Thread: Gun control, the U.S. Senate, etc. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025392
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
Over here, Orfeo noted that reasonable discussion belongs here in Purg - so let's have it here and save his sanity.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The legislation mandates more background checks on gun sales (with plenty of exceptions); explicitly forbids creating any sort of registry; and says nothing about confiscation. So what exactly is this beef or herring you speak of?
The current, watered-down version isn't too bad - if we believe that it's the last one. Unfortunately, gun owners in the US know better. Sen. Feinstein was reportedly furious that her new gun ban didn't get a floor vote, and it will be back at some point. She, Sen. Schumer, and others have publicly admitted they'd like a total ban on firearms, but haven't had the votes (yet).
Then there's the registration issue. Current US law forbids a federal registry - yet it's been reported that the ATF routinely keeps copies of form 4473 data (for non-US Shipmates, this is the background check form one fills out when buying firearms from a licensed dealer), in direct violation of the 1986 law that created the NICS system. A sizable number of US gun owners simply don't trust that "no registry" doesn't actually mean "no public registry that we're going to tell you about".
The whole anger at the Senate thing is kind of amusing, actually - if the vote was that close in the Democrat-controlled Senate, did anyone actually think it had a prayer of passage in the House?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
According to polls, the vast majority of Americans (including most NRA members) favour tighter gun control. Yet congress refuses. So much for "of the people, by the people"
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
And yet, in the poll that matters - the elections - gun control advocates obviously didn't win the day. How does that square?
Polls can mean whatever the poll-taker wants them to. The NRA's polls say Americans don't want gun control. The anti-gun folks' polls say they do. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle. And for most folks, I'd wager it's only one issue, and a pretty small one at that, generally.
[ 07. May 2013, 14:24: Message edited by: jbohn ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
According to polls, the vast majority of Americans (including most NRA members) favour tighter gun control. Yet congress refuses. So much for "of the people, by the people"
For that matter, the majority of U.S. Senators supported the bill in question. The anti-democratic nature of the U.S. Senate, particularly its lurch towards a sixty vote requirement to do anything, is just one of the many reasons the recent vote was so objectionable. It's just highlighting what a dysfunctional institution the U.S. Senate has become.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
It should be noted that, working from 2010 Census data and assuming each Senator represents half the population of his or her state, the 46 Senators who voted down the bill represent about 116 million Americans, while the 54 Senators who voted in favor of its passage represent about 192 million.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
And yet, in the poll that matters - the elections - gun control advocates obviously didn't win the day. How does that square?
I'll go with: ninny statists like Obama don't yet rule, and Thank God.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
I'll go with: ninny statists like Obama don't yet rule, and Thank God.
This seems fairly in line with blogger bspencer's observation that for a certain segment of the American public guns [are] cultural markers and little else.
quote:
I think the thing that makes me angriest about the gun debate as it currently stands is that the gun-humpers are basically just trolling liberals when they protest so vigorously even the smallest, most reasonable control measures. I mean, at this point, this is not about folks who enjoy hunting or target shooting worrying that their sporting/hobby will be hampered/criminalized in some way. No, at this point, this is just about trolling liberals. Gun-humpers have made the calculation, “Liberals are passionate about gun control; therefore I am against it.”
How do I know this? Well, I think it’s pretty obvious. You can defend your home with a rifle. You don’t need a semi-automatic weapon to hunt or shoot skeet or shoot at targets. The only reason I can imagine a person wanting a weapon like that is because it signifies something.
It goes on from there.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
And yet, in the poll that matters - the elections - gun control advocates obviously didn't win the day. How does that square?
Polls can mean whatever the poll-taker wants them to. The NRA's polls say Americans don't want gun control. The anti-gun folks' polls say they do. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle. And for most folks, I'd wager it's only one issue, and a pretty small one at that, generally.
In the middle of what? America has gun control. So it is not between existence and non-existence, but matter of degree. Look at the gay marriage debate, congress is shifting towards majority opinion rather than against. What could be the difference?
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
The middle of the wildly differing "statistics". At the end of the day, I'd bet Americans are split around 50-50 on gun control, with a slightly higher number on the against side.
As far as the money insinuation - that may or may not be what motivates Congress. That said, I can assure you I get no cash from the firearms industry, and neither does the vast majority of "pro-gun" America. If folks are telling their representatives to oppose new legislation (and they are in many places, including here in liberal Minnesota*), it's not just about industry money.
Whether or not any of us agree or disagree with it individually, there is a rising tide of discontent with government intrusion (from both sides of the political aisle) into what many people see as their civil rights - be it Patriot Act-style electronic surveillance, domestic use of drone aircraft, further gun control, or what have you. If the anti-gun folks want to make progress, they're going to have to figure out how to navigate that minefield. And it won't be easy.
Simply put: the pro-gun side doesn't trust the anti-gun folks, and it's been given ample reason not to - every time the anti-gun side has brought up "reasonable gun control" and promised this will be the last new law, the one thing they need to protect America's children, they've been lying.
------------------------------------------------------
* The speaker of our Democrat-controlled House of Representatives recently pulled gun control off the table for the session, and the DFL controls both houses of the legislature and the Governor's mansion. That should give some idea of the breadth and depth of opposition to the idea, even here in one of the most reliably "blue" states in the Union.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
And yet, in the poll that matters - the elections - gun control advocates obviously didn't win the day. How does that square?
For one thing, it seems as if candidates get dropped into two boxes. You're either pro-gun/anti-control or anti-gun/pro-control. There's not a lot of room for the nuance of 'in favour of certain controls' that would allow you to be a candidate that reflects the apparent opinion of a lot of people in these opinion polls on specific questions.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Simply put: the pro-gun side doesn't trust the anti-gun folks, and it's been given ample reason not to - every time the anti-gun side has brought up "reasonable gun control" and promised this will be the last new law, the one thing they need to protect America's children, they've been lying.
Citation please. I can't think of any national politician claiming that there was one perfect and flawless piece of legislation that, if passed, would solve a problem (any problem, not just gun violence) for ever and ever with no need to ever talk about it ever again.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The middle of the wildly differing "statistics". At the end of the day, I'd bet Americans are split around 50-50 on gun control, with a slightly higher number on the against side.
Wow, we don't need to take polls anymore. We can just ask jbohn how he's going to bet at the end of the day.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For one thing, it seems as if candidates get dropped into two boxes. You're either pro-gun/anti-control or anti-gun/pro-control. There's not a lot of room for the nuance of 'in favour of certain controls' that would allow you to be a candidate that reflects the apparent opinion of a lot of people in these opinion polls on specific questions.
Good point. The moderate has, unfortunately, become a nearly extinct species in this country's political arena.
---------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Citation please. I can't think of any national politician claiming that there was one perfect and flawless piece of legislation that, if passed, would solve a problem (any problem, not just gun violence) for ever and ever with no need to ever talk about it ever again.
They're virtually all of this type - "we just need 'reasonable' gun control" (note the weasel word). The problem is that the definition of 'reasonable' keeps shifting - once the anti-gun lobby gets one thing, it moves quickly on to another. See here for a relatively decent timeline of U.S. gun control, both proposed and enacted. Note that only four years after the 1990 "Crime Control Act", we got the 1994 assault weapons ban, to be followed in 1998 by a proposal in the Senate to require trigger locks to be provided with every handgun sold. (The proposal finally passed in 1999.)
While we can probably agree that providing trigger locks isn't in and of itself a bad thing, can you see where gun owners might be leery of "just this one more thing" coming from the other side? Especially when, quite often, it's being proposed by someone who has said on national television:
quote:
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”
source
---------------------
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Wow, we don't need to take polls anymore. We can just ask jbohn how he's going to bet at the end of the day.
The answers you'll get will be about as useful either way - and I'm way less expensive. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Seriously, though - how many polls predicted a Romney win (some of them by pretty big margins) last fall?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Seriously, though - how many polls predicted a Romney win (some of them by pretty big margins) last fall?
Well, if you were listening to anyone other than Nate Silver, who actually understands polling, then you get what you deserve.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Seriously, though - how many polls predicted a Romney win (some of them by pretty big margins) last fall?
Is that something like "How many Republicans does it take to change a lightbulb?"
Ans. None -- they pay Fox News to do it for them.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Seriously, though - how many polls predicted a Romney win (some of them by pretty big margins) last fall?
Is that something like "How many Republicans does it take to change a lightbulb?"
Ans. None -- they pay Fox News to do it for them.
Pretty much, yeah. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Political polls generally end up reporting whatever the folks sponsoring the poll want to hear, or so ISTM.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Citation please. I can't think of any national politician claiming that there was one perfect and flawless piece of legislation that, if passed, would solve a problem (any problem, not just gun violence) for ever and ever with no need to ever talk about it ever again.
They're virtually all of this type - "we just need 'reasonable' gun control" (note the weasel word). The problem is that the definition of 'reasonable' keeps shifting - once the anti-gun lobby gets one thing, it moves quickly on to another. See here for a relatively decent timeline of U.S. gun control, both proposed and enacted. Note that only four years after the 1990 "Crime Control Act", we got the 1994 assault weapons ban, to be followed in 1998 by a proposal in the Senate to require trigger locks to be provided with every handgun sold. (The proposal finally passed in 1999.)
Except that neither of those laws was seen as a "magic bullet" (if you'll pardon the phrase) for the problems of gun violence and gun safety. Those advocating the laws you cite were quite open about them being important reforms, not some kind of cure-all. Can you cite any politician stating something like "if only we can ban the import of semi-automatic weapons it would solve all of our gun problems forever and we'd never have to talk about it ever again"? Most legislation of this sort (and most other sorts as well) is usually billed as "a good start", not "the one solution that will fix everything forever".
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
While we can probably agree that providing trigger locks isn't in and of itself a bad thing, . . .
Who's "we"? The NRA opposes trigger locks, and not for any slippery slope reasons. You don't seem to think it's a particularly good idea either.
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Seriously, though - how many polls predicted a Romney win (some of them by pretty big margins) last fall?
Two. Rassmussen and Gallup. Both seem to have had some fairly obvious and blatant systematic biases (the kind of errors you don't expect from prominent professionals) that slanted their polling towards Republican candidates. The most obvious were that they didn't poll mobile phones (which skewed their sample older demographically) and they assumed that the minority voters who showed up in 2008 would vanish back to wherever it was that they came from and not vote in 2012.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Who's "we"? The NRA opposes trigger locks, and not for any slippery slope reasons. You don't seem to think it's a particularly good idea either.
There's nothing especially bad about trigger locks per se, although if your guns are stored in a locked cabinet, a second lock is a little superfluous, but harmless.
There is a big problem with requiring a home defense weapon to be stored with a trigger lock on. A home defense weapon should be stored in the most accessible way that is consistent with the safety of the occupants and visitors to your home. If someone breaks in to your home while you're still fiddling with the key to a trigger lock, you have a problem.
If you have little kids, or little kids frequently visit your house, it's most important to keep the guns away from them - it's more likely that a kid will shoot someone with your gun than you will have a break-in. If you live alone, there's nothing unsafe about a loaded handgun on a shelf.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Can you cite any politician stating something like "if only we can ban the import of semi-automatic weapons it would solve all of our gun problems forever and we'd never have to talk about it ever again"?
You've got me - I've no inclination to try to find footage of a politician mouthing those exact words.
That said, billing it as "we only want this one little thing" is pretty much the same, no? Especially when we all know they really mean, "we only want this one little thing TODAY, but tomorrow we'll have more demands".
Quite a few folks talk about "reasonable" background checks. I might even agree with some of them. But in the next breath it's "reasonable" bans of so-called assault weapons. (To be read as "scary black guns with 'the thing that goes up'.") Then "reasonable" limits on magazine capacity. And so on, and so forth.
To some Americans, the experience of Canadian firearms owners (and those of the UK and Australia) are seen as a warning of what is to come if they relent on new firearms legislation. (To others, it's seen as a good example, to be fair.)
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
While we can probably agree that providing trigger locks isn't in and of itself a bad thing, . . .
Who's "we"? The NRA opposes trigger locks, and not for any slippery slope reasons. You don't seem to think it's a particularly good idea either.
I meant you and I.
Actually, I don't mind it in the least. Personally, I'm not sure it needed legislating - most manufacturers were already doing it - but I don't have a problem with it, really.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There is a big problem with requiring a home defense weapon to be stored with a trigger lock on. A home defense weapon should be stored in the most accessible way that is consistent with the safety of the occupants and visitors to your home. If someone breaks in to your home while you're still fiddling with the key to a trigger lock, you have a problem.
This is indeed something to be considered. One solution is a weapon carried on one's person, although that has it's own set of issues.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
"I went down to get my physical examination one day, and I walked in, I sat down, got good and drunk the night before, so I looked and felt my best when I went in that morning. `Cause I wanted to look like the all-American kid from New York City, man I wanted, I wanted to feel like the all..., I wanted to be the all American kid from New York, and I walked in, sat down, I was hung down, brung down, hung up, and all kinds o' mean nasty ugly things. And I walked in and sat down and they gave me a piece of paper, said, "Kid, see the psychiatrist, room 604."
And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL!" And I started jumpin' up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL!" and he started jumpin' up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL!" And the sergeant came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy." "
With thanks to Arlo Guthrie. I think that pretty much sums up the mentality that wants, let alone needs(!) to own semi-automatic (and God forbid, automatic) weapons in a civilian context where there is no realistic prospect of war. I know the cultural background but that doesn't make it any saner. It is simply psychotic---an inability/refusal to see another human being as anything more than an object, to be maimed or killed at the convenience of the one powerful enough to pull the weight of a trigger (how very brave).
The fact that the people of the United States continue to wallow in this self-inflicted nightmare, and for so many to regard it as `normal' and `acceptable' seems to demonstrate how much people's hearts have been deadened; to confuse loyality to the dead letter of the `law' and `rights'---in this case idolatry of the `Constitution'---with the `spirit' of true freedom and justice.
There is no freedom or justice to those who are lying dead on the floor, or to those who are left with a lifetime's grief, because others uphold it as their `right' to own objects that have no other purpose but to kill human beings as quickly and cheaply as possible (and I am not talking about perfectly sensible shotguns and rifles used for hunting, although obviously they can be turned to bad use as well).
By any objective measure the situation in the US (as in some other countries) is `insane', but I guess given the United States self-appointed view of itself and its role in the world, we might be justified in expecting better. Feet of clay, indeed. Very sad.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
That said, billing it as "we only want this one little thing" is pretty much the same, no? Especially when we all know they really mean, "we only want this one little thing TODAY, but tomorrow we'll have more demands".
Except no one says that. They say "we want this thing", not "we only want this one little thing". Given that it's a well established principle of American law that Congress is not able to preemptively limit the actions of a future Congress, I'm not sure what kind of reassurances your looking for. Your ideal of perpetual stasis doesn't seem to be applied to any other area of law, either. "But didn't we revise [the tax code/steel tariffs/committee seniority rules] last year?" isn't a particularly compelling argument.
To use an historical parallel, this is akin to arguing that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was some kind of underhanded betrayal because it was passed a mere year after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It requires ignoring multiple statements by supporters of the CRA on the importance of voting reforms.
[ 07. May 2013, 20:58: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Political polls generally end up reporting whatever the folks sponsoring the poll want to hear, or so ISTM.
A tangent, but c'mon -- how things seem to you don't constitute actual support for your argument.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The current, watered-down version isn't too bad - if we believe that it's the last one. Unfortunately, gun owners in the US know better.
So we have to reject this reasonable law, because if we don't, supporters will propose an unreasonable one in the future?
This makes no sense. If we have the power to reject bad laws now, what's to prevent us from rejecting bad proposals in the future?
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
I think that pretty much sums up the mentality that wants, let alone needs(!) to own semi-automatic (and God forbid, automatic) weapons in a civilian context where there is no realistic prospect of war.
I'm really on the fence when it comes to gun control, but I honestly don't get the issue with semi-automatic guns being a problem. Are they scarier because you don't have to do one extra step? I've shot semi-automatic handguns (another story) and it just meant the second round was ready. As I'm a pretty bad shot, I thought it was handy.
And trigger locks? jbohn has them. At my insistence. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Why do civilians going about their lawful peaceful lives `need' self-loading weapons?
If they are varmint hunting they should take pride in learning to kill with one shot (and finishing of with another when that doesn't happen). There's certainly nothing safe or needful about being able to spray bullets around the countryside.
The point is that self-loading weapons just make it unnecessarily easy to go beserk, and live out some militaristic techno-power fantasy.
There simply isn't any realistic `need' for such weapons in the hands of the murdering public.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
There simply isn't any realistic `need' for such weapons in the hands of the murdering public.
It is to prevent the government from taking total control, just as they did in the UK, Canada and Australia.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Are you serious!? As far as I know the US, like most countries, is run by a hegemony of rich families, corporate entities, and political operatives, monitored and coralled (more or less effectively!) by the judiciary.
It all gets dressed up in various traditional forms, but to put it crudely: money calls the shots, and always has done, but is usually kept in check by people in all areas of civic life who are not swayed by idolizing wealth.
This idea of `the government' as some monolithic presence just waiting for the opportunity to turn `the people' into it's slaves is a very naïve conspiracy theory. It's far more socially complex than that, but worship of money and power always needs to be kept in its place.
However, the fantasy that arming the populace is a sane and workable solution to maintaining good governance is lunacy, as the out-workings demonstrate on an almost daily basis.
[ 08. May 2013, 04:33: Message edited by: Alisdair ]
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
Are you serious!? As far as I know the US, like most countries, is run by a hegemony of rich families, corporate entities, and political operatives, monitored and coralled (more or less effectively!) by the judiciary.
I was with you right up until the judiciary part. Our SCOTUS is the ultimate guarantor that none of this democracy stuff sneeks through the net of corporate control...
--Tom Clune
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
I refuse to give in to total cynicism.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Simply put: the pro-gun side doesn't trust the anti-gun folks, and it's been given ample reason not to - every time the anti-gun side has brought up "reasonable gun control" and promised this will be the last new law, the one thing they need to protect America's children, they've been lying.
Your timeline ignores all the right's anti gun-regulation. From what I've gathered from across the pond, every proposed liberal law to regulate gun control has been vigourously opposed, watered down into toothlessness, or quickly followed by massive conservative loopholes to make it worthless.
You claim there was a 'last new law' that was passed - which the liberals promised would be the only one they'd need, yet turned out, once passed in full, to be only a stepping stone to more. This is a common fantasy of the right, but I don't think it's based in fact.
The liberals have to keep asking because they never get what they ask for. They want reasonable regulation. What they get is regulators being hamstrung so they legally can't do their jobs, regulations being shot through with loopholes, safety measures being flatly opposed, and young children being directly marketed to by gun companies painting their deadly weapons pink so little girls will want to play with them. If tobacco companies painted their packets pink or electric blue to appeal to children like Keystone, there'd be an outcry. When liberals suggest maybe this rampant proliferation of deadly weapons might need a bit of restraining the public outcry is against them!!
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
That said, billing it as "we only want this one little thing" is pretty much the same, no? Especially when we all know they really mean, "we only want this one little thing TODAY, but tomorrow we'll have more demands".
It's less a slippery slope situation than a man in a rainstorm pleading for an umbrella to keep dry and being grudgingly given a small scrap of newspaper instead that quickly turns to a useless mush. Of course he's going to keep crying for more and bigger scraps of paper! That doesn't mean he's being deceitful.
[ 08. May 2013, 12:45: Message edited by: Hawk ]
Posted by Psmith (# 15311) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
There simply isn't any realistic `need' for such weapons in the hands of the murdering public.
It is to prevent the government from taking total control, just as they did in the UK, Canada and Australia.
Control of what, exactly? The availability of guns has done nothing to prevent the erosion of rights to trial or freedom of information in the US, relative to the other countries mentioned. Are you saying you oppose gun control because it opens the door to gun control?
Canada, the UK and Australia are all as close to being free countries as any; all, as has been observed of governed by and for the rich, bot no more (and perhaps less) than the US
Canada's gun would not seem strict to many outside the united states. If I wanted one, a permit for "unrestricted" would not be hard to get, and that includes semi-automatic rifles. "Restricted" (handgun)permits also require only passing an exam and background check; a similar system in the US might well help to keep guns out of the hands of some dangerous people. The separate permit for handguns may, for example, serve to discourage casual buying while not being much of a barrier to, for example, a serious target shooter, thereby reducing the risks of theft. The UK and Australia are both much stricter- and yet hunting and target shooting are common enough in both, while on the other hand lethal violence is rarer.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Exactly my point, Psmith. But try telling the lunatics this.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm rather fascinated that some people didn't take lilBuddha's remark with the large dollop of irony that I did.
Of course, there are indeed people who take such statements with no hint of irony at all.
There is a certain naivety to the American celebration of freedom, but that is because it is so heavily woven into the American mythology. The narrative of the country's foundation is all about winning freedom. It's settled by people looking for religious freedom. There's a war of independence so people can make their own decisions. And America ends up being the proverbial 'Land of Freedom'.
It's not that those formative events weren't true, or at least a part of the truth. But the freedom idea has become such a key part of national identity that the idea of someone external to you threatening your 'freedom' has become about the worst horror imaginable, to be resisted vehemently. Meanwhile, people are perfectly capable of ignoring threats to their 'freedom' that are from themselves, their own group or the group they want to be part of.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Sen. Feinstein was reportedly furious that her new gun ban didn't get a floor vote, and it will be back at some point. She, Sen. Schumer, and others have publicly admitted they'd like a total ban on firearms, but haven't had the votes (yet).
They can lead by example by disarming the capitol police and secret service. Or is it they figure us field hands are just too uppity?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Psmith:
The UK and Australia are both much stricter- and yet hunting and target shooting are common enough in both, while on the other hand lethal violence is rarer.
Umm, you do know that the UK prohibits possession of the target pistols required for, for example, the 25m and 50m Olympic pistol shooting events, right? That the British entrants in those events have to live and train abroad because their weapons aren't allowed in the UK, and that a special law and security arrangements were required to even allow the olympic pistol events to happen on UK soil at all?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Psmith:
The UK and Australia are both much stricter- and yet hunting and target shooting are common enough in both, while on the other hand lethal violence is rarer.
Umm, you do know that the UK prohibits possession of the target pistols required for, for example, the 25m and 50m Olympic pistol shooting events, right? That the British entrants in those events have to live and train abroad because their weapons aren't allowed in the UK, and that a special law and security arrangements were required to even allow the olympic pistol events to happen on UK soil at all?
Google-fu indicates this is an inaccurate description of the problems that occurred, which had to do with failure of athletes to lodge the correct documentation, not to do with absolute prohibitions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/may/20/olympic-shooting-firearms-licences
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I would also note that the relevant sentence in the Wikipedia article on the shooting events at the London Olympics has been written by someone who knows how to link to legislation, but can't read legislation for shit.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Google-fu indicates this is an inaccurate description of the problems that occurred, which had to do with failure of athletes to lodge the correct documentation, not to do with absolute prohibitions.
That article refers to clay pigeon shooting, with shotguns. Shotguns are allowed in the UK, subject to the necessary paperwork. Handguns, post-Dunblane, are not.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Political polls generally end up reporting whatever the folks sponsoring the poll want to hear, or so ISTM.
A tangent, but c'mon -- how things seem to you don't constitute actual support for your argument.
It's not meant as support, per se - it's a semi-humorous aside, responding to Miss Amanda.
That said, the fact remains that high-profile polls were demonstrably wrong about the presidential election. This merely illustrates that while polling can be a useful source of information, poll data shouldn't be taken as absolute fact, either.
----------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So we have to reject this reasonable law, because if we don't, supporters will propose an unreasonable one in the future?
This makes no sense. If we have the power to reject bad laws now, what's to prevent us from rejecting bad proposals in the future?
It's far easier to stop bad laws from being enacted in the first place than to try and stop them from being extended later. Sort of like an oak tree - it's a whole lot easier to uproot as a seedling than it is after 10 or 20 years.
----------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by AmyBo:
As I'm a pretty bad shot, I thought it was handy.
I thought you did pretty well, actually.
----------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Your timeline ignores all the right's anti gun-regulation. From what I've gathered from across the pond, every proposed liberal law to regulate gun control has been vigourously opposed, watered down into toothlessness, or quickly followed by massive conservative loopholes to make it worthless.
Really? The Gun Control Act of 1968 was pretty sweeping, frankly, and not at all "toothless". the 1986 "Firearm Owner Protection Act" seems to have done a pretty good job of stemming the flow of legal fully automatic firearms. (Criminals, or course, ignore gun control laws - they're criminals, after all.)
The 1994 "assault weapons ban" worked as designed - it drove the price of grandfathered firearms and magazines up. It failed to do anything about crime because the design was brain-damaged, not because it was rendered "toothless".
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The liberals have to keep asking because they never get what they ask for.
Thank God.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
They want reasonable regulation.
Some of them claim that, and some may even mean it. Sen. Feinstein doesn't - see the quote I posted above about total confiscation.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What they get is regulators being hamstrung so they legally can't do their jobs, regulations being shot through with loopholes, safety measures being flatly opposed,
There are cases where you are correct - I don't agree, for instance, with Congressional bans on research into gun violence. There are other cases where the "safety measures" proposed are onerous and unworkable; it's just as well they aren't passed into law.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
and young children being directly marketed to by gun companies painting their deadly weapons pink so little girls will want to play with them. If tobacco companies painted their packets pink or electric blue to appeal to children like Keystone, there'd be an outcry. When liberals suggest maybe this rampant proliferation of deadly weapons might need a bit of restraining the public outcry is against them!!
I know more than a few adult female shooters who love their pink rifles, for the record. To say nothing of the Pink Pistols, a gay rights/shooting enthusiast group. I've met a few of their members who do indeed own "pink pistols".
If the "public outcry is against" gun control advocates, it may be a clue here - if that's the case, then gun control isn't as popular as some on the left are claiming...
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
It's less a slippery slope situation than a man in a rainstorm pleading for an umbrella to keep dry and being grudgingly given a small scrap of newspaper instead that quickly turns to a useless mush. Of course he's going to keep crying for more and bigger scraps of paper! That doesn't mean he's being deceitful.
A closer would be your theoretical man saying, "All I want from you is a newspaper", and when given one that doesn't keep the rain off, asking for a colander, some chicken wire, and an empty picture frame to boot. None of them are going to keep the rain off, but he manages to inconvenience everyone else in the process. So it it with gun control - we get some, it doesn't solve the problem, so some folks assume what we need is more of the same. I submit that fixing the disaster of a mental health system (or better yet, the entire health system) in this country would do *far* more to curb violence of all sorts than all the new gun control laws you could name.
----------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
They can lead by example by disarming the capitol police and secret service. Or is it they figure us field hands are just too uppity?
You said it, I didn't.
Of course, the thought of total gun prohibition being championed by someone with armed guards is a bit rich, frankly.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
From what I've gathered from across the pond, every proposed liberal law to regulate gun control has been vigourously opposed, watered down into toothlessness, or quickly followed by massive conservative loopholes to make it worthless.
Just wanted to add this reference about the 1986 FOPA - there was plenty of political game playing done, but it was done by the liberal Democrats, led by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY):
link
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
Here is the NY times on the subject. Special, temporary, rules allowing a couple of dozen people to possess match pistols and shoot them at one of four ranges in the country are hardly conducive to the development of new shooters. The point of view of the anti-gun side (exemplified by Chris Williamson MP in that article) is that they don't really care about the impact that gun laws have on target shooting. Now, as it happens, I think that's a reasonable opinion - if a gun ban is necessary and effective, killing off target shooting is a price worth paying - but that's not consistent with "target shooting [is] common enough".
I think self-defense is a much stronger reason for owning a gun than hobby target shooting, but that ship sailed in the UK in 1946.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
They can lead by example by disarming the capitol police and secret service. Or is it they figure us field hands are just too uppity?
You said it, I didn't.
Of course, the thought of total gun prohibition being championed by someone with armed guards is a bit rich, frankly.
Neither one of you is stupid. So why do you rely on an argument which, quite frankly, is?
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
They can lead by example by disarming the capitol police and secret service. Or is it they figure us field hands are just too uppity?
You said it, I didn't.
Of course, the thought of total gun prohibition being championed by someone with armed guards is a bit rich, frankly.
Neither one of you is stupid. So why do you rely on an argument which, quite frankly, is?
Thank you.
Not "relying on it", though - just noticing a bit of irony.
Posted by Psmith (# 15311) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Now, as it happens, I think that's a reasonable opinion - if a gun ban is necessary and effective, killing off target shooting is a price worth paying - but that's not consistent with "target shooting [is] common enough".
I think self-defense is a much stronger reason for owning a gun than hobby target shooting, but that ship sailed in the UK in 1946.
Target shooting with rifles in the case of the UK, I suppose.
Self-defense is not a compelling reason in most cases because It does not actually make one safer. In some specialized cases, that may not be the case.
I'm content with the current level of Gun control in Canada, with or without the recently abolished long-gun registry. A large portion of crime-guns here are smuggled from the United States, which does give Canada some interest in the failure of the US to maintain reasonable controls.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Reply to jbone:
It is, in fact, not at all ironic. How many death threats or assassination attempts have you received?
[ 08. May 2013, 17:11: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Reply to jbone:
It is, in fact, not at all ironic. How many death threats or assassination attempts have you received?
Well, when Senator Feinstein goes on record supporting the issuing of concealed carry permits to battered spouses, crime victims and other people who have received death threats, then we'll talk.
The President is a special case. It's not practical to give many other people the kind of security screen he has, and he has it precisely because he's a target for every nutjob out there. An ordinary politician is more at risk than the average person (cf. Gabby Giffords) but not different from the high-risk end of the distribution of normal people.
And the words I have for someone who employs armed guards whilst seeking to remove similar protection from other people who have a similar level of risk don't belong in Purg.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Fine, pick one person from the multitude of a more varied response. Yep, this is reasonable.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
It's far easier to stop bad laws from being enacted in the first place than to try and stop them from being extended later. Sort of like an oak tree - it's a whole lot easier to uproot as a seedling than it is after 10 or 20 years.
No, it takes exactly the same amount of effort to defeat the passage of a law as it does to defeat a revision to a law, at least in the U.S. In part, this is because laws aren't trees.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And the words I have for someone who employs armed guards whilst seeking to remove similar protection from other people who have a similar level of risk don't belong in Purg.
Do you have similar words for people who fund something like the U.S. military but severely restrict the operation of private armies?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fine, pick one person from the multitude of a more varied response. Yep, this is reasonable.
Well, Senator Feinstein drove the 1994 assault weapons ban, tried to re-introduce it this year, and is probably the most consistent outspoken voice against guns in the US senate. So she's a reasonable person to pick - but if you wanted to extend the challenge to other prominent anti-gun politicians, such as Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Emmanuel, or Senator Schumer, I'd be happy with that.
I do give Senator Feinstein a little credit for consistency - although she held a concealed carry permit and carried a handgun for protection in 1994 when her assault weapons ban was passed, she reportedly no longer holds a concealed carry permit.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Do you have similar words for people who fund something like the U.S. military but severely restrict the operation of private armies?
Don't be daft. The US military (or that of any other country) protects the whole country by construction. It's not possible to protect only the bits that senior politicians and their families are standing on. Members of Congress don't get any more or less protection from foreign invaders than minimum-wage shop assistants.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Do you have similar words for people who fund something like the U.S. military but severely restrict the operation of private armies?
Don't be daft. The US military (or that of any other country) protects the whole country by construction. It's not possible to protect only the bits that senior politicians and their families are standing on. Members of Congress don't get any more or less protection from foreign invaders than minimum-wage shop assistants.
Right. Whereas you say there's no organization that protects and serves the general public, policing the law on their behalf one might say.
For instance, if you were a member of an very unpopular group and wanted to hold some kind of demonstration you'd have to hire private guards, right? Perhaps quite a lot of them.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Right. Whereas you say there's no organization that protects and serves the general public, policing the law on their behalf one might say.
That organization quite explicitly has no duty to protect people. See eg. Warren v. District of Columbia. Somehow it's OK for Mayor Bloomberg to be followed around by two of NYPD's finest, but a normal person under a similar level of threat is on their own until they are actually attacked, at which time the police will come to photograph his dead body and try to find his murderer.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
That organization quite explicitly has no duty to protect people. See eg. Warren v. District of Columbia. Somehow it's OK for Mayor Bloomberg to be followed around by two of NYPD's finest, but a normal person under a similar level of threat is on their own until they are actually attacked, at which time the police will come to photograph his dead body and try to find his murderer.
Yeah, I'm sure every single one of the Neo-Nazis in the photos I linked are the mayor of some town somewhere. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 08. May 2013, 19:24: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, I'm sure every single one of the Neo-Nazis in the photos I linked are the mayor of some town somewhere.
And because police guarding Nazis at a big gathering to prevent public disorder is exactly the same as a 24/7 armed guard.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
It's far easier to stop bad laws from being enacted in the first place than to try and stop them from being extended later. Sort of like an oak tree - it's a whole lot easier to uproot as a seedling than it is after 10 or 20 years.
No, it takes exactly the same amount of effort to defeat the passage of a law as it does to defeat a revision to a law, at least in the U.S. In part, this is because laws aren't trees.
In an ideal world, this might be true. Legislative inertia makes it otherwise, however. Once a law is on the books, it requires extra effort to convince people it's a bad one that should be removed.
-----------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Reply to jbone:
It's jbohn, thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is, in fact, not at all ironic. How many death threats or assassination attempts have you received?
Not as many as him - but then again, I probably don't piss off as many people in a day. Not that it matters, really - last I checked, the President has no more right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than I do.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And because police guarding Nazis at a big gathering to prevent public disorder is exactly the same as a 24/7 armed guard.
So your argument is that the typical Neo-Nazi or Klan member "ha[s] a similar level of risk" in their everyday life as the American president? Well, so long as you're being reasonable about this.
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
It's far easier to stop bad laws from being enacted in the first place than to try and stop them from being extended later. Sort of like an oak tree - it's a whole lot easier to uproot as a seedling than it is after 10 or 20 years.
No, it takes exactly the same amount of effort to defeat the passage of a law as it does to defeat a revision to a law, at least in the U.S. In part, this is because laws aren't trees.
In an ideal world, this might be true. Legislative inertia makes it otherwise, however. Once a law is on the books, it requires extra effort to convince people it's a bad one that should be removed.
Except that's not the argument you made. You claimed that it was easier to revise an existing law than to pass a new one. You said nothing about removing or repealing a law. You're shifting the goalposts.
Of course, if it actually is easier to change an already passed law, wouldn't that mean repealing a law (bad or otherwise) is actually easier than passing it in the first place? Repeal is a change, after all.
[ 08. May 2013, 19:48: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except that's not the argument you made. You claimed that it was easier to revise an existing law than to pass a new one. You said nothing about removing or repealing a law. You're shifting the goalposts.
Of course, if it actually is easier to change an already passed law, wouldn't that mean repealing a law (bad or otherwise) is actually easier than passing it in the first place? Repeal is a change, after all.
That's what I get for writing quickly.
What I was trying to say there, and obviously missed the mark, was that repealing or changing a bad law is often more difficult than getting one passed. A tragedy occurs, for instance, and everyone jumps to the decision that "something must be done". Ten years later, even when the "something" hasn't made a difference, it's often far harder to convince folks that it was a mistake that should be repealed/revised.
I hope that's clearer - I certainly wasn't intending to shift the goalpost on you, just being a bit sloppy. Sorry about that.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So your argument is that the typical Neo-Nazi or Klan member "ha[s] a similar level of risk" in their everyday life as the American president? Well, so long as you're being reasonable about this.
If you cast your eyes further up the thread, you will find that I actually said:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The President is a special case. It's not practical to give many other people the kind of security screen he has, and he has it precisely because he's a target for every nutjob out there. An ordinary politician is more at risk than the average person (cf. Gabby Giffords) but not different from the high-risk end of the distribution of normal people.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So your argument is that the typical Neo-Nazi or Klan member "ha[s] a similar level of risk" in their everyday life as the American president? Well, so long as you're being reasonable about this.
If you cast your eyes further up the thread, you will find that I actually said:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The President is a special case. It's not practical to give many other people the kind of security screen he has, and he has it precisely because he's a target for every nutjob out there. An ordinary politician is more at risk than the average person (cf. Gabby Giffords) but not different from the high-risk end of the distribution of normal people.
Whereas the U.S. Capitol complex has no special security concerns that differentiate it from, for example, a typical suburban strip mall? Nothing that would require a specialized security force?
Since you bothered to mention Gabby Giffords, doesn't the fact that she didn't have any kind of bodyguard with her when she was shot completely undermine your claim that members of Congress have their own personal security details?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
What I was trying to say there, and obviously missed the mark, was that repealing or changing a bad law is often more difficult than getting one passed. A tragedy occurs, for instance, and everyone jumps to the decision that "something must be done". Ten years later, even when the "something" hasn't made a difference, it's often far harder to convince folks that it was a mistake that should be repealed/revised.
I hope that's clearer - I certainly wasn't intending to shift the goalpost on you, just being a bit sloppy. Sorry about that.
That's certainly clearer, but it essentially boils down to "laws with widespread popular support are easier to pass than laws to which people are indifferent or hostile". This is undoubtedly true. It's kind of inherent to the basic concept of democratic governance. I'm not sure there's much to be done about that short of eliminating that whole "will of the people" thing from government.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Since you bothered to mention Gabby Giffords, doesn't the fact that she didn't have any kind of bodyguard with her when she was shot completely undermine your claim that members of Congress have their own personal security details?
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Somehow it's OK for Mayor Bloomberg to be followed around by two of NYPD's finest, but a normal person under a similar level of threat is on their own until they are actually attacked, at which time the police will come to photograph his dead body and try to find his murderer.
Don't see anything about ordinary members of Congress in there. Bloomberg has 24/7 guards. Speaker Pelosi travels with bodyguards. Senator Schumer, who doesn't want other people to carry a weapon in New York, has an NYC unrestricted pistol permit, which are very rare.
Hypocrites, all of them.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Here is the NY times on the subject. Special, temporary, rules allowing a couple of dozen people to possess match pistols and shoot them at one of four ranges in the country are hardly conducive to the development of new shooters. The point of view of the anti-gun side (exemplified by Chris Williamson MP in that article) is that they don't really care about the impact that gun laws have on target shooting. Now, as it happens, I think that's a reasonable opinion - if a gun ban is necessary and effective, killing off target shooting is a price worth paying - but that's not consistent with "target shooting [is] common enough".
I think self-defense is a much stronger reason for owning a gun than hobby target shooting, but that ship sailed in the UK in 1946.
I still think references to 'prohibition' are fairly inappropriate if there is a system in place for giving people permission.
Which is why I made the comment I did about the Wikipedia article. The legislation they link to, but fail to explain, basically list things that are prohibited without permission. My drafting eye immediately sees this as a licensing system. If you get a permit, you're allowed to have it. The starting, default position is that you're not allowed to have it, but then the legislation will spend time explaining what's required for permission.
And yes, the rules around permission may well be tough, and shocking to someone from the USA where the starting, default position mentally is that you're allowed to have a gun unless there's a specific reason you can't. But reversing that - making it that you can't have a gun unless there's a specific reason you can - does not in my view constitute a 'ban' no matter how many times the non-legal press might call it that. It constitutes a system where you have to go ask questions first and possess later.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Don't see anything about ordinary members of Congress in there. Bloomberg has 24/7 guards. Speaker Pelosi travels with bodyguards. Senator Schumer, who doesn't want other people to carry a weapon in New York, has an NYC unrestricted pistol permit, which are very rare.
Hypocrites, all of them.
I think you mean Speaker Pelosi traveled with bodyguards. I'm not sure if Minority Leader Pelosi still has them assigned to her. Once again, why do you assume that the security concerns surrounding the third highest elected federal official (the Speaker of the House) or the mayor of a large city with an organized crime problem are more akin to the average American citizen than to the President? You seem to regard this as an egregious mis-allocation of security resources.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
but then again, I probably don't piss off as many people in a day. Not that it matters, really - last I checked, the President has no more right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than I do.
Every President pisses of someone every day by their mere existence, regardless of what they do/believe. It is a hazard of the job, therefore protection is necessary.
Your job does not inherently piss people off.
The President may not have more right to L,L and P of H, but his death would have more of an effect than yours. This is also inherent in the job, not whether you approve of his performance.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I still think references to 'prohibition' are fairly inappropriate if there is a system in place for giving people permission.
For several years after Dunblane there was a complete ban, with no possibility of permission. That is exactly prohibition. Recently, a special exception was carved out for roughly a couple of dozen people (less than one millionth of the population). I don't know the exact numbers, but the number of permits is capped that small - it's not a case of anyone who can satisfy some stringent conditions can get one: you basically have to be a world-class shooter already. Whilst that might not technically be prohibition to your legislator's eye, it's pretty close, even before you add the necessity to travel half-way around the country to actually shoot the thing.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Once again, why do you assume that the security concerns surrounding the third highest elected federal official (the Speaker of the House) or the mayor of a large city with an organized crime problem are more akin to the average American citizen than to the President? You seem to regard this as an egregious mis-allocation of security resources.
No, it's not akin to "the average American citizen" - that's the wrong comparison. The question is whether the Speaker of the House (who whilst technically third in line for the Presidency is vanishingly unlikely to actually be required to assume that post), the Mayor of New York City or the senior senator from New York State are at greater risk than, let's say, the 10,000 US citizens in greatest danger.
My guess is that the answer is no.
And no, I don't particularly think that it's a gross miss-assignment of resources to provide bodyguards for a Mayor, a Speaker or whoever - if they really are in danger (and I think the Speaker's case is a bit of a stretch, but I'd let it go) then they are in danger because of their public service, and it's appropriate for the public to provide them with protection.
I don't expect the public purse to provide an armed guard on Jane Doe's house, in case her violent ex breaks in to attack her, but I do expect the public not to prevent Ms. Doe from protecting herself.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So we have to reject this reasonable law, because if we don't, supporters will propose an unreasonable one in the future?
This makes no sense. If we have the power to reject bad laws now, what's to prevent us from rejecting bad proposals in the future?
It's far easier to stop bad laws from being enacted in the first place than to try and stop them from being extended later. Sort of like an oak tree - it's a whole lot easier to uproot as a seedling than it is after 10 or 20 years.
This is absurd. You started out admitting that the recent proposal is "not too bad", but apparently fearing that today's overzealous defenders of freedom would be at some point in the future become unable to resist clearly bad proposals for some mysterious reason.
That's still a stupid argument - and changing your position to imply that the proposal is really bad after all so that you can invoke a ludicrous botanical metaphor doesn't really improve it very much.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Once again, why do you assume that the security concerns surrounding the third highest elected federal official (the Speaker of the House) or the mayor of a large city with an organized crime problem are more akin to the average American citizen than to the President? You seem to regard this as an egregious mis-allocation of security resources.
No, it's not akin to "the average American citizen" - that's the wrong comparison. The question is whether the Speaker of the House (who whilst technically third in line for the Presidency is vanishingly unlikely to actually be required to assume that post), the Mayor of New York City or the senior senator from New York State are at greater risk than, let's say, the 10,000 US citizens in greatest danger.
My guess is that the answer is no.
The ten thousand U.S. citizens in greatest physical danger are stationed in Afghanistan. I believe the federal government is also taking precautions to protect them as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And no, I don't particularly think that it's a gross miss-assignment of resources to provide bodyguards for a Mayor, a Speaker or whoever - if they really are in danger (and I think the Speaker's case is a bit of a stretch, but I'd let it go) then they are in danger because of their public service, and it's appropriate for the public to provide them with protection.
Then why demagogue the issue? If it's so appropriate to provide publicly-funded security for public officials, why do object so strenuously? You're essentially arguing that the average American should own attack helicopters and ICBMs, because if the government can fund those to protect the aforementioned "ten thousand U.S. citizens in greatest danger", shouldn't Jane Doe also be allowed to protect herself the same way?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The ten thousand U.S. citizens in greatest physical danger are stationed in Afghanistan. I believe the federal government is also taking precautions to protect them as well.
Well, OK, 10,000 civilians living in the US. I think you know what I mean.
quote:
Then why demagogue the issue? If it's so appropriate to provide publicly-funded security for public officials, why do object so strenuously? You're essentially arguing that the average American should own attack helicopters and ICBMs, because if the government can fund those to protect the aforementioned "ten thousand U.S. citizens in greatest danger", shouldn't Jane Doe also be allowed to protect herself the same way?
Jane Doe probably couldn't afford an Apache - those things are rather pricy, and it's hard to imagine a situation where she would be in the same level of danger as front-line troops.
But getting back to the point, people like Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Schumer believe that they require weapons to defend themselves against threats that they might face. I claim that there are thousands of ordinary Americans who are at least as much at risk as either man, yet Mr. Schumer and Mr. Bloomberg would deny those thousands of Americans the right to protect themselves with similar weapons. That is what I have a problem with.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Those weapons are being held by trained professionals, though. If a politician can afford to be protected by trained professionals, it doesn't follow that an average citizen can obtain a measure of protection by removing the trained professional out of the equation and just having the trained professional's weapon for a DIY job.
In fact I think the whole problem is that thinking it's the WEAPON which is providing the protection is a false assumption.
We've discussed this point over and over again in previous threads, about how having a gun doesn't actually make you safer. Whereas I'd certainly agree that having a trained professional bodyguard makes you safer.
EDIT: It should be noted that the entire advertising industry is built around the notion that if you have the thing that the impressive person in the ad has, you will become like the impressive person. But we all know this is rubbish. If you have the bottle of coke on the beach in summertime, you will not suddenly become a girl-attracting Adonis. If you have the same car as Lewis Hamilton, you will not suddenly have his driving skills. And if you have a gun, you will not suddenly develop the cool head of James Bond.
[ 09. May 2013, 03:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The ten thousand U.S. citizens in greatest physical danger are stationed in Afghanistan. I believe the federal government is also taking precautions to protect them as well.
Well, OK, 10,000 civilians living in the US. I think you know what I mean.
I'm not sure I do. Most U.S. troops are citizens, right?
If you insist on restricting your point further to include only civilians, I'm guessing that a lot of the 10,000 would be found in the ~18,000 citizens in the Witness Protection Program. The federal government is also providing them with protection. Is this another unfair allocation of security resources?
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Jane Doe probably couldn't afford an Apache - those things are rather pricy, and it's hard to imagine a situation where she would be in the same level of danger as front-line troops.
What if she can afford one? Being that wealthy probably significantly increases the chances of kidnapping or robbery attempts. Shouldn't Jane (or JaneCorp, as the case may be) be permitted to buy an attack helicopter?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But getting back to the point, people like Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Schumer believe that they require weapons to defend themselves against threats that they might face. I claim that there are thousands of ordinary Americans who are at least as much at risk as either man, yet Mr. Schumer and Mr. Bloomberg would deny those thousands of Americans the right to protect themselves with similar weapons. That is what I have a problem with.
Crazy argument. Name your citizen category which is more a target than a high profile politician. Yes, there are individuals, but here is the problem. The availability of guns makes them easier targets. Why are guns so available on the illegal market and to the deranged? In large part due to the NRA. They draft the legislation which makes it easy for legal purchased weapons to be intentionally diverted to the criminal market. They have made it difficult to block sales to mentally unstable people.
---------
The US has more people with guns, so it must be safer. Oh, wait...
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
]That's certainly clearer, but it essentially boils down to "laws with widespread popular support are easier to pass than laws to which people are indifferent or hostile". This is undoubtedly true. It's kind of inherent to the basic concept of democratic governance. I'm not sure there's much to be done about that short of eliminating that whole "will of the people" thing from government.
Yes - they don't call it 'gun culture' for nothing. The free owning of guns is so deep into the culture of the USA I don't see it ever changing. Leaving people to their own private business is the USA way - see the recent kidnap case. No social services ever seemed to ask 'what's happening in that house'?
I'm just very pleased we have a totally different attitude to guns in the UK.
My Niece's husband shoots for sport and he has no problems whatever with the UK rules.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Name your citizen category which is more a target than a high profile politician. Yes, there are individuals, but here is the problem.
Yes, that'd be those individuals.
quote:
The availability of guns makes them easier targets.
Yes, agreed. If criminals, violent exes and the like didn't have access to weapons, innocent people would be safer. I will also stipulate, if it helps you, that widespread gun ownership increases the suicide rate (because it makes suicide easy and sure), increases accidents caused by stupid people leaving their guns where small children can get them, and makes domestic arguments more likely to end in homicide because of the presence of a lethal weapon. All those things are true. Holding other things about a society equal, more guns equals more gun deaths.
You never hold societal properties equal, though. Here are some statistics on US gun crime over the last two decades. Some interesting numbers in there: a fall in gun crime which really isn't attributable to any gun control laws, 90% of gun crime involves handguns, almost half is at or near the victim's home or a relative's home, less than 1% of criminals obtain their weapons at a gun show (so much for the "gun show loophole").
My suspicion is that, starting with a country with about as many guns as people, gun control legislation that has a reasonable chance of obtaining popular support will have no effect on the level of gun crime. Others disagree, which is OK - I can't conclusively prove that I'm right.
But what the likes of Mr. Bloomberg are asking is that they have armed protection, while some normal person at a similar risk of harm has to take one for the team, and that is pure hypocrisy.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
My suspicion is that, starting with a country with about as many guns as people, gun control legislation that has a reasonable chance of obtaining popular support will have no effect on the level of gun crime. Others disagree, which is OK - I can't conclusively prove that I'm right.
One reason you can't conclusively prove that you're right is that there is only one such country. You live in the only place in the world that comes close to 'about as many guns as people'. So testing grounds for your hypothesis are sorely lacking.
I think there would be a great deal of benefit in considering how on earth the USA came have 'about as many guns as people' in the first place. Because it's quite a mystery to me how this ever gets presented as a natural and normal state of affairs. It's actually abnormal, sociologically, and doesn't show any signs of actual benefit, so how did it happen?
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Your timeline ignores all the right's anti gun-regulation. From what I've gathered from across the pond, every proposed liberal law to regulate gun control has been vigourously opposed, watered down into toothlessness, or quickly followed by massive conservative loopholes to make it worthless.
Really? The Gun Control Act of 1968 was pretty sweeping, frankly, and not at all "toothless". the 1986 "Firearm Owner Protection Act" seems to have done a pretty good job of stemming the flow of legal fully automatic firearms. (Criminals, or course, ignore gun control laws - they're criminals, after all.
The 1968 GCA restricted transport of guns by non-licenced groups or individuals, as well as ending mail order guns, ensuring sellers of guns were properly licensed, and restricting sales of guns to certain categories of people such as convicted criminals. This worked quite well in its limited intent, but it didn’t seek to pass any ban or restriction on certain types of guns, regulate the proliferation of firearms, deal with unlicensed private intrastate sales, or include any mandatory safety measures for gun ownership or storage. Issues that are essential to properly regulate the industry IMO.
The 1986 FOPA was not intended to improve or add to the 1968 regulations, it was intended to remove most of them. It was lobbied for by the NRA because it was considered that the 1968 Act was too restrictive and its provisions needed to be repealed. The FOPA included, among other things, reopening of interstate sales of long guns, legalization of ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), removal of the requirement for record keeping on sales of non-armor-piercing ammunition, and federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal.
It did manage to restrict fully-automatic machine guns though. A single additional restriction, which worked so well that fully automatic machine guns have never been used in a violent crime.
That’s what I meant by my comment. Whenever a restriction on gun proliferation is passed, it is often followed by a repeal of those restrictions. The 1968 GCA was followed by the 1986 FOPA.
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What they get is regulators being hamstrung so they legally can't do their jobs, regulations being shot through with loopholes, safety measures being flatly opposed,
There are cases where you are correct - I don't agree, for instance, with Congressional bans on research into gun violence. There are other cases where the "safety measures" proposed are onerous and unworkable; it's just as well they aren't passed into law.
Which proposed safety measures are onerous and unworkable do you think?
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
and young children being directly marketed to by gun companies painting their deadly weapons pink so little girls will want to play with them. If tobacco companies painted their packets pink or electric blue to appeal to children like Keystone, there'd be an outcry. When liberals suggest maybe this rampant proliferation of deadly weapons might need a bit of restraining the public outcry is against them!!
I know more than a few adult female shooters who love their pink rifles, for the record. To say nothing of the Pink Pistols, a gay rights/shooting enthusiast group. I've met a few of their members who do indeed own "pink pistols".
Way to miss the point. It’s not the colour pink that’s the problem. It’s the colour being used as a means of advertising and marketing weapons directly to children. That’s the problem.
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I submit that fixing the disaster of a mental health system (or better yet, the entire health system) in this country would do *far* more to curb violence of all sorts than all the new gun control laws you could name.
Maybe for the occasional eruptions of violence from people with mental health problems. But these are only a very small part of the problem.
What about all of the criminals who enjoy easy access to firearms? Of course a determined, organised criminal with plenty of money and contacts will get a gun whatever regulations are in place. But that is an extreme. Part of the problem is that there is no control over the mass proliferation and easy distribution of firearms that can be taken advantage of by opportunistic criminals.
A second problem is all of the children who shoot themselves or their friends because they've found a firearm left lying around. This is a massive problem. Will better access to mental health treatment stop this? I'm afraid not. Gun owners need to be forced to keep their guns safely out of the reach of children, using the penalty of severe punishment. I wish the laissez faire attitude the right loves so much which assumes that everyone will do the right thing if only the gov butted out was true. Unfortunately most people, if left to their own devices, won't care about gun safes, trigger locks, and other rigorous safety measures.
To stop gun deaths involves serious engagement with the issues, not sops to help avoid the problems. The liberal approach to gun control is very flawed IMO, with no focus, consensus, or systematic policy approach. But at least they're trying to engage with the issues. The right seems to just ignore the issues or claims they are terrible accidents that no one can or should try to do anything about.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But what the likes of Mr. Bloomberg are asking is that they have armed protection, while some normal person at a similar risk of harm has to take one for the team, and that is pure hypocrisy.
We hear this so much, but it strikes me as meaningless rhetoric. Especially since you’ve singularly failed to answer Croesus’ questions on who exactly you’re referring to who has this ‘similar level of harm’ to a mayor or politician. You’ve mentioned battered wives as an example, but such individuals have one, known person who is threatening them. That can be managed by usual police activity, without special measures. A mayor, or elected politician faces the threat of multiple unknown potential assailants, from isolated nutjobs with a handgun, to planned attacks by civilian or terrorist groups, with potential explosive weapons and the possibility of significant resources being brought to bear on him. No individual citizen who isn’t in the public eye faces that potential threat. And if they did they would receive the same level of protection. People in the witness protection program, hiding from gang reprisals or other organised and resourced violence are given special measures. There is no comparison.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
a fall in gun crime which really isn't attributable to any gun control laws, 90% of gun crime involves handguns, almost half is at or near the victim's home or a relative's home, less than 1% of criminals obtain their weapons at a gun show (so much for the "gun show loophole").
The inefficacy of gun control laws is because they have been neutered. This is not a failure in the concept, but the application. Forget the gun shows, a large percentage of guns obtained by criminals are through "straw purchases." A large percentage of these are through a small percentage of dealers. The NRA have made tracking of such difficult.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But what the likes of Mr. Bloomberg are asking is that they have armed protection, while some normal person at a similar risk of harm has to take one for the team, and that is pure hypocrisy.
Once again, inherent risk in the position. Is Bloomberg the only New York mayor to use bodyguards? If so you have a tangential point.
Actually, the gun buying public are asking victims of crime to "take one for the team."
[ 09. May 2013, 12:53: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... Jane Doe probably couldn't afford an Apache - those things are rather pricy, and it's hard to imagine a situation where she would be in the same level of danger as front-line troops. ...
And yet plenty of other weapons used by front-line troops are available to civilians in the US, not just the notorious AR-15.
You are quite right: it is hard to imagine a situation where an ordinary person is in the same level of danger as front-line troops. It is, sadly, very easy to imagine a situation where an ordinary person is shot by their partner, or commits suicide with a gun, or accidentally shoots a family member, or gets killed on the freeway by some road-raging asshole with a gun, or any of the other REAL tragedies that happen every day in the USA.
The only imagining going on here is a few gun owners thinking their life is some sort of summer action blockbuster where they have to be armed and ready to save a busload of children from an evil terrorist while shopping at the mall, or some other jerk-off fantasy. The reality is that thousands of Americans die every year, for no other reason than there happened to be a gun on the scene. No heroism, no saving lives, no defending innocent women and children, no good guys and bad guys, just Americans doing the same dumb things people do everywhere AND having easy access to deadly weapons while doing so.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Scientific American weighs into the wisdom of allowing non-professionals to have guns.
My favourite bit is that for every self-defence incident, there are 22 other accidents, assaults, homicides or suicides.
Seriously, if you had anything else that worked the way it was supposed to only 1 time in every 23, you'd throw it out.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
Good to see there's someone supporting a weapon that kills 22 times more on its own side than possibly useful. I hope that if I'm ever in a random gunman situation I'm not carrying a gun. I'm safer that way, and so is everyone else. And it makes it trivial to identify the bad guy - the guy carrying the device designed to kill people. I hope that if I'm ever in a random gunman situation no one else is carrying a gun either.
And as for assassinations, can someone please enlighten me about what the fuck use a concealed carry handgun is going to be against a sniper rifle? At 21 feet a handgun doesn't beat a knife. At long range, JFK found out exactly how useful armed guards as opposed to solid police work were.
You might not be able to remove all guns. But there's one easy way to make gun violence drop - make sure anyone carrying a concealed gun or carrying a gun and not wearing a uniform or somewhere you'd expect to see a gun (hunting) is known to be a villain.
[ 13. May 2013, 13:54: Message edited by: Justinian ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0