government like China would still need to mass-produce trinkets because they could never abide by their subjects printing whatever they wanted for the fear of the dissemination of firearms. We will be printing our home furnishings, small parts, computer parts, clothing; cutting China off from the volume that makes their mass production cost effective and undermining their economic base

This is our most potent weapon and developing economies will be cut-off from it due to cost of tech and archaic fear of their own people. This could be the final straw, time to ramp up production of personal 3d weapons to keep them off the scent of progress. The first time in a generation where individual rights were inextricably tied to technological progress.

[Ironside]

1984 was an example of minarchism? BS


That's because you're obsessed with gun rights= induvidual rights. It's not. It's not even a desirable idea outside the US.
And places a goal of self information/education above what 99,99% of the population will do. Sure they'll pass on some fields, but in total? You'll get plenty of blanks.

State not needing to educate induviduals: Who controls it then? The children themselves? That's stupid, because they're too young. The parents? Not much better (poor parents, or parents not understanding that their children aren't clones of themselves as examples). The companies? At least you'll get what the companies want, at the cost of everything else. Besides, they'll want to dump to cost somehow. So some kind of subtile influence is needed.

Sexual relationships, fair enough, no problem there.

Scary looking guns? We don't want those freaking guns for self defense. We don't the idea to spread. Why? Because it'll increase the odds that the stupid punk will have a gun himself.

The scary soda and junk food? What will happen if you use this properly?:
Inactive ingredients: water, sodium laureth sulfate, sodium lauryl sulfate, diazomethane, cocamide MEA, zinc carbonate, glycol distearate, dimethicone, fragrance, cetyl alcohol, guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride, magnesium sulfate, pyrithione zinc, sodium benzoate, magnesium carbonate hydroxide, ethanethiol, ammonium laureth sulfate, benzyl alcohol, sodium chloride, methylchloroisothiazolinone, methylisothiazolinone, sodium xylenesulfonate, blue 1, red 4?

You'll need to know if the product you use is safe. And by safe, I mean doesn't kill or cripple you within a year (that you can figure out by yourself). So you'll need extremely good information on what every product really contain and not what it's claimed to and what these products really do. Flame retardants? The bromated ones are made up because Brom is a waste product from mining that's useless for anything else, a lot because Brom compounds is poisonous. Made for your safety in mind? Not really.
That's an even bigger database than the goverment has today.

That's not counting that soda and junk food are food based on fooling your body and mind, created by comercial interests and certainly not helped by the artifical food creation we've made. We can put it this way: By eating the food you're developed for, you would never need to brush your teeth.

Crime is the best one. How many crimes is comitted were guns are irrrelevant? Most of them. Since you'll never fix the investigation part by yourself, unless you got access to a much larger and controlling databases than exists today with easy compiling of relevant information, you'll need to do "pre-crime". That identify criminals and crime before they happen. That's certainly possible, but will require quite a bit of information control. Child in risk zone with poor parents? Proact. Drunk, goading group of youngsters out, with a few ones who are aggressive drunks? Proact. Etc, etc.
Companies in charge of the investigation would be "fun".

Use this information and subtile manipulation and the society would be as free as you describe. Abuse it, and you'll get something worse than 1984.
The thing is that it really is this way. The increased information means that that the state can adapt if you chose a more induvidual way of living, instead of trying some kind of blunt average "one fits all". Focusing on the induvidual instead of the family is one example. The state knows more about you, but you're still freer.

Still makes it creepy though, agreed on that. Non-abusive, the net data-mining does lead to more relevant comercials or youtube clips for example. It still screams "I'm watching you and know who you are".

[Papewaio]

EDIT: I was thinking about 3d home production of fully automatic weapons, and it occured to me that 3D home printers will be available exclusively in the libertine West - placing statist or tyrranical governments at a major economic disadvantage. A government like China would still need to mass-produce trinkets because they could never abide by their subjects printing whatever they wanted for the fear of the dissemination of firearms. We will be printing our home furnishings, small parts, computer parts, clothing; cutting China off from the volume that makes their mass production cost effective and undermining their economic base

This is our most potent weapon and developing economies will be cut-off from it due to cost of tech and archaic fear of their own people. This could be the final straw, time to ramp up production of personal 3d weapons to keep them off the scent of progress. The first time in a generation where individual rights were inextricably tied to technological progress.

There is a podcast from the Long Now Foundation from the 2/19/13 by Chris Anderson ,former editor of Wired who now runs his own drone company, on 3D printing.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/salt-seminars-about-long-term/id186908455

3D printing exists at massive scales in China. The shift that is happening is allowing small businesses to order via web applets 3D printing and other CNC outputs from around the world. China isn't behind on this, they are supplying a lot of the custom output.

The biggest difference is that there is less (not zero) personal CNC access, and that is a matter of cash not appetite or political barriers. Chinese factories can already mill all our electronics both legit and pirated. It would not be hard for small scale Chinese factories to make weapons.

Also the whole Gung Ho program in early Chinese communism was that small collectives could manufacture weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Industrial_Cooperatives... It was decided that this would not allow sufficient production, so the leadership went down the mass production path.

So I don't think 3D at home is going to remain exclusive to the west. Anymore then mobile (cell) phone penetration around the world or solar panels. In fact we will have suffocating patents to contend with and vested interests paying off government to restrict our rights.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I doubt you would find sodium lauryl sulfate in your food considering it's the primary surfactant used in shampoo.

[Ironside]

I doubt you would find sodium lauryl sulfate in your food considering it's the primary surfactant used in shampoo.

Schampoo has a much more interesting content list than food normally. But that's the reason I asked what would happen if you used it properly, instead of eating it.

But since you want to talk about food:
Tyramine
Hordenine
Melamine
Octopamine
Phenethylamine

All have been found in food. One was in a fairly recent scandal. Which one?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Schampoo has a much more interesting content list than food normally. But that's the reason I asked what would happen if you used it properly, instead of eating it.

But since you want to talk about food:
Tyramine
Hordenine
Melamine
Octopamine
Phenethylamine

All have been found in food. One was in a fairly recent scandal. Which one?

The melamine. It was in Nestle products and I freaked out because I thought it was in my hot chocolate powder until the news told me that it was just in infant/baby formula.

EDIT: Now that I have looked at the wikipedia pages for all of them, my initial suspicions that most of those were prevalent plant compounds to begin with was correct.

[Ironside]

The melamine. It was in Nestle products and I freaked out because I thought it was in my hot chocolate powder until the news told me that it was just in infant/baby formula.

EDIT: Now that I have looked at the wikipedia pages for all of them, my initial suspicions that most of those were prevalent plant compounds to begin with was correct.

You're interested in chemistry? You do feel to be more well red on the subject than most. Most biological amines are neurotransmitters so it was tricky to get a decent list. I was thinking about the Chinese milk scandal as the big one for melamine though, even if it's getting a bit old.

FYI I did some modifications in that Head & Shoulder schampoo. They're fairly easy ones to spot and makes the product unsellable. But it's not hard to create a schampoo that sells better than the original, but is long term lethal.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I get it Piers Morgan! The Gun Issue matters a lot to you! But I am really tired of turning on CNN to see that he has an entire hour to do nothing but rail against guns and tug at your heartstrings! Its a waste of a news-hour, and exactly the kind of editorial focus that ruined Fox. Tired of this guy.

Don't watch.

[Major Robert Dump]

Mass Murder Pills

[Lemur]

Piers Morgan
Avoid all cable news. Seriously.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're interested in chemistry? You do feel to be more well red on the subject than most. Most biological amines are neurotransmitters so it was tricky to get a decent list. I was thinking about the Chinese milk scandal as the big one for melamine though, even if it's getting a bit old.

FYI I did some modifications in that Head & Shoulder schampoo. They're fairly easy ones to spot and makes the product unsellable. But it's not hard to create a schampoo that sells better than the original, but is long term lethal.

I am interested in chemistry. My major was in chemistry until I switched to chemical engineering. Just finishing up my year of organic chemistry classes right now actually. I was just lucky with this example because it was something in the news I payed close attention to. I will take a look to see if I can spot the modifications. But the only reason I spotted the sodium lauryl sulfate in the first place is because I like reading and wikipedia searching ingredients to products I use often.

[Papewaio]

See that is why I need a waterproof touchscreen in the shower so I can check my shampoo ingredients in the shower.

It might come into some additional recreational use...

[Ironside]

See that is why I need a waterproof touchscreen in the shower so I can check my shampoo ingredients in the shower.

It might come into some additional recreational use...

Seeing training videos on how to entertain yourself in the shower?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoPofJeWuR0

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well there are IP57 rated phones with touchscreen out there.

[Ibrahim]

sorry for not replying sooner. been busy.


More clearly then. By restricting the amount of acccepted violence to a minimum, like you do with the monopoly of violence, you're reducing violence in total.

how?

how does in effect, decreeing that only the state should have a monopoly on force/violence, actually solve the problem we are facing? how does it take the crime (and guns) off the streets, and into honest hands (which according to you, would be Government)?

and what about wars? or when the government turns on the people? then how does your "solution" work?

you see why I have a problem with the concept? yes, in practice it is true, but it doesn't mean I have to philosophically agree with it. The implications are, as I told HoreTore, very disturbing, at least to me. I can at least say that he was consistent.


By accepting a certain use of violence, you'll also get more violent criminals, because they reflect their own culture. That the US has surrendered the idea of the monopoly of violence for now, is a loss, even if it might be an adaptation for the current situation.

How? OK, so people here (ideally) have the right to defend themselves with a firearm (just to be clear here: you do realize the difference between that and a blanket "gun" culture, right?), if they wish. how does that make the same people more violent? It's the same argument I hear about video games, from those at the capitol. I'm dead serious, let me paraphrase:

"by accepting the presence of violent video games in our homes for our children to play, we are increasing violence among children, because it is in their culture". yes, this does get said in the US too. And to demonstrate the absurdity of this, let me ask you a question: are you any more violent, for playing a game (I assume, this place being what it is, a total war one), that involves the simulated mass murder of people? unless you have some inability to distinguish reality from fantasy, I think not.

similarly by analogy/Qiyaas, most human beings, not being "satan's spawn", aren't going to go around shooting people, just because they can own a gun and defend themselves with it--certainly no more than I would go around bludgeoning people with my crow's beak, just because I have one for rock beds, and can use it: and don't give me this guff about video games not being real while guns are, because again, most normal people never use their guns to kill people with (or even necessarily for defense), nor do they encourage it: not in America, not in Sweden, or anywhere else. Point is, most people--certainly more than one might expect--know sufficient difference between right and wrong.

of course, all this raises a question, which has yet been answered, having been raised before: "if you can't trust people to own firearms as they wish within the framework of the law, why should you trust the state, when it's staffed by the very same people?"

And again, this doesn't actually address why the crime rate is high here in the US, but higher still in Mexico, where some of the proposals made by the gun control camp are part of the law already. It also doesn't address the fact that again, the greatest concentration of gun violence (in fact, all types of violence) in the US And Mexico occurs regardless of the level of regulation on guns.



I've already pointed out my position on the US, allow more research to get decent laws on the issue. But don't pretend for a minute that the mentality to guns among criminals isn't influenced by the gun mentality among the population.

well, I guess we agree on that position: we do need better laws (which, I did state earlier). we also need to get rid of some bad laws. some that actually fuel the violence.

And of course there is cultural influence on the criminals (here and elsewhere), but it doesn't necessarily explain why they start killing, when there is hardly a culture out there that glorifies cold blooded murder (outside the military, but I digress). it may explain the method of killing, but not necessarily why it's done.


Reputation here refers to regions where the legal control has lapsed a bit, say ghettos. And it's about appearing scary. Usually it's solved by that, but in some cases it ends up in violence. Our version of animal territory aggression and defense.
Escalation is when both parties have access to guns. Sure not all conflicts ends up with shooting (if nothing else, because robbery is a lesser crime than murder), but the odds of a conflict ending in killing increases.

there is a group, called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), that talks about this inner city trouble a lot: you can find them on youtube and they can easily be googled. they will tell you why their crime rate (and especially murder), has gone up since the "war" started. And again, most of the ones I heard about, are by criminal gangs, not by the local Average joe....the criminal gangs will often attempt to intimidate people, as will those with a criminal bent to them.

also, a bit off topic, but you know who else engages in such behavior? the part about territory aggression and defense? governments do. again, raises that nagging question no one has answered: why do you think they'd do a better job?




The alternative uses are almost entirely squished in between in this debate.

which again, should not even have to matter anyways: if people want weapons to hunt with, fine. if they want it because they feel it makes them safer, fine too. all this fear-mongering isn't going to help one way or another. I don't see why one group should be punished over the fear of the other.


Wallets? You're in the life insurance buissness?

the point I was making was that my attitude on gun control has little to do with American attitudes as a whole--be they the actual opinions, or what you think they are yourself. the "cost in their wallets" was a reference to the waste of money people commit by buying a weapon they have no need of, and will never use. That should have been clear in the context of the part I was replying to: I cannot see how you could have misunderstood that. I'll save the second half--your question, and its insinuation--till the end.



Timothy McVeigh is in another category than the shooters. The shooters would not simply replace it with bombs, since the act of shooting (aka directly taking lives) is a major part of why they do it.

first off, No he isn't--not in terms of his actions: motives, yes, scale? sure, but action, no. I mean, he's a mass murderer, isn't he? so are the people who do the mass shootings/mass murders: both are initiating force against many innocent civilians. OK, so the motive does indeed dictate the method, but again, and this is where the second point comes in:

how does banning or severely restricting firearms in the manner some politicians here in the US intend address the issues these people have, that motivate people like Lanza to go forward with this? especially as, when they don't have guns, they can use other weapons, like knives, or axes, or any variety of personal weapons? the Bath School disaster is case in point (which I did mention): the guy in question had similar motives to Lanza or that Aurora shooter (personal/psychological grievances), as did that one guy who tried to carve people in China this last year. yet neither he nor that guy in China used a firearm. Look, don't get me wrong, you are right that some of these people want the personal experience in all likely hood: but you are wrong in saying that it is preventable by the restriction on guns, or that it even requires the use of firearms, as a personal experience of taking life can be gained with a knife--heck, it's a "better" one in terms of how personal it is. same with swords, axes, hammers, etc.The only thing firearms have over the others really, is that it's the easiest and most convenient thing to use--a point that I made earlier. after-all, you can easily teach an idiot to use a firearm.

And again, you didn't address the fact that if such people want to use a firearm for its sake, they'll inevitably find a way, either legally, or not. Breivik did it, so can anyone else.




Well actual research is forbidden. But existing research does imply that common sense works here. Legal citizens and criminals does share a lot of cultural attitudes.

doesn't mean they share the motivation to commit murder: why conflate the two? unless again, you're implying humans are all psychopaths (which they aren't, and I don't think you mean it: I wish I could say the same about that line up there you made). Which again begs that question I asked about the state's right to monopolize on force. the one I raised repeatedly...and no one has answered.


Not that much kills in the border states. I do wonder why Georgia is such a cop killer state though.


really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ju%C3%A1rez_%28Chihuahua%29)? and it's hardly unique for the border region either. And even if you mean just the cops, so? doesn't change the fact that yes, cops do die there a lot (Mexican and American), and yes, it's largely related to the local cartel.

it's clear to me you didn't even bother to look this part up, or if you did, you misunderstood--otherwise, you wouldn't have said something this...wrong...and yes, it's wrong, sorry, but there's no other way of putting it.

and yes, Georgia is a "cop-killer"...and? Texas (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/law-enforcement-fatality-rates-by-state.html) has more lax gun laws, and it has a lower rate. See, I can play the correlation-causation fallacy game too....Also, not all the deaths listed in the main sources are from shootings (http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/causes.html): many die of illness, auto-accidents, and the like. shootings are still the main cause, yes, but the statistics I've seen don't say who has the highest rate because of shootings proper. For all I know, it's because Georgians can't drive squat, and all the murders are in California! they aren't obviously, but without further info, you can't just blame the death rate in Georgia on the guns. And again, you're ignoring the fact that murders are committed by use of guns, simply because it's the most convenient way to do it throughout the Americas--regardless of policy.

Also, one thing that is missing but cogent to what I said: where in the states? if it's in the cities or along the border, I'm not terribly surprised: Atlanta and Savannah are hubs of transportation, so I can see the crime there being high--including against cops. Helps Georgia is dirt poor, so there is a greater incentive to turn to crime.


So you say that it's the gun attitude that is the underlying problem (with gun regulation as a patching, unless it influences the attitude).

no, I'm not saying that--that you'd confuse a physical, legal, and economic factors with a cultural/mental one (the attitude people here supposedly have), is a mystery (and yes, there is a subtle difference). In fact, you should have known this, as I showed how it can potentially happen in Britain, should it have similar circumstances to those in the US (which it doesn't have).

In fact, I explicitly stated why there are so many criminals here doing what they do, and the way they do it: our laws here create a black market for various things (notably drugs), which encourages the rise of a black market (with gangs). the fact that guns are available (through legal means or the black market, means that they will use them to repel rivals, or (as the police have guns) to get the police out of the way. We also happen to be next to the source of the "illicit" drugs. note that this has little to do with cultural attitudes: Latin America has a different attitude to Gun control than the US, and yet we see the same exact problem (the gangs), using the same methods (shooting each other, among other things). It certainly doesn't help that the US is the number 1 source of demand.


So how do you handle the underlying problem? Personally I would give the monpoly of violence as an example.


well, in case you missed what I was implying, for starters, I would end drug prohibition--all of it: we need to put the trade in the hands of the free market--let legal businesses and vendors deal in the drugs. that would eliminate a good deal of many of these gang's "raison d'etre". similarly--and God forgive me for this, for I wish only to save lives--I'd end bans on prostitution, "illegal" gambling, and just about anything that has created a black market here where gangs and other criminals have a toe-hold in, which involve violence. basically, do what was done in 1933 vis a vis alcohol.

I'd also change the jail system (which acts as a uni for crime really over here), fix the immigration policy, legalize research into violence as a whole (not just "gun violence"). I'd also implement (or repeal) policies regarding conditions in the inner cities (which of the options depending on what the effects are), so that they can be more self-sufficient, and less crime ridden. that would involve changes in the economic policy, such as to encourage investments in the crime-ridden regions. the end of these prohibitions would of course create more openings and job opportunities--only it won't require a pistol. These can be done starting at the municipal level too, with little input from the Federal government, which frankly, should keep it's involvement to a minimum: it's not like some guy in Washington DC is going to know the goings on of downtown Seattle or Houston in sufficient Detail to make all the decisions themselves.

that alone could undercut the crime rate more than you realize--including violence by firearm. you know, considering that many or most crimes here are tied to the above?

Now, if the crime rate is enormously high even afterwards (considering that the effects will naturally take time to fully materialize, one way or another), then we an see about regulating guns in a manner as strict as some people are suggestion.

as to the mass shooters like Lanza and the Aurora shooter? again, we need a better understanding of what drives them to this: it's clear that they have or had pent issues even before the shootings, and understanding them would help us identify warning signs (at least potentially).


*where for example, dosages can be monitored, addicts can be spotted, and treated--not thrown in jail.




As to that other part--that "question of yours' that I saved till now, as it has little bearing to the argument itself: frankly, I don't appreciate the implication of what you say, and I find it extremely inappropriate--especially as I said nothing to you or anyone here to warrant this.

no, I don't want an apology, nor expect one: I can take an insult anyways.

[Beskar]

how does in effect, decreeing that only the state should have a monopoly on force/violence, actually solve the problem we are facing? how does it take the crime (and guns) off the streets, and into honest hands (which according to you, would be Government)?

and what about wars? or when the government turns on the people? then how does your "solution" work?

you see why I have a problem with the concept? yes, in practice it is true, but it doesn't mean I have to philosophically agree with it. The implications are, as I told HoreTore, very disturbing, at least to me. I can at least say that he was consistent.


I have to be perfectly honest here. In order to have state sanctioned violence, you need to be in an environment where such violence is fostered or even supported. People who would be wielding the weapons would not simply be drones. They are people as well, they would be having their weapons targeted at their friends and family. Could you easily say if you were ordered, you would shoot upon your friends?

The issue is not a question of "evil governments!" it is more about the people upholding the system and the principles they enshire. The time America ends up shipping people to NWO detention centres is not the time they take away your guns, it is the time for when there is popular support for them to put people in detention centres.

The problem with these scenarios is that they dehumanise the 'other'. You are apparently in a minority where only the select few care and the rest are going to impose their tyranical will upon you the moment you lock your gun away in its cabinet.

[Ironside]

how does in effect, decreeing that only the state should have a monopoly on force/violence, actually solve the problem we are facing? how does it take the crime (and guns) off the streets, and into honest hands (which according to you, would be Government)?

and what about wars? or when the government turns on the people? then how does your "solution" work?

you see why I have a problem with the concept? yes, in practice it is true, but it doesn't mean I have to philosophically agree with it. The implications are, as I told HoreTore, very disturbing, at least to me. I can at least say that he was consistent.

It's a concept that needs practical applications. Mexico is an example on a state losing the monopoly on violence (the older, mostly redundant in the west version even).

If very few criminals have guns, then the police doesn't need to be defending themselves against guns often, further reducing the risk of gun violence.

Wars and forceful goverment oppression are rather outside the scope. Which can be seen by the effictiveness of the handgun/shotgun militia. They are not good tools for war. So that is needing a different approach.


How? OK, so people here (ideally) have the right to defend themselves with a firearm (just to be clear here: you do realize the difference between that and a blanket "gun" culture, right?), if they wish. how does that make the same people more violent? It's the same argument I hear about video games, from those at the capitol. I'm dead serious, let me paraphrase:

Population A has 1% gun users -> 1% gun using criminals.

Population B has 15% gun users -> 15% gun using criminals.

If they behave exactly the same, population B will have much higher gun use (good and bad). In video game terms: If more people own shooter games and have exactly the same behavior as the smaller group, the total number of people shot in games will increase. If more people play Black Ops II MP, more players will die, unless the larger playerbase would cause a huge shift in behavior.

So the question isn't that I say that people with guns become devils, it's why you expect them to become angels. I expect them to stay mostly the same. The big difference is the number of people willing to use guns for self defense/offense.


of course, all this raises a question, which has yet been answered, having been raised before: "if you can't trust people to own firearms as they wish within the framework of the law, why should you trust the state, when it's staffed by the very same people?"

If lethal mistakes are made, do you prefer 100 or 10.000 people to have the abillity to make those mistakes?


And again, this doesn't actually address why the crime rate is high here in the US, but higher still in Mexico, where some of the proposals made by the gun control camp are part of the law already. It also doesn't address the fact that again, the greatest concentration of gun violence (in fact, all types of violence) in the US And Mexico occurs regardless of the level of regulation on guns.

I might be needing to point this out more clearly. I've been more focused on the consequences of embracing guns for self-defense, compared to treating it as a borderline anathema (as most of the west do). Roughly it gives less gun crimes and gun incidents at the cost of less defense during more extreme events (like Brevik).
Gun regulation (or lack of it) then becomes more on it's influence to cause an attitude shift between these positions rather than it's practical applications in a specfic situation. To put it this way. There's four questions:

Do you prefer gun for self defense or not?
Which way does the above question affect gun crime and gun use?
Does gun regulations have an influence on gun attitude?
What are the best practical applications to reduce gun crimes in the US?

I've got extremely low focus on the last question in this debate, but question 2 and 4 do have overlapping themes, so it's easy to confuse.


which again, should not even have to matter anyways: if people want weapons to hunt with, fine. if they want it because they feel it makes them safer, fine too. all this fear-mongering isn't going to help one way or another. I don't see why one group should be punished over the fear of the other.

It's a normal problem when a smaller question is heavily influenced by a larger one. For example, one very big issue for hunting is the fear of "teh goverment is going to take our guns", since it makes it harder to regulate hunting weapons on the issue of hunting.


the point I was making was that my attitude on gun control has little to do with American attitudes as a whole--be they the actual opinions, or what you think they are yourself. the "cost in their wallets" was a reference to the waste of money people commit by buying a weapon they have no need of, and will never use. That should have been clear in the context of the part I was replying to: I cannot see how you could have misunderstood that. I'll save the second half--your question, and its insinuation--till the end.

I said "no matter the cost" a term usually associated with paying a high price in say blood, rather than the financial cost. I've never talked about how much a gun cost in money. So basically I say it's a cost in blood. You respond by entering an entirely new subject, saying it's a wallet cost, as the only response on that argument.

I say "blood", you respond with "money". No black joke situation there.


The only thing firearms have over the others really, is that it's the easiest and most convenient thing to use--a point that I made earlier. after-all, you can easily teach an idiot to use a firearm.

While not solving the core issue, when the maniacs does use less lethal weapons, they do get less dangerous. I agree that school shootings are by themselves poor issues to form a gun policy from. Frequency might be relevant, although I haven't studied that data enough there (outside that it's unusually common in the US, but I would need data on if guns affect frequency in any way or only lethality).


And again, you didn't address the fact that if such people want to use a firearm for its sake, they'll inevitably find a way, either legally, or not. Breivik did it, so can anyone else.


Has the accessabillity to copyrighted material on the net ever influenced if you downloaded that material or not? I can say yes on this personally, in case you wonder.

Yes, the really extreme hardcore ones will find a way (unless detected) and will be more dangerous by not using guns for self defense, but the vast majority of the criminals won't belong to that category.


really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ju%C3%A1rez_%28Chihuahua%29)? and it's hardly unique for the border region either. And even if you mean just the cops, so? doesn't change the fact that yes, cops do die there a lot (Mexican and American), and yes, it's largely related to the local cartel.

it's clear to me you didn't even bother to look this part up, or if you did, you misunderstood--otherwise, you wouldn't have said something this...wrong...and yes, it's wrong, sorry, but there's no other way of putting it.

Border regions in the US, not Mexico. The problems in Mexico has reached an entirely different scale.


and yes, Georgia is a "cop-killer"...and?

That was actually an honest question, no hidden motives outside curiousity, although hard to see it from context. Poor+transit cities might be enough.


that alone could undercut the crime rate more than you realize--including violence by firearm. you know, considering that many or most crimes here are tied to the above?

Now, if the crime rate is enormously high even afterwards (considering that the effects will naturally take time to fully materialize, one way or another), then we an see about regulating guns in a manner as strict as some people are suggestion.

I'm well aware that the prime crime drivers aren't at all related to gun laws. I agree on some of your points, some are more complex compared how you framed them (like fix immigration) and it's legal to research into violent crimes, as long as it doesn't have anything to do with guns (it's because of some court case the NRA-side won).

We're talking about two different questions though.

Yours is: What would drive down crime in the US (among those are gun crimes)? That is most pragmatic and effective.

Mine is: Would a different view on guns for self defense in the US drive down gun violence and would the crime rate change? Which are a more idealistic question and given that it can give than more guns drives up gun violence, but reduces crime (crime reduction is a common gun proponent suggestion after all), has an idealistic answer rather than a pragmatic one.

[HoreTore]

In order to have state sanctioned violence

"Violence" can be a misleading term here. A prison sentence would be an example of state violence. It's not just about what one normally considers "violence", ie. actual fighting(which is something a civilized state really shouldn't be doing).

[ICantSpellDawg]

I approve of the 3 tiered safe communities act with the Manchin-Toomey amendment attached. I am in favor of background checks which assist sellers in determining whether they are selling to a felon or the seriously mentally I'll. Anyone selling or giving a gun to someone who doesn't know the person well should be required to run the check. I also like the state carry reciprocity component for permit holders who undergo background checks every 5 years.

I hope the bill skates by, as is with no further amendments. Eternal turd, Mike Bloomberg is probably also on board. We are ready for compromise, let's vote.

Background checks are an abridgement of our second amendment rights, the AWB and mag bans are an infringement. Guess which ones are not allowed?

[Papewaio]

I don't understand how it is an abridgement?

Surely mental health forms part of the security of a state.

I'd add a checky amendment to this law. Anyone who fails a mental health check gets free access to medical treatment... Along the lines of "if you can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you".

Best to not only remove some of the tools but to treat the root cause.

[Montmorency]

Surely mental health forms part of the security of a state.

Excellent: it is inevitable that states shall act successfully to modify the character of the "mental" to further their own security.

:smitten:

[HopAlongBunny]

Excellent: it is inevitable that states shall act successfully to modify the character of the "mental" to further their own security.

:smitten:

The distribution of Valium and Prozac to the populace ought to be the first order of business then; guns are unnecessary.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Abridgements are not prohibited unless they become infringements. Since the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the right of the people to defend themselves from foreign and domestic threats or an abusive federal government and is implied to be related to the "militia", it would be an infringement to ban arms in the common use. This would extend to the magazines as well. It is merely an abridgement to regulate who is capable to keep and bear arms, and a necessary one in my opinion that should only exclude a small portion of prospective buyers for their inability to safely or lawfully use them.

[Papewaio]

A mentally ill person with a firearm is a threat to safety both general and their own.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It depends on how you describe mentally I'll. Some would like to consider Republicans and people who are religious as mentally I'll. Others would take the approach that people who are gay or liberal are mentally I'll. If you leave it to DSM only, people who at one time suffered from depression or have ocd have or had a mental illness.

Serious mental illness should be adjudicated and be able to be appealed prior to or shortly thereafter the elimination of a basic civil right.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm super excited by this result. Although I am a casualty in this war against bad laws as I live in NY, I feel like a 40/60 vote against assault weapon bans and a 46/54 vote against magazine bans is a real leap forward. I'm not happy that background checks for all commercial transactions failed, but the House will construct something short and sweet to cover themselves and bring this sensible evolution into law, I hope. One casualty of the cloture motion was the vote against reciprocity, but this was a compromise defeat.

Bloomberg can feel free to clobber democrats in swing states over this. They will lose their primaries to harder left democrats and than lose in the general to Republicans. I've heard some crazy vitriol from Democrats on this issue, wishing that the Senator's who vote against this bill have their own children killed in the next attack. That is horrible, not simply because these bills would not have done anything to eliminate the weapons used by the Sandy Hook shooter. His mother would have still been a lawful owner of the firearms, he still would have been able to kill her for them and run his insane rampage. To wish death on people who don't believe that without gun control all of our children our dead meat is insane.

[Lemur]

So the Congress couldn't pass an expansion of background checks. Which 90% of the public supports.

And ICSD is "super excited by this result."

And to think just a month ago there were people on this board who seemed to seriously believe that if we didn't fight super-duper-hard, massive gun control would occur. And freedom would perish, and Glenn Beck would take the chosen people to the promised land.

[Papewaio]

His mother was supplying him with weapons. Not something I would classify as smart when you are the nominated caregiver of someone who has a mental disorder.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So the Congress couldn't pass an expansion of background checks. Which 90% of the public supports.

And ICSD is "super excited by this result."

And to think just a month ago there were people on this board who seemed to seriously believe that if we didn't fight super-duper-hard, massive gun control would occur. And freedom would perish, and Glenn Beck would take the chosen people to the promised land.

Remember, I'm part of the 90% who supports background checks for ALL sales of firearms. I just don't want to be a felon if I lose the paperwork. The ToomeyManchin bill went down because people want short. That amendment was longer than the bill. I supported it, but warily

BTW, try buying a gun online. If it comes from anywhere out of your state it MUST first be transferred to an ffl and, while you've already paid, you must pass the NICs check. By all means, though, close any sales loopholes

[drone]

So the Congress couldn't pass an expansion of background checks. Which 90% of the public supports.
Not Congress, the (D)Senate. While the AWB deserved to die, universal background checks should have at least gotten to the House.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Once again, Democrats waste their political clout with gun control.

[Major Robert Dump]

I love how towards the end there the argument against closing the gun show loophole suddenly became "criminals don't go to gun shows to by guns" which is practically unprovable if not patently false. If these morons would simply present simple, straightforward legislation things might get done. Instead we get these monstrosity bills with pet laws for every tom dick and harry.....

[ICantSpellDawg]

Coburn offered them a route to 60 votes, they refused. Most people would back background checks. If you are not related to someone by blood or in law - mandatory background check, sale or gift. They could advise you to keep the records, but no felony or misdemeanor conviction if you failed to keep the records. Spot checked in event of a report of illegal transfer. Throw in carry reciprocity (which received the most votes of any amendment) and it is a done deal.

This could have gotten through and failed due to entrenched democratic interests. Rand Paul would have voted for it and wed be in a better place than we are now.

[Lemur]

This could have gotten through and failed due to entrenched democratic interests.
Yes, if there's one thing we have learned in the last four years, it's that the "entrenched democratic interests" prevent all forms of compromise. Damn those dirty Dems and their inability to meet anyone halfway! Damn them all to heck!

I bet the NRA was all, "We'd love to meet people halfway and do something sensible," and then the dirty hippie Dems slapped them across the face. I just BET that's what happened.

-edit-

Below is what Sen. Mitch McConnell posted on his FB page (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=552665124756002&set=a.454617221227460.101200.259130650776119&type=1) this morning. SO YOU SEE? He was all about compromise and common-sense improvement of gun law, and the Dems were all evil and nasty and inflexible. That's really what happened, no, for reals.

https://i.imgur.com/6FKKais.jpg

[drone]

Yes, if there's one thing we have learned in the last four years, it's that the "entrenched democratic interests" prevent all forms of compromise. Damn those dirty Dems and their inability to meet anyone halfway! Damn them all to heck!

If there's one thing we've learned in the last twelve years, it's that Democrats in Congress are spineless cowards more worried about keeping their seats than doing the right thing.

[Lemur]

If there's one thing we've learned in the last twelve years, it's that Democrats in Congress are spineless cowards more worried about keeping their seats than doing the right thing.
Sorry man, I don't see the logic of spinning this as the fault of the Dems. 90%+ of the Dems voted in favor of the background check expansion; 90%+ of the Repubs sided with the filibuster. So ... clearly it's the spineless Dems' fault? Explain, please.

[drone]

Sorry man, I don't see the logic of spinning this as the fault of the Dems. 90%+ of the Dems voted in favor of the background check expansion; 90%+ of the Repubs sided with the filibuster. So ... clearly it's the spineless Dems' fault? Explain, please.

The bills weren't going to pass the House anyway, so I'm not really placing specific "fault" here on the Senate. But once it became obvious that the GOP senators were going to block everything out of spite (and it should have been obvious by 2011), they should have gone nuclear and eliminated the silent filibuster. The spinelessness of the Dems in both houses goes back to the Bush years, and they still act as though they are the minority.

And GC is right about the Republican vote. You can't really blame them, it's just their nature.

[Beskar]

Sorry man, I don't see the logic of spinning this as the fault of the Dems. 90%+ of the Dems voted in favor of the background check expansion; 90%+ of the Repubs sided with the filibuster. So ... clearly it's the spineless Dems' fault? Explain, please.

And this is why Republicans should lose all their seats for timewasting. Either vote for the measure, vote against the measure, or abstain. Not hold up government till the end of time with filibusters.

[Lemur]

And this is why Republicans should lose all their seats for timewasting.
I am reminded of an essay (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-fadingconservative-brand/) by a former Republican on the current state of the party:

We could argue, and should argue, over what the policies of conservative government should be today; that’s not my point in this blog entry. My point here is that there is no creative ferment on the Right, no breathing space, few places where new ideas can emerge. All the energy on the Right seems aimed at hunting down the heretics within. That, and making life as hard as possible for the opposition, not because they have something better in mind, but as an end in itself.

[Papewaio]

If you have a registered firearm you can:
Sell it as long as you provide the papers
Get house contents insurance for its loss or theft.
Get personal insurance for its misuse, misfire or other accident.

If you don't have it registered
No selling of it.
No fine for not registering it.
No house contents insurance on it
Higher premiums for its misuse
Print your own comes under this category unless it is a licensed manufacturer.

I'd also add an amnesty period for selling/ buying to register.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Stay in Australia where you belong.

Constitutional issues should get a filibuster every time. 60 votes to take away peoples rights isn't too much to ask.
Hey, they had the opportunity to get rid of the filibuster in January. They didn't. The Democrats hold the Senate because of tacit agreements that they made by supporting guys like Tester, Donnelly, Heidtkamp, Pryor, Begich, Manchin, etc. Obama never has to run again and just won the 2012 so he decided that the coalition was no longer necessary. Great. If you think that 2A supporters are going to fall for the truce again, you are mistaken.

You guys can gnash your teeth at this. I feel like this was hard fought. I've sent hundreds and hundreds of letters over the past 5 months, did you? Call and speak with your state and house reps? Never stopped engaging friends and family? Reading the bills?

You all knew that the small segment of sales that take place without a background check had nothing to do with the excuse for the entire push, right? Constituents asked themselves - "what does this bill and all of this sanctimony have to do with the reason that this issue is in front of us in the first place?". the answer clear to everyone is - nothing

Almost everyone likes the idea of background checks for all sales, but the simple question was; if I don't have the paperwork for some reason, even in the event that I did the NICS - am I a felon? Is that a misdemeanor, violation? Am I legally responsible if the gun is used in a crime? It may not mean anything to you guys, if you don't buy or sell guns, but it means alot to people who do.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The NRA is me. I am a part of it. They tell us not to compromise, we think that might not be successful and want to compromise like normal humans. They prevent us - we win. They knew better.
The idea is not to do gun reform while the Democrats control more than 1 area of government or when the nation is reeling and grasping at action due to tragedy. Only pass laws when the ground is favorable, shoot them down when it is not. Compromise when you have the upper hand, refuse discussions when you don't.

Tough negotiators do that. The proof is in the pudding and we had a victory because our particular lobby is strong. The NRA and gun lobby has proved that it is a core interest of the GOP and that they are not to be ignored in the Democratic party. Time to regroup and plan the next battle in the courts. As long as the 2A is in the Constitution, courts will almost never overturn the laws we write and often overturn the laws you write. We can lobby for positive reforms, the American people are on board with them.

[Papewaio]

Stay in Australia where you belong.

Internatonal Forum :). So expect international commentary. When American bullets don't kill overseas tourists who are visiting the US I will happily shut up :smoking:



Almost everyone likes the idea of background checks for all sales, but the simple question was; if I don't have the paperwork for some reason, even in the event that I did the NICS - am I a felon? Is that a misdemeanor, violation? Am I legally responsible if the gun is used in a crime? It may not mean anything to you guys, if you don't buy or sell guns, but it means alot to people who do.

My international response was it should not effect ownership. It should effect commerical selling. So print your own, inheritance and what you have shouldn't be a felony it should be a right.

The state should only be involved in transfer of firearms and where possible it should be more to see that criminals aren't procuring them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why do you support the NRA? I'm a responsible gun-owner and I still think they're the devil incarnate (okay, maybe not that bad.. but close). Like any special interest group of that caliber, they are motivated by money more than anything else. Part of the reason we can't have rational discussions on gun control is because the NRA pushed for legislation that prevented proper research into the issue (not unlike what Big Tobacco used to do...) while simultaneously urging their members to jerk their knees every time someone even suggests it. I would happily support an interest group (because they're not all bad) that wanted to preserve gun rights in a more rational way, but the NRA are just ignorance peddlers. They laugh all the way to the bank about this stuff.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The NRA gets results. Every special interest should be so lucky. If you measure an interest by the results and give credit accordingly, credit is due to the NRA.
You have bought into Obama's America narrative hook, line, sinker and should be better than that. What makes them any more money hungry than the people who work at the DNC? The RNC? Major corporations?

This debate has radicalized me further. I started out by wanting to compromise, saw the bad faith of the opposition first hand in NY and decided that they were too clever to work with and that we had to defeat them here. I like reasonable ideas. I want background checks on all transfers of firearms, but I don't want to be prosecuted on technicality or for the government to have any more information about our guns. In NY, you don't own your guns. The government has the right to confiscate any guns it finds if it believes that you are questionable - without warrant or any adjudication. Trust us in NY that see the political whims of government up-close. You should know that they don't believe that anyone should own guns. They are just biding their time.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Internatonal Forum :). So expect international commentary. When American bullets don't kill overseas tourists who are visiting the US I will happily shut up :smoking:



My international response was it should not effect ownership. It should effect commerical selling. So print your own, inheritance and what you have shouldn't be a felony it should be a right.

The state should only be involved in transfer of firearms and where possible it should be more to see that criminals aren't procuring them.

You want to see gun ownership responsibly wound down, even among otherwise law abiding citizens because you never know. I don't. I believe that it is inevitable that we print our guns and that the world is about to see an explosion in proliferation of weapons over the next 20 years. Background checks are part of the future, but must be done correctly. Registration is the enemy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well its never a sign that this is going to end with both of us coming to an understanding when you start your post off with 'You have no idea what you are talking about.' Athough.. I suppose it may be a sign that I hit a nerve. Nobody likes to hear they've been duped, and I say you've been duped.

What makes you think I'm a big fan of Obama? He hasn't done half the things I wanted him to do, and he's wasted his political capital doing things I really don't care about. As for the people who work at the DNC, RNC, and major Corporations? Most of them suffer from a serious lack of ethics too.

I've just signed up with the NRA, GOA and NYSRPA. I wasn't convinced, now I'm convinced. It's $25 bucks a year, you get a little buck-knife a magazine subscription and they initiate legal proceedings against the opposition and win. what more do you want? I say "you have no idea what you are talking about" because you don't understand that effective workers don't have to agree with you or care about anything more than the money you are paying them to be talented and get results. We pay, they get results. Stop criticizing everything and stand for something. I don't know if I've ever read that you support anything, just criticism. I don't find the GOP or NRA to be worthless idiots. I see value in them. I would like to see them reform in certain areas to make them more effective at getting what I want, but they are the good guys on the things that I care about and work towards.

Do I think filling in the NICS requirement loopholes is a bad idea? No, it sounds like a decent idea. do I think it will do anything to reduce the gun homicide rate or reduce the likelihood and body count of the next mass shooting? No, because it didnt have anything to do with the last 4 that I can think of.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Idealism often clouds judgement. I'm an idealist and spiteful enough to do the wrong thing when my agenda is under fire. Cold, calculating, talent is sometimes needed, particularly when the opposition is passionate and spraying emotions all over themselves.

I care very little about money. I don't make much of it, I don't have expensive hobbies and I never want to own a house or an expensive car. I do like guns, politics, principles, and many other theoretical concepts. If I can give what little money that I have to someone who cares about money and gets me real results, I'm in.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Idealism is bad when it turns into Dogma, yes. But so is Pragmatism when it turns into a cover for outright selfishness. You edited it out, but you had a great little blurb up there a few minutes ago about me never supporting anything and always criticizing. Well, here's what I support: People being better than they are. All of them. Always. Nobody's perfect, but we're a hell of a lot better than this. :shrug:

I didn't edit it out! Those are empty platitudes, btw. So, maybe you support empty platitudes?

[Papewaio]

You want to see gun ownership responsibly wound down, even among otherwise law abiding citizens because you never know. I don't. I believe that it is inevitable that we print our guns and that the world is about to see an explosion in proliferation of weapons over the next 20 years. Background checks are part of the future, but must be done correctly.

Not quite. I want locally in Aus stricter gun laws. For the US I want better access for responsible owners, ability to print their own etc. For irresponsible operators I would like to see higher barriers to access, training and mental health checks.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not quite. I want locally in Aus stricter gun laws. For the US I want better access for responsible owners, ability to print their own etc. For irresponsible operators I would like to see higher barriers to access, training and mental health checks.

I want select fire, unregistered guns in every home in Australia. But, you know, you can have background checks to buy them, if you aren't printing them yourself. Your opinions affect my rights, so lets bring that idea home to you. The issue is - who decides who is irresponsible? I don't want irresponsible people to own guns either, but I wont give the authorization button to a guy like Bloomberg, who doesn't believe anyone should carry a knife over 3 inches.
"over 50? you could go senile!"
"Diabetes? What if your sugars go too high!?"
"18-21? arn't you a bit too young to own a firearm?"
"neighbors don't feel safe? gun free neighborhood"

Just, fair, and common sense oppression

[ICantSpellDawg]

Empty Platitudes? Not really. I want a just and fair system, not a plutocracy.

Platitudes. Anyway, I'm begin to troll people, so I will bow out. for now...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Show me the mass-shooting where the firearm wasn't purchased by the perp using a NICS check. Show me one instance of mass death that would have been prevented by one of the laws proposed. Maybe I'm missing it. Then we can resume the gnashing and criticizing. Doesn't mean filling the loopholes isn't a good idea, but the overreaction is priceless. None of these people procured using the loopholes.

Psychiatric Dr's are not prohibited from alerting authorities if they believe that a patient is an immediate threat. This is the current law everywhere.
I cannot buy a gun online from anyone outside of the State of NY without undergoing a NICS background check at a local FFL. This is the current law everywhere.
Any individual or store who is in the business of selling firearms at a gun-show must provide a background check. If you regularly sell firearms, you must run the check. This is the current law everywhere.
If you are a violent felon, a regular user of a controlled substance or have been adjudicated mentally defective or were recently committed- you have committed a felony by handling a firearm. This is the current law everywhere.

If the Toomey-Manchin law was passed, would there still be loopholes? Yep. How about the Reid bill unammended. Still loopholes? Yep.

[Papewaio]

I want select fire, unregistered guns in every home in Australia. But, you know, you can have background checks to buy them, if you aren't printing them yourself. Your opinions affect my rights, so lets bring that idea home to you. The issue is - who decides who is irresponsible? I don't want irresponsible people to own guns either, but instead of give the authorization button to a guy like Bloomberg, who doesn't believe anyone should carry a knife over 3 inches.

True. We can all wish for things. There are foreign lobbyists in Washington and Canberra.

My wish for registration would end at resale and insurance. For the US which is cultural similar in some areas but drastically different in others I believe individuals should have the right to self arm, manufacture, print and bear arms to their hearts content. Frankly it isn't the firearm that needs to be checked, its the person. My reasoning for registration on selling firearms is not to limit their sale but to limit faulty weapon sales and selling to criminals. I start from the position that everyone is innocent and responsible. The grey/gray area is keeping full access for responsible operators vs not responsible ones (lack of training, mentally ill or felons).

[ICantSpellDawg]

True. We can all wish for things. There are foreign lobbyists in Washington and Canberra.

My wish for registration would end at resale and insurance. For the US which is cultural similar in some areas but drastically different in others I believe individuals should have the right to self arm, manufacture, print and bear arms to their hearts content. Frankly it isn't the firearm that needs to be checked, its the person. My reasoning for registration on selling firearms is not to limit their sale but to limit faulty weapon sales and selling to criminals. I start from the position that everyone is innocent and responsible. The grey/gray area is keeping full access for responsible operators vs not responsible ones (lack of training, mentally ill or felons).

Well, then I like your starting point.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I just wanted to point out that the NRA is one of the unhealthiest examples of lobbying gone horribly wrong. Gun Control? Seriously? That's not even important. Lets talk about Citizens United v. FEC, Super PACs, and the triumph of 'pragmatism' over 'idealism' in American politics.

Your problem with the gun lobby special interest group is that they are not a different special interest? I don't follow. They do a good job defending and expanding the right to keep and bear arms - this is their mission. It isnt their job to reduce crime, or enact gay marriage, or de-salinize the middle east. They need to make sure that I can access whatever firearm I can, wherever I am without the government interfering. The brady campaign, citizens for responsible gun rights, mayors against illegal firearms can worry the limits. NRA, GOA - they are the defense and offense of the right and their job is the blast down impediments that even threaten to threaten threatening the right of the people to keep an bear arms.

AND THEY ARE DOING A FANTASTIC JOB! they deserve your credit as someone who doesn't get harassed by governmentfor owning your guns. Without the NRA, GOA, imagine where your rights would be every-time progressives get the bright idea to ignore your rights on this issue.

MAIG, CRGL, Brdy - they are all anti-gun organizations. They aren't for responsible gun laws. they want to ban 10 round AR-15's because they look scary and will come for your glocks for being functionally equivalent if they think that they can get away with it. Take it from me - we have a 7 round magazine limit in NY now which is the "compromise" amount. They wanted (and will eventually probably get) 5 rounds. And after that? You don't really need 5, right? You can reload, and semi-automatics are used on the battlefield, right?

[ICantSpellDawg]

the Anti-gun lobby will use anything to hammer gun owners/manufacturers with lawsuits. The gun lobby has learned a number of things from the tobacco lobby - what not to let happen. I'm not part of the tobacco loby because it is chemically addictive and makes people ill. The gun lobby is not equivalent. no ciggarete has ever saved a life, they don't win wars, help arrest criminals, protect your home and property and loved ones. False equivalence.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, of course. A lobby is a group of people with a common interest. I don't "oppose" the tobacco industry, I support individuals rights to make their own decision. I am skeptical about a product that stacks the deck and creates a chemical dependence, hence I don't "support" the tobacco lobby, I take a more neutral approach. I do support the firearms lobby because they support the citizens rights lobby. We have a mutual interest.

I oppose the gay marriage lobby but support the "keep the government out of my bedroom" lobby. You can decide strategically what you support in order to effect the changes you want.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm glad that they make so much money, it keeps them in the game. The reality is that if Google didn't make so much money from content creation arising from questionable online copyright issues, they probably wouldn't be fighting for our rights as hard and SOPA/PIPA would be the law of the land. We are merely pawns in the game. nobody cares about us. We form groups because there is strength in number. Emotions get carried away, creating a sense of cameraderie, but the reality is that everyone is in it for themselves. Sometimes, in order to look just and fair and thus show potential allies that you are willing to put skin in the game, you do things that don't directly benefit you. But, boy-oh-boy, does that benefit you later when people give you credit for being so principled and selfless. Smart politicians invest in the short term and long term.

I think that you are naive about why anyone does anything. Or maybe I am. And I think that you should probably stop smoking or cut back, because it is a stupid idea. But I would defend your right to do it, just not with everything I've got because you have a chemical dependence.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that the idea that everybody just wants to harmonize is a bunch of bunk. As I regularly say, this is a total war forum. Harmony and Chaos are human natures. I would hate a world where everyone is just blowing each other and dancing around in hemp underwear. Strife and fighting make the world interesting. So does vegetable gardening, but I digress.

people are 90% selfish and 10% dumb and confused enough to do altruistic things.


I would hazard a guess that that's partly because you have a lot more invested in the status quo than I do. I gain nothing from rich people getting richer. I gain nothing from a spineless government that is happy to be manipulated by those who don't need the help. My interest is in a better system.

It really is selfless that all of these poor and disenfranchised people want to do "the right thing" and take wealthy peoples stuff for their own gain. It's all a bunch of hoey. Poor peopel are just trying to get richer and rich people are trying to stay rich. I'm just a monkey wrench launcher who likes to disrupt populist impulses. I derive pleasure from attacking the majority opinion and making sanctimonious liberals and their idea of "inevitability" frustrated.

[LittleGrizzly]

I used to be very anti gun.

To be honest my policy has completely changed, for America at the very least.

The genie is out of the bottle and with organisations like the NRA it is not going back in, even without them you probably couldn't do it the way modern America is.

Arm everyone, train everyone (everyone does exclude those proven to be mentally unstable or a criminal, children probably require it just as much, if not more than everyone else) make sure everyone knows how to use their gun quickly and effectively.

I imagine the average criminal for various reasons (element of surprise, probably better physical shape, more likely at peak physical ages) would have the advantage over regular people but if you have enough people shooting back at the guy even a few bad shots might have one get lucky.

Yes I imagine there will be innocents that get shot by people trying to shoot at bad guys but in the case of the school shooters it would be worth one or two innocents dying at the start to kill the shooter for the lives he would have taken later on....

Background checks for all guns does seem sensible (as to stop the mentally ill and criminals) but to me most things outside of that are pretty much window dressing.

If I am shooting at a bunch of unarmed school children the size of the clip doesn't really matter too much if it is a reduction from say 10 to 5. If I as a shooter cared that much I would practice my reloading and I am sure with repetition I could get it down to a pretty low time...

As a numbers game I think it only really works for school shooters and the like, in terms of going into a shop and demanding the money is handed over there is probably much more risk of innocents getting hurt in the gunned up society but as the guns are not going anywhere why punish the shop keeper?

The criminal has a nice selection with the only limitations being what can be stolen/imported (or bought legally) whilst the shopkeeper is confounded by all sorts of rules...

Sorry for not being more specific on the topic but I guess that is my take on guns in the USA.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Spoken like someone who hasn't seen very much strife and fighting.


Edit

[ICantSpellDawg]

Background checks for all guns does seem sensible (as to stop the mentally ill and criminals) but to me most things outside of that are pretty much window dressing.
.

I think that this post shows a good understanding of the issue.

[Beskar]

You want to know what is an actual affront to peoples liberty and freedoms which did get passed and wasn't filibustered, and even Obama got jeered at but will hopefully going to Veto it.

Cispa.

Talk about screwed up priorities.

[LittleGrizzly]

It is okay, you can march on the federal buildings brandishing your 2nd amendment protected weaponry (my spell check and google both agree on this spelling but it just doesn't look right to me) to stop the government turning your country into big brother!

That is the point of them after all.

~;)

[drone]

You want to know what is an actual affront to peoples liberty and freedoms which did get passed and wasn't filibustered, and even Obama got jeered at but will hopefully going to Veto it.

Cispa.

Talk about screwed up priorities.
CISPA passed the House, which doesn't have a filibuster. It now has to pass the Senate before Obama pulls a psych on his veto like he has done before. ~:rolleyes:

[ICantSpellDawg]

It is okay, you can march on the federal buildings brandishing your 2nd amendment protected weaponry (my spell check and google both agree on this spelling but it just doesn't look right to me) to stop the government turning your country into big brother!

That is the point of them after all.

~;)

I realize. Look at government reaction to the guy in Cali. Do you think that the Federal government as it currently exists could withstand a few thousand Dorners? Small arms ARE an effective hedge against tyranny. Of course, I believe that government is going in the right-ish direction and becoming more transparent, with the help of the droves of people who urge them to open up. This evolution is not certain, and while we have the right to hedge by owning small arms, I believe that we should push the right to the limit. Entrenched interests seek to increase Federal opacity and power and we have to stop them through all available legal channels

I'm not anti government, I believe in government. Living in a world governed by far right extremists or theocrats would be a nightmare. I want the Federal system to work and people to get off of each others backs more often. I want to know where money goes and which politicians are bought and sold on which issues and by whom. Things are better than they've ever been, but we are more aware of how bad they were and could be, so the fever has hit to make sure that we still move in a more open direction. Guns are the great equalizer and powerful guns give otherwise helpless citizens a bargaining chip for when their elected officials give up on the theater of democracy. We must be considered by the elite who govern us. They must know that we have the power to lobby, vote and, if necessary, take the reins back. This sounds radical, but this nation was founded in that way. This is a radical experiment.

[Lemur]

The NRA gets the vast majority of its money (http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1) from manufacturers, not members. Hence its ability to sell cut-rate memberships (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/nra-membership-discounts_n_2481607.html) for months on end. Hence its willingness to go against the will of its members, 74% of whom are in favor of universal background checks.

ICSD, if you think the NRA is working for you, you are deluded. You are one of the 90% of Americans and 74% of NRA members (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512?query=featured_home&) in favor of universal background checks. The fact that you're now reversing yourself on a slim talking point is ... revealing.

On the interesting side, I do believe the NRA and its boot-licking minions in the Republican party have overreached. This will have consequences.

-edit-

Doing a little more reading, looks like the relationship between the NRA and manufacturers is more complicated than I'm making it out to be. Nevertheless, the central point stands: The NRA does not represent its members, but rather a fringe-right extremist policy underwritten by manufacturers, not dues-paying members. Like Republican congressmen in gerrymandered states, the NRA only fears challenges from the right. The 90% of Americans who favor universal background checks are just background noise (http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/102292-why-gun-makers-fear-the-nra) to these extremists. And talking-point parroting drama enthusiasts like ICSD are what Stalin would call "useful idiots."

The companies that make and market firearms might prefer a softer tone, but they rarely complain publicly about NRA fear mongering because it’s been so good for business. Corporate donations to the NRA, which together with its affiliates has annual revenue of $250 million, have risen during the past decade, a period when the organization has taken increasingly absolutist positions. Still, it’s not the industry that muscles the NRA.

“NRA leadership worries about two things above all else: perpetuating controversy to stimulate fundraising from individual members and protecting its right flank from the real crazies,” says Richard Feldman, author of a feisty 2007 memoir, Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist. Feldman has worked in various capacities for both the NRA and the industry. “The idea that the NRA follows orders from the gun companies is a joke,” he says. “If anything, it’s the other way around.” [...]

Gun companies defer to the NRA for two main reasons: First, there’s intimidation. The lobby group has incited potentially ruinous consumer boycotts against firearm makers that fail to follow the NRA line with sufficient zeal. Second, regardless of some executives’ concerns about civil discourse, gun companies benefit financially from the NRA’s hype. Alarms about imminent gun confiscation—an NRA staple, despite its implausibility—reliably send firearm owners back to retail counters. Sales are booming. Mossberg is running three shifts a day. “Demand,” Bartozzi says, “is very strong.”

[ICantSpellDawg]

Double post

[ICantSpellDawg]

The NRA gets the vast majority of its money (http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1) from manufacturers, not members. Hence its ability to sell cut-rate memberships (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/nra-membership-discounts_n_2481607.html) for months on end. Hence its willingness to go against the will of its members, 74% of whom are in favor of universal background checks.

ICSD, if you think the NRA is working for you, you are deluded. You are one of the 90% of Americans and 74% of NRA members (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512?query=featured_home&) in favor of universal background checks. The fact that you're now reversing yourself on a slim talking point is ... revealing.

On the interesting side, I do believe the NRA and its boot-licking minions in the Republican party have overreached. This will have consequences.

-edit-

Doing a little more reading, looks like the relationship between the NRA and manufacturers is more complicated than I'm making it out to be. Nevertheless, the central point stands: The NRA does not represent its members, but rather a fringe-right extremist policy underwritten by manufacturers, not dues-paying members. Like Republican congressmen in gerrymandered states, the NRA only fears challenges from the right. The 90% of Americans who favor universal background checks are just background noise (http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/102292-why-gun-makers-fear-the-nra) to these extremists. And talking-point parroting drama enthusiasts like ICSD are what Stalin would call "useful idiot"


Yea, I'm a useful idiot because I don't think that background checks are the be all end all of our children's security. Not a bad idea, mind you, but your stat is bogus. People like the idea of background checks, that doesn't mean 90% liked the Senate bill or even the compromise. There is false equivalence being peddled by your side.

I like expansive gun rights. I want to own the firearms that are banned in multiple states. There is strength in numbers and I would prefer to side with people who like guns than people who don't. People who forge their own way on everything and can't keep to the common goal lose. The gun control lobby did that in this instance, attacking each others proposals, and they paid for it. BTW, confessions by Feldman is an attack piece against the NRA. He wants to start his own gun organization, presumably so that he can cash into the overflow. If an organization were to exist that opposed the mag limits and awb, but supported universal background checks, I'd join them too.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh, I get it. This is like that moment in the Marijuana thread when rvg's viewpoint also made sense. Yours might actually be worse than his though. You do know you're a Neo-Con right?

What does being a neo-con actually mean to you? Also, what does it have to do with anything in this context?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What are you talking about? None of what you've said follows a rational read of what we are discussing here. Some of what I'm saying makes it sound like I support the Patriot Act?

Are you drunk?

[Lemur]

There is false equivalence being peddled by your side.
I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.


If an organization were to exist that opposed the mag limits and awb, but supported universal background checks, I'd join them too.
But instead you throw in your lot with the extremists, drama queens, and hysterical sky-is-falling panic merchants at the NRA. Bully for you. You are their servant, and you will never be their master. You don't even seem to be clear on who you're really serving. Enjoy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.


But instead you throw in your lot with the extremists, drama queens, and hysterical sky-is-falling panic merchants at the NRA. Bully for you. You are their servant, and you will never be their master. You don't even seem to be clear on who you're really serving. Enjoy.

It means what I think it means. You think support for background checks means support for the Senate Democrats bill (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence). You, and many others, have suggested that support for universal background checks implies a certain way to do them. I disagree, while supporting the idea of universal background checks, I wanted less potential negative outcomes for people who lose the paperwork or were gifting guns to friends and family. I was willing to compromise, democrats wouldn't come the extra few steps and make the deal. They could have had the votes. They only missed it by 2 or 3. They decided not to finish the negotiations. I can't blame them

Its just that the gun lobby and myself might not hate the idea but we don't think it will do much. It was the Senate democrats baby. By not getting background checks we didn't feel like we've lost anything. We are in the same place that we were before. None of the provisions would have prevented the past shootings.

We can start over in the House and push for new gun laws on our terms. Maybe for certain concessions we will add another background checks bill and a trafficking provision in there. Remember, we werent the ones who wanted to rush into this for emotional reasons or hysteria. You guys did. Its a bit disingenuous to suggest that our side is the only wailing, mob mentality, emotional horde on this one

How is it on your high horse, mastering others and getting countless reasonable things done, btw? I do appreciate that blaming the NRA has fit into your busy schedule of blaming the GOP for bad weather and tooth decay.

On the flip side, you were right about how little support the awb and mag limits had in the Senate. I gradually did the count and agreed with you, if you recall.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There certainly is something to be said for politicians playing on peoples' heart-strings too much. The tactic is disingenuous, and people shouldn't put up with it in the political arena where these things are freaking serious. Emotions have no place in logical proceedings.

I blame the media for opening the door on that one. People offer up the parents of victims like they're some kind of evidence. They're not. They're evidence only of the fact that someone got shot, so why the heck is that person on my TV, talking like some kind of freaking expert? We'll never get anywhere as a culture if we think tear-jerking is useful in serious discourse. Or any other kind of emotional manipulation. This is as true for Obama's push on guns as it was for the flag-waving hysteria that led up to the Bush Administration's Patriot Act (which nobody bothered to freaking read anyway). Not trying to equate the two situations, but I'm really freaking tired of people using any excuse to avoid talking about actual, logical, rational facts on the news or in congress.

Here here. The buzz wore off I see. Time to start drinking again. Its too late on a Friday night to be sober

[Lemur]

I was willing to compromise, democrats wouldn't come the extra few steps and make the deal. They could have had the votes. They only missed it by 2 or 3.
Needs citation, as the Wiki folks say. Claiming you "just need a few more concessions" is an age-old Senatorial way of saying "no." Your aw-shucks wide-eyed credulity at every statement made by the NRA is numbing.


None of the provisions would have prevented the past shootings.
Ah, the unknowable assertion that proves everything. This sort of loops back to the "criminals won't abide by laws, so why have laws?" train of nihilistic thought. Background checks make it harder for people with a record to get a gun, in much the same way that having a lock on your car door and a key for the ignition makes it harder for thieves to take your car. If your response to that is, "LOCKS DON'T STOP ALL CAR THEFTS," then all I can say is that you are blissfully disconnected from reality.


We can start over in the House
Oh, right, I'm sure that's going to happen any minute now. The House is really interested in streamlining and cleaning up gun law, that's obvious.



I do appreciate that blaming the NRA has fit into your busy schedule of blaming the GOP for bad weather and tooth decay.
And I appreciate your child-like credulity whenever the NRA opens its mouth. You want to know the sad thing? I'm old enough to remember when the NRA was a respectable organization. Now, frankly, they make the Muslim Brotherhood look like a model of Jeffersonian democracy and compromise.

Jump through whatever rationalizations you need to justify aligning yourself with fundamentalism. For some people, that kind of dualism and daily drama really gets them through the mundane day-to-day. It certainly seems to be working for you; cries of "your side" and "my side" spill trippingly off your lips. You want to know what "my" side is? Pragmatism. Gradualism. Moderation. A recognition that nobody has the magic ideology, the perfect formula, the silver bullet of freedom that makes everything sing with joy.

Universal background checks were politically and practically feasible, unlike the AWB ban, unlike LaPierre's fantasy of armed guards in every school. It was solid middle ground, broadly supported by the public and NRA members. The politicians you support aren't even able to articulate why they shot it down—your froth about how the Senate bill wasn't quite perfect, could not possibly be fixed, and therefore had to be killed (or was forced to die by the wicked, inflexible GUN GRABBERS), man, I'm only hearing that from you. Maybe I need to spend more time trolling the Freeper forums to hear this rhetoric.

The House is not going to introduce a UBC bill, and you know it. The only challenge House Repubs fear is from the right in their gerrymandered districts. They have ZERO reason to introduce a moderate, practical bill. And you appear to be hallucinating from the fumes of talking points you inhaled too quickly.

[Greyblades]

And while we're all clawing our throats out over guns the spawn-of-sopa: CISPA is sailing through under the radar. The Bawling over a small bruise to the second amendment is drowning out the screams of the first's murder.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This sort of loops back to the "criminals won't abide by laws, so why have laws?" train of nihilistic thought. Background checks make it harder for people with a record to get a gun, in much the same way that having a lock on your car door and a key for the ignition makes it harder for thieves to take your car. If your response to that is, "LOCKS DON'T STOP ALL CAR THEFTS," then all I can say is that you are blissfully disconnected from reality..

I reject the line of thought that background checks are unnecessary because criminals won't abide them. You are swinging at windmills on this assertion as far as I am concerned. Background checks are a good idea, Period. I accept many NRA suggestions, but on the balance this one doesnt hold up and I am on the side that Background checks are a helpful abridgement of our rights that are permissable because they don't restrict law abiding citizens from owning firearms.




And I appreciate your child-like credulity whenever the NRA opens its mouth. You want to know what "my" side is? Pragmatism. Gradualism. Moderation. A recognition that nobody has the magic ideology, the perfect formula, the silver bullet of freedom that makes everything sing with joy.

Universal background checks were politically and practically feasible, unlike the AWB ban, unlike LaPierre's fantasy of armed guards in every school. It was solid middle ground, broadly supported by the public and NRA members. The politicians you support aren't even able to articulate why they shot it down—your froth about how the Senate bill wasn't quite perfect, could not possibly be fixed, and therefore had to be killed (or was forced to die by the wicked, inflexible GUN GRABBERS), man, I'm only hearing that from you. Maybe I need to spend more time trolling the Freeper forums to hear this rhetoric.

The House is not going to introduce a UBC bill, and you know it. The only challenge House Repubs fear is from the right in their gerrymandered districts. They have ZERO reason to introduce a moderate, practical bill. And you appear to be hallucinating from the fumes of talking points you inhaled too quickly.


On your second attempt to insult me personally - that I am a child-like, fume inhaling, hallucinating, idiot. All words which you have used to describe me directly here. I have not used these types of words with you, instead using words like "sanctimonious".
Also.
You imply that I was personally against the Toomy-Manchin compromise. False. I've posted my support of it on this very forum in this very thread days before the vote. I challenge you to find evidence to the contrary.
You imply that I am against background checks. False. I am in favor of them and have said so multiple times in multiple venues to which you have access for months now.

My disagreements with the Manchin-Toomey bill were not sufficient to end my support of the compromise or the bill including the compromise. I supported the bill in this very thread days prior to the vote.

In the end, the balance of my allies on this issue did not feel as though it adequately protected the rights of citizens (Not all of my allies rejected it; ie Collins, King, Donelly, McCain, Manchin, Toomey, etc) I can see the logic in this suggestion after reading the bill language, although I disagreed and would have prefered passage.

I am sure that I've personally insulted you in the past, but not in this thread. My position on these issues is unashamedly extreme, but more often than not "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". My type of extremism accepts compromise and discusses issues with opponents.
Do I mourn the failure of this bill? No. Did I cheerlead its total failure? No.

You make me sound like al-qaeda.

[Montmorency]

What you don't seem to realize is that ICSD is himself a fundamentalist of the most extreme and fanatical sort, so of course he will support moderate measures only grudgingly and with a sneer, of course he'll shake your hand over compromise even as he watches like a leering wolf for any opportunity to pull his snub-nosed revolver out of its back-holster and aim...

Are you honestly surprised that, in victory, the villain reveals his true colors, Lemur?

Hitler widely proclaimed that his intention was to destroy democracy - he accomplished his goal.

ICSD has widely proclaimed that his desire is to see gun-control legislation rolled back to the point where buying a weapon is easier than buying candy, and the entire world is utterly awash with firearms (perhaps to an even greater extent than Syria?). It is your job to fight him at every step, Lemur. Complacency and forbearance are just the traits this pit-dog has got his eye out for. Be prepared to defend yourself and your ideals, or he'll tear you apart.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What you don't seem to realize is that ICSD is himself a fundamentalist of the most extreme and fanatical sort, so of course he will support moderate measures only grudgingly and with a sneer, of course he'll shake your hand over compromise even as he watches like a leering wolf for any opportunity to pull his snub-nosed revolver out of its back-holster and aim...

Are you honestly surprised that, in victory, the villain reveals his true colors, Lemur?

Hitler widely proclaimed that his intention was to destroy democracy - he accomplished his goal.

ICSD has widely proclaimed that his desire is to see gun-control legislation rolled back to the point where buying a weapon is easier than buying candy, and the entire world is utterly awash with firearms (perhaps to an even greater extent than Syria?). It is your job to fight him at every step, Lemur. Complacency and forbearance are just the traits this pit-dog has got his eye out for. Be prepared to defend yourself and your ideals, or he'll tear you apart.

The Hitler comparison, the "fundamentalist of the most extreme sort". This one has it all. I've made my intentions extremely clear here.

I support background checks for all sales (degree here is the question)
I support no small arms limit on the types of firearms that an individual who passes a background check can own.
I am in favor of "shall-issue" permit for carry handgun owners
I am amenable to "shall-issue" permitting for owners of more theoretically dangerous firearms (ie, selective-fire, high capacity semi-auto)
I am opposed to registration of firearms.

[Lemur]

Background checks are a good idea, Period.
And yet you have aligned yourself with (and credulously repeat the talking points of) people who are dead set against those checks. Your behavior is interesting.


insult me personally - that I am a child-like, fume inhaling, hallucinating, idiot.
I said your "credulousnesss" was child-like; it is. The word idiot was in the context of Stalin's notion of a useful idiot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)—meaning someone who believes the surface rhetoric of a movement that has no morals, such as Stalinism or, say, the NRA. You claim to utterly and completely accept the surface rhetoric of the NRA, which makes you appear to be, yes, a "useful idiot."


the balance of my allies on this issue
You have no "allies" on this issue; you're either the catamite or the pimp, and I don't see you pimping.


Are you honestly surprised that, in victory, the villain reveals his true colors, Lemur?

Hitler widely proclaimed that his intention was to destroy democracy - he accomplished his goal.
ICSD is no villain, and references to Hitler are always boring, unless, you know, you're talking about 1930s–1940s Europe. Here's the thing about Hitler references: they're boring no matter who uses them.

ICSD is a true believer, relishing in the defeat of moderation. Paradoxically, declaring that that this compromise could have worked, but not in its current form. As if his "allies" will permit any other form.

True believers are many unpleasant things, but they aren't villains as such.

But I suppose for pragmatists and moderates, true believers are the real enemy, whether they be left, right, or loony. There's nothing like an idealist with the One Holy Truth (whatever its formulation) to do damage. And then pat themselves on the back for their wondrous accomplishment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You have no "allies" on this issue; you're either the catamite or the pimp, and I don't see you pimping.



So, which one are you?

We're damned if we do or don't. Refuse to join the populist "anything must be done" horde trumpeted to arms by the news media and you are sheeple. Join them? sheeple. Join them here but not there? sheeple.

We have to create some solidarity, otherwise we are adrift and vulnerable to bigger lobby groups. My solidarity is with the gun rights groups, your is with the "extreme ideological moderates" who seek moderation as an ideological imperative, damned the issue.

The real summary is that our side benefits from status quo in the a hostile environment created by the tragedy. Your side didn't. Neither did the radical gun control side. If you feel like you've gained an electoral mandate for the mid-terms, we'll see how that plays our for you when the time comes. The gun lobby won this major battle because they were engaged and united.

[Montmorency]

I've made my intentions extremely clear here.

Yes.


I like expansive gun rights. I want to own the firearms that are banned in multiple states. There is strength in numbers and I would prefer to side with people who like guns than people who don't. People who forge their own way on everything and can't keep to the common goal lose.


Compromise when you have the upper hand, refuse discussions when you don't.


This debate has radicalized me further. I started out by wanting to compromise, saw the bad faith of the opposition first hand in NY and decided that they were too clever to work with and that we had to defeat them here.


You guys can gnash your teeth at this. I feel like this was hard fought. I've sent hundreds and hundreds of letters over the past 5 months, did you? Call and speak with your state and house reps? Never stopped engaging friends and family? Reading the bills?


Trust us in NY that see the political whims of government up-close. You should know that they don't believe that anyone should own guns. They are just biding their time.


Registration is the enemy.


Your opinions affect my rights

The Godwin was not at all frivolous. You have the very same attitude. Nor do I err in characterizing you as a "pit-dog".

You don't "want" background checks; you are merely willing to permit them so long as they don't hinder you in gun ownership.

With people like you, one must always be on guard: stand still, and you will take a mile; give an inch, and you will take everything.

Lemur, ICSD is indeed one of the "pimps". I warned you against taking him for a patsy: he's not. He's a canny zealot and he's well-aware of the strings available for him to pull. Such a one inevitably accrues an ever-greater amount of clout to himself.

For now, it's merely gun control - not honestly an issue whose outcome is crucial to society. Can you imagine the same antagonistic, ruthless, zero-sum perspective applied to the quest for political power itself? You don't have to - it's happened before. :brood:

[ICantSpellDawg]

You don't "want" background checks; you are merely willing to permit them so long as they don't hinder you in gun ownership.

Correct. I wouldn't fight for them beyond for ffl's, because I don't believe the loophole is as big as people suggest or in any way important to preventing these things. I would use it as currency in the event that I was attempting to further gun rights as the gun control crowd suggests that it holds some value to them in negotiation. There was no sense in giving it to them now when there was no benefit to do so. We will offer it up in order to get something that we want. In this situation, the gun control crowd was greedy. They thought that they could ride the tragedy on popular opinion and succeed without concession on the issue. They failed and left with the consolation prize that they *might have a new issue to fight us with at the midterms...

This was a victory to us because it showed that this country has become highly skeptical of gun control. Even a Democratic Senate couldn't pass a bill after the most awful imaginable gun crime had taken place. This bodes well for us in future ideological combat. If we begin to suffer at the polls over this, voila, we put reform up for a vote on the House floor on our terms. If needed, we can offer expanded background checks to shift voter perception of our reasonability.

Edit: just to be clear, I wholeheartedly support some ability to determine whether someone is capable of safe and lawful firearms ownership, beyond merely tolerating it I encourage it. The NICS check is a great tool and I think it is run well. I also encourage tough penalties for straw purchases and fines or incarceration for those who knowingly or negligently sell or gift to individuals who threaten the public peace.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think this idea (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/) is brilliant.

Federal background checks could be done by the buyer on their own computer's web connection. They would generate a keycode which would last in the system for 30 days. They could take a printout, like a boarding pass, to any seller who would double check it against their drivers license. The seller could confirm the keycode on his own web connection. If there were any problems within 30 days, a record would be available for confirmation.

This would extend the record keeping time period which would satisfy many on the left and it would eliminate the need for an ffl, buyer or seller to keep the physical record (which wont pass the house, didn't pass the democratic senate) which would satisfy us on the right. It would eliminate the debacle being experienced in NY where ffl's are refusing to transfer for the maximum $10 because of the record requirement and liability. Every single sale or gift would be required to have a key-code, unless in immediate family. I would support this.

Anyone who wants a NICS check to be done on EVERYONE to make unlawful buyers have a hard time will like this.
If you merely hate guns and want to make it harder on law abiding citizens, you might not like this - but you are unlikely to have success on this issue so take what you can get. We would have countless more background checks on EVERY sale and everyone could back it.

[Papewaio]

You say victory, I say quagmire.

The inability for a government of the people for the people to come up with a solution shows too much special interest groups and too little interest in the individual.

Just remember it a special interest group can swing it one way then another group can swing it back the other way. It can swing header and faster with a super PAC. Hardly equal votes on head count, just wallet. So if the money changes sides so will the votes.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Who says victory? I'm still fighting. We take victories where we can get them. I'd love to re-litigate this right now. In fact, in 2 months I'd like the house to start a base bill including the Coburn NICs expansion, the ToomeyManchin compromise, and ccw reciprocity. Let's do it

[ICantSpellDawg]

How about the coburn plan plus concealed carry reciprocity. That would pass both houses. Let's do that. 3 page bill, it wouldnt trigger a filibuster by the GOP, done

[Rhyfelwyr]

I noticed this on the BBC, thought it might be of interest to the American orgahs.

Defence Distributed fire first gun made from 3D printer parts (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185)

[gaelic cowboy]

I noticed this on the BBC, thought it might be of interest to the American orgahs.

Defence Distributed fire first gun made from 3D printer parts (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185)

What a clown that fella is "Oh nooooo it's about liberty" will ye go away with that will ye tis about cash in the claw an nothing more

[Rhyfelwyr]

What a clown that fella is "Oh nooooo it's about liberty" will ye go away with that will ye tis about cash in the claw an nothing more

Who knows, maybe it will mean different things to different people.

Speaking of money driving production... this is kind of off topic, but I wonder if technological developments like this could herald a revolution in materialism. 3D printers mean that material wealth can be created out of effectively nothing. Or, at least, a negligible production process that is infinitely repeatable at no extra cost, with a negligible amount of material.

When that's possible, it would surely mean that people could live in a world of material abundance?

When that happens, human nature being what it is I don't doubt value will still be assigned to things. But the emphasis will shift dramatically. Traditionally, things have generally been valued on their use value* - how far the product serves their needs.

If people can easily satisfy their material needs, then the value of products will be determined solely by their social value - and by that I mean not just things like status, but how people use products to express and relate themselves within society.

It will be a strange world, where people no longer identify through their work, family and community - in other words, their natural human relations. Instead, in a world where these things have been made redundant, they identify and relate through their material possessions.

For me, it is the ultimate expression of consumerism. Having been freed from material constraints, it reaches its terrifying conclusion. As natural relations like family and community are broken, natural boundaries like gender and culture are blurred. It is the ultimate form of alienation - with social structures having failed to express our humanity (our 'Gattungswesen' as one philosopher once termed it), instead they shape it artificially and transform it into something unnatural.

It is a strange and dystopian world. Where an individual is less a father, or brother, or farmer, or labourer, or Christian, or Muslim, or Scot, or a local - but rather an emo, a hipster, a Belieber, a 'gangsta', a punk, a chav, or whatever. A world where a large number of pictures from drunken nights out on your Facebook page is deemed a better indicator of your social success than a Master's Degree. Where your identification with mass-produced music labels is seen as an expression of your individuality - the triumph of mass, trash culture.

It is the replacement of work life, of family life, of community life, of national life, with just one new form of expression, of social existence - consumer life.

We're already half way there, but technology like the above could complete the leap.

*I'm not using that term in the Marxist sense here

[Rhyfelwyr]

Lovely sentiments Rhyf but it'll never happen. How do the currently empowered benefit over others from your scenario?

Just to check, by lovely sentiments, do you mean you like future I described, or do you agree with the issue that I took with it?

As for the currently empowered, how they feel about it is only relevant if they can actually control the technology. It would certainly be difficult - if all we needed for a product was to download the design and stick it on the home 3d printer, how do they control the downloads? The music industry never had much joy, it would take an unprecedented crackdown.

[Papewaio]

Facebook status is not a measure of success, it is a indicator of how much bread you got at the circus.

As for 3D printing it is about being self creators, ability to make things, ability to choose designs from around the world. You can fast prototype at home and then mass produce over the web. It is the new printing press.

[Montmorency]

I imagine that it will be extremely easy to regulate inputs...

:inquisitive:

[HopAlongBunny]

To quote a physics text: "Ain't nothin' free baby"

From another perspective, if it can't be monetized its almost as if it will cease to exist.

[gaelic cowboy]

Who knows, maybe it will mean different things to different people.

Speaking of money driving production... this is kind of off topic, but I wonder if technological developments like this could herald a revolution in materialism. 3D printers mean that material wealth can be created out of effectively nothing. Or, at least, a negligible production process that is infinitely repeatable at no extra cost, with a negligible amount of material.

When that's possible, it would surely mean that people could live in a world of material abundance?

When that happens, human nature being what it is I don't doubt value will still be assigned to things. But the emphasis will shift dramatically. Traditionally, things have generally been valued on their use value* - how far the product serves their needs.

If people can easily satisfy their material needs, then the value of products will be determined solely by their social value - and by that I mean not just things like status, but how people use products to express and relate themselves within society.

It will be a strange world, where people no longer identify through their work, family and community - in other words, their natural human relations. Instead, in a world where these things have been made redundant, they identify and relate through their material possessions.

For me, it is the ultimate expression of consumerism. Having been freed from material constraints, it reaches its terrifying conclusion. As natural relations like family and community are broken, natural boundaries like gender and culture are blurred. It is the ultimate form of alienation - with social structures having failed to express our humanity (our 'Gattungswesen' as one philosopher once termed it), instead they shape it artificially and transform it into something unnatural.

It is a strange and dystopian world. Where an individual is less a father, or brother, or farmer, or labourer, or Christian, or Muslim, or Scot, or a local - but rather an emo, a hipster, a Belieber, a 'gangsta', a punk, a chav, or whatever. A world where a large number of pictures from drunken nights out on your Facebook page is deemed a better indicator of your social success than a Master's Degree. Where your identification with mass-produced music labels is seen as an expression of your individuality - the triumph of mass, trash culture.

It is the replacement of work life, of family life, of community life, of national life, with just one new form of expression, of social existence - consumer life.

We're already half way there, but technology like the above could complete the leap.

*I'm not using that term in the Marxist sense here

I'm guessing such a world might be more flat than pyramidal, and fads and fashions are as old as the hills so I wouldn't worry there.

Such a place would be more like some of our earliest neolithic societies possibly even hunter gatherer.

We differentiate ourselves within the group by putting a chicken bone through our nose or or we replicate a cool new handheld gaming system( we have seen all this before).

[Papewaio]

3D printers and other CNC devices already are montonized and used in mass production.

What is happening is the equivalent of home laser printers with commercial printing presses already in place.

On top of this you can order via the web commerical 3D printing to use in manufacturing.

Here is a link about bicycle parts and how it's reduced time to market, reduced costs and is far greener (less material wasted and energy used).

http://www.3d-printers.com.au/2013/04/29/in-depth-insight-into-the-kappius-3d-printed-hub/

[gaelic cowboy]

By lovely sentiments I meant that I think your extreme extrapolation of the consequences was neat. I don't agree with them, though--in fact, I take the opposite approach: If every household can produce whatever it wants in small quantities (bound only by resources or cash flow) then the middle-class is transformed into something that once again makes things. Perhaps a return of cottage industry, with a modern format?

Ultimately though, 3-D printers are like weed, cars that run on water, or powering cities with exotic forms of natural energy. If you can't monopolize it, it ain't gonna get too big. :shrug:

you might not monetise it at present but that doesn't mean they cant be monetised eventually. (except 3d printers themselves are monetised)

the original steam engine couldn't be monetised until we figured it could drain water from coal mines, later we figured out it had other uses like trains, ships and so on and so on.

Also monetisation is not the primary driver IF all needs can be met

[Rhyfelwyr]

Right. I'm talking about the notion of every household being able to make whatever they want. It won't happen the way Rhyf fears, for good or ill. Cash-flow will always influence what a family can or can't make, and even in a society where every home was making something there would still be a division of labor. Certain families would make certain things for certain people and so forth. It wouldn't even need to be organized, it would just happen.

And more importantly, the government will severely restrict what can be made at home sooner or later. The laws that do the restricting will probably be influenced by lobbyists from the industries being threatened, rather than by the minds of the people voting on the law. So.. here in the USA, at least, I don't see much changing any time soon.

Well we won't know for certain until we know more of the particulars about the technology, but I certainly think that you are underestimating the social and economic impact it could have.

Pape brought up the printing press and noted its revolutionary role - now, consider the impact that just a handful of these across Europe has, and then consider that we are talking about having such a revolutionary device in potentially every household! As technology grows, its social impact seems to have a exponential, rather than a linear relationship.

You say it will be like the cottage industry and that there will be a division of labour - but that really is dependent on these printers being quite limited. What if downloading a print plan takes moments? What if you can programme it to print all the pieces for one product in order, leaving them ready for you to assemble? For all I know they might already do that.

And like gaelic cowboy said, "monetisation is not the primary driver IF all needs can be met". For the technology to be financially exploited, it would have to be rigidly controlled, and what would be the point anyway if it provides endless material wealth? All anybody would need is their little printer and that can have all the material goods they desire.


[/SPOIL]

I'm guessing such a world might be more flat than pyramidal, and fads and fashions are as old as the hills so I wouldn't worry there.

Such a place would be more like some of our earliest neolithic societies possibly even hunter gatherer.

We differentiate ourselves within the group by putting a chicken bone through our nose or or we replicate a cool new handheld gaming system( we have seen all this before).

It's nice when somebody can engage with my ramblings! :laugh4:

I see where you are coming from, but I think there would be some important differences in my case from your comparison. What you described is a pre-materialist society - where the production of material goods was so small that these goods remained expressions of natural human relations (eg, I'm from x family so I have a chicken bone through my face, or whatever).

In my dystopia, it's a post-materialist world - it is post-materialist in the sense that in the absence of any other social relations, materialism and material goods are no longer something distinct from the society that they exist in - materialism ceases to be the phenomena it once was. Material wealth is so abundant that it has no value as material wealth - it is just a form of social expression. But rather than expressing natural social relations as in the pre-materialist society, material goods form the actual basis of social relations. Like I said earlier, people will not identify by community or faith etc, but by the mass culture that they buy and reflect in their material possessions. Whether it's their clothes, or their CD's, what they collect, or whatever.

A strange and scary world...

Also, I should note that I came up with the terms pre or post materialism by myself, maybe other people use them for what might be other meanings, but that is coincidental. I'm not meaning to identify with them.

[Montmorency]

All anybody would need is their little printer and that can have all the material goods they desire.

As I said, you can't just make stuff out of thin air.

Material inputs can be controlled at every stage. You don't even need to emplace any new systems, just extend whatever exists today for the raw-material supply-chain.

Also, these devices are inherently more complex than either paper-printers or printing presses. I doubt a large proportion of the population will quickly learn how to maintain the devices. And replacement surely can't be as easy as with, say, a $50 inkjet. If a commercial model is developed that is both large enough to print a wide variety of whole objects or modules, and small enough to fit within a typical garage or shack, it likely will never cost less than whatever the equivalent worth of your average car today is.

Let's be honest: outside of large-scale manufacturing, 3D-printing will have little direct impact besides permitting hobbyists to print plastic trinkets. A very few will be using them to build up customized vehicles for fun. No one will printing advanced electronics in their homes. No one will be printing organs or animals outside specialized institutions.

If we're looking out for socially revolutionary technologies, then neurocosmetic surgery and omnipresent surveillance systems backed by powerful computer algorithms are better candidates.

[Papewaio]

You can right now order online mass produced versions of home made fast prototypes.

For sure, most people will end up using it for replacing missing monopoly pieces. The raw material is expensive... Still less per gram then printer ink.

Materials aren't limited to plastic, you can order items in wood and metal or use a CNC quilt maker for a wool made item.

The home maker versions have dropped rapidly in cost and are getting much easier to assemble... some require as much assembly as an inkjet. Most are priced in the $2k to $4k range for home users.

The big thing is the ability to take a home CAD drawing and then put that into a commerical operation.

Sure a country can decide to stop the home maker revolution. It happens all the time... But the competive advantage will be with the countries that embrace this... Some country will get the new Silicon Valley another will be North Korea with the rest somewhere in the middle.

[Ironside]

In my dystopia, it's a post-materialist world - it is post-materialist in the sense that in the absence of any other social relations, materialism and material goods are no longer something distinct from the society that they exist in - materialism ceases to be the phenomena it once was. Material wealth is so abundant that it has no value as material wealth - it is just a form of social expression. But rather than expressing natural social relations as in the pre-materialist society, material goods form the actual basis of social relations. Like I said earlier, people will not identify by community or faith etc, but by the mass culture that they buy and reflect in their material possessions. Whether it's their clothes, or their CD's, what they collect, or whatever.

A strange and scary world...

Also, I should note that I came up with the terms pre or post materialism by myself, maybe other people use them for what might be other meanings, but that is coincidental. I'm not meaning to identify with them.

I'm curious on how you come to that conclusion. The abundance of material goods will increase the value of non-printed products and non-material things, aka much as it is today. Retail will be hit hard in the west, but most consumer items are already produced in another country (like China).

The big expenses are housing and eating. Those doesn't disappear do they? So the need for work will stay, the excess money will be expressed in exclusive items, travels and "experiences" (like today). I can see it driving towards "worker redundancy" where normal employment will be less than the number of workers, but there's a lot of factors involved there.

[Papewaio]

It's not going to get rid of economies of scale or mass production.

It is going to open up mass production to more people. Shorten the speed to market.

Essentially as think of the ease with which a web page can be updated, so can 3D printing and its ilk.

However do not mistake 3D printing from removing factories anymore then home printers removed industrial printers. Nor think that everyone will become an artisan maker anymore then laser printers made everyone a published author.

It will level the playing field and allow smaller more dynamic outfits to get their designs out there. They still will use mass manufacturing... But it won't rely on their direct capital, it will be a pay per item model.

[HopAlongBunny]

Pffft! why not just scan your trinkets?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/05/06/f-vp-misener-3d-scanning-matterform.html

[HopAlongBunny]

The death of Freedom?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/05/09/technology-3d-printed-gun-crackdown.html

[drone]

ITAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITAR) rears it's ugly head. Pretty ridiculous, but them's the rules.

[ICantSpellDawg]

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITAR" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">ITAR</a> rears it's ugly head. Pretty ridiculous, but them's the rules.

We are being blocked from accessing information that we are legally entitled to because people around the world are not free. This is a bad omen, but we will begin fighting back harder. The government has decided to make their response a clumsy and rights abusing one. Our position will gain more traction than it had before.

International Isps who don't believe in freedom should block access to these sites, our government should not block American Citizens access to information which we are legally entitled to ESPECIALLY for the crappy rationale that "other people arent free to access, so our freedom should be curtailed"

Imagine how else this line of reasoning could be used against us. In the end, the files have been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times in a matter of days and have now entered into the realm of the indominable common use around the world. They have been endlessly torrent seeded and will now exist on the global black market. Americans can still access the files legally, but new development will be curtailed, at least by defense distributed. And as 3d printers become diffuse we will see these guns pop up left and right

[Lemur]

ICSD, it would be a lot easier to take your arguments seriously if you hadn't been celebrating the filibuster of the background check bill.

Your credibility on this subject, outside of the self-selecting circle of NRA true believers, took a major hit from that.

On the face of it, sounds like the government was faced with a weird new situation and responded stupidly. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT HAS EVAR HAPPENED.

You might want to look at the case law surrounding cell cameras and police (http://ideas.time.com/2012/05/21/a-new-first-amendment-right-videotaping-the-police/), as a parallel example. The guvmint always responds stupidly to a new technology that potentially threatens or limits their power. Then the courts come in and knock the executive back a bit. It's a process. It takes a while. Your NRA-style panic-hyperventilation does absolutely nothing to move the process along.

[drone]

We are being blocked from accessing information that we are legally entitled to because people around the world are not free. This is a bad omen, but we will begin fighting back harder. The government has decided to make their response a clumsy and rights abusing one. Our position will gain more traction than it had before.

Not really sure you understand how ITAR works. These are firearms (cheap POS's but still), which fall under the US Munitions List section of ITAR. If Defense Distributed wants to legally publish the printer files, they need to make sure downloads are limited to US IPs. If they want to publish to the rest of the world, they need to open a site in another country, and maybe form a non-US corporation to run it. Or, just maybe, get State Department approval before putting it out there.

ITAR is not about treaties or appeasing the commie pinko Euro gun-grabbers. ITAR is all about keeping weapons tech inside the US. Giving or selling military tech to other countries is controlled by the State Dept.

[Lemur]

Now nobody will ever be able to get those plans! Oh, wait, this is the internet we're talking about (http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-takes-over-distribution-of-censored-3d-printable-gun-130510/).

[gaelic cowboy]

Not Monetized, Monopolized.

is monopoly not inherently all about monetisation

[ICantSpellDawg]

ICSD, it would be a lot easier to take your arguments seriously if you hadn't been celebrating the filibuster of the background check bill.

Your credibility on this subject, outside of the self-selecting circle of NRA true believers, took a major hit from that.


Try attacking the idea rather than the man. My credibility as a human being on every issue is now in question because I successfully opposed something you thought was an ok idea? Why don't you just marry expanded background checks if you love them so much?

You are better than ad hominem attacks.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not really sure you understand how ITAR works. These are firearms (cheap POS's but still), which fall under the US Munitions List section of ITAR. If Defense Distributed wants to legally publish the printer files, they need to make sure downloads are limited to US IPs. If they want to publish to the rest of the world, they need to open a site in another country, and maybe form a non-US corporation to run it. Or, just maybe, get State Department approval before putting it out there.

ITAR is not about treaties or appeasing the commie pinko Euro gun-grabbers. ITAR is all about keeping weapons tech inside the US. Giving or selling military tech to other countries is controlled by the State Dept.

The law may say those things, I get that the government may be legally entitled to do this, but I disagree that this line of thinking has a future in the modern world that is digitally interconnected. Proof Pudding is the fact that their review will not stop rapid dissemination of the files around the globe.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Let me get this straight - you guys are defending a dated, speech hampering, ITAR, that has been proven to be ineffective due to the technical realities of the day - just so you can tell yourselves that supporters of the technology have egg on their faces?

Good job.

[Lemur]

Your credibility on this subject

My credibility as a human being on every issue
Misquoting to achieve an aggrieved (but false) cry of ad hominem is beneath you.

Your credibility on this subject is shot, in my opinion.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Misquoting to achieve an aggrieved (but false) cry of ad hominem is beneath you.

Your credibility on this subject is shot, in my opinion.

Have I ever lied to you about something on this issue?
Did I not correct my assertions on 2 separate occasions when proven incorrect? (refresher -my post about Obama's statement that he never made, and my expectation that the AWB/mag ban would pass this Senate)
Do I support the basic idea of expanding background checks to all sales?

[Lemur]

Do I support the basic idea of expanding background checks to all sales?
And yet you gloated and chest-thumped when it was defeated. Revealing, no? Tell me again how "your" side will "reintroduce" the bill.

[Greyblades]

Misquoting to achieve an aggrieved (but false) cry of ad hominem is beneath you.

It is also very confusing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And yet you gloated and chest-thumped when it was defeated. Revealing, no? Tell me again how "your" side will "reintroduce" the bill.

I challenge you to find an issue that I had credibility on in the first place before I get upset about losing the respect people never had for my political opinions.

The reality is that you value moderation. Because you feel that no moderation was had, you feel that an injustice has been done. Even though the checks had nothing to do with New town, even though violence has decreased dramatically in at least a correlative relationship with a dramatic increase in guns owned.

As we have stated, I don't live in the Midwest or have the luxury of not knowing what life is like in the enlightened northeast these days. There is no moderation in forcing me to have 7 rounds in my previously mandated 10 round mags. Or in requiring me to drive 50 miles and take time out of work over a period of 3 days in order to buy a handgun... Every time you buy one - after already going through a face to face background check which renews every 5 years. Or in forcing you to take the most modular modern rifle and butcher it in order to make it state legal.

BTW, this isn't the end. The Democrats in NY wanted 5 round mag limits. The "compromise" was 7.... Last time the compromise was 10. They'll keep pushing until it is one. One round, one gun. Then it will be none. These laws are stupid and have become dangerous. I don't believe that they help the issue at hand, but I do believe that they help democrats whittle away at our second amendment rights. Nipple-twists just to hurt their enemies. This is how people work when they hate each other, and they hate us. Especially because we have been beating them on this issue, both numerically and logically. They will use their laws to persecute us, to harass us and to make our lives more difficult if we let them. That's what they do where I live. That's probably what Republicans do to democrats where they are in the majority. How much "moderation" should I have to accept in NY? We've got background checks for all sales in NY already.

Should the background bill have failed? probably not, because background checks are not infringements, but if it ends up helping democrats at the midterms I wont be surprised that it failed. They had the opportunity to make it work and didn't want to because they thought they'd get more currency out of letting it fail as it was then coming to an agreement and having it affect crime in no way.

BTW, I celebrated the defeat of the democrats on that bill, I thought that the 3 parts that I could live with would pass. I would like to see checks expanded to all sales. The only reason that they wont pass is because you won't go the extra length to get the agreement. Remember, this is what you guys think will work to cut down crime. We think it's short-sighted but might not hurt if done correctly. You come to us on the re-hash of this issue or don't be surprised if it fails again

[ICantSpellDawg]

ITAR is obviously being used to prohibit something for political reasons, which is a double-dose of insulting because 1.) Its never cool to take a law out of context because you need a knee-jerk reaction to something, and 2.) The domestic problems of other nations are their own problems. The way ITAR has been used here can only be considered a restriction of the American citizen's ability to buy and sell an American product on the behalf of... people who aren't American. That's not cool either.

This is a good read of the situation. It carries over for other speech/property issues, too.

[Husar]

The government can't even balance its checkbook, so what is it doing by wasting energy playing dirty politics?

I thought the whole austerity thing was proven wrong due to an Excel sheet error.
Look how Europe is turning into a post-apocalyptic wasteland by trying to balance the checkbooks.

[Husar]

Who said anything about Austerity? That's just a political shakedown scheme. Really fixing the economy would require a measured discussion, not scaremongering.

The whole point of austerity is to balance the checkbooks.

In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. These policies can include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

You cannot balance the checkbook by only talking about it, you have to adjust income and spending. The whole scaremongering part is usually performed by the investors who run away screaming once a country can't pay back its debt anymore. A measured discussion is also a pipe dream when you have hundreds of special interest groups who will fire torpedoes at any discussion regarding their special interest. It always ends up in torpedo valley.

As for the whole gun thing, there's fewer special interest groups but it's already just as hopeless. And even the winning side isn't happy as long as they haven't shot their opposition so deep into the ground that they can even arm toddlers and dogs it seems. Because you know it's a slippery slope, today you allow gays to carry guns and tomorrow they'll want guns for their dogs and goats. :stare:

[ICantSpellDawg]

As for the whole gun thing, there's fewer special interest groups but it's already just as hopeless. And even the winning side isn't happy as long as they haven't shot their opposition so deep into the ground that they can even arm toddlers and dogs it seems. Because you know it's a slippery slope, today you allow gays to carry guns and tomorrow they'll want guns for their dogs and goats. :stare:


This is a problem. We've forgotten how to compromise. Today, it sounds like compromise when you get 5 opposition Senators to sign on to your bill. That is a vote, not a compromise. A compromise entails one group winning some, losing some for their idea of what will sove a percieved problem. Then, the other side wins some and loses some for their idea of what will solve a related percieved problem. This is required in todays government and that is a good thing.

To me, a flat bill would include a requirement that all sales undergo an easy to obtain federal background check. The end. This could be spot checked and you can be slapped with jail time or a fine if you are caught breaking this law. This is not an infringement. Instead, Democrats wanted to increase record keeping requirements and create an early draft of a gun registry which would include every gun sold on a 40 year delay (when FFL's retire or close down they must submit all records to the ATF). Equally intense, Republicans were pushing for concealled carry reciprocity on top of it.

If we keep it simple, without a record keeping requirement we will most likely pass it. This will be good for everyone - it is litterally a win/win. This is a compromise, and only Tom Coburn could see it. We should all be ashamed, if there is shame going around.

[Lemur]

Trecord keeping requirements and create an early draft of a gun registry which would include every gun sold
Factually untrue (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/obama-says-bipartisan-background-check-plan-outlaw/), unprovable, without documentation of any sort, slippery slope fallacy, and (not surprisingly) take straight from the NRA talking points.

But hey, don't let that stop you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gun store owners claim that ATF agents will occasionally copy their records on inspection. Additionally, if the ATF is collecting ALL personal records upon store closure or license revocation, what do they do with our records?

Also - you are going to give us a promise that no Registry will be made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Tracing_Center#Controversies)? Didn't we already have that in the 1986 bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition)?

What about "out of business records (http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-national-tracing-center.html)"? where do those go? If FFL's are required to record ALL sales, professional or private; personal records will exist for ALL sales. There will be a record of every sale with personal information to EVERY owner of a firearm that the ATF has access to at all times and regularly makes copies of improperly.

The reality is that we supposedly have a ban on a registry already (which is ignored with impunity), offering us what we already have is a BS compromise and is meant to fool those who are not aware of it.

Based on my understanding, you are either knowingly or unknowingly mis-representing truth on this issue.

[Strike For The South]

Gun store owners claim that ATF agents will occasionally copy their records on inspection. Additionally, if the ATF is collecting ALL personal records upon store closure or license revocation, what do they do with our records?

Going to need a source

[Greyblades]

Wait, has the ATF been revived? Because last I heard the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was so declawed they didn't even have a director. If so I doubt they do anything with your records more than use them to collect dust.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Going to need a source

http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/goa-background-checks-atfs-illegal-copying-of-4473-forms/

check appendix

The main concern beyond dated record collection is 4473 record copies outside of specific criminal investigation with subpoena. Could it be overstated? absolutely. Could it be an outright lie on the part of gun groups? I hope so.

Also, I'm pretty sure that many States keep gun records. Handgun permits in my state require addition to your file of the specifics of each handgun (and now "assault rifle") that you own. I don't know what you think that they dio with them.

[Strike For The South]

Which one Tuff?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The alaskan one.

[Strike For The South]

Which Roman numeral?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Which Roman numeral?

Read I-VI. II is one of the specific ones.

Also and again: Concern over defacto registration of firearms is not sufficient in my mind to block "background checks" on all sales. Again, I am in favor of background checks on all sales, even though I don't believe it will do much to reduce crime (but because it will have some positive effect on crime with only a minimal and even positive effect on sellers and buyers, I am for it). It does not mean that I'm an idiot that I am reticent about the reality that BATFE wants these records and has regular access to them. Do I believe that warrantless abuses have happened at certain times? Yes. Do I want to believe that this is an exception? Yes. Either way, they want the info and I don't want them to have it, so any agreement on background checks should do the most to make sure that they don't have access, IMO while at the same time requiring that anyone selling a firearm anywhere does not do so without running a background check

[Husar]

Why is a gun registry a huge problem? What happens when you get a license plate for your car? Do they give you a random plate so you can't be traced? What about the serial number engraved in the chassis of your car? The serial number of your computer parts? Why is it okay these things are on record but oh noes, god beware someone knows you own a gun? 90% are probably going to post about their nice new "toy" somewhere on the internet anyway. ~;)

[Strike For The South]

The Ammoland source offered no proof. The article offered no proof. Not an interview, not nothing.

Then I saw these buzzwords

"footsolider in the Reagan revolution"
"Martin Christian Minstires"
"Americas dark hour"

Another self absorbed baby boomer bloging on word press

There is enough terrible stuff going on that we don't need to make up demons.

Mass literacy will be the death of discussion.

[Lemur]

Why is a gun registry a huge problem?
It's a slippery slope thing (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html) (technically non causa pro causa, if anyone cares), which is what most NRA rhetoric is based upon.

There is nothing unconstitutional about a gun registry; indeed, of the first three words of the Second Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), two are "well-ordered," which would seem to cover things like registries and drills and so forth. However, Second Amendment absolutists believe that a registry could lead to confiscation some day. Based on this hypothetical, they're rabidly anti-registry, and nobody in the mainstream is much inclined to challenge this non sequitur (literally "it does not follow").

What ICSD is painting as an inevitable reality is in fact a slippery slope leading to a different slippery slope. Background checks could (in theory) lead to a registry, which could (in theory) lead to confiscation. So you need not one but two hypothetical acts of dictatorship to make the Barackalypse occur.

What's particularly deceitful about this NRA talking point is that the background check bill, as initially written, made it a Federal crime to create a registry (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/obama-says-bipartisan-background-check-plan-outlaw/). So ICSD and the other NRA hysterics are objecting to a hypothetical of a hypothetical that would require breaking the law they object to.

Does this seem irrational and insane? That's because it is. Toss moderation, reason, game theory, and common sense out the window. Also toss evidence, history, and empiricism. Just take a long, deep bath in paranoid hypotheticals, watch a little Glenn Beck, and suddenly it all makes sense.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's a slippery slope thing (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html) (technically non causa pro causa, if anyone cares), which is what most NRA rhetoric is based upon.

There is nothing unconstitutional about a gun registry; indeed, of the first three words of the Second Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), two are "well-ordered," which would seem to cover things like registries and drills and so forth. However, Second Amendment absolutists believe that a registry could lead to confiscation some day. Based on this hypothetical, they're rabidly anti-registry, and nobody in the mainstream is much inclined to challenge this non sequitur (literally "it does not follow").

What ICSD is painting as an inevitable reality is in fact a slippery slope leading to a different slippery slope. Background checks could (in theory) lead to a registry, which could (in theory) lead to confiscation. So you need not one but two hypothetical acts of dictatorship to make the Barackalypse occur.

What's particularly deceitful about this NRA talking point is that the background check bill, as initially written, made it a Federal crime to create a registry (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/obama-says-bipartisan-background-check-plan-outlaw/). So ICSD and the other NRA hysterics are objecting to a hypothetical of a hypothetical that would require breaking the law they object to.

Does this seem irrational and insane? That's because it is. Toss moderation, reason, game theory, and common sense out the window. Also toss evidence, history, and empiricism. Just take a long, deep bath in paranoid hypotheticals, watch a little Glenn Beck, and suddenly it all makes sense.

You guys are guilty of the "'slippery slope fallacy' fallacy" on a regular basis. You maintain that if an argument sounds like an "if A therefore, eventually b", then it is a slippery slope fallacy.

Take Point 1 - many people want a gun registry.
Point 2 - creating a record of every sale to be kept for 20 years CREATES A RECORD OF EVERY SALE over time.
Point 3 - add easily and centrally accessible records to the sometimes popular desire to create a Federal registry and the likelihood of that registry increases. You fallacy comes from the mistaken belief that every analysis which determines that certain outcomes are made more likely is a slippery slop "logical fallacy". This is not the case. The public tends to balk at radical or major changes. They tend to tacitly accept changes that they perceive to be gradual and non-threatening.

Nearly every law ever passed has had the effect of preparing for further expansion or restriction of some agenda. The concept of term limits has this in mind, the concept of balance of power as well. What you call "logical fallacy" many would call cautious foresight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foresight_(psychology)) with respect to retention of rights. Sometimes I support it (because it works), other times I reject it because I see what they are trying to do. Normalization with the intention of getting past the tendency of an electorate to reject revolutionary change - when you pre-heat an oven most people assume you are going to cook something. ESPECIALLY when you are constantly talking about cooking something

Your over use of this term for emotional effect (nobody likes to be considered illogical) is insulting to your own intellect.

"If A occurs, it therefore makes Z more likely occur, sooner" is not illogical. If I'm not interested in the benefits of A and there is a way to exclude it from legislation while retaining what I do want, I am for that option.

"If I go to college And I get a college degree, Then I will get a good job" - is a slippery slope logical fallacy
"If I go to college And I get a college degree, Then I will most likely increase my chances of getting a good job" - is basic human foresight, used by most on a regular basis.

[HopAlongBunny]

It sounds like the U.S. administration is just stalling for time. ITAR is apparently not a problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22478310

[HopAlongBunny]

double post

[Lemur]

"If I go to college And I get a college degree, Then I will get a good job" - is a slippery slope logical fallacy
"If I go to college And I get a college degree, Then I will most likely increase my chances of getting a good job" - is basic human foresight, used by most on a regular basis.
Actually, none of these are slippery slope fallacies. A degree is a predictable and logical progression from attending college. A job is a predictable and logical progression after school. These things do, in fact, follow one another without any insult to reason.

The amusing thing about your paranoid fantasies about the background check bill is that you declare a national registry, which is explicitly made illegal, to be the logical conclusion/fear/dread progressing from background checks. Or rather, record-keeping. And you conveniently ignore that a bill passed in the Senate can then be negotiated with the House, and things tend to change a lot. By doing the following:


chest-thumping and celebrating the undeomcratic filibuster of a bill supported by the vast majority of the population
spinning a ban on a natioaal registry to mean OMG NATIONAL REGISTRY
ignoring the normal process of passing a bill in two houses


You demonstrate your fanaticism and extremism on this issue.

Well over 2 million gun sales have been blocked since 1994 due to background checks. That means that some of those 2+ million not only were insane and/or criminal, they were too effing stupid to use one of the obvious loopholes in the background check system. But you airily assert that background checks won't help anyone.

What a load of steaming manure. Hey, you know what? We have laws against murder, and people still get murdered! Let's get rid of those laws too! They only hurt law-abiding citizens who kill people in self-defense. Bad guys will still murder anyway.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually, none of these are slippery slope fallacies. A degree is a predictable and logical progression from attending college. A job is a predictable and logical progression after school. These things do, in fact, follow one another without any insult to reason.

The amusing thing about your paranoid fantasies about the background check bill is that you declare a national registry, which is explicitly made illegal, to be the logical conclusion/fear/dread progressing from background checks. Or rather, record-keeping. And you conveniently ignore that a bill passed in the Senate can then be negotiated with the House, and things tend to change a lot. By doing the following:


chest-thumping and celebrating the undeomcratic filibuster of a bill supported by the vast majority of the population
spinning a ban on a natioaal registry to mean OMG NATIONAL REGISTRY
ignoring the normal process of passing a bill in two houses

You demonstrate your fanaticism and extremism on this issue.

Well over 2 million gun sales have been blocked since 1994 due to background checks. That means that some of those 2+ million not only were insane and/or criminal, they were too effing stupid to use one of the obvious loopholes in the background check system. But you airily assert that background checks won't help anyone.

What a load of steaming manure. Hey, you know what? We have laws against murder, and people still get murdered! Let's get rid of those laws too! They only hurt law-abiding citizens who kill people in self-defense. Bad guys will still murder anyway.


You call me a fanatic, I agree that I am on the larger gun issue. BUT You consistently tell me that I am against something that I am for. I advised that I backed Manchin-Toomey, even though I still had concerns about the record keeping provisions. When it was defeated, I was celebrating the larger defeat of the AWB and the fact that this current Senate made it look like the crappy idea that it is. I'm not sure of the response that you are demanding of me that is the only "credible" response that I could have. I don't like gun control, I don't think that it particularly well (crazy and terrible people still get they, so the check just stops it from being easy) or that there is any good evidence of it working vs the irritation that it creates for gun owners. This type of gun control ins't that irritating, so I could conceivably support it, not merely abstain from the argument. I have merely been advising that I would like to whittle down the proposal that I reluctantly agreed with to make it a proposal that I could say, "hey, that's not a bad idea" about.

Give me a break with the sanctimonious character attacks. Your harping on my opposition to most gun control is not as reasonable as you think it is. Making emotional character attacks is not appropriate here as I have suggested nor supported anything unethical on this issue.

[Lemur]

Your harping on my opposition to most gun control is not as reasonable as you think it is.
My harping is stylish and inspires envy in others.

Meh, you're a good guy, but on this particular issue your moral compass is not broken; it's absent. And your perspective is warped by living in Bloomberg's fiefdom.

[ICantSpellDawg]

My harping is stylish and inspires envy in others.

Meh, you're a good guy, but on this particular issue your moral compass is not broken; it's absent. And your perspective is warped by living in Bloomberg's fiefdom.

Oh, it most certainly is "warped". My point is that this is what he wants for everyone - warped? maybe. your future? maybe. Be careful who you think is being reasonable. I'm the guy who is for background checks on all sales, Bloomberg is the guy who thinks that if you own a knife that's over 4 inches you are a war criminal.

I still don't know why you are bringing ethics into this. Your ethics on this subject are different from mine, that doesn't mean that mine are absent. I feel like I'm fighting for something that I believe in and not backing down in the face of difficulty. I'm going to marches and not starting physical altercations at any point during my day. I'm correcting my errors publicly when called out and backing up those who back me up. I'm also giving credit to the opposition where it is due.

I support ethical the ethical use of firearms. I believe that banning them, confiscating lawfully used firearms, or limiting them beneath common use is unethical. Likewise, stealing or killing with them is unethical.

[Lemur]

crazy and terrible people still get [guns], so the check just stops it from being easy
This is your response to 2+ million gun purchases prevented by background checks. You obviously have no experience of law enforcement, no friends in law enforcement, no relatives in law enforcement, and no real interest in law enforcement. The willful ignorance of glassing over the prevention of criminals and madmen from easily obtaining guns is ... jaw-dropping. Hence this:


I still don't know why you are bringing ethics into this.
Because taking rational steps to make it harder for criminals and the insane to easily lay hands on weapons is ethical, in every sense of the word. Ignoring the real-world effects of your actions is unethical, in every sense of the word. Not sure how to make that any plainer.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is your response to 2+ million gun purchases prevented by background checks. You obviously have no experience of law enforcement, no friends in law enforcement, no relatives in law enforcement, and no real interest in law enforcement. The willful ignorance of glassing over the prevention of criminals and madmen from easily obtaining guns is ... jaw-dropping. Hence this:


Because taking rational steps to make it harder for criminals and the insane to easily lay hands on weapons is ethical, in every sense of the word. Ignoring the real-world effects of your actions is unethical, in every sense of the word. Not sure how to make that any plainer.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

It would be one thing if background checks registered in a breakdown of how criminals acquire firearms. They come into possession of firearms not by buying them legally, but through illegal means. Straw purchases (using background checks) are already illegal, but are the number 1 way criminals come into possession of firearms. FFL's selling guns without a background check is already illegal, yet these are the most common ways criminals come into the possession of firearms. These are followed by direct acquisition through theft or sales of firearms acquired from theft. Then, a little-bitty wedge, though legitimate sales without background checks via private seller. I realize that background checks for all sales are a good thing, again enough to support Manchin-Toomey. Your insistence that because this bill failed the sky is falling and lives are disappearing and the blood is on our hands is nonsense. We will try again when more that between 4-6% of Americans believe that this is a more important problem than Cablevision charging too much money for the channels that we don't want.

You make it sound like we are attempting to undo the background checks that govern nearly all sales. This is not true. I have never purchased a firearm without a background check and I support them. You're insistence on the point that I am an ignorant follower with absent ethics sounds absurd to me more and more.

[Lemur]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
Looks like the studies cited are from 1994. You know, when it was legal to do Federally funded gun studies. The good old days. The yesteryear time.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Looks like the studies cited are from 1994. You know, when it was legal to do Federally funded gun studies. The good old days. The yesteryear time.

That's how criminals got guns back then. Would you imagine that it has shifted dramatically since then? I would imagine that, by now, every criminal has a gun who needs a gun. I operate under the this notion that every criminal has a gun and that it's effectively irrelevant whether they get more of them or not. Violent crime has gone down in spite of the reality that criminals have guns, lots of them, and there is nothing that we can do to stop that barring confiscate them and charge them if we find them, prosecute fraudulent dealers, etc. But sure, criminals should be stopped from walking into a gun store or gun shop or private sale and getting yet another gun as easily as possible. At least we could make them dig deeper to get them. But, in the end, they will and probably already do have them.

In a nutshell, these laws are not going to save us from a criminal with a gun. Neither are the police.

The key is to be good to people, educate them so that they can earn money and have self respect and respect for others, and to defend yourself. Also, have a police force who responds to larger threats.

[Husar]

Someone did a show special lately on how gun control can never work once guns have been in a country. (it's three parts in a row) (http://www.thedailyshow.com/collection/425876/john-oliver-in-australia/425593)

I know you're gonna hate it anyway, just wanted to let you know.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't have flash. I'm not saying that governments couldn't ban firearm sales without longterm success at reducing gun ownership and, indirectly, criminal possession of firearms. What I am saying is that it will not have success so long as American citizens have the inalienable right to keep and bear common use firearms, including handguns. Further, I am against amending or overturning that right. It will not reduce violent crime, but merely reduce our ability to defend ourselves from it and leave us more vulnerable to an ever expanding government of excess.

Some governments who have had success have not recognized the right; some don't have a written constitution, and some are still monarchies

[Lemur]

[C]riminals have guns, lots of them, and there is nothing that we can do to stop that barring confiscate them and charge them if we find them, prosecute fraudulent dealers, etc. But sure, criminals should be stopped from walking into a gun store or gun shop or private sale and getting yet another gun as easily as possible. At least we could make them dig deeper to get them. But, in the end, they will and probably already do have them.
What's weird is that when it comes to preserving the 2nd Amendment in its broadest possible interpretation, you're all about free will and doing your utmost. But when it comes to law enforcement and taking simple steps to make gun acquisition more difficult for criminals and the insane, you're all fatalism and "oh well they'll just arm themselves no matter what."

A striking contrast.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What's weird is that when it comes to preserving the 2nd Amendment in its broadest possible interpretation, you're all about free will and doing your utmost. But when it comes to law enforcement and taking simple steps to make gun acquisition more difficult for criminals and the insane, you're all fatalism and "oh well they'll just arm themselves no matter what."

A striking contrast.

Except that I'm for background checks on all sales. Your belligerence and demonization of opposition seems to be your objective here. That is not moderation. We will try again in the near future and we'd be well advised to settle on where common ground exists, unless you just want this want this to be a midterm poll issue.

I'm starting to think that the Coburn Nics webkey idea should be quickly adopted as an optional tool for gun sellers. I don't that legislation would be needed to get started. I would use it for any sale that I did and it would allow for kinks to be worked out before it was mandated for all sales

[Lemur]

Except that I'm for background checks on all sales.
Except for when such a bill is actually put forward. Then you're against it. Because criminals will all arm themselves no matter what, or so your rhetoric would lead us to believe.

[Husar]

It will not reduce violent crime, but merely reduce our ability to defend ourselves from it and leave us more vulnerable to an ever expanding government of excess.

That's one of the notions challenged with the Australia example. And please show me any proof that a lack of guns leads to government becoming more absolutist/scary/whatever, because from what I can see, America has turned into more of a surveillance state than most european countries despite all the guns.

[Lemur]

Mmm. And before anyone goes committing a Godwin, please note that the Third Reich's gun control laws, while more restrictive than the USA's, were actually much more pro-gun-ownership than the Weimar laws they replaced. So let's not go there; you won't like what you find.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Except for when such a bill is actually put forward. Then you're against it. Because criminals will all arm themselves no matter what, or so your rhetoric would lead us to believe.


...Except that I was for it. Evidence is in these forums. I'm merely advising of how to pass it on a second attempt since it didn't go through the first time and the Senate contains the same people as it did a month ago. And the House hasn't discussed it yet. You can keep putting a square peg into a round hole, but I think it sounds foolish

[Lemur]

Except that [I] was for it. Evidence is in these forums.
That's a fair point; I guess what I'm responding to was your triumphalist rhetoric after the bill was defeated, your string of NRA-supplied rationalizations for why it deserved to be defeated; your patently false assertions that the bipartisan bill was an overreach by the Dems and gun-grabbing pinko socialists; and so forth.

Yes, correct, you were in favor of the bill until the moment it was filibustered. Ever since you'v been quoting the NRA chapter and verse. Hence my reaction.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's a fairer read of my position

[Papewaio]

I wish people would stop using Australia as an example. Apples and Oranges.

It's like installing democracy in the Middle East. The locals need to want it and have the ability to achieve it.

We do have hunters and the like in Australia. But culturally they are really low on the totem pole compared with doctors, lifesavers, surfers and zoo keepers.

[Greyblades]

I wish people would stop using Australia as an example. Apples and Oranges.

Right, there's no similarities with Australia, Australia is a former British colony with a wild frontier that was tamed by brave men who also wiped out almost an entire indigenous population, and you are... not similar to that. Right.

Watch Husar's video.

[Greyblades]

The population difference alone makes it apples and oranges. Why?

Last I checked americans were humans. Is there something you're not telling us? Is there something inherent about the american people that makes them drop dead if the arms to person ratio drops too low? Do you turn into globs of ectoplasm when you are witheld gunpowder? Are arms so incorporated in your national psyche that your brains slow down when the number of guns are reduced in the same way computers run slower when you take away RAM?

[drone]

Oz was populated with criminals. You just knew they would eventually have to ban the guns. :tongue:

[Ironside]

Why?

Last I checked americans were humans. Is there something you're not telling us? Is there something inherent about the american people that makes them drop dead if the arms to person ratio drops too low? Do you turn into globs of ectoplasm when you are witheld gunpowder? Are arms so incorporated in your national psyche that your brains slow down when the number of guns are reduced in the same way computers run slower when you take away RAM?

They have a different breed of politicians. ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

If you are still wondering why Americans who believe in gun ownership think that people are trying to take their guns, at least you can recognize that people are trying to take their guns. We hear that they arent trying to take their guns, but in Australia pump action shotguns were confiscated and you have to show a "need" to own a bolt action .22. Nobody believes gun controllers that "nobody" is coming for your guns" because people emphatically ARE coming from your guns.

As stated earlier; The homicide rate among similar population groups between the 2 nations is very similar. It is when you consider the hyper violent ethnic cultures who drive our homicide rates, you realize that they are effectively absent from Australian society. Sounds harsh? It is, but it is true. I believe that people are equal, but cultures are certainly not.

Reasonable people should recognize that a ban of firearms, like in Australia, will likely have the effect of reducing homicides. It may also have the effect of increasing violent crime. If our culture is progressing correctly, it is conceivable that we can keep our guns and keep violent crime and murder rates decreasing exponentially as they have been for the past 20 years.

[Greyblades]

If you are still wondering why Americans who believe in gun ownership think that people are trying to take their guns, at least you can recognize that people are trying to take their guns.

Logic, you fail at it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, I'm stupid, I get it.
I'm incapable of quoting the daily show in place of my own argument, saying "nuff said" and then accusing people who construct an alternative argument of being twits.

Australia had a massive confiscation of firearms for those results. They didn't enact an expansion of commercial background checks, instead they showed dump trucks full of peoples previously registered property being made in to steel rods. Australia had a low homicide rate, they now have a low homicide rate. The point of that video is that confiscation can happen and the world doesn't end. If you think that they will never have a mass killing again, I would wager against it. When people say that registration will likely lead to confiscation, remember the example you've cited.

Australia has a population the size of the NYC metropolitan area. In a landmass the size of the continental United States. They are a highly educated, economically affluent, ethnically homogeneous nation whose immigrants and minorities consist of those with some of the lowest criminal proclivities in the world. They are a different nation with a similar colonial history, although the right to bear arms was never fought for and the government was never violently overthrown.

[Papewaio]

The British Empire didn't want Australia and it setup several prison colonies in the some of the provinces.

So a country they didn't need full of people they didn't want. Not very hard to see why they encouraged independence.

[Husar]

If you are still wondering why Americans who believe in gun ownership think that people are trying to take their guns, at least you can recognize that people are trying to take their guns. We hear that they arent trying to take their guns, but in Australia pump action shotguns were confiscated and you have to show a "need" to own a bolt action .22. Nobody believes gun controllers that "nobody" is coming for your guns" because people emphatically ARE coming from your guns.

I'm coming for your guns, except I'm not really coming, I'd rather stay here where we have fewer guns.
Your president is not really coming for your guns, neither is the NWO or whoever "they" are.

Maybe some criminals are coming to steal your guns because that'd probably be easier than breaking into a well-secured store or government building.

The whole apples and oranges argument boils down to Americans looking really bad and brainless/stubborn/outdated yet again, I'm not sure why it's so proudly presented all the time. ~;)
You're basically saying that America is a hopeless case as far as positive changes are concerned, so that's either really bad for America or you're an un-american defeatist. I thought America is great because it has the spirit of exploration and because Americans grab problems by the horns and work hard until they can solve them? You might've just as well told MLK that trying to get rid of racism is hopeless because the KKK, racism in general and slavery are far too entrenched in the american psyche since the beginning and whatnot.

If you refuse to even think about how to solve a problem then it's no surprise that you won't be able to solve it but it's not the fault of the circumstances, it's the fault of your own lack of initiative. And don't even dare to argue this, it's what you keep telling unemployed people. :stare:

[Papewaio]

Guns are a Consitutional right for Americans.

And you cannot change that because it is part of the Consitution.

After all the second amendment has been shown to allow the individual the right to bear arms as they see fit.

[Lemur]

After all the second amendment has been shown to allow the individual the right to bear arms as they see fit.
I don't know if "shown to allow" is quite the right way of looking at things. That's how we, as a nation, choose to read a sentence that could be read at least a couple of ways. 2A is remarkably short:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There's a few different things going on there. Security of the state is given as the rationale, not tyranny-fighting with Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn (http://youtu.be/1_I4WgBfETc). "Well regulated" is emphasized, which would seem to imply some sort of hierarchy and organization, things that 2A activists generally ignore. Also note that the right is given to "the people," not to individuals as such. You can choose to read "the people" as each and every individual on their own merits, but that's a deliberate choice, and not the only reading.

Anyway. For the last eighty years or so we've chosen to read "shall not be infringed" as the crucial sentence clause, and that's just how we roll, yo. But that's a function of politics, courts, case law, and so forth. It's not the inevitable or only reading of 2A.

[Papewaio]

Shown by the Supreme Court that the individual rights model outranks the collective rights one.