Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[Ibrahim]

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

Here 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.

[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.

....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, 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, 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, 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, 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 (Jan 15, 2013)

Gun Laws Focus on Mentally Ill (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?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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, but they aren't.

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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)?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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. 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. 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, 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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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, but they aren't.

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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. 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. 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, 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/043...ith-jim-carrey