Thread: Fucking Guns Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005506
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Yet another college shooting, Oregon this time.

I predict:

The usual suspects, including me, will post on this thread and make same fucking arguments again.

I hate.

[ 01. October 2015, 20:12: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Oh yeah, and most/all of his gun related crap will turn out to have been legally owned.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
He's dead, Jim.

NEXT!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Want to express your anger and make a mark on the world? Want to be meaningful?

Shoot people. It's the American way of making yourself feel better at the expense of others.

Exactly how many months in a row is the President going to have to stand up and say something about the unique propensity of his country's citizens to do this?

[ 01. October 2015, 22:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
It's fucking horrible.

We Oregonians also recently had a mass-shooting at a mall, and at a high school.

What.
The.
FUCK.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
According to one definition of mass shooting (at least four victims, dead or injured) in 274 days this year there have been 294 mass shootings in the US (source, Washington Post). That is a rate in excess of one per day, on average. 380 people killed, over 1000 injured with a quarter of the year still to go.

That's just mass shootings. Put in all gun related incidents and that's nearly 10,000 people killed and 20,000 injured in 40,000 incidents. more people are killed by guns in the US every three months than were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The US administration went to war against a country that was not even remotely responsible for the 9/11 attacks because of the deaths of less than 3000 Americans, yet Congress does nothing about the deaths of over 10,000 a year. Does that make sense?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Does that make sense?
Well, when you factor in the $$, it makes perfect sense.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The US administration went to war against a country that was not even remotely responsible for the 9/11 attacks because of the deaths of less than 3000 Americans, yet Congress does nothing about the deaths of over 10,000 a year. Does that make sense?
Of course it doesn't.

A lot of the people who screamed for the war are the same ones blocking any discussion of reasonable gun control laws. They truly do not give a shit how much American blood is shed, at home or abroad.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
'Murrican windbag says The Usual Stuff.

He couldn't possibly be as pissed off about this as anyone in the UK or Australia would be, though.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
'Murrican windbag says The Usual Stuff.

He couldn't possibly be as pissed off about this as anyone in the UK or Australia would be, though.
He took the politicise bullshit and owned it. what is wrong with this? Genuinely curious.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Sarcasm.

My in laws had to sell their house and leave town for a year to unregulated gun bullshit. I am not inclined to let the "American Way" crack pass.


I do thank Alan for at least pointing out that the fucking around about gun control results in loss of American lives. Or does one not rate as American unless one is pulling the trigger?

[ 02. October 2015, 01:49: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Another account of the Presidents speech
quote:
President Obama’s statement was bold and brave .... The President asked the American people to think
Bold and brave indeed.

Ask the people to think?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
It's more like, trying to get then to unthink what they are thinking-- "Holy God, if they take our guns, there will be a liberal police state!" and various other things that People Who Don't Give a Shit are telling them.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
And Doublethink is right-- even Obama is saying, "How many times do we have to say the same old shit?"
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's more like, trying to get then to unthink what they are thinking-- "Holy God, if they take our guns, there will be a liberal police state!" and various other things that People Who Don't Give a Shit are telling them.
Well, I suppose that depends on whether people are thinking that, or just turned their brains to neutral and accepting what Fox News tells them. If someone has actually sat down and considered things and reached the conclusion "we need our guns to protect us from a liberal police state" then I'd say they're nuts, but their thinking. I don't think that's what happens though, is it? People just take what's fed them from the right wing media, and follow blindly, unthinkingly, where they are led.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Beats me... maybe we need to go out and interview gun rights advocates or something, because most people I know, even gun owners, have common sense ideas about gun control laws. I can't even begin to think how you get to the place where you think the situation we are in is preferable to making some sensible changes.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I am haunted by a local town meeting incident, in which all of the council except one member voted to deny a business license to a gun shop owner who wanted to put his shop a block away from the local high school. They asked the owner to find a different storefront (at a time when many storefronts were available in the town.) The minute the mayor banged her gavel, arrow of-- suits, really, with Ray-Bans and trench coats-- jumped up from the last row of seats and filed out, quickly. Within a month the store opened in the location near the high school. Apparently they had "lawyered up."

Who the fuck are these people? It was like they swept in out of nowhere.

The "brand" (if you will) that they are associated also owns: a local coffee shop, a couple local car dealerships, and one other business I can't remember. To me, it reeked of money talks. Like RuthW keeps saying, we are an oligarchy at this point.

[ 02. October 2015, 02:34: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
NPR (maybe the "Marketplace" show?) mentioned today ShootingTracker.com. It's been crashing--probably due to over use.

But you may be able to get directly to the 2015 stats here.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
President Obama’s statement was bold and brave .... The President asked the American people to think
Bold and brave indeed.

Ask the people to think?
Bah. Is it bold and brave to ask a turtle to fly?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
It is expedient for the few to die to maintain the liberties of the many.

Or some such rubbish.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I've been ducking the NRA renewal phone calls for several months now. We were basically forced into membership in order to meet a Boy Scout training requirement for Mr. Lamb, but have no intentions of re-upping now that the certificate is in hand. But man are they persistent. (one more call today)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
President Obama’s statement was bold and brave .... The President asked the American people to think
Bold and brave indeed.

Ask the people to think?
Bah. Is it bold and brave to ask a turtle to fly?
Flying turtles aside, I don't think it is bold or brave for a person who will no longer be standing for election.
However, I thought the bit neutralising the "politicise" rubbish the gun lobbies paid puppets trot out, was a good maneuver.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I've been ducking the NRA renewal phone calls for several months now. We were basically forced into membership in order to meet a Boy Scout training requirement for Mr. Lamb, but have no intentions of re-upping now that the certificate is in hand. But man are they persistent. (one more call today)
They might try and shoot people who don't renew - thus proving that they, and guns, are needed. Wouldn't surprise me. At. All.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think it is bold or brave for a person who will no longer be standing for election.
So, we're waiting for Hilary or Donald to make a statement regarding gun control?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Bet Bernie already has.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Well, shucks.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You know, if I was American I'd vote for Bernie. But, that's because I have FB friends who keep posting reports on what he's been saying. If I relied on the news media I'd have never heard of him.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
From the CNN report

quote:
Investigators have interviewed members of his family and friends, they said.

"I will not name the shooter," Hanlin said. "I will not give him the credit he probably sought."
This is what should happen every time. No notoriety, no names given, ever. None.

It may start to lesson the number of people who do it to go down in lights.

[Frown] [Tear]

[ 02. October 2015, 07:27: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
A saw this video by a group of people who want to reform the US gun laws, which I thought was quite powerful.

It isn't graphic, but it is disturbing. I don't know if it has any effect on those who buy guns.

Anyway..


here it is
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
From the CNN report

quote:
Investigators have interviewed members of his family and friends, they said.

"I will not name the shooter," Hanlin said. "I will not give him the credit he probably sought."
This is what should happen every time. No notoriety, no names given, ever. None.

It may start to lesson the number of people who do it to go down in lights.

[Frown] [Tear]
That is a great idea. Hope it catches on.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
LC--

You're not alone in getting those calls. I did a search on "how to stop the NRA", and there were many hits from people in your situation.

Good luck.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You know, if I was American I'd vote for Bernie. But, that's because I have FB friends who keep posting reports on what he's been saying. If I relied on the news media I'd have never heard of him.
He's the real life Jed Bartlett, in other words?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
More like the real life Henry Drummond.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
who?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It is expedient for the few to die to maintain the liberties of the many.

Or some such rubbish.
And the deaths continue.

I'm just old enough to remember the anti-breathalyzer and anti-seatbelts campaigns of the 1960s here in Britain, quoting the same authoritarianism.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think it is bold or brave for a person who will no longer be standing for election.
So, we're waiting for Hilary or Donald to make a statement regarding gun control?
Yahoo article has candidate comments about halfway down the page, after the tweets.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
Another mass killing followed by the traditional yadda, yadda, yadda, as DT pointed out, to be followed soon by.... the traditional nothing.

I watch these reports, and the only thought I have nowadays, having become desensitized to the detail and the righteous words and the expostulative proclamations of the gun nuts, is a genuine curiosity as to what it will actually take to overcome this onanistic need to unnecessarily own an unnecessarily powerful gun.

Somewhere there is presumably an elusive tipping-point, where something so truly horrific occurs that the NRA will be emasculated and its supporters will shamefacedly slink off and pretend never to have heard of it. (Whilst secreting their arsenals in dark places just in case there's another revolution.... just in case.)

Until then, I guess I'll just metaphorically chew gum and listen to the reports of another shooting, followed by the obligatory press conferences from the local law-enforcement officers, and the governor, and the president, all of whom thank the first-responders ('cause it's in the script - Yes, there's a script) and ask for prayers (oh, the irony) and just generally look uncomfortable at being here again.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I watch these reports, and the only thought I have nowadays, having become desensitized to the detail and the righteous words and the expostulative proclamations of the gun nuts, is a genuine curiosity as to what it will actually take to overcome this onanistic need to unnecessarily own an unnecessarily powerful gun.
There is a school of thought that if Sandy Hook wasn't sufficient, nothing will be.

I think about the only thing that might still work is if the victims of a mass shooting are rich, powerful, right wing and gun nuts.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Don't you read The Grauniad, Alan?

Lots about Bernie in there.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I'm afraid I just don't understand why people need guns. Someone told me that they need a gun in case someone else has a gun. That just doesn't make sense as the situation will just snowball. It is always going to be difficult to disarm the criminals, but surely if the rest of the population turned in their guns it would make such a difference to the gun problem in the USA.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Don't you read The Grauniad, Alan?

Lots about Bernie in there.
It's been a long time since I've had time to read a paper. I get most of my news from the BBC (Breakfast when I'm in the UK, online from here).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I watch these reports, and the only thought I have nowadays, having become desensitized to the detail and the righteous words and the expostulative proclamations of the gun nuts, is a genuine curiosity as to what it will actually take to overcome this onanistic need to unnecessarily own an unnecessarily powerful gun.
There is a school of thought that if Sandy Hook wasn't sufficient, nothing will be.

I think about the only thing that might still work is if the victims of a mass shooting are rich, powerful, right wing and gun nuts.
That is, AIUI, is the NRA's primary objective. Back in the eighteenth century when the westerm coast of North America was a British colony, some of the local population took arms and used violence to succesfully overthrow their then rulers.

I suppose the NRA stand for the right to do the same sort of thing again should their rulers once again take no notice of the will of the people (according that is to those who run the NRA), but I would have thought the 1861-1865 war would be enough to inform people how wrong that is.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Republican Party, NRA have blood on their hands.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Hmmm ... I think you'll find that the 13 Colonies were on the eastern coast of what is now the USA, Sioni.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution enshrined the right of citizens to bear arms, of course - at a time when the fledgling republic had a tiny standing army and in the context of a 'well-ordered militia'.

The whole point was that they could defend themselves against slave uprisings or attacks from Native Americans (often sponsored by the British over the border in Canada) if their standing army and militia were engaged elsewhere.

It made perfect sense in a frontier setting and when there was nothing more lethal to hand than single shot muzzle-loading muskets and hunting rifles.

I've heard it said - by an American who knows a fair bit of history - that later on and even in the Wild West guns weren't generally openly on show. The whole thing about guys sat dealing stud in honky-tonk saloons with revolvers protruding from their belts is partially mythological. In many western towns you were required to hand your guns into the marshal when you arrived in town and they were impounded until you rode away again.

Of course, guns have always been more common in the US than most western European countries - but generally .22 hunting rifles and so on rather than the AK47s and semi-automatics that seem to be the weapon of choice for those who go on mass shooting sprees.

Whilst the whole gun culture thing is attached to particular views of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' in some people's minds, then there ain't gonna be any change any time soon.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
What does "common sense" gun regulation actually mean?

Same old yadda, yadda is right judging by this thread. What exactly do you all suggest would have stopped this or any other mass shooting? And if you say bans and confiscation then you are an idiot.

And to those who can't understand why people need guns, why do people need alcohol? Certainly alcohol is killing on a similar pace each year.

If grown folks can't handle gun ownership then they can't handle alcohol either. Alcohol prohibition worked out so well, why did we ever give up on it? Same for "illegal" drugs. How can we possibly be suffering through an epidemic of heroin deaths when heroin has been illegal for decades?

Easier to blame the guns than the culture and the leaders thereof, I suppose.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Do you not think that the mass ownership of guns is perhaps in some way intrinsically linked with the culture, then?

You don't have to ban guns. Imposing slightly more barriers to ownership and restrictions on use might not go amiss, though.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Firstly, thanks to Gamaliel for at least reading for comprehension.

Romanlion makes a good point. Culture and leadership contribute to the behaviour of everyone in society and to my mind our leaders, in business and government primarily but right the way down to middle-managers and supervisors feel that they have to be seen as strong and powerful. With that motivation, it can hardly be surpisning that when a "difficult decision" needs to be made they takes the option that makes them look most powerful.

That isn't always (I'd venture that it is very rarely) the best option but it does account for a lot of macho posturing by those in positions of power. If we look at those who have taken guns into schools and colleges and shot a dozen or so classmates I expect we will find that the huge majority are anonymous nobodies with no power, status and responsibility and that they were unknown outside their home town until the took a gun into school.

YMMV, but I reckon our leaders at all levels need to consider outcomes more than the maintenance of their own status.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A saw this video by a group of people who want to reform the US gun laws, which I thought was quite powerful.

It isn't graphic, but it is disturbing. I don't know if it has any effect on those who buy guns.

Anyway..


here it is
Wow.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What does "common sense" gun regulation actually mean?
It starts with the recognition that things aren't going to change overnight.

It starts with a national discussion on what are the legitimate reasons why someone might need a gun. An ongoing discussion that in 10, 20, 30 years may result in the number of reasons why people might have a gun decreasing.

And, coupled to that what sort of guns are suitable for the reasons people have guns.

It includes a discussion on licensing. What restrictions get placed on who can have a gun licence? Do you need a license for each gun, or simply a license to have guns? Does the license include requirements for safe storage of guns?

And, have some form of amnesty mechanism where people with guns they don't need can turn them into the police for destruction, probably with some form of financial compensation (with accompanying proof of ownership - though the thought of crooks handing over illegal weapons in exchange for ready cash does appeal!).

And, finally, don't have high expectations of a very rapid transition to a gun-free society. When the country is awash with more guns than people it's going to take a long time for there to be a significant reduction in the number of guns in society.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
In response to Obama's statement , one of my Facebook acquaintances, who obviously lives in the US, posted the following. The guy is a hard-working self-employed family man. He hunts, and has strong views on guns (if that wasn't obvious!) His political leanings may be apparent from this rant. He posts stuff like this often. I'm really not sure how one would address this kind of logic from an administrative or legislative perspective. Pandora's (gun)box has been well and truly opened in the US. #youareallgoingtodie

quote:
I do speak up, and I do agree it's all become routine. The tragedy, the sadness, the reaction, the call for more gun laws, the total dismissal of common sense. This ended when two more guns were introduced. Why is it so hard to understand that had others there had guns the whole thing may have never happened? Why is it so hard to admit that had it happened that less would have died? The tragedy of this routine is we collectively refuse to grant people the liberty to save themselves. That we continue to pretend it's the result of lax gun laws, when they have never been more restrictive and these tragedies have never been more common.
I speak up, and I place the blame squarely on people just like this man. Leaders who preach that good people need to sacrifice liberty to stop bad people, even though recent events clearly show that it's these restrictions that are the biggest contributor to these tragedies. Even though they surround themselves and their families with armed men. If it's common sense to provide armed guards for elected officials, because a small handful have been shot, how can it not be common sense that we would benefit from the same thing after so many have been killed like sheep in places they are forbidden to protect themselves. Shame on you Mr President.

 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What exactly do you all suggest would have stopped this or any other mass shooting? And if you say bans and confiscation then you are an idiot.
Australia begs to differ.

quote:
Australia established strict gun control in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 people dead in 1996. Since then, Australia hasn't witnessed any mass shootings.

 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Quoting a FB acquaintance
quote:
If it's common sense to provide armed guards for elected officials, because a small handful have been shot, how can it not be common sense that we would benefit from the same thing after so many have been killed like sheep in places they are forbidden to protect themselves.
Because the secret service guys and gals have been extensively trained to handle a gun. If you want everyone to have the right to carry a gun for defence of themselves and others, fine. Just make sure they receive the level of training and psychological assessment that the secret service receive.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The thing is, romanlion, we all tend to think that the way things are done wherever we happen to live is the 'norm'.

If they were suddenly to relax gun laws here in the UK everyone would think the government had gone stark staring mad.

I wasn't aware of how easy it was to get hold of assault rifles and so on back in the 1980s until the Hungerford Massacre. That led to stiffer legislation. As did the Dunblane tragedy. The last gun massacre to take place here in the UK was carried out with legally owned shotguns.

No one is calling for a ban on those.

Of course no-one's saying that bans or confiscations would prevent all such incidents - but you have to admit they seem all too common on your side of the Pond and far less common in most Western European countries as well as Australia and other Anglophone countries.

You have to ask yourself why that is.

And whether the rest of us are 'idiots'.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.

Next?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.
Why not? Because you all love shooting each other and burying your kids so much?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.
Why not? Because you all love shooting each other and burying your kids so much?
Yes, yes of course!

My wife an I are pregnant right now because we are fresh out of kids to shoot and bury.

[Roll Eyes]

Because the Constitution.

If we had wanted to remain a colony we could have. We didn't.

If the UK had wanted to remain the driver of the world's economy and culture they should have fought a little harder I guess.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.

Next?
I believe it would involve less loss of liberty than the Homeland Security Act (including the USA Patriot Act and more besides). It might even save more lives too.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.

Next?
I believe it would involve less loss of liberty than the Homeland Security Act (including the USA Patriot Act and more besides). It might even save more lives too.
Yeah, this boggles my mind. The Land of the Free accepts a massive limit on freedom so readily.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What does "common sense" gun regulation actually mean?
I think there are some obvious minimal possibilities here;
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.
Why not? Because you all love shooting each other and burying your kids so much?
Yes, yes of course!

My wife an I are pregnant right now because we are fresh out of kids to shoot and bury.

[Roll Eyes]

Because the Constitution.

If we had wanted to remain a colony we could have. We didn't.

If the UK had wanted to remain the driver of the world's economy and culture they should have fought a little harder I guess.
That's just so fucking moronic.

Look, no one's planning on re-colonising the USofA. Least of all the UK.

Your government has the worlds most powerful military at it's disposal, including a nuclear arsenal capable of burning the planet to a cinder several times over. Compared to that a few rednecks with their semi-automatics "just for killin' a few deer" are going to make no bloody different.

Life isn't a movie. A bunch of high school kids aren't going to turn the tide against a Commie invasion. You're not going to need to blast away an endless tide of zombies. And, your best defence against an alien invasion is the common cold.

I'm sure there are some arguments in favour of ordinary people having guns that are worth discussing. Yours sure aren't among them.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.
Why not? Because you all love shooting each other and burying your kids so much?
Yes, yes of course!

My wife an I are pregnant right now because we are fresh out of kids to shoot and bury.

[Roll Eyes]

Because the Constitution.

If we had wanted to remain a colony we could have. We didn't.

If the UK had wanted to remain the driver of the world's economy and culture they should have fought a little harder I guess.
That's just so fucking moronic.

You started it, bud.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
Enter stage Right: repr'sentin' the status quo and wingnuts everywhere,
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.

Next?
Nuthin's gonna change round here boy, nuthin'. We fought for the right to arm ourselves needlessly, and we'll fight to keep our guns, even if we have to kill everyone who has a different point of view. My ancestors didn't come to this country so that they could be terrorised by immigrants. (wait, what?) Fuckin' Democrats, with their fancy ideas about letting people have opinions that go against Republican ideology. It's the arms companies and the NRA who pay to run this country, not the bleeding-heart liberals. (ambles off humming Duelling Banjos.)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:


Because the Constitution.
Yeah, because nobody changed the US Constitution once it had been written, right?

Cast in stone, impossible to change. Other than the 27 times that it was.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.

Next?
No, you're not Australia. However,

quote:
What exactly do you all suggest would have stopped this or any other mass shooting? And if you say bans and confiscation then you are an idiot.
is empirically wrong. Bans and confiscations clearly, evidentially, do decrease drastically or totally eliminate mass shootings. You don't accept that - but we have a word for people who don't accept provable facts. That word is 'wrong'.

The 2nd amendment to your constitution allows you to have a small arsenal at home: it also allows members of your citizenry to use legally-held guns to kill large numbers of their fellows on a remarkably regular basis. Good for you. Most of the rest of the world thinks you're fucking nuts for allowing this situation to exist, let alone let it continue.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The Onion is way ahead of you, romanlion
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:


Because the Constitution.
Yeah, because nobody changed the US Constitution once it had been written, right?

Cast in stone, impossible to change. Other than the 27 times that it was.
Hillary should make repeal of the second amendment a platform plank then. That should just about seal the election for her.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I'm really not sure how one would address this kind of logic from an administrative or legislative perspective.
By telling him that his chance of successfully using a gun to deal with a criminal is approximately 1 in 23, and asking him whether he'd buy any other appliance that only worked correctly once in every 23 attempts? The other 22 times the gun is fired, it will have gone off accidentally, or be used for suicide, or will be used against you by the criminal.

That's the biggest piece of bullshit about guns for protection - that everyone manages to believe that good people hit the target while bad people miss. Because that's what happens in Hollywood movies, right? The star lead shoots truly and wins the day, while the baddies have really bad aim.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
That headline in the Onion has been used before, and it's a killer: "'no way to prevent this', says only nation where this regularly happens." I'm not sure if it's the only nation with regular massacres.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think when romanlion says, you're an idiot if you favour bans and confiscations, that means that bans don't work, does it? I assume it means that bans are simply politically unacceptable in the US.

Trouble is, this becomes circular and self-fulfilling. It's not acceptable because I don't accept it.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think when romanlion says, you're an idiot if you favour bans and confiscations, that means that bans don't work, does it? I assume it means that bans are simply politically unacceptable in the US.
[Overused]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... The 2nd amendment to your constitution allows you to have a small arsenal at home: it also allows members of your citizenry to use legally-held guns to kill large numbers of their fellows on a remarkably regular basis. Good for you. Most of the rest of the world thinks you're fucking nuts for allowing this situation to exist, let alone let it continue.
Strictly speaking, the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment allow small arsenals at home. The 2nd Amendment was written to allow Southern states to have armed slave patrols a.k.a. "militia". All the arguments about brave Colonists hunting and defending their homes from tyrannical gummints are post hoc mythological bullshit. How that came about is a long story. What isn't a long story is that the 2nd Amendment has NEVER, EVER been interpreted as allowing anybody to have any weapon. It is perfectly legal and constitutional to place reasonable limits on weapons and their owners. It's just politically challenging.

And I'm sick and fucking tired of everybody instantly turning to mental illness as an explanation for these horrors. Lots of healthy people shoot each other on a regular basis over the stupidest things. And it's not like a healthy person can't buy 27 guns and THEN get sick ... but doctors aren't allowed to ask their patients about guns in the home because of the fucking gun nuts. They're the real crazies - the ones who think the likelihood of an accidental or deliberate shooting is totally worth it for their Walter Mitty fantasy of being Rambo one day.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think when romanlion says, you're an idiot if you favour bans and confiscations, that means that bans don't work, does it? I assume it means that bans are simply politically unacceptable in the US.
[Overused]
This we know already. It's just ironic that the one thing that has been proven to work is the one thing that won't happen.

Ironic? Sorry: I meant fucking nuts.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think when romanlion says, you're an idiot if you favour bans and confiscations, that means that bans don't work, does it? I assume it means that bans are simply politically unacceptable in the US.
[Overused]
Nice quote-mining.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I thought the National Guard was the "Well-regulated Militia". Then again, it's organisaed by the Feds and they aren't to be trusted. Heck, aren't they the ones who put airbags in your car? Dammit, I want the freedom to turn my brain to mush on the dashboard.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'm going to suggest a compromise: those in favour of gun regulation will just tut and roll our eyes when someone with a gun and a grudge commits a mass shooting. In return, those not in favour will have to say: "We know how to stop this from happening but refuse to act because we are spoilt, petulant, selfish moral pygmies."

How does that sound?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
What could Barry be waiting for?

Has he misplaced his pen?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Bans are not forbidden in the US. Here's the problem-- suppose you ban certain users from having guns.Then you send the feds to go take them from those people. How do you think a gun owner is going to prevent you from taking his gun?
Especially if they have people like the NRA giving them a route for organization?

What happened ' the last time we had this discussion"? Assholes responded to the pleas of their fellow Americans by wandering shopping malls with rifles strapped on their backs. Do you not see how this behavior might demonstrate a threat? And might effect how people have the discussion in the first place? As bold as Obama's statement was, he had to throw in that " we aren't coming for your guns" mantra, didn't he?

Upthread someone said, " the situation is going to snowball." No, it already has snowballed. And avalanched. Decades ago. A very huge fucking genie is out of the bottle and is roaming around with an M-16. No, make that a million genies. And the reponse to " put that down" is always gonna be " Him first."

My nephew was a very troubled kid, who at age 17 got his hands on a weapon, and shot himself and another person. Do you not think I wish there was something in place that would have prevented hm from getting his hands on a gun in the first place? Some screening procedure that would have told a retailer, holy shit, this kid is underage and has a background of gang association. Do not sell.

His brother is a gun nut. So, just to add to whatever redneck bohunk Murrican images you got going there- 19 year old Latino American boy, hanging out with a dodgy group-- their opinion of the gun control debate is that whatever laws are passed will only serve to make sure people of color are unarmed and white folk control the guns. Ok, talk him out of that. Go ahead, it's easy, right?

You know what this conversation is like? It is like living up to your neck in raw sewage, so thick you can't move your arms.. There are a row of people standing in an observation deck, with their hands on the output valve, arguing about whether it is actually sewage or not, many idiots standing in there with you crapping their pants and proudly announcing it, and the rest if the world is folding their arms and saying, you must love the smell or you wouldn't stay there. And responding to your cries of despair by shrugging and pointing at the pants crappers.

A second amendment harpy obviously doesn't give a shit that ( for instance) hundreds of children in the SF Bay Area are growing up in places like Hunter's Point and East Palo Alto, crammed into Section 8 housing smack dab in the middle of gang holdouts, surrounded by people who are ready to shoot at the drop of the hat and people who think the only way to be prepared for life there is to get another damn gun. He doesn't care that hundreds of kids are living under such consistant fear that they have to be taught to play some other games besides gun play-- that it's not that they occasionally make a block into a gun, but that they never put the pretend guns down.

But which of the rest of you do, either? It's more fun to rub people's face in the sewage, it appears. Five or six Americans come on this thread expressing their frustration and outrage about gun laws, about how lack of such effects them and their communities, and you pick fucking romanlion as our poster boy? Fuck that.

And if you do care, why not lend your support and encouragement to American folk who are actually engaged n the colossal task of figuring out how to get those genies back in the bottle? Or at least acknowledge they exist?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What could Barry be waiting for?

Has he misplaced his pen?
Do you actually understand the constitutional arrangements of your own country?

It's bizarrely amusing that there are folks in your country who not only justify guns as a means of resisting tyranny, but also believe that you still have a tyrant anyway.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
and you pick fucking romanlion as our poster boy?
We really didn't.

That makes about as much sense as suggesting that on the thread about homosexuality, I took the straight people expressing homophobia as the "poster boys" for all straight people because those are the ones I spent my time arguing with.

[ 02. October 2015, 15:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What could Barry be waiting for?

Has he misplaced his pen?
I'm sorry? I think you meant to say: "I know how to stop this from happening but refuse to act because I am a spoilt, petulant, selfish moral pygmy."
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... The 2nd amendment to your constitution allows you to have a small arsenal at home: it also allows members of your citizenry to use legally-held guns to kill large numbers of their fellows on a remarkably regular basis. Good for you. Most of the rest of the world thinks you're fucking nuts for allowing this situation to exist, let alone let it continue.
Strictly speaking, the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment allow small arsenals at home. The 2nd Amendment was written to allow Southern states to have armed slave patrols a.k.a. "militia". All the arguments about brave Colonists hunting and defending their homes from tyrannical gummints are post hoc mythological bullshit. How that came about is a long story. What isn't a long story is that the 2nd Amendment has NEVER, EVER been interpreted as allowing anybody to have any weapon. It is perfectly legal and constitutional to place reasonable limits on weapons and their owners. It's just politically challenging.

And I'm sick and fucking tired of everybody instantly turning to mental illness as an explanation for these horrors. Lots of healthy people shoot each other on a regular basis over the stupidest things. And it's not like a healthy person can't buy 27 guns and THEN get sick ... but doctors aren't allowed to ask their patients about guns in the home because of the fucking gun nuts. They're the real crazies - the ones who think the likelihood of an accidental or deliberate shooting is totally worth it for their Walter Mitty fantasy of being Rambo one day.
Excellellent post.


" Mental illness" is all well and good as a distraction, but nobody is addressing the collective PTSD of people who are born, live, and die in areas of high gun violence. At least, not in a functional way. The mental illness is group chronic fear.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Imagine for a moment that tomorrow the US passes Oz style gun restrictions.

How do you see the enforcement proceeding?

Australia's "buy-back" program netted between 500,000 and a million guns, depending on your source. Between a quarter and a third of guns, again depending.

US citizens own orders of magnitude more firearms than this. Call it plus or minus one firearm for every man, woman, and child in the country.

A "buy-back" wouldn't even scratch the surface, but let's pretend that through some miracle red-neck epiphany they manage to buy back half of those. We are still in the >hundred million guns range.

Are we going to do door to door searches? Do you think that would increase or decrease the odds of violence? How many police and/or military personnel would refuse the order? How much money would be reasonable to spend on such an effort? Would otherwise law-abiding gun owners who refused to comply become felonious criminals? Would we have more success against the instantaneous black market that would spring up than we have against "illegal" drugs? If not, what would be the point?

Connecticut, bluer than blue, can't even enforce it's own reactionary sandy hook gun laws.

I imagine Sisyphus picking up a gun a blowing his brains out...
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
and you pick fucking romanlion as our poster boy?
We really didn't.

That makes about as much sense as suggesting that on the thread about homosexuality, I took the straight people expressing homophobia as the "poster boys" for all straight people because those are the ones I spent my time arguing with.
I am hearing a lot of frustation about how " we" won't get the laws changed without much.acknowledgement of what an epic task even getting people to discuss the issue is. And I'm sorry, your very first comment on this thread was a " what do you expect from Those People?" shrug. If you actually give a fuck about us, it's not coming across.

Do me a favor, read my comment about my nephew the gun nut and come up with an argument against his iron clad assumption that gun control laws are an excuse to put Latinos and black people at a disadvantage. I tried for an hour one Christmas. Nothing I said landed. Maybe people who have fixed the problem might supply us their magic rhetoric.

[ 02. October 2015, 16:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Imagine for a moment that tomorrow the US passes Oz style gun restrictions.

How do you see the enforcement proceeding?

Australia's "buy-back" program netted between 500,000 and a million guns, depending on your source. Between a quarter and a third of guns, again depending.

US citizens own orders of magnitude more firearms than this. Call it plus or minus one firearm for every man, woman, and child in the country.

A "buy-back" wouldn't even scratch the surface, but let's pretend that through some miracle red-neck epiphany they manage to buy back half of those. We are still in the >hundred million guns range.

Are we going to do door to door searches? Do you think that would increase or decrease the odds of violence? How many police and/or military personnel would refuse the order? How much money would be reasonable to spend on such an effort? Would otherwise law-abiding gun owners who refused to comply become felonious criminals? Would we have more success against the instantaneous black market that would spring up than we have against "illegal" drugs? If not, what would be the point?

Connecticut, bluer than blue, can't even enforce it's own reactionary sandy hook gun laws.

I imagine Sisyphus picking up a gun a blowing his brains out...
"Waah, waah, waah," said the moral pygmy. "It's too hard."

Fucking grow a pair and sort it. One gun at a time if you have to. People - people you know and perhaps even love - are dying. Set an example and have yours melted down. Maybe then Kelly's nephew will start to take notice.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Imagine for a moment that tomorrow the US passes Oz style gun restrictions.

How do you see the enforcement proceeding?

Australia's "buy-back" program netted between 500,000 and a million guns, depending on your source. Between a quarter and a third of guns, again depending.

US citizens own orders of magnitude more firearms than this. Call it plus or minus one firearm for every man, woman, and child in the country.

A "buy-back" wouldn't even scratch the surface, but let's pretend that through some miracle red-neck epiphany they manage to buy back half of those. We are still in the >hundred million guns range.

Are we going to do door to door searches? Do you think that would increase or decrease the odds of violence? How many police and/or military personnel would refuse the order? How much money would be reasonable to spend on such an effort? Would otherwise law-abiding gun owners who refused to comply become felonious criminals? Would we have more success against the instantaneous black market that would spring up than we have against "illegal" drugs? If not, what would be the point?

Connecticut, bluer than blue, can't even enforce it's own reactionary sandy hook gun laws.

I imagine Sisyphus picking up a gun a blowing his brains out...
"Waah, waah, waah," said the moral pygmy. "It's too hard."

Fucking grow a pair and sort it. One gun at a time if you have to.
Excellent suggestion! Thank you very much!

I will forward your profound insight directly to the White House, home of the greatest moral pygmy of us all.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Do me a favor, read my comment about my nephew the gun nut and come up with an argument against his iron clad assumption that gun control laws are an excuse to put Latinos and black people at a disadvantage. I tried for an hour one Christmas. Nothing I said landed. Maybe people who have fixed the problem might supply us their magic rhetoric.
But that's a problem we never had. We don't have the same race relations issues that you do (which is not to say that we haven't had race relations issues), so I can't tell you how to solve them.

As to the whole business of who is "we" and who is "those people" etc etc... well, to be honest a key difficulty in the USA is that your entire culture is very individualistic, meaning that it's very difficult for a majority to impose upon a minority for the good of society as a whole. To put it another way, even if 90% of Americans support significant changes to gun laws, your culture tends to celebrate the ability of a few percent who don't want that to loudly say "FUCK YOU" and carry on crapping in their pants or whatever metaphor you choose.

That contributes. Your problem is not just a gun culture, it's a take on the world culture. The great American dream isn't a cohesive society, it's being the one to beat all the other fuckers to the top of the greasy pole.

If America wants to defeat the scourge of guns, it's not going to be about physically taking the guns (although that would sure help), it's going to be about changing an entire mindset that says a person who confronts the world and solves his problems with a weapon is a hero. That's going to be a truly colossal effort.

But it's going to have to be an American effort. For one thing, there's American exceptionalism, which translates into a mindset that America is there to teach the world things and doesn't have things to learn. When Bernie Sanders suggests doing something more like Europe (I can't even remember what the topic was), people are shocked.

[ 02. October 2015, 16:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Excellent suggestion! Thank you very much!

I will forward your profound insight directly to the White House, home of the greatest moral pygmy of us all.
Irony isn't your strong point. Neither is making obviously moral decisions.

You. What are you going to do? Apart from bleat on that it's not your fault, it's not your problem, you can't think of a solution, you don't have to act. Spoilt, petulant, selfish moral pygmy.

[ 02. October 2015, 17:06: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ romanlion

Of course it is not possible to "do an Oz" in the US context. That's not really the issue.

See here from recent history

The NRA is a most powerful lobbyist and represents some very powerful interests. It is able to mobilise a blocking majority even against modest reforms. And what was the nub of their counter-argument. Why it was this!

quote:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Wayne LaPierre of the NRA
The only thing? The attempted legislation which was voted down was modest, but it would have been a start. Even something as modest as this was lost.

quote:
The Manchin-Toomey Amendment was a bi-partisan piece of legislation sponsored by Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey that would require background checks on most private party firearm sales. The bill known as Manchin Amendment No. 715 was voted on and defeated on April 17, 2013 by a vote of 54 - 46 because in order to pass it needed 60.
The NRA would appear to have the votes in their capacious pockets.

[ 02. October 2015, 17:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Do me a favor, read my comment about my nephew the gun nut and come up with an argument against his iron clad assumption that gun control laws are an excuse to put Latinos and black people at a disadvantage. I tried for an hour one Christmas. Nothing I said landed. Maybe people who have fixed the problem might supply us their magic rhetoric.
But that's a problem we never had. We don't have the same race relations issues that you do (which is not to say that we haven't had race relations issues), so I can't tell you how to solve them.

As to the whole business of who is "we" and who is "those people" etc etc... well, to be honest a key difficulty in the USA is that your entire culture is very individualistic, meaning that it's very difficult for a majority to impose upon a minority for the good of society as a whole. To put it another way, even if 90% of Americans support significant changes to gun laws, your culture tends to celebrate the ability of a few percent who don't want that to loudly say "FUCK YOU" and carry on crapping in their pants or whatever metaphor you choose.

That contributes. Your problem is not just a gun culture, it's a take on the world culture. The great American dream isn't a cohesive society, it's being the one to beat all the other fuckers to the top of the greasy pole.

If America wants to defeat the scourge of guns, it's not going to be about physically taking the guns (although that would sure help), it's going to be about changing an entire mindset that says a person who confronts the world and solves his problems with a weapon is a hero. That's going to be a truly colossal effort.

But it's going to have to be an American effort. For one thing, there's American exceptionalism, which translates into a mindset that America is there to teach the world things and doesn't have things to learn. When Bernie Sanders suggests doing something more like Europe (I can't even remember what the topic was), people are shocked.
You are pretty much preaching to the choir, saying stuff I am pretty sure I've said myself. If not in this thread, on the last two or three. I am fully aware of the difficulties facing people who want gun control. You really become hyper-- aware of those problems when you are fighting them.

I wanted to put a face on the debate, though. In my work, I am pretty much on the front lines of this stuff-- trying to teach kids that individualism needs to be balanced by community, that cooperation is more rewarding than fighting to be first, that wise people are willing to learn from others rather than being content with "exceptionalism." You say, " I can't help you with your nephew" but that is exactly where the front line is-- Americans trying to reason with other Americans. Individuals bucking heads with individualism. And I am saying ( again) when you don't acknowledge that people are actually attacking the front line, it does nothing to help,them progress.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
And another thing--- a childcare professional is also on the front lines of dealing with the fallout ofa sick culture-- kids come into schools bringing the attitudes and values of their environment, and very often challnging those attitudes is the first step in helping a kid learn to socialize. Please don't lecture me on how damaged "YOUR culture" is as if I don't know it-- it's kind of like telling an ER nurse about the prevalence of auto accidents. I assure you I am up to my neck in it.

[ 02. October 2015, 17:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :
 
Hmmm.

Seems to me the reason why the UK, and Australia, and New Zealand, etc, have been able to enact effective gun control laws is because we do actually love our neighbour, and regret his/her passing, and sorrow with his/her family. I am not persuaded the same is true of the US.

Cheers, PV.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ romanlion

Of course it is not possible to "do an Oz" in the US context. That's not really the issue.

See here from recent history

The NRA is a most powerful lobbyist and represents some very powerful interests. It is able to mobilise a blocking majority even against modest reforms. And what was the nub of their counter-argument. Why it was this!

quote:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Wayne LaPierre of the NRA
The only thing? The attempted legislation which was voted down was modest, but it would have been a start. Even something as modest as this was lost.

quote:
The Manchin-Toomey Amendment was a bi-partisan piece of legislation sponsored by Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey that would require background checks on most private party firearm sales. The bill known as Manchin Amendment No. 715 was voted on and defeated on April 17, 2013 by a vote of 54 - 46 because in order to pass it needed 60.
The NRA would appear to have the votes in their capacious pockets.
And it seems like the more you point out things like this are happening, the more you get," You must like the smell..."

Sometimes this American's Gordian Knot solution seems tempting.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Please don't lecture me on how damaged "YOUR culture" is as if I don't know it
I'm not lecturing you. You're choosing to read things as being in opposition to you, personally, whether they are intended that way or not. It's your culture because you're in it, not because you have personal responsibility and ownership for the whole of the generalised characteristics of several hundred million people. And in English, the words for second person singular and second person plural are the same.

Do you honestly want me to say "their culture", as if you're not an American in America? To actively exclude you from your own society?

And your whole "you must like the smell" thing is bullshit. Certainly, your response to barnabas' post is bullshit. When people say "there's a smell over there, something ought to be done about it", stop implying "you must like the smell" into those words. WE GET THAT IT'S HARD.

[ 02. October 2015, 18:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
Not that it should have any particular impact on the proceedings, but this does appear rather ironic.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Actually, I'm sorry, Barnabas-- I focused on the content rather than your compassionate tone. You seem to recognise that the situation involves a large number of human beings in very serious trouble, rather than some faceless Evil Empire.

It feels like Congress just wants us all to kill each other-- "to reduce the surplus population."
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
So he went to a specialist EBD school with a focus on autism. Wore the same military style outfit every day. Either didn't socially interact or became extremely angry about noise levels most people would tolerate easily. And had something like 15 legally held fire arms. Social media profile about how fab the IRA were as an undefeated army. Posted threats on 4chan.

Give it a few days and the triggering incident will have been discovered.

So far, sequence as predicted.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Please don't lecture me on how damaged "YOUR culture" is as if I don't know it
I'm not lecturing you. You're choosing to read things as being in opposition to you, personally, whether they are intended that way or not. It's your culture because you're in it, not because you have personal responsibility and ownership for the whole of the generalised characteristics of several hundred million people. And in English, the words for second person singular and second person plural are the same.

Do you honestly want me to say "their culture", as if you're not an American in America? To actively exclude you from your own society?

And your whole "you must like the smell" thing is bullshit. Certainly, your response to barnabas' post is bullshit. When people say "there's a smell over there, something ought to be done about it", stop implying "you must like the smell" into those words. WE GET THAT IT'S HARD.
I don't think you are talking to me personally, but I,don't think you get how unhelpful this us and them language is. We ( if I can be collective) need to heal from exceptionalism and all that other stuff if we are going to survive. Those of us who want that could use backup!

Look back at Ani's song-- published a year before 9/11. She spelled it right out-- the people most impacted by this shit have the least voice. THAT'S WHAT'S HARD.

I thnk the current push to stop celebrating the shooter and uphold the victims is what is needed-- the America parking its ass in a Congress chairs is not the America that is bleeding. We won't change thing by giving more power to powerful assholes-- in this case, by allowing their mindset to define America-- but by upholding the America that needs more voices. The Tom Joad America. The Joe Hill America.

I think y'all Oz/ Brits can be more of a force for good in that respect than you realize. For one thing, I don't think you realize how incredibly healing it is to heat someone ( like Barnabas, or Alan) say, " how can these fucks treat their own people this way?"
YES! THANK YOU!
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ romanlion

Of course it is not possible to "do an Oz" in the US context. That's not really the issue.

See here from recent history

The NRA is a most powerful lobbyist and represents some very powerful interests. It is able to mobilise a blocking majority even against modest reforms. And what was the nub of their counter-argument. Why it was this!

quote:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Wayne LaPierre of the NRA
The only thing? The attempted legislation which was voted down was modest, but it would have been a start. Even something as modest as this was lost.

quote:
The Manchin-Toomey Amendment was a bi-partisan piece of legislation sponsored by Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey that would require background checks on most private party firearm sales. The bill known as Manchin Amendment No. 715 was voted on and defeated on April 17, 2013 by a vote of 54 - 46 because in order to pass it needed 60.
The NRA would appear to have the votes in their capacious pockets.
The NRA has never gotten a dime of support from me, or any of my family so far as I know, and I cannot recall ever seeing a single piece of mail addressed to me from them, paper or electronic.

Personally I don't see their particular brand of manipulation as any more insidious than the financial lobby, or the pharmaceutical lobby, or the military/defense lobby.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think that ignoring the shooter is a mistake, because it is not random. Aside from the gun control issues, people who are fine do not do things like this. I know people with mental health issues and developmental disorders are usually not violent more at risk from others than a risk to others.

But.

People who do things like this are almost always seriously disturbed and almost always showing significant signs of deterioration first. Notoriety is a side issue, and suppressing talk about the perpetrator potentially risks suppressing the debate that needs to happen about mental health care.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ romanlion

That looks like a non-sequitur to me. Why should they lobby you?

[Unless of course you are a congressman or a senator whose vote on gun laws might need a bit of encouragement.]

[ 02. October 2015, 19:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion

Personally I don't see their particular brand of manipulation as any more insidious than the financial lobby, or the pharmaceutical lobby, or the military/defense lobby.
Fair point. Still insidious, though. Last time I heard a story like Lamb Chopped 's was one of my ex- Mormon friends describing being dogged by her former ward.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think that ignoring the shooter is a mistake, because it is not random. Aside from the gun control issues, people who are fine do not do things like this. I know people with mental health issues and developmental disorders are usually not violent more at risk from others than a risk to others.

But.

People who do things like this are almost always seriously disturbed and almost always showing significant signs of deterioration first. Notoriety is a side issue, and suppressing talk about the perpetrator potentially risks suppressing the debate that needs to happen about mental health care.
Not necessarily ignoring him, just making the death toll by gun the focus of the problem.
Definitely we need to ask how someone "showing signs of deterioration" ( as the case may be) got access to a weapon.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ romanlion

That looks like a non-sequitur to me. Why should they lobby you?
I didn't suggest that they should. You directed a post @me all about the NRA. I figured you must have pegged me as a member/supporter of theirs. I am not, and have never been.

They always pop up quickly in these discussions though. They are the boogeymen behind those awful, heinous guns. Never mind that whatever legislation they manage to defeat wouldn't have prevented an incident like yesterday anyway.

That is why I asked earlier in the thread what "common sense" gun laws look like. What specific new regulation could have been in place that would have stopped that guy from having 10 or 15 guns?

Prohibit anyone attending a "special school" from owning firearms? You might as well get right to KA nephew's point and throw blacks and hispanics in for good measure for all the traction that effort would get.

If Obama truly were bold and brave he would say what he means. Anyone touting the merits of Australian-styled gun laws is talking about bans and confiscation. Everyone knows it, so just say it, and quit being chicken-shit about it. Unless of course you have lifetime secret service protection and you prefer the political hammer in your hand rather than upside your head.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I'm with Kelly. All you non USAians -- denigrate us, please. Accuse us of being uncivilized, at length, on all your talk shows and editorial pages. Write sarcastic stinging articles. Mock us without mercy for our dingbat gun laws. Assert that China, or Australia, or some -- any! -- other country has fewer random gun deaths per capita. See if you can generate a meme that'll go wild on the interwebs. Naughty videos! Twerking starlets! Something involving a cat!

See if you can shame our lawmakers into action. We, the citizenry, have tried. Give us some covering fire from across the water, if you will.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Actually, I said the opposite-- I said we need help escaping from the cultural jail that Rupert Murdoch, the industrial military complex, and the NRA has stuck us in.

Unlike Ani, I don't wanna flee to Canada. I want my own home to be better. And I want to teach the kids, we can be better.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
In other news-- Oh, you little piece of shit.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Keep the fucking guns.

Charge $100 a bullet in taxes, to be spent on social assistance programs.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
That is why I asked earlier in the thread what "common sense" gun laws look like.
You've already had your answer. You can stop asking.

The rest of the planet (pretty much, maybe excepting maybe Somalia and IS, where gun-owning is probably mandatory) knows what "common sense" gun laws look like.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:


That is why I asked earlier in the thread what "common sense" gun laws look like. What specific new regulation could have been in place that would have stopped that guy from having 10 or 15 guns?
This is what I have to do to work in my field:
Supply my fingerprints.
Supply a record of my immunizations.
Submit to a criminal background check.
Have three or four personal references on hand.
Answer a list of questions (under penalty of fraud) about mental and physical health issues.

I think anyone picking up a freaking piece should have to do something similar. (Minus immunization.)

[ 02. October 2015, 20:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Keep the fucking guns.

Charge $100 a bullet in taxes, to be spent on social assistance programs.
Did you say this before? I feel like I heard it before. In any case-- good idea as any.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I get that Americans must feel pretty pissed off when the British, Australians, New Zealanders and most continental Europeans - and heck, Canadians - sit in moral judgement and say, 'Well, you've only got yourselves to blame ...'

I don't believe that American citizens are intrinsically more violent or selfish than anyone else - nor that the rest of us can polish our halos - but somewhere along the line they've bought into a wierd might is right and Hollywood quick on the draw thing ... in some contexts that can be helpful - like when Nazi Germany is on your doorstep - but even then there was international co-operation, it was not a unilateral thing ...

Romanlion's 'the Brits should have fought harder' thing reveals the mindset at its most crass and simplistic. Parliament could not have predicted in 1783 that the wayward colonies would turn into an economic superpower - and the UK's economic dominance also lay in the future at that stage - and arguably, the loss of the US colonies enabled Britain to expand her Empire elsewhere ...

Not only that, wars aren't only won or lost out of the barrel of a gun. The war with the colonies was expensive and unpopular and nobody liked the idea of fighting what were still considered to be our own people.

An American once told me that the British had been the only nation in history which had had the 'guts' to invade the US. WTF?!

Guts didn't come into it. Who else would have been in a position to do so - back in 1812-14 which is when he was thinking of. The Spanish weren't in a position to do so.

The French weren't interested - they sold Louisiana to fund their European adventures. Who else would have wanted to? The Scandinavians?

Dickheads like romanlion give a great nation a bad name.

When I think of the USA I'd like to think of Shipmates like Kelly Alves and Mousethief, Cliffdweller and Lamb Chopped not knuckle-dragging morons like romanlion.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion

Personally I don't see their particular brand of manipulation as any more insidious than the financial lobby, or the pharmaceutical lobby, or the military/defense lobby.
Fair point. Still insidious, though. Last time I heard a story like Lamb Chopped 's was one of my ex- Mormon friends describing being dogged by her former ward.
To be fair, I can think of one plumber and two magazines that behaved exactly the same. ETA: And one boyfriend.

[ 02. October 2015, 20:38: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
As I try to distract further myself to not think of other dead people close to me and funerals upcoming, may I ask, would it be possible to regulate behaviour: to make it absolutely forbidden to carry around a gun unless you have a permit for it, and a lawful activity to use it for, i.e., you have a hunting licence, you're taking it for repair, you're taking it to a target range. All other circumstances are offences, more or less the regulations in many countries. The restriction of ownership is another matter, this is about behaviour.

Sure it might be controversial or hard, and you might find that police in enforcing it have to kill a few thousand people who are not threatening anyone, but were not obedient to the law, and didn't obey the police directions when observed. Statistics on the googleyweb suggest more than 30,000 people are killed per year by guns in USA. Would 10% or 20% or 50% of this amount be acceptable to kill during enforcement? 3, 6 or 15,000? It might be good use of your army.

You could also adopt the Israeli idea and demolish the homes of people who carry around guns. Or maybe chop off their hands like our Saudi Arabian allies do. Or maybe use drones and pinpoint take out people with guns when needed. A little aggressive enforcement might go a long way.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
This is what it looks like to the rest of the world.

I'm due to visit the US next year. There were 22 mass shootings (by this metric) in that state alone. That's just peachy.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
That article references the Shooting Tracker site Golden Key referenced on page 1, which is a crowdsourced effort of Americans sending news of local shootings to their database. So, the stories that inform what " the rest of the world sees" are coming from here. I believe it started on Reddit, provoked by high pissedoffedness about mass media underreporting. ( Chck their info page to see the ridiculous justifications the major news outlets use to not call something a "mass shooting".)


So, for every upload you see on that site, picture someone in Akron, Boston, Chula Vista, Tacoma, Tempe, whereever, sitting down and typing in a URL for a local news item. That's how many of us care about this shit.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess in my head what state it is [Frown] .

[ 02. October 2015, 21:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
The Guardian is also running The Counted, because apparently, your government says you're not to be trusted with statistics.

878 people killed after interacting with the cops. That makes me feel extra safe.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Guardian is also running The Counted, because apparently, your government says you're not to be trusted with statistics.

No surprise there.

Thank God for the people providing crowdsource info tracking sites, though. That way people have some chance of having their voices heard.

[ 02. October 2015, 21:25: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Thanks, Gamaliel.)
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Romanlion's 'the Brits should have fought harder' thing reveals the mindset at its most crass and simplistic.
Had you bothered to read my post in proper context, (i.e. a response to an even more crass, simplistic, downright stupid comment from another limey shitbag such as yourself) perhaps you would have taken it for what it was and not launched into a political/historical justification for the collapse of your empire...

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Dickheads like romanlion give a great nation a bad name.

When I think of the USA I'd like to think of Shipmates like Kelly Alves and Mousethief, Cliffdweller and Lamb Chopped not knuckle-dragging morons like romanlion.
But based on those tired, limp-dicked attempts at insult along with the gratuitous ass-licking of anyone with a higher post count than you it's clear that you weren't the most clever or creative from your litter.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
God, I forgot what a douche you are.

And "limey?" Really? Who do you think you are, Duchess?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Had you bothered to read my post in proper context, (i.e. a response to an even more crass, simplistic, downright stupid comment from another limey shitbag such as yourself)
That would be me, the other limey shitbag. What did I say again? Oh, yes. That the alternative to some sort of gun control is for these mass murders to keep on happening at the rate of over 10,000 per year.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I thought no true Scotsman is a limey.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Had you bothered to read my post in proper context, (i.e. a response to an even more crass, simplistic, downright stupid comment from another limey shitbag such as yourself)
That would be me, the other limey shitbag. What did I say again? Oh, yes. That the alternative to some sort of gun control is for these mass murders to keep on happening at the rate of over 10,000 per year.
Fuck it, I don't see how the buyback scheme wouldn't do something.Even if it only reduced the toll to 5,000
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That would be me, the other limey shitbag. What did I say again? Oh, yes. That the alternative to some sort of gun control is for these mass murders to keep on happening at the rate of over 10,000 per year.
Meh. You have to remember that he's a fully signed up member of the "We know how to stop this from happening but refuse to act because we are spoilt, petulant, selfish moral pygmies" club.

It would be an interesting exercise, however, to ask him how many US citizens would have to die before it became necessary to Do Something. Clearly 10,000 a year just isn't enough.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Keep the fucking guns.

Charge $100 a bullet in taxes, to be spent on social assistance programs.
Great plan. If what you're looking for is another civil war.

There are still quite a few people in this country who use guns in order to get food.

Most gun nuts I know already have a lot of ammunition stockpiled.

I'm not sure I want people to have less practice firing guns and actually hitting their targets because ammunition is too expensive for them to practice.

Also, the vo-tech crowd retains knowledge of how to cast metal into various shapes. Like, the shape of a bullet. Or a gun.

Now, I'll grant you that a mentally ill person who has got it in his head to shoot up a school may not have this particular skill set or the time and patience to actually make their own gun and ammunition, so there could still be value in making it more difficult to get large amounts of ammunition...
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
As for the Second Amendment, I would think that "strict constructionists"/"literal meaning" advocates would arge that citizens should be allowed to have exacty the same weapons (and no more)that were avaiable when the amendment was approved. They wouldn't want an unconstitutional expansion of that amendment.

Law enforcement and the military would of course be exempt according to a literal reading.

People could still hunt and defend their homes. Mass murder would be impossible.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
roman lion--

If you're going to quote Twain in your sig, then at least raise the level of your insults, sir!

Twain insults (Quotations.about.com)

Insults (TwainQuotes.com).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That would be me, the other limey shitbag. What did I say again? Oh, yes. That the alternative to some sort of gun control is for these mass murders to keep on happening at the rate of over 10,000 per year.
Meh. You have to remember that he's a fully signed up member of the "We know how to stop this from happening but refuse to act because we are spoilt, petulant, selfish moral pygmies" club.

It would be an interesting exercise, however, to ask him how many US citizens would have to die before it became necessary to Do Something. Clearly 10,000 a year just isn't enough.
Well, if we're into US citizens killed by guns, it already is much more than 10000. That figure was for murder. If you add in accidental deaths and suicides then I would be very surprised if you didn't add an extra 20000, or more, dead Americans.

And, fuck it, those numbers include one of our own.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As I try to distract further myself to not think of other dead people close to me and funerals upcoming, may I ask, would it be possible to regulate behaviour: to make it absolutely forbidden to carry around a gun unless you have a permit for it, and a lawful activity to use it for, i.e., you have a hunting licence, you're taking it for repair, you're taking it to a target range. All other circumstances are offences, more or less the regulations in many countries. The restriction of ownership is another matter, this is about behaviour.
Would regulations like that stop the killings in the US?

(Mostly they just seems to have led to the largest prison population in the world and a bunch of people have no say in how the government works).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As I try to distract further myself to not think of other dead people close to me and funerals upcoming, may I ask, would it be possible to regulate behaviour: to make it absolutely forbidden to carry around a gun unless you have a permit for it, and a lawful activity to use it for, i.e., you have a hunting licence, you're taking it for repair, you're taking it to a target range. All other circumstances are offences, more or less the regulations in many countries. The restriction of ownership is another matter, this is about behaviour.
Would regulations like that stop the killings in the US?

(Mostly they just seems to have led to the largest prison population in the world and a bunch of people have no say in how the government works).
Regulations alone no. Regulations plus enforcement yes. I'll bet many of the reg's required already exist and all that's needed is for police chiefs to get themselves out of gear. It would however make them unpopular.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, fuck it, those numbers include one of our own.
Two.

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Regulations alone no. Regulations plus enforcement yes. I'll bet many of the reg's required already exist and all that's needed is for police chiefs to get themselves out of gear. It would however make them unpopular.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you truly understand the conditions on the ground in the US. I know it's hard - it's hard even for us because it's such a big country and the laws vary from state to state - but a lot of those laws have been enforced for a long time in a lot of places. Granted, stop-and-frisk has always been disproportionately enforced on black and brown men (leaving too many of them unemployed, unable to vote, and unable to receive federal benefits, etc.) instead of white NRA members, but I'm not convinced a lot more regulations are going to solve our violence problems.

I'm also not sure why you think enforcing them would make the police chiefs unpopular. Police killing people, particularly unarmed people, make them unpopular.

American culture is sick. I'm not sure governmental regulation can heal it. If you have any specific policy recommendations that haven't been tried (and haven't failed) in some American city, I'd certainly be willing to discuss them. But the US isn't Europe, both in terms of culture and the simple fact that we have so many guns that are already on the ground that even changing the gun laws now doesn't necessarily help stop the violence. People can blame the NRA for being too powerful and blocking federal legislation all they want, but I'm not sure programs that failed on a local level would suddenly succeed if only they were big enough (federal).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ romanlion

That looks like a non-sequitur to me. Why should they lobby you?
I didn't suggest that they should. You directed a post @me all about the NRA. I figured you must have pegged me as a member/supporter of theirs. I am not, and have never been.
[snip]
That is why I asked earlier in the thread what "common sense" gun laws look like. What specific new regulation could have been in place that would have stopped that guy from having 10 or 15 guns?
Well you figured wrong about me. Whether or not you are a member or supporter of the NRA has nothing to do with the question of whether their lobbying strength prevents any gun reform legislation getting through Congress.

As to the effectiveness of the legislation which has failed so far, I can see no instant legislative solution to the gun culture woes of the USA. It will take a massive hearts and minds change and that could take decades.

How do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time. It will take a lot of patience and education to wean folks off the spurious protection afforded by owning guns. You just have to start somewhere. And surely anything is better than LaPierre's crassly simplistic view. Isn't it? Surely you can see that for the nonsense it is?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
No single measure can solve a problem that has so many contributing factors. People who say, "Well, X wouldn't have prevented Y" are conveniently ignoring whether X can prevent A, B, and C.

It's odd how when it comes to preventing gun deaths, American ingenuity and determination fail completely - apparently if there isn't an instant, perfect, complete solution to the problem, there's no point in even trying for partial solutions. That's pretty fucking pathetic from a bunch of people who think they're so fucking exceptional. It's like saying that since antibiotics can't cure cancer, they're useless. Or that since seatbelts won't protect you from a flying rock through your windshield, there's no point wearing them.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... I'm not sure I want people to have less practice firing guns and actually hitting their targets because ammunition is too expensive for them to practice......
Won't make any difference. Cops, who presumably can get as much practice as they want and have to maintain a certain standard, regularly miss whatever they're shooting at in real-life situations, and those misses sometimes hit innocent bystanders. All those awesome shots in movies and TV are FICTION.

quote:
New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report. ...In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. ...
A Hail of Bullets
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
PV--

quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Hmmm.

Seems to me the reason why the UK, and Australia, and New Zealand, etc, have been able to enact effective gun control laws is because we do actually love our neighbour, and regret his/her passing, and sorrow with his/her family. I am not persuaded the same is true of the US.

Cheers, PV.
Gee, thanks. Such insight, compassion, and wit. Take a long walk off a short pier.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
How do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time. It will take a lot of patience and education to wean folks off the spurious protection afforded by owning guns. You just have to start somewhere. And surely anything is better than LaPierre's crassly simplistic view. Isn't it? Surely you can see that for the nonsense it is?
Perfection.
[Overused]

Also-- go get 'im, Golden Key
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Also, there's this on the whole Second Amendment thing.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
From the article:
quote:
if the Founders hadn’t wanted guns to be regulated, and thoroughly, they would not have put the phrase “well regulated” in the amendment.
Exactly!
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

It will take a lot of patience and education to wean folks off the spurious protection afforded by owning guns.
If you think it is spurious rather than necessary, then we may not be able to converse. No matter how condescending anyone is.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

It will take a lot of patience and education to wean folks off the spurious protection afforded by owning guns.
If you think it is spurious rather than necessary, then we may not be able to converse. No matter how condescending anyone is.
Protection might be necessary. What's spurious is the idea that guns provide protection. Again, only 1 in 23 uses of a household firearm are an actual case of successful protection. These statistics were widely circulated at the time of Sandy Hook, including here on the Ship.

Any other appliance that didn't work when you actually wanted it to, you'd take it back to the store, not vow to prevent the government from getting rid of it.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
quote:
Anyone touting the merits of Australian-styled gun laws is talking about bans and confiscation. Everyone knows it, so just say it, and quit being chicken-shit about it.
I'll say it--ban handguns and rifles with detachable magazines (you're not allowed to use them for hunting anyway, in most states). Repeal the 2nd Amendment if that's what it takes. It'll take a while to actually confiscate all of them, and it might get ugly, because the gun nuts don't really believe in democracy or the rule of law anyway, but that's no reason not to get started.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Couple of things:

--SmartGunLaws.org has thoughts and stats. Nothing on the Oregon shooting, yet.

--From Op-Ed News, a few years ago: a Colorado man wrote about why he bought guns, and why he got rid of them.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Anyone touting the merits of Australian-styled gun laws is talking about bans and confiscation. Everyone knows it, so just say it, and quit being chicken-shit about it.
I'll say it--ban handguns and rifles with detachable magazines (you're not allowed to use them for hunting anyway, in most states). Repeal the 2nd Amendment if that's what it takes. It'll take a while to actually confiscate all of them, and it might get ugly, because the gun nuts don't really believe in democracy or the rule of law anyway, but that's no reason not to get started.
All sorts of ideas coem to mind

1. Find a good war somewhere and work off all the macho aggression there

2. Consider why you have the 2nd amendment - frontier and Native American wars and the like. Now, arm the native Americans on their little bit of what they have left, after the rest of the racists stole it, and let them have a go. A kind of rifle revenge shoot out. Mind you the level of health they have in comparison with the rest of the nation means they aren't in the best position to argue ....

3. Arm everyone man, woman and child - and invite a free for all. last one standing wins. It'd reduce the welfare bill y'know and there'd be a big redneck rush to get Obama first.

4. Get over the idea that when in disagreement pull a gun: the rest of us tend to use words - can be equally wounding I agree but at least there's survival

5. Sensibly, explore - really explore - the psyche behind gun ownership. Just because I can doesn't equate in an honest world to because I can then I must. Explore and deal with what it is in the American psyche that says the gun is always King and aggression always wins the day.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
saysay

No need to converse. As orfeo says, studies have been made. The gun lobby has always put lot of effort into attempts to refute them.

The Philadelphia study.

But if that is too heavy or thought to be too selective, there is also this argument.

The Protection Paradox.

"The more people who own guns for self protection, the more shootings there will be."

"The widespread ownership of protective weapons increases the risks for everyone".

I really did not mean to condescend and I apologise for any impression of condescension I may have given. There is strong evidence and there are powerful arguments in support of the assertion that belief in the protection provided by gun ownership is ill-founded. Of course it will be true in some cases and they can always be cited. These will keep the protection paradox in play unless and until longer term solutions are put in place to help a better understanding.

[ 03. October 2015, 06:19: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alan--

quote:
Well, I suppose that depends on whether people are thinking that, or just turned their brains to neutral and accepting what Fox News tells them. If someone has actually sat down and considered things and reached the conclusion "we need our guns to protect us from a liberal police state" then I'd say they're nuts, but their thinking. I don't think that's what happens though, is it? People just take what's fed them from the right wing media, and follow blindly, unthinkingly, where they are led.
I think it's a mixture. They're fed a lot of crap, yes, from the right wing media, and TV and film. And it's basically un-American to trust the gov't--that's why all the checks and balances. A couple of the founding guys even wrote that we might need a bloody revolution, now and again. Plus the pilgrims, pioneers, forging a new land, and fighting to protect your piece of it. Plus, for some people, a civil war that didn't turn out the way they wanted. Plus the Cold War. Plus a whole lot of changes (pick any you like) that scare a whole bunch of people, and that they don't understand. Plus American mythology and legends, exceptionalism, and a fascination with outlaws. (E.g., Jesse James.) Plus actual, real danger.

Plus...we've never managed to turn to the next page in our story. It's stuck. So we keep scribbling notes in the margins of our myths. If we can find a way to put *this* page to rest, turn the page, and start a new chapter of a new, less violent mythology, we might be able to get past our gun obsession. If not,...

[Tear]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Something I wonder, off and on:

The people (tbh, seems to be guys) who feel a need to grab fame and glory by dying in an outsized, violent way--why do they have to do something *bad*? Is that the only niche that their sickness allows them? Why not do something *good* that's dangerous?* Go on rescue missions. Train to fight wildfires. Volunteer with Ebola victims. Play Robin Hood. Heck, emulating John Brown might even be a step in the right direction--it would at least avoid killing innocent/non-complicit people.

Even something like base-jumping in a flight suit would be both very dangerous and much more positive. And might even be fun.

In "Starmind", the wonderful last book of an intriguing sci-fi trilogy by Spider & Jeanne Robinson, there are "rapturists"--the exact opposite of terrorists. They do good things in sneaky, sometimes illegal ways. Robin Hood meets Random Acts of Kindness.

Why not do that, or be the next Banksy, or do guerrilla gardening, or go on a mission with Greenpeace?

Is there any way to get potential shooters and actors-out to redirect their energies a bit? Like nudging a meteor away from Earth, rather than blowing it to smithereens or letting it destroy us??


NOTE: I'm not suggesting that anyone should actually do any of this, especially when it involves breaking the law or hurting anyone. I'm just asking why.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
This comes back to the fact the shooters are usually quite seriously distrubed and their state is deteriorating. It is not just about what they want to do, it is about what they can do. Mercer got chucked out of army basic training after 28 days. He hadn't, according to most media reports, got more than very basic social skills - which would have stopped him doing most of the things you suggest.

Frankly, even when they engage in mass shootings they generally do it in such a haphazard fashion that they kill far fewer people than the weapons and ammo they bring would permit, if their fuctioning was less compromised.

[ 03. October 2015, 08:30: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Spot on, Doublethink. And that argument points directly to the risks of "ease of access".

I've looked at Supreme Court rulings and the 2008 DC v Heller ruling (5-4) confirms the individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes. Some regulatory restrictions by state law are permitted in principle by this statement.

quote:
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
I think it has been pretty coy about clarifying that presumption of permissibility, but in principle it is there.

So states could indeed, at least in principle, regulate to restrict access to guns by the mentally ill. Have any tried to do so?

[Link to 2008 ruling.]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Yes, that is why regulation matters. People who commit spree killings are not typical career criminals with the illegal support network and contacts that implies.

These shootings happen regularly, when was the last time you heard of one of these spree killers having a history of acting with others to commit crimes ? These are not usually people who go round and threaten people if they owe money, or steal cars to order.

These are people who struggle to connect with others and feel thwarted and persecuted in their lives. They are often odd enough to attract bullying in communal contexts that worsens the problem - and that may ultimately focus their anger on a particular target.

[ 03. October 2015, 10:00: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Also, the vo-tech crowd retains knowledge of how to cast metal into various shapes. Like, the shape of a bullet. Or a gun.
And then there are 3D printers. I've heard of guns made that way. I would think you could probably make the bullet casing, then stuff it with whatever.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Mostly the shooters die, and there is then a lot of retrospective theorising.

I thought folk might be interested in this.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks, Doublethink.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
(ambles off humming Duelling Banjos.)
Please don't dirty a fun piece of music by associating it with the ideas you were satirizing. Thx.
[Biased]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Having read this about the shooter, my reaction is basically "what a pathetic piece of shit".

Meanwhile, here in Australia we've had a 15-year-old boy kill one person before being killed himself. The whole thing is freaking bizarre. He targeted a police station but his victim was actually a civilian IT worker, and a Buddhist of Chinese origin to boot. But the kid? Iraqi-Kurdish, born in Iran (so apparently a refugee). There's no way a person of Kurdish background should be sympathising with the radical Islamists such as ISIS.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Go read the jlg threads in limbo.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Meanwhile, here in Australia we've had a 15-year-old boy kill one person before being killed himself. The whole thing is freaking bizarre. He targeted a police station but his victim was actually a civilian IT worker, and a Buddhist of Chinese origin to boot. But the kid? Iraqi-Kurdish, born in Iran (so apparently a refugee). There's no way a person of Kurdish background should be sympathising with the radical Islamists such as ISIS.
ISIS aren't the only nutjobs in the world. It's quite possible this boy was suffering from the trauma of life before fleeing and the journey, in a foreign country and culture. That's enough to push quite a few people over the edge. Just because that person's from a largely Muslim country doesn't mean he's therefore sympathetic to ISIS. Another victim of the fuck up world we've created, intent on making others victims as he goes down.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Go read the jlg threads in limbo.
Ouch. And yes.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yes, that is why regulation matters. People who commit spree killings are not typical career criminals with the illegal support network and contacts that implies.

These shootings happen regularly, when was the last time you heard of one of these spree killers having a history of acting with others to commit crimes ? These are not usually people who go round and threaten people if they owe money, or steal cars to order.

These are people who struggle to connect with others and feel thwarted and persecuted in their lives. They are often odd enough to attract bullying in communal contexts that worsens the problem - and that may ultimately focus their anger on a particular target.
Another thing is: it is hard to think of a spree shooter that wasn't a young man.

The problem with the rugged individual/ top of the heap image we use to sell men stuff is that we are ultimately selling loneliness and isolation. Community requires things like compromise, cooperation, attention to the needs of others-- none of which are things a "tough guy" does. So, when a young man is bullied and isolated from his peers, we have this societally provided self soothing tool. A security blanket with the legend," You don't need anyone, you are a lone wolf maverick."
So, when a young is having trouble simply just being with people, he doesn't even have the vocabulary to ask for help with this. We teach them there is something wrong with needing people.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
A coming together of three things. A discussion, thanks to the leader of the Labour Party, of the MAD doctrine. A spree shooter, again. And an attack on a hospital, which may, or may not, have held a few Taliban, but definitely doctors on sabbatical from their home hospitals and patients resulting from the recent attack on their city.

There was a man who took on Piers Morgan replayed on the radio this morning, about how essential it was for Americans to have the right to bear guns. Shrieking out, and he claimed to be the sane one. Today

[ 03. October 2015, 15:53: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
That was not, I hope you realise, intended as a general criticism of Americans. I know perfectly well that the majority do not have a devotion to weaponry.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
Just to hit a few of the fallacies and inaccuracies on the prior pages:
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
(ambles off humming Duelling Banjos.)
Please don't dirty a fun piece of music by associating it with the ideas you were satirizing. Thx.
[Biased]
It may be too late to worry about Duelling Banjos being associated with unpleasant thoughts.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
saysay

No need to converse. As orfeo says, studies have been made. The gun lobby has always put lot of effort into attempts to refute them.

The Philadelphia study.
A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection.

If you want to change minds, you have to engage arguments. But the left in the US insists on trying to control the conversation.

quote:
But if that is too heavy or thought to be too selective, there is also this argument.

The Protection Paradox.

"The more people who own guns for self protection, the more shootings there will be."

"The widespread ownership of protective weapons increases the risks for everyone".
Well, it would seem to be a tautological argument that the more guns there are, and the more people who own them, the more shootings there will be. Again, doesn't necessarily change minds about whether or not that's more acceptable than the alternative.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So states could indeed, at least in principle, regulate to restrict access to guns by the mentally ill. Have any tried to do so?
Only all of them.

As with most things the US government does, it seems to have made things a pain in the ass for law-abiding citizens, while not keeping the guns away from persons prohibited.

And to me Baltimore suggests that creating a huge criminal underclass of people prohibited from owning handguns doesn't do a lot to reduce the actual violence.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
The NRA has spent a lot of time and money into persuading people in the boondocks who own hunting rifles and the like that gun controls will affect them. That is bollocks. The problem is guns, especially handguns, in towns.

When we British talk about gun controls it's worth remembering that people can still own shotguns and more besides. My b-i-l used to have a hunting rifle for pest control in his job as a gamekeeper. Some of his kills ended up on the table too, very nice .

The difference is that certificates are issued by the police and they need to see good reason to issue a certificate. There are over half a million licensed shotguns and over 150,000 licensed firearms (which includes higher-powered air-rifles). Certificates for handguns are very tightly restricted now, and mostly restricted to muzzle loaders and historic guns. A few prominent politicians (notably in Northern Ireland) have in the past been allowed handguns as personal protection weapons but that's about it.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Could it be that urban gun owners don't know what they are talking about? Even with regard to their own guns??
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The NRA has spent a lot of time and money into persuading people in the boondocks who own hunting rifles and the like that gun controls will affect them. That is bollocks. The problem is guns, especially handguns, in towns.
Unfortunately, it's not just the NRA, it's quotes like this:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Anyone touting the merits of Australian-styled gun laws is talking about bans and confiscation. Everyone knows it, so just say it, and quit being chicken-shit about it.
I'll say it--ban handguns and rifles with detachable magazines (you're not allowed to use them for hunting anyway, in most states). Repeal the 2nd Amendment if that's what it takes. It'll take a while to actually confiscate all of them, and it might get ugly, because the gun nuts don't really believe in democracy or the rule of law anyway, but that's no reason not to get started.
The right in this country uses gun control the way the left uses abortion: any restriction (no matter how seemingly sensible) becomes an excuse to whip up paranoia that this is the first step on the slippery slope towards confiscating and eliminating all guns or outlawing abortion.

shrug It's the rhetorical atmosphere people seem to want.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Most gun owners do not live in cities.

But I suspect that your phrasing means the question is completely disingenuous. I would think common sense would indicate that most people know that if they get into a conflict with another gun owner, it's unlikely to end well for either of them.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Most gun owners do not live in cities.
OK then. Ban them in cities, apart from shooting clubs.
quote:

But I suspect that your phrasing means the question is completely disingenuous.

Don't try to read my mind. You do this way too often and you expect others to read yours too. but that is another problem which is entirely yours.
quote:

I would think common sense would indicate that most people know that if they get into a conflict with another gun owner, it's unlikely to end well for either of them.
It would be a damn sight better if they didn't get into a "conflict" at all. Don't you people do anger management? All guns do is raise the stakes from a fat lip to a funeral.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re city vs. rural:

The Ruby Ridge incident (Wikipedia) is one reason rural folk worry about the gov't taking their guns. Law enforcement officers did a spectacularly horrendous job--including shooting and killing a woman with a baby in her arms.

I just skimmed through the article. I'd forgotten a lot. But there's also a lot that wasn't in the original news coverage. If you mix the siege on the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX; the total disconnect between intelligence agencies before 9/11; and all the bungling and callousness in the Feds' handling of Hurricane Katrina; then focus that on one farm in Idaho...well, the Feds pretty much poured a super-tanker of gasoline on the militia movement. And disgusted and scared the heck out of all sorts of other people.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
common sense
This phrase comes up a lot. It seems to have a very different meaning over there.

For example: I'm sitting in a coffee shop, someone comes in carrying a gun. Common sense dictates that get the hell out of there as quickly as possible, and as soon as I'm safe, call the police.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Doc Tor--

Complicating that: in some places, you can openly carry guns if they're unloaded. Except there's no way for a passerby to know whether guns are loaded.

I don't know what the current situation is; but, several years go, there was a big thing in Northern California about that. IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them. That was a local law, IIRC.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Dave W--

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
(ambles off humming Duelling Banjos.)
Please don't dirty a fun piece of music by associating it with the ideas you were satirizing. Thx.
[Biased]
It may be too late to worry about Duelling Banjos being associated with unpleasant thoughts.
I've made a point of avoiding that movie, and I didn't read the article, due to extremely disturbing things I've heard about it. You just gave me another reason not to see it.

[Angel]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

Most gun owners do not live in cities.
The latest stats I've seen say that only 20% of US citizens live in rural areas. Sure there are degrees of urbanisation, from small town to major city. But here is a link to some recent data. An average population density in urban areas of over 2,000 people per square mile; that's high enough for the exposure to risk argument to have some force.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Doc Tor--

Complicating that: in some places, you can openly carry guns if they're unloaded. Except there's no way for a passerby to know whether guns are loaded.

I don't know what the current situation is; but, several years go, there was a big thing in Northern California about that. IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them. That was a local law, IIRC.
If I'm in a US coffee shop, and a non-police officer comes in carrying a gun, I'm going to leave. Immediately. If I'm in a restaurant, and I'm half-way through my meal, likewise.

I want to say "What the fuck is wrong with you people?" but that doesn't quite meet the nuance I'm looking for. It's your law makers I need to address.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Doc Tor--

Complicating that: in some places, you can openly carry guns if they're unloaded. Except there's no way for a passerby to know whether guns are loaded.

So why wear it? As a freaking fashion accessory?

I could ask more questions about the kind of people who wear this kind of bling, but I'd also add that the most dangerous gun on earth is an unloaded gun. The guy who taught me to shoot started with that and the Darwin Awards mention a fair few incidents featuring "unloaded" guns.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Sioni Sais--

2010 article on open carry and Starbuck's, etc. (SF Gate)

2014 article about some of the legal wrangling. (LA Times)

And yes, "unloaded" guns can be very dangerous.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them.
And, surely the manager has every right to tell people if they want to be served in his coffee shop they don't bring a gun inside. What's to stop him? Apart from fear of getting shot, that is.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The right in this country uses gun control the way the left uses abortion: any restriction (no matter how seemingly sensible) becomes an excuse to whip up paranoia that this is the first step on the slippery slope towards confiscating and eliminating all guns or outlawing abortion.

shrug It's the rhetorical atmosphere people seem to want.
This is spot on. The difference IMO is that both sides seek the same end with regard to events like Thursday.

No one wants to see what happened in Oregon.

Pro abortion activists don't have any problem with a million+ abortions each year, and more is fine too.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I want to say "What the fuck is wrong with you people?" but that doesn't quite meet the nuance I'm looking for. It's your law makers I need to address.
What we need is campaign finance reform and reform of voting regulations. If we could vastly reduce the amount of money it takes to reach elected office, we could have lawmakers who would have to respond to voters' wishes rather than the wishes of those who pay for the campaigns. And if we had automatic voter registration and better regulations guaranteeing access to voting, conservatives would start losing a lot more elections and we'd get better gun laws. Not to mention a host of other societal benefits.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Too long term. No, denigration and hooting is the solution. Politicians can be shamed into acting rightly.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Most gun owners do not live in cities.
quote:
OK then. Ban them in cities, apart from shooting clubs.
They did for a long time in a lot of cities. All it meant was that the criminals had guns but the law-abiding citizens didn't. Eventually the Supreme Court overturned DC's handgun ban as unconstitutional.


quote:
quote:
But I suspect that your phrasing means the question is completely disingenuous.

Don't try to read my mind. You do this way too often and you expect others to read yours too. but that is another problem which is entirely yours.
[Confused] Are you Soror Magna? That was a response to her.


quote:
quote:
I would think common sense would indicate that most people know that if they get into a conflict with another gun owner, it's unlikely to end well for either of them.
It would be a damn sight better if they didn't get into a "conflict" at all. Don't you people do anger management? All guns do is raise the stakes from a fat lip to a funeral.
No, they don't teach us anger management. They teach us The Game. And that you can't escape playing the Game. (That's what I was saying about our culture being sick).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
saysay,

I'll agree with you about our culture being sick. I doubt we'll agree on the cure though.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Too long term. No, denigration and hooting is the solution. Politicians can be shamed into acting rightly.
Bullshit. Alabama is closing the driver's license bureaus in 8 of the 10 counties with the highest concentration of black people and requiring that people show a picture ID to vote. Officials in Oregon are talking about how this is a time to mourn, not a time to discuss gun laws. Politicians are not in general motivated by shame - it doesn't get them re-elected.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Private shame, they can shuck. Public ignominy is what is called for. Like that guy who bought the rights to a drug and then raised the prices by a thousand percent. They need to be publicly hung out to dry, with rotten fruit and the odd dead fish.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
common sense
This phrase comes up a lot. It seems to have a very different meaning over there.

For example: I'm sitting in a coffee shop, someone comes in carrying a gun. Common sense dictates that get the hell out of there as quickly as possible, and as soon as I'm safe, call the police.
Carrying a gun as in carrying it in their hand, or carrying it in a holster?

I agree, if it's in their hand, leaving (or putting some large solid object in between you and the person) is probably the best option.

Otherwise, in many parts of the US, a person with a holstered gun is simply too normal a sight to cause concern. The person could in fact be a police officer or any of another million types of security officer (ours are not always in uniform). Most people will not actually own a holster unless they have an open carry permit, so you're likely just going to annoy the police who have to make sure everything checks out (and that's if you're not in more danger of a trigger-happy cop showing up than the citizen with the gun).

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

Most gun owners do not live in cities.
The latest stats I've seen say that only 20% of US citizens live in rural areas. Sure there are degrees of urbanisation, from small town to major city. But here is a link to some recent data. An average population density in urban areas of over 2,000 people per square mile; that's high enough for the exposure to risk argument to have some force.
As far as I know there are no solid numbers mapping legal gun owners to location. IME part of the breakdown in communication in a lot of gun control debates comes from the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas, while a lot of gun control advocates have never and would never fire a gun and don't see why anyone should.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas, while a lot of gun control advocates have never and would never fire a gun and don't see why anyone should.
OK, enlighten me. Why does where someone live make a difference? I know a few people who live, or have lived, in rural areas. All but one of them never thought about owning a gun (the exception was someone who shot clay pigeons, an activity he'd been doing before he moved out of town). Most of them felt safer living in the sticks with their nearest neighbour quarter of a mile away than living in town. OK, none of them were/are farmers who had to potentially deal with a fox in the chickens or something similar - but, I bet your "lot of gunowners" aren't farmers either.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas, while a lot of gun control advocates have never and would never fire a gun and don't see why anyone should.
Do'h. I quoted the second part 'cos I was going to respond to that as well.

Put me down as someone who "has never and would never fire a gun". That doesn't mean I don't think no one ever should. As I said, I've a friend (OK, technically husband of a friend) who used to shoot clay pigeons. With sensible precautions (ie: lots of space without anyone the otherside of where the pigeons are) perfectly safe activity. A former colleague was from Texas, a farm boy who regularly (ie: about once a month) got out the gun in the night because some varmit was annoying the livestock (I'm not sure if he ever fired at anything, except tin cans to show he was a good enough shot before his dad let him have a gun unsupervised, I got the impression that the light coming on and the dog were enough to scare the varmit off). Hunting (whether deer, grouse or whatever) is an important part of the Scottish rural economy (indeed, now we don't have any natural predators, someone has to keep deer numbers in check). These are all, IMO, perfectly reasonable reasons to have a gun, or possibly two. With the exception of seeing off some varmit in the chickens, I don't see any reason for people to keep guns readily accessible at home or carry them with them. The guy I knew with two shotguns for shooting clay pigeons had them locked in a strong box in the attic, with the ammo in a locked cupboard elsewhere in the house - which didn't stop someone breaking in with the power tools needed to get at them, one of which was later used in a crime (which, incidentally, in the UK meant he lost his license).

"Gun control advocates" are just that, in favour of gun control not an absolute ban on all guns.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Otherwise, in many parts of the US, a person with a holstered gun is simply too normal a sight to cause concern.
Which is a fucking large part of the problem.

Seriously, how is it that you think murderers get access to guns so readily in the US? It's because no-one thinks it's particularly remarkable that someone is walking around with guns, collecting more and more guns, talking about guns, expressing interest in guns, expressing interest in shootings even.

That's one of the reasons this keeps happening in your country far more than in other countries. Because in other countries, if someone's exhibiting that behaviour there's a far higher chance that other people are going to be worried and at the very least raise a concern with the authorities or other people.

It's not a normal sight. It's a freaking bizarre sight. I don't care if you're in a rural community, it's simply not true that people need to walk around with a gun on them. A farmer doesn't need his gun when he's in the local store or cafe, he needs it on his own property. No-one needs a dozen or more guns, they probably need about 3 maximum depending on the how much variety there is in the things they actually need to shoot.

The fact that you've normalised the sight of people with guns is not a good thing, it's a terrible thing. Not being concerned that someone is in possession of a deadly weapon is demented.

[ 03. October 2015, 23:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Carrying a gun as in carrying it in their hand, or carrying it in a holster?

I agree, if it's in their hand, leaving (or putting some large solid object in between you and the person) is probably the best option.

Otherwise, in many parts of the US, a person with a holstered gun is simply too normal a sight to cause concern.
Okay, sorry to everyone who is decent and sensible, but:

What the fuck is wrong with you people? How many seconds does it take to fill an empty hand with a gun from a holster? Am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between some John Wayne-wannabee who just might shoot me, and some John Wayne wannabee who's actively thinking of shooting me? Do the less shooty ones wear a different coloured hat for my convenience?

You can fuck right off with that. If they're not wearing an actual badge from an actual accredited arm of government, I'm out of there.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Just to make sure, saysay. You actually concede that the majority of US citizens live in urban areas but now that doesn't matter because they spend time in rural areas? On weekend breaks and vacations presumably. Which means they spend some three quarters of their time in areas of relatively high population density where the majority of citizens own guns.

Doesn't that kind of undermine your rubbishing of the Philidelphia study which provided evidence that gun ownership did not provide the levels of protection generally believed? The point that you disputed so strongly that it wasn't worth conversing about?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I'm sure everyone in America, on both sides of the debate knows already, but there was more stringent gun control in some frontier towns in the Wild West than there is now. Link here.

Maybe people were less trustworthy then, but somehow I doubt it.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, enlighten me. Why does where someone live make a difference? I know a few people who live, or have lived, in rural areas. All but one of them never thought about owning a gun (the exception was someone who shot clay pigeons, an activity he'd been doing before he moved out of town). Most of them felt safer living in the sticks with their nearest neighbour quarter of a mile away than living in town. OK, none of them were/are farmers who had to potentially deal with a fox in the chickens or something similar - but, I bet your "lot of gunowners" aren't farmers either.
Most of the gun owners I know are either city people with illegal guns for use in criminal activity, or rural gun owners with legal guns for legitimate uses. Legitimate uses include:

1) Food. There are still a lot of hunters in this country who rely heavily on what they kill to eat. When I was a kid it wasn't unusual to see people walking around with a rifle in case they happened upon something that might be good to eat. Greater enforcement of various hunting seasons has cut down on that a lot.

2) Protection from coyote, wolves, bears, rattlesnakes, copperheads, etc. This is mostly why the people I know who frequently carry guns carry them. Shooting bears and coyote is rare (they tend more towards the you-leave-us-alone-we'll-leave-you-alone attitude). Shooting snakes happens more often than you might think. Holstered handguns are easier to carry around in case of emergency than long guns.

3) Protection from other people. The fact of the matter is that there are some evil people in the world. Yes, it is highly unlikely that one of them is just going to happen to pick your property or house to pursue their criminal activity. But if they do and you're in a rural area, if you or one of your neighbors doesn't have a gun, other help is frequently going to be a long time coming.

Once when I was staying with family in West Virginia, a townie shot a cop and ran to the mountain we lived on. We immediately got calls from the neighbors informing us of what was going on and asking if we had enough guns and ammo (we did). Eventually almost every cop in the state arrived but it took a while. Did the guy actually try to break in such that we needed the guns? No. The incident is not going to show up in statistics of home invasions or other crimes that were successfully stopped by the use of a gun. That people who live in cities can't even seem to comprehend why we would want a gun in a situation like that tends to be a barrier to real conversation.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that you've normalised the sight of people with guns is not a good thing, it's a terrible thing. Not being concerned that someone is in possession of a deadly weapon is demented.
You're reading the situation backwards. We haven't normalised the sight; in parts of the US it has simply never become abnormal because our natural predators have never disappeared. In other parts, people see law enforcement officers too frequently to get upset by the sight of a holstered gun.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, sorry to everyone who is decent and sensible, but:

What the fuck is wrong with you people? How many seconds does it take to fill an empty hand with a gun from a holster? Am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between some John Wayne-wannabee who just might shoot me, and some John Wayne wannabee who's actively thinking of shooting me? Do the less shooty ones wear a different coloured hat for my convenience?
No, the less shooty ones tend to be very comfortable with the fact that they are wearing a gun and not reach anywhere near it unless violence seems immanent.

(I just live here).

quote:
You can fuck right off with that. If they're not wearing an actual badge from an actual accredited arm of government, I'm out of there.
With the current stats, I think you might be in more danger of being murdered by someone wearing an actual badge from an actual accredited arm of government. But we're special like that.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Just to make sure, saysay. You actually concede that the majority of US citizens live in urban areas but now that doesn't matter because they spend time in rural areas? On weekend breaks and vacations presumably. Which means they spend some three quarters of their time in areas of relatively high population density where the majority of citizens own guns.
That bears no resemblance to what I am saying. Again, as far as I know there are no actual numbers mapping legal gun owners to locations, but most of the legal gun owners I have known have lived in rural areas, where the risk/ reward ratio for owning a gun is completely different than it is in a densely populated urban area. Those who haven't lived there have spent significant amounts of time there and generally kept their weapons there.

quote:
Doesn't that kind of undermine your rubbishing of the Philidelphia study which provided evidence that gun ownership did not provide the levels of protection generally believed? The point that you disputed so strongly that it wasn't worth conversing about?
It's the game. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Most people I know don't seem to have the belief that you think they do, that a gun is necessarily going to keep you from getting shot when you are facing another person with a gun (although it does happen). Rather, that a gun may prove useful protection against a person or predator who does not have a gun (which, given the penalties for using a gun in the commission of another crime, a lot of criminals don't have).
 
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :
 
I'm with Alan. Would never own a gun--never dreamed of it.

And saysay's full of shit as usual. The sight of anyone (other than a police officer) with a gun is not normal. And if I were in a coffee house or other public place and some civilian came in with a gun, I would leave immediately and would call the police.

Crap about "civil war" was one of the bullshit justifications wackos used to arm themselves in the seventies, when idiot assholes were running around predicting a) a communist invasion or revolution, b) a military coup, c) civil war or d) just a total societal breakdown. I still occasionally read nonsense about how we were teetering on the brink of civil war. And I think those paranoid fantasies have contributed to the incidence of gun-related deaths we see today.

One of my coworkers was shot to death on busy street in 1981. The murderer was a sixteen-year-old. How did he get that gun? Quite possibly from his older accomplice; maybe that useless asshole bought it legally. Or maybe the murderer stole it; he'd already been convicted of burglary twice (and immediately after being released from his second stay with the California Youth Authority, he raped a twelve-year-old girl). When a lot of dumbass citizens own handguns "for protection," it's that much easier for a criminal to get his hands on one.

And a family member, not yet thirty, lost his life when an argument got out of control in a house where there was a perfectly legal collection of historic (and unfortunately functioning) guns. What about that man's two little boys? He was trying to get custody of them because his ex's new boyfriend was not only dumb as a post, he was physically abusive. The death condemned those boys to grow up with a stupid mother and a stupid, violent stepfather. What about his parents' heartbreak and the pain that washed over the entire extended family? What about the man who actually pulled the trigger--not a criminal or a violent loser, just an ordinary decent guy who was provoked into losing his temper and had the means at hand to do such an awful thing before he'd had time to think.

Consider then a basketball team with thirteen players. Of those young women, three had lost members of their immediate families to guns. One woman's father had been mistaken for an armed robber by a trigger-happy police officer. One woman's father, a community leader and anti-violence activist, had been murdered outside the gymnasium where his daughter's high school team was playing. One woman's brother was killed while attending a party (possibly a mistaken identity shooting--I don't know if anyone was ever arrested in that one).

It's pretty simple. Fewer handguns around, fewer fatalities. To say that well, a really determined sociopath will find weapons anyway, so it's useless to frame new regulations, is on a par with leaving your house unlocked on the grounds that a really determined burglar will find his way in. And there's no reason at all for any civilian anywhere to be able to get his hands on an assault weapon. To say that "stuff happens"--that's typical for a stupid, corrupt, callous idiot (ie a Republican).
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them.
And, surely the manager has every right to tell people if they want to be served in his coffee shop they don't bring a gun inside. What's to stop him? Apart from fear of getting shot, that is.
IIRC, the law, unfortunately.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
The sight of anyone (other than a police officer) with a gun is not normal. And if I were in a coffee house or other public place and some civilian came in with a gun, I would leave immediately. . . .
It's very upsetting. Here in Bigotland . . . oops, I mean Arizona . . . you do see people carrying guns in various places. I give them as wide a berth as I can. Some shops have "no guns allowed" policies. I stopped shopping at a certain supermarket chain because they refused to implement such a policy.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I think it is deliberate menacing. I think the message sent by flamboyant open carry is "If we don't get our way, we will use them."
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
saysay's full of shit as usual.
Must be a month with a vowel.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
... The sight of anyone (other than a police officer) with a gun is not normal ...
Where I grew up, the sight of a police officer with a gun wasn't normal either; when I moved to Northern Ireland, where the police quite justifiably carry guns, I found it more than somewhat alarming.

The idea of civilians carrying guns into supermarkets and coffee-shops as a matter of course is completely anathema to me - what the hell do they need them for?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
... The sight of anyone (other than a police officer) with a gun is not normal ...
Where I grew up, the sight of a police officer with a gun wasn't normal either; when I moved to Northern Ireland, where the police quite justifiably carry guns, I found it more than somewhat alarming.

The idea of civilians carrying guns into supermarkets and coffee-shops as a matter of course is completely anathema to me - what the hell do they need them for?
To protect themselves against librulls and mooslims and illegal immygrunts.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I think what say-say said about gun ownership and open carry being normal in some places is right, actually. Not that it *should* be, but it is. And as she pointed out, she just lives here. I don't think she's advocating it, just reporting on what she's encountered.

The household in which I grew up was mind-bogglingly stupid about guns. Rifles leaned against the wall at the front of a frequently-used clothes closet, ammunition right by them. Don't know if they were loaded. I, as a little kid, frequently had to move them to get stuff stored there. They'd been used in the past for hunting and target shooting; but, at that time, they were there for a sense of safety. (Not rural, but not properly urban, either.) Fortunately, I wasn't inclined to play with them. But there'd been gun-safety promos on TV, and I knew this wasn't a good situation, and some younger kids were going to be visiting. So I explained to the grownups what the promos had said--and they were dramatically shocked and stunned. It honestly had never occurred to them that it was dangerous. The guns were moved to the back of the closet for the visit. IIRC, they might have been moved back to their usual "home" afterwards.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them.
And, surely the manager has every right to tell people if they want to be served in his coffee shop they don't bring a gun inside. What's to stop him? Apart from fear of getting shot, that is.
IIRC, the law, unfortunately.
So, the law says it's illegal to refuse to serve someone because they're carrying a gun. But, it's perfectly fine to refuse to bake them a cake if you don't like the man they're going to marry. Right ... yeah, I suppose that makes sense to some Republicans or someone.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
In a twisted sense, they're both about individual rights/freedoms. People are free to wear guns, and people are free to honor their conscience and not tangentially participate in a same-sex wedding by baking a cake.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Legitimate uses include:

1) Food. There are still a lot of hunters in this country who rely heavily on what they kill to eat.
As I said, I can see hunting as a legitimate use of guns. I don't see why they need to be hanging around at home though. What about an arrangement with the local police station, or some other location that's secure, where you come in on Friday evening to sign out the gun you need for your weekend hunting trip, and a sensible amount of ammo, and sign them all back in on Sunday evening? You still get to hunt your food, but don't have guns around the house where they're liable to shoot someone accidentally or get stolen by someone to use in a crime, or used by a teenager in the house who's decided to take action over the other kids at school who called him names.

And, in a civilised society, people shouldn't be in a position where not killing an animal that crosses their road leads no dinner on the table.

quote:
2) Protection from coyote, wolves, bears, rattlesnakes, copperheads, etc. This is mostly why the people I know who frequently carry guns carry them.
Yes, might be useful in the back of beyond. But, even rattlesnakes will prefer to be out of sight and out of the way unless you go around poking them.

But, when was the last time there was a venomous snake in your local Starbucks? I'm not counting Congressmen in that, though they probably qualify as venomous snakes.

quote:
3) Protection from other people. The fact of the matter is that there are some evil people in the world.
And the statistics are really in your favour there, aren't they. I know there are studies that may be a decade of two out of date, showing that guns were used for self-defence in less than 0.5% of all crimes - and in half those cases the gun was used by a cop. On the other hand, to provide a gun that is almost never going to be used in self defence means a substantial risk of an accidental injury (to yourself or someone else) or for the gun itself to be the item stolen.

You yourself noted that the majority of criminals don't carry guns. If a burglar breaks into my home armed with nothing more than the screwdriver
he used to force the backdoor, it makes little sense to have a gun lying around that he can then arm himself with - and subsequently sell onto a more dangerous criminal because it's easy money.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In a twisted sense, they're both about individual rights/freedoms. People are free to wear guns, and people are free to honor their conscience and not tangentially participate in a same-sex wedding by baking a cake.
Yeah, but the manager of the local coffee shop isn't free to refuse admission to someone carrying a gun.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Carrying a gun as in carrying it in their hand, or carrying it in a holster?

I agree, if it's in their hand, leaving (or putting some large solid object in between you and the person) is probably the best option.

Otherwise, in many parts of the US, a person with a holstered gun is simply too normal a sight to cause concern.
Okay, sorry to everyone who is decent and sensible, but:

What the fuck is wrong with you people? How many seconds does it take to fill an empty hand with a gun from a holster? Am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between some John Wayne-wannabee who just might shoot me, and some John Wayne wannabee who's actively thinking of shooting me? Do the less shooty ones wear a different coloured hat for my convenience?

You can fuck right off with that. If they're not wearing an actual badge from an actual accredited arm of government, I'm out of there.
I don't know what Smoky Mountain first person shooter game saysay lives in, but if I saw a person without law enforcement/ security attire with a holstered gun in a public place, that would freak me right the fuck out. And I would move far away from them.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Personally, I find people in law enforcement uniforms carrying firearms disturbing. I'd feel safer not seeing any cops.

Though, my only experience of armed police has been in the US, and a couple of times around UK airports. Most civilised countries manage just fine without their police officers routinely carrying anything more offensive than a truncheon.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Personally, I find people in law enforcement uniforms carrying firearms disturbing. I'd feel safer not seeing any cops.
Ditto.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most civilised countries manage just fine without their police officers routinely carrying anything more offensive than a truncheon.
Yes.

Having the police armed makes the criminals more likely to arm themselves. A vicious downward spiral.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
If the number of deaths in the USA currently caused by guns were caused by a disease, heaven and Earth would be being moved to eradicate it.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
No, the less shooty ones tend to be very comfortable with the fact that they are wearing a gun and not reach anywhere near it unless violence seems immanent.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

The coffee shop. Exactly the place where you're going to find a deadly rattlesnake. Leave the fucking gun in the car. Hell, even Atticus Finch had to go indoors to get his rifle.

Also, your police officers are on course for killing 1000 people this year. Your homicide by firearm rate is an order of magnitude greater. Yes, there's a problem with them. The bigger problem is the fuckhead civilians with guns.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Leave the fucking gun in the car.
To be stolen by a passing criminal.

Leave it at home in a very well locked cabinet.

Better still, don't have any guns and deal with rattlesnakes another way. I was brought up where snakes lived in the garage, we carried snakebite kits and that was it.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I understand that in the US Up to 100 children a year die from accidental shootings. I wonder how that compares with the number of rattlesnake attacks?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
For some added perspective:

"In gun debate, it's urban vs. rural: In parts of the country, shooting and hunting aren't a way of life. They are life." (USA Today, Feb. 27, 2013)

Study: "Why own a gun? Protection is now top reason"--Section 3: Gun Ownership Trends and Demographics (Pew Research Center, March 12, 2013)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
According to the CDC between 7000-8000 people a year are bitten by venomous snakes, with about 5 fatalities.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas, while a lot of gun control advocates have never and would never fire a gun and don't see why anyone should.
OK, enlighten me. Why does where someone live make a difference? I know a few people who live, or have lived, in rural areas. All but one of them never thought about owning a gun (the exception was someone who shot clay pigeons, an activity he'd been doing before he moved out of town). Most of them felt safer living in the sticks with their nearest neighbour quarter of a mile away than living in town. OK, none of them were/are farmers who had to potentially deal with a fox in the chickens or something similar - but, I bet your "lot of gunowners" aren't farmers either.
Hang on. I am UK based and grew around guns. We have always had guns at home, rifles for shooting game, mostly pheasant, but my father has shot deer with the same rifle (to kill a badly poached deer that was injured and walking around with gangrene). My father shoots for the pot, as part of a shooting syndicate and has been asked to do some vermin control by local farmers (ferrets gone feral, mink).

I remember, back before Hungerford, guns just lived in the cloakroom, propped up with the coats (the ammunition was locked away). My best school friend was a farmer's daughter and her brother was into shooting, and again we were casually clay pigeon shooting with no controls when I was a teenager. Just set the trap up in a convenient field and played around. That one I would have liked more time to try rather than the few goes I got before we drifted off to do something else.

The UK has progressively increased the protections around guns. Hungerford banned the ownership of semi-automatic weapons by individuals. Dunblane banned the home ownership of handguns. Dunblane meant that my friends who competition shoot had to find different ways of storing the handguns for range shooting. These are members of Bisley and members of the Olympic teams. One of my friends was until recently a member of the GB 300m squad.

These days, to continue owning a rifle to hunt game, the licensing is far more rigorous. It requires medical certificates, police checks to check that the gun is locked in a proper gun cabinet with the ammunition locked away somewhere else. That there are signed agreements from the local farmers and other members of the shooting syndicate to agree that this is what the gun is used for. And the police check all of this before issuing a gun licence. (I haven't been forever, but I suspect the gun now has to be locked away while being transported.)

And yes, I have shot handguns on a shooting range - I'm crap at that one. I'm not so bad with a rifle, but don't get the time or practice to want to push it.

But this has been progressive following shooting incidents. We started with casual ownership of guns in the UK.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Hang on.
Hang on yourself. So, you know different people from me. So what? What's wrong with my statement that the people I know who live/have lived in the countryside don't automatically long for the opportunity to fill their home up with guns? I don't know the statistics for the UK, but the impression from what I've seen of shooting estates in Scotland is that the majority of people coming to shoot a deer or a brace of grouse are not locals, and probably live in urban areas.

Hence, my conclusion that a) the desire to fire guns is not restricted to those who live in the countryside but includes a lot of townies and b) that not everyone in the countryside wants to have a gun. For the UK, of course. I was asking if it's so vastly different in the US. I can't believe it is. If only because the oft repeated "on average one privately owned gun per citizen" suggests that either everyone in the countryside owns hundreds of guns, or that a lot of those guns are owned by people living in towns.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Alan, I was pointing out you were making sweeping generalisations based on your experiences, and not everyone's were the same. In a post that pointed out that the UK gun laws have become more rigorous, gradually, following shooting incidents.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
No, the less shooty ones tend to be very comfortable with the fact that they are wearing a gun and not reach anywhere near it unless violence seems immanent.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Um, she didn't say it was good...
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
You probable aren't aware but Paternoster Square, next to St Paul's Cathedral, London, is policed by men carrying semi-automatic weapons. It looks like an inner city US scene when they come barrelling through, dropped off in an armoured van. Somewhere I have a photo.

We also have a lot of illegal guns floating around in gang culture in the UK. Better laws in the US would help us too. Most teenagers I know, and I work in the same sort of areas that Kelly does, but in the UK, and with teenagers, lust after guns, some have even handled them. Think Kidulthood. The law makes unlicensed gun ownership illegal. Guns are removed if found and the perpertrators charged with firearms offences. Mostly the kids carry knives, which are equally capable of killing. But we aren't so far off some of these situations in the inner cities in the UK.

We have the same attitudes of individualism and having to teach young people to socialise and work co-operatively. And some of the same problems of different treatments for black and mixed race or Asian teenagers, and a feeling of being picked on.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Sweeping generalisations? I was trying to address a sweeping generalisation (specifically "the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas") with the best of my knowledge which is that out a small sample of people in the UK who live in the country (those I know) I only know one person who has ever owned a gun - and he'd done so as a townie anyway - and the others have never to my knowledge expressed any desire to own a gun. My conclusion: that (in the UK) that sweeping generalisation is not true, and probably wouldn't be true if our gun control laws were less severe than they are.

Of course, it's a small sample. And, it's a sample limited to parts of Scotland and Northern England. And, it's in the context of gun control which means people are not exposed to guns regularly so may not develop a need to have a gun. And, it's in the context of a nation not obsessed with guns, so even if someone felt a gun would be useful they may not express that.

Is that a sufficient number of caveats to convince you that I never intended to make any sort of generalisation, but address the fucking stupid generalisation saysay had produced by giving counter evidence from the UK and asking if things are that different in the US. Have I satisfied your desire for properly expressed arguments in Hell?

Now, do you have anything Hellish to say about a culture which has resulted in more US citizens being killed by people with guns in the last 50 years than the total number of US soldiers killed in every war fought since a group of colonists decided they didn't like the British King and ditched some tea into Boston Harbour?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Alan, I have two points to make about the gun culture.

  1. Gun culture in the UK has changed recently, in the wake of disasters. Guns were casually owned in the UK, similarly to that of some of the US, until recently. I can remember going to country fairs and half the men were there with rifles carried broken over their arms.
  2. Secondly, inner city London isn't as far from the US as you fondly imagine.

I have worse stories of WW1 and WW2 guns still being stored casually in homes. Found when the houses were cleared when the old person died. I am remembering a Sten gun here, and a few other things.

[ 04. October 2015, 09:29: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alan--

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Hang on.
Hang on yourself. So, you know different people from me. So what? What's wrong with my statement that the people I know who live/have lived in the countryside don't automatically long for the opportunity to fill their home up with guns? I don't know the statistics for the UK, but the impression from what I've seen of shooting estates in Scotland is that the majority of people coming to shoot a deer or a brace of grouse are not locals, and probably live in urban areas.

Hence, my conclusion that a) the desire to fire guns is not restricted to those who live in the countryside but includes a lot of townies and b) that not everyone in the countryside wants to have a gun. For the UK, of course. I was asking if it's so vastly different in the US. I can't believe it is. If only because the oft repeated "on average one privately owned gun per citizen" suggests that either everyone in the countryside owns hundreds of guns, or that a lot of those guns are owned by people living in towns.
I may be wrong, but I suspect that a shooting estate in the UK is very different from everyday life in rural America.

And wasn't there once a tradition in the UK to have the family weapons displayed/ready over the fireplace? Or was that a rare thing??

Oh, and where did you pick up that one gun per citizen idea, please??

BTW, I saw something on PBS about the ancestral home for a particular Scottish clan, still lived in and maintained by the chieftain and his wife. They had a jaw-dropping display of weaponry, and I thought at the time that there was quite enough there to start a real revolution. I'm not saying that's the same as an American farmer having a bunch of guns...but maybe there's something of the same impulse?

I'm not saying the US obsession with guns is at all good. But, as someone else pointed out, it isn't unique to us. And we sure didn't invent a fascination/obsession with weaponry.

[Angel]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I may be wrong, but I suspect that a shooting estate in the UK is very different from everyday life in rural America.
Yes, of course it is. Of course, so is most of the UKs countryside - with the exception of the moors of northern England, Wales and Scotland our countryside is almost exclusively farmed. Our only semi-wilderness areas are also those shooting estates ...

quote:
And wasn't there once a tradition in the UK to have the family weapons displayed/ready over the fireplace? Or was that a rare thing??
Yes, as has been pointed out, the UK was much more relaxed about guns in the past. I don't know about over the fireplace, but display cabinets for hunting rifles or a rack for the shotgun by the door (or, just propped in the corner) would be normal for those who owned guns. But, things have changed considerably.

quote:
Oh, and where did you pick up that one gun per citizen idea, please??
Well, according to Wikipedia it's only 0.88 (in 2014). What's 12% among friends? Almost one gun per citizen.

quote:
BTW, I saw something on PBS about the ancestral home for a particular Scottish clan, still lived in and maintained by the chieftain and his wife. They had a jaw-dropping display of weaponry, and I thought at the time that there was quite enough there to start a real revolution. I'm not saying that's the same as an American farmer having a bunch of guns...but maybe there's something of the same impulse?
Although, the armoury of a clan chief wouldn't be exclusively for personal use. That would also be the stock of arms he'd hand out to the clan if they needed to go to war. Certainly before the 18th century reform of the clan system the men of the clan effectively formed a militia (whether it was 'well organised' is another matter), not all of whom would have had their own weapons.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Golden Key, I'm not talking shooting estates. I've never lived or stayed on a shooting estate. That's a different thing entirely.

I am talking about ordinary farms and village houses, in Northamptonshire, for growing up as a teenager.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re display of weapons over the fireplace, and at the clan home:

I wasn't just thinking of guns. More of swords, battle axes, etc.

I think there were few, if any, guns in the clan armory.

I should've been more specific. There's a fascination with weapons that goes far farther back than guns.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
CK--

I know. Alan was the one who mentioned shooting estates.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re display of weapons over the fireplace, and at the clan home:

I wasn't just thinking of guns. More of swords, battle axes, etc.

I think there were few, if any, guns in the clan armory.

I should've been more specific. There's a fascination with weapons that goes far farther back than guns.
Well, displays of weapons were also for political reasons as much as anything else. A big display showed any visitors "look how many men I can provide with top quality weapons". Getting someone to think twice about tangling with you before meeting on the battlefield is good all around.

The main weapon of the Scottish clans was the claymore (muckle great sword). In close combat far more effective than a musket (which at that point is not much more than a club). By the time there was widespread use of rifles the clan system, and indeed the feudal system in England, was breaking down and the regular army was doing all the fighting rather than local militia - and, especially in the Highlands, militia more likely to fight each other than any threat from outside the country.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Actually, the claymore was very expensive and only Highland 'officers' could afford them.

It's estimated that only around 1 in 8 of Bonny Prince Charlie's army - at its height - had the traditional claymore, targe (shield) and dirk. The rest were armed with farm implements or with French muskets when a shipment arrived.

After Culloden, Cumberland estimated that some 2,000 swords were collected from the field. That was a higher proportion than 1 in 8 - but still indicates that most of the Jacobites weren't wielding claymores. Recent battlefield archaeology has revealed that the rebels fired off far more musket and pistol rounds than had previously been thought ... but somewhat ineffectively because they were all bunched together in a mass and not arrayed in ranks like the government troops in order to provide mass volleyed fire.

Only the first two or three frontline men on the rebel side could actually fire their muskets or pistols without the danger of shooting their own comrades.

Anyhow - as has been said, weaponry tended to have a status value in the Scottish Highlands and most of the peasant farmers would have been unarmed. There was a clampdown on privately owned arms across the region after the 1715 rebellion - so there wouldn't have been a huge amount of hardware available in 1745.

Even at the time of the English Civil War, the first major engagement at Edge Hill saw an entire Welsh regiment on the royalist side armed only with farm implements.

County armouries were generally pretty sparse - because of the cost of maintenance. Nobody wanted to pay for the upkeep.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In a twisted sense, they're both about individual rights/freedoms. People are free to wear guns, and people are free to honor their conscience and not tangentially participate in a same-sex wedding by baking a cake.
Another take on "individual freedom" -- you need to watch to the very end to see why I'm posting this on this thread.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I grew up in the countryside, in the 70s and 80s. I knew members of the minor aristocracy, and members of the farming community, and members of the hunt. I went to school with them and their children.

The first time I fired a gun was at (my 2nd) university, in a three-way competition between the Clay Pigeon, Target Shooting and Archery clubs.

The idea that the 'countryside' has guns and thinks nothing particular of it isn't true. In my day, a few people had them, and the great majority didn't. (The local hunt could fuck right off too. The only reason they could continue to do what they did was because two people owned all the land, and wanted it to. Many were entirely ambivalent, and many more against.)
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
America is addicted to guns, Addictions are notoriously hard to break. Meanwhile, the death toll keeps rising.

[Tear]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Very few people in the countryside have guns now. It has become far less common than it was even when I was growing up. My point is that we have changed from the situation when farmers often did have guns. Walking in the wrong place, or even in the right place, it wasn't uncommon to be accosted by a farmer with a gun on his arm when I was a child and teenager. Nowadays guns are rare and carefully locked away when not in use.

We did it gradually, stage by stage. As we saw the need arise. First the automatic weapons, then the hand guns. But where I am now, in countryside just outside London, I have heard of kids handling illegal guns both in this local environment and in the inner city. (Damn difficult to act on hearsay, however convincing.)

(I probably first shot a gun at 13 or 14, clay shooting. Did a lot more beating before that. The shooting range and handguns was at university.)
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I did clay shooting too as a teenager. My grandfather hunted. However, his rifle was registered, he needed to go through physical and mental checks every few years to have his licence renewed ... You know, the sensible things.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Actually, the claymore was very expensive and only Highland 'officers' could afford them.
Which is exactly why they're the ones that got put on display to impress visitors.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Addictions are notoriously hard to break. Meanwhile, the death toll keeps rising.
I've seen the odd recent Hollywood offering where gun violence is so graphic I turn it off. But then these youngsters are going to get it off the Net these days anyway.

When you think the West was won by the gun, it's almost as if the Spirits of dead Indians have come back to haunt them. I mean something is possessing these killer kids, and I just don,t buy all the banging on about mental illness.

If America really wants to change it's culture then it will take something more massive even than prohibition, (not forgetting of course that the 1920s alcohol ban failed totally).
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
(not forgetting of course that the 1920s alcohol ban failed totally).
Not true. We had a thread some time back about someone's kid (and I mean like 15 or 16) who fell into a ditch in a drunken stupor on the way back from a party and slept it off all night in the ditch. The Brits were all, "ah, childhood memories" and the Americans were horrified. There would appear to be a casual attitude toward drunkenness, I think, in the UK that has gone from the US.

It also gave rise to the root beer industry which produced some really good sasparilla-based soft drinks.

Of course Prohibition also produced or greatly enhanced our organized crime scene, so it's a mixed blessing to be sure.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Alan, I was pointing out you were making sweeping generalisations based on your experiences, and not everyone's were the same. In a post that pointed out that the UK gun laws have become more rigorous, gradually, following shooting incidents.
Alan's comment made me fervently wish that the next generations of kids in the US will be able to say the same thing about law enforcement with no weapons.

As for rattlesnakes-- there are these things called sticks. Big fat sticks for whacking things. Snakes existed a long time before guns did, have been managing just fine without them, and no weapon in the world is going to replace a lack of vigilance, anyway.

I think the big elephant in the room is mass media-- how do we convince ourselves that weapons are sexy, anyway? Well, that's easy-- every definitive "alpha" celebrated by movies and tv waves a gun around. The same people who sniff about gun control cheer when Indiana Jones plugs the guy with the saber.

Eyerolls to commence, but another front line story-- the place I am working at is in the nexus of high gang activity. That might be a lesser problem to the fact that there is also a high number of overworked parents letting the TV be the babysitter, or letting kids stay up way too late to watch shows kids have no business watching just to have some semblace of family time after their 14 hour day. ( All of these kids are Walking Dead fans. Jesus.)

At the start of the year, we had the worst problem arising from simple "gun play" escalating into real, physical punching and kicking and clawing. Because TV rules are, you don't stop the fight until the bad guy can't get up. If you are not the clear victor, you must be the bad guy. It was so bad that a couple of kids literally did not know how to enter a group playing anything-- building sand castles, blocks, water play-- without knocking someone's building over or or just slapping them in the face. It was more than just normal impulse control problems, it was like these kids honestly didn't see any way to engage with others that didn't involve a fight.

So, this was a " modest proposal" I thought up, because I really do wonder what would happen on the kid level if we pulled this off. Let's say people in the UK got organized enough to ask the EU (?) to issue this statement.

quote:
We, the undersigned representatives of the UK stand in solidarity with the more than 10,000 US victims of gun violence per year. We abhor the gun culture that poisons the US and enslaves its citizens, and we reject American mass media's atrempt to promote such culture, by normalizing and celebrating gun violence. To that end, we encourage the citizens of our own country to boycott movies and television in which gun violence is glorified, or is used as the primary solution to conflict. We also encourage them to immediately cease purchasing any merchandise related to such media.

We ask the citizens of the countries undersigned to commit to three years of said boycott, and we heartily encourage like minded Americans to participate.
To ( ironically) quote Quentin Tarantino, people don't listen till you start fucking with their paycheck. If by some miracle a campaign like this worked, I bet even Jerry Bruckheimer would suddenly become a flower sniffing hippie.

And my bet is, by year three, American teachers would start seeing a difference in the classroom. Maybe not a complete turnaround, but a difference.

People hear stories before they hear facts. Much cerebral reasoning can be undone by sitting someone down to watch " The Purge" Why is it we can spend all this time expressing mystification about US gun culture without holding Hollywood's feet to the fire, at least a little? They make a good deal of money off of American collective fear.

It would be a hard row to hoe, though, because the entity we would be confronting would also have the biggest tools for shutting us up.

[ 04. October 2015, 16:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Kelly, you probably didn't read all my links, but one of them was to a story from last month, describing how our inner city London gangs are tooling themselves up by mail order guns from the States.

We need to sign a letter that doesn't just ask that guns aren't glorified in films and TV, but also that guns aren't posted to our gangs (who get their mores for the same films and TV that your guys do).

[ 04. October 2015, 16:43: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
That, too, but I guess I kind of thought that was obvious. And I was wondering about how gun culture is spreading to the UK. That one comedy a while back featuring Brit cops with guns really made me uneasy.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
We have always had a bit of criminal gun culture.


Guns aren't normally carried by the police. For gun use they have to be signed out with special licensed police marksmen, and an investigation if anyone is shot. However, the one thing that scared me badly this summer was seeing a patrol in Paternoster Square, next to St Paul's Cathedral, armed with automatic weapons, openly cradled in their arms and holstered. I am not sure if they were a private company, like G4S, but it was heavy armament for the UK. Paternoster Square is a private shopping and business area. The guys were dropped at one side, barrelled through and were picked up the other side by the same armoured van.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
an investigation if anyone is shot.
An investigation if the gun is even fired. Every bullet has to be accounted for.

quote:
However, the one thing that scared me badly this summer was seeing a patrol in Paternoster Square, next to St Paul's Cathedral, armed with automatic weapons, openly cradled in their arms and holstered. I am not sure if they were a private company, like G4S, but it was heavy armament for the UK. Paternoster Square is a private shopping and business area. The guys were dropped at one side, barrelled through and were picked up the other side by the same armoured van.
I'm guessing City of London police. They wouldn't have been a private company, because that would have been massively and definitively illegal.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
an investigation if anyone is shot.
An investigation if the gun is even fired. Every bullet has to be accounted for.
Although accountability is questionable. Most departments have only internal accountability, and the Blue Wall is a thing.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
an investigation if anyone is shot.
An investigation if the gun is even fired. Every bullet has to be accounted for.
Although accountability is questionable. Most departments have only internal accountability, and the Blue Wall is a thing.
It is, but every single police use of a firearm is reported and investigated automatically to an independent organisation, the IPCC. There are inevitable arguments about their actual independence and their methodology, some of which are well-founded. Reform is probably long-overdue.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
This is what we don't have. Cops usually do internal investigation of shootings in the US.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This is what we don't have. Cops usually do internal investigation of shootings in the US.
Wish I'd said that. [Razz]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
... And in case you didn't know, the Blue Wall is a thing.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
... And in case you didn't know, the Blue Wall is a thing.
Don't push it, woman. [Axe murder]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If only because the oft repeated "on average one privately owned gun per citizen" suggests that either everyone in the countryside owns hundreds of guns, or that a lot of those guns are owned by people living in towns.
Most people who own guns own several. Some are family heirlooms, some have different uses. If you hunt, it's certainly not unreasonable to own three or four rifles and a couple of shotguns per person in your household: each gun has a different use. If you carry a handgun for self-defense, you probably have three or so (something small to conceal in summer clothing, or in a small evening bag; something with more stopping power as a normal carry weapon, and a large .45 or something.

If you told me that the average US gun owner owned 10 guns, I wouldn't be surprised. A hundred would be unusual.

(I certainly know a few people in suburbia with guns. They get used once or twice a year, maybe.)
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We had a thread some time back about someone's kid (and I mean like 15 or 16) who fell into a ditch in a drunken stupor on the way back from a party and slept it off all night in the ditch. The Brits were all, "ah, childhood memories" and the Americans were horrified. There would appear to be a casual attitude toward drunkenness, I think, in the UK that has gone from the US.
Passing out drunk in a ditch (or worse) seems to be pretty much par for the course at college frat parties. The main difference is that Americans tend to be a couple of years older when they go through their stupid-with-alcohol phase.

(I'd believe that Brits drank more, on average, and that there were more young American adults who either didn't drink or drunk very little, but I seem to find a pretty casual attitude towards drunkenness wherever college kids gather together.)
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them.
And, surely the manager has every right to tell people if they want to be served in his coffee shop they don't bring a gun inside. What's to stop him? Apart from fear of getting shot, that is.
IIRC, the law, unfortunately.
While I appreciate that you have noted that I'm describing what is the culture in parts of the US rather than what it should be, I believe you're mistaken on the law in this instance. Businesses can refuse to bake cakes for same-sex weddings only if they're willing to shell out huge amounts of money in legal fees and penalties. OTOH, there's nothing stopping them from refusing service to people wearing guns, and more than there's anyone telling them to take down their 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' signs.

That more businesses don't do so is a symptom of the culture war.


quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Legitimate uses include:

1) Food. There are still a lot of hunters in this country who rely heavily on what they kill to eat.
As I said, I can see hunting as a legitimate use of guns. I don't see why they need to be hanging around at home though. What about an arrangement with the local police station, or some other location that's secure, where you come in on Friday evening to sign out the gun you need for your weekend hunting trip, and a sensible amount of ammo, and sign them all back in on Sunday evening? You still get to hunt your food, but don't have guns around the house where they're liable to shoot someone accidentally or get stolen by someone to use in a crime, or used by a teenager in the house who's decided to take action over the other kids at school who called him names.

And, in a civilised society, people shouldn't be in a position where not killing an animal that crosses their road leads no dinner on the table.
Who said the US was a civilised society?

Most of the legal gun owners I know do in fact store their guns unloaded in locked boxes separate from their ammunition. Most of them agree that in an urban or suburban setting it makes little sense to keep a gun, and few of them do so (the ones that own them store them in a rural location where they will be likely to use them; most of the exceptions I know are people working some type of security). Because the risk/reward ratio (the chances that the gun will be stolen, that a child will get their hands on it, or that even if used legitimately an innocent bystander will be struck instead of the target vs. the chances that they’ll use the gun for a legitimate purpose) is so skewed.

But if you seriously think that people storing their guns and ammo at a police station where they have to be signed out for a weekend hunting trip is a reasonable suggestion, then, yes, I’m going to suggest that the cultural differences between the US and UK are significant enough that communication (much less agreement on what constitute reasonable gun laws) may not be possible. Because I don’t even know where to start addressing the problems in that statement.

In the US, people who hunt for their food don’t generally have 9-5 jobs during the week such that they would make a weekend hunting trip. Nor do they necessarily have a lot of extra money for the gas it would take to make the hour plus round trip to the nearest police station.

And you obviously don’t understand a lot of Americans’ relationship to their government. The government (and people’s fear of it) is the reason that some people own guns. I live in Baltimore (you may have heard about our recent unrest that included rioting and the national guard and cops from neighboring states being called in). From the point of view of most people on the ground, the government set that situation up by taking an unbelievable rumor to be a credible threat, and then shutting down transportation at a major hub just as school was letting out thus forcing a bunch of adolescents (not known for their maturity) into a situation where police in riot gear were ordering them to do something (leave the area) that they were literally unable to do. Given the history, getting people to believe that the government isn’t deliberately trying to hurt them is a challenge. Convincing them that the government or its agents are really working in their best interest is impossible.

In the US we’ve had years of experience of zero tolerance policies in the schools. Mostly it has led to a massive school to prison pipeline. Can someone come up with a gun control policy idea that would actually work in the US? Because mostly what I hear is crickets and people bitching about the power of the NRA. But if the NRA wasn’t a factor, if someone could have their perfect gun control policy, what would it be? Timothy the Obscure’s forcible confiscation program?

Actually, you know what, fuck it. Maryland consistently ranks as having some of the best gun laws in the country (as defined by liberals). While I was trying to figure out how to respond a nine-year old girl got shot in broad daylight not far from here. This weekend a 71 yr old man was killed in a shopping center and a 9 yr old girl was shot, both in broad daylight.

This shit isn’t going to get solved by secular liberals setting a minimal standard of behavior and having law enforcement use violence to enforce it.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Most people who own guns own several. Some are family heirlooms, some have different uses. If you hunt, it's certainly not unreasonable to own three or four rifles and a couple of shotguns per person in your household: each gun has a different use. If you carry a handgun for self-defense, you probably have three or so (something small to conceal in summer clothing, or in a small evening bag; something with more stopping power as a normal carry weapon, and a large .45 or something.

If you told me that the average US gun owner owned 10 guns, I wouldn't be surprised. A hundred would be unusual.

(I certainly know a few people in suburbia with guns. They get used once or twice a year, maybe.)
Yes. I also wouldn't be surprised if most of the legal gun owners I know own around 10 guns. The only person I know who might own a hundred makes his living restoring old weapons.
 
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Alan, I was pointing out you were making sweeping generalisations based on your experiences, and not everyone's were the same. In a post that pointed out that the UK gun laws have become more rigorous, gradually, following shooting incidents.
Alan's comment made me fervently wish that the next generations of kids in the US will be able to say the same thing about law enforcement with no weapons.

As for rattlesnakes-- there are these things called sticks. Big fat sticks for whacking things. Snakes existed a long time before guns did, have been managing just fine without them, and no weapon in the world is going to replace a lack of vigilance, anyway.

I think the big elephant in the room is mass media-- how do we convince ourselves that weapons are sexy, anyway? Well, that's easy-- every definitive "alpha" celebrated by movies and tv waves a gun around. The same people who sniff about gun control cheer when Indiana Jones plugs the guy with the saber.

Eyerolls to commence, but another front line story-- the place I am working at is in the nexus of high gang activity. That might be a lesser problem to the fact that there is also a high number of overworked parents letting the TV be the babysitter, or letting kids stay up way too late to watch shows kids have no business watching just to have some semblace of family time after their 14 hour day. ( All of these kids are Walking Dead fans. Jesus.)

At the start of the year, we had the worst problem arising from simple "gun play" escalating into real, physical punching and kicking and clawing. Because TV rules are, you don't stop the fight until the bad guy can't get up. If you are not the clear victor, you must be the bad guy. It was so bad that a couple of kids literally did not know how to enter a group playing anything-- building sand castles, blocks, water play-- without knocking someone's building over or or just slapping them in the face. It was more than just normal impulse control problems, it was like these kids honestly didn't see any way to engage with others that didn't involve a fight.

So, this was a " modest proposal" I thought up, because I really do wonder what would happen on the kid level if we pulled this off. Let's say people in the UK got organized enough to ask the EU (?) to issue this statement.

quote:
We, the undersigned representatives of the UK stand in solidarity with the more than 10,000 US victims of gun violence per year. We abhor the gun culture that poisons the US and enslaves its citizens, and we reject American mass media's atrempt to promote such culture, by normalizing and celebrating gun violence. To that end, we encourage the citizens of our own country to boycott movies and television in which gun violence is glorified, or is used as the primary solution to conflict. We also encourage them to immediately cease purchasing any merchandise related to such media.

We ask the citizens of the countries undersigned to commit to three years of said boycott, and we heartily encourage like minded Americans to participate.
To ( ironically) quote Quentin Tarantino, people don't listen till you start fucking with their paycheck. If by some miracle a campaign like this worked, I bet even Jerry Bruckheimer would suddenly become a flower sniffing hippie.

And my bet is, by year three, American teachers would start seeing a difference in the classroom. Maybe not a complete turnaround, but a difference.

People hear stories before they hear facts. Much cerebral reasoning can be undone by sitting someone down to watch " The Purge" Why is it we can spend all this time expressing mystification about US gun culture without holding Hollywood's feet to the fire, at least a little? They make a good deal of money off of American collective fear.

It would be a hard row to hoe, though, because the entity we would be confronting would also have the biggest tools for shutting us up.
This. I have been thinking that the problem stems from the mass media, and have even challenged year 7 kids with *why* images of people with guns are cool - they really couldn't see that they weren't. If it is like that in Australia, it would be infinitely harder to deal with in the U.S. This idea looks like it could actually work, if we could get enough people on board.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
saysay--

Actually, at the time my first link (posted a little later) talks about, it was very legal to wear your gun into Starbuck's, etc., here in California. So trying to refuse service to them was a problem. The second link discusses the state's legal struggles, back and forth.

Starbuck's itself has been back and forth about it, too, over several years. Web search. Skimming down the page gives an idea of how fraught and confusing the whole thing's been.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
saysay--

Actually, at the time my first link (posted a little later) talks about, it was very legal to wear your gun into Starbuck's, etc., here in California. So trying to refuse service to them was a problem. The second link discusses the state's legal struggles, back and forth.
I understand that it was legal to wear your gun into a Starbucks. I don't have a problem with that. Where I'm from, the manager could refuse them service if they so desired. If they declined to do so, the people who didn't want to see someone with a holstered gun ordering coffee could leave and, if they so desired, boycott Starbucks for their policy.

In fact, I'd like it if people would do that. Boycott Starbucks, choose instead to give your money to a local coffee shop!

I have more of an issue with California lawmakers attempting to change the store policy of a Mass. company which will then affect the abilities of people in WVA to move about freely in accordance with the laws and cultural mores in their state.

OTOH, the feds have made it clear that refusing service to a gay couple on basis of their homosexuality will come with a high price tag.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I understand that it was legal to wear your gun into a Starbucks. I don't have a problem with that.
And I repeat, what the fuck is wrong with you people?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If I am in a store and see a customer with a gun, I will leave. I will complain to the business owner afterwards. If we all do this, it has to have an effect.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If I am in a store and see a customer with a gun, I will leave. I will complain to the business owner afterwards. If we all do this, it has to have an effect.
In the US the effect in many cases will be the business owner suggesting that you mind your step on the way out.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I don't care. I am the customer. I vote with my dollar.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Who said the US was a civilised society?
Yes, I know. When a country has a culture which means that more of their citizens are killed by guns than have been killed in every war they've ever fought, and this is largely ignored by the government, 'civilised' isn't a word I would use either.

And, if you think my suggestion about storing hunting rifles meant that I'm saying guns should only be stored at a police station and used at weekends then I think you need to read what I wrote more carefully.

The point is that a hunter only needs his guns from the time when he reaches the trail head until he loads his kill in the back of his pickup and heads home. The question is, what does he do with those guns the rest of the time? I'm saying that that needs to be securely stored somewhere - for his own safety to avoid accidents and to reduce the risks of theft, because the main source of guns used in criminal activity is someone stealing them from private individuals. A secure location with 24h manned security close to where he goes hunting is better than a cupboard in his home, a police station is one such location but wouldn't be the only one.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If I am in a store and see a customer with a gun, I will leave. I will complain to the business owner afterwards. If we all do this, it has to have an effect.
In the US the effect in many cases will be the business owner suggesting that you mind your step on the way out.
I'm coming round to the notion that if the pro-gun advocates on the Ship act and speak in real life the way they do here, then I'm not surprised they feel the need to carry a gun. romanlion, that statement of yours reads like a threat.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If I am in a store and see a customer with a gun, I will leave. I will complain to the business owner afterwards. If we all do this, it has to have an effect.
In the US the effect in many cases will be the business owner suggesting that you mind your step on the way out.
I'm coming round to the notion that if the pro-gun advocates on the Ship act and speak in real life the way they do here, then I'm not surprised they feel the need to carry a gun. romanlion, that statement of yours reads like a threat.
I think you're misintepreting it - I believe it's essentially suggesting that if you don't like the situation, you can leave - "Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out," or (more crudely) "Don't let the doorknob hit ya where the good Lord split ya!"
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Though, in economically trying times a business owner who sends paying customers packing with words to that effect deserves what he gets (which, is likely to be an end to his business). I strongly doubt that there are enough open carry nuts out there to keep him in business if he kicks out all the customers who feel unsafe seeing guns in public.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If I am in a store and see a customer with a gun, I will leave. I will complain to the business owner afterwards. If we all do this, it has to have an effect.
In the US the effect in many cases will be the business owner suggesting that you mind your step on the way out.
I'm coming round to the notion that if the pro-gun advocates on the Ship act and speak in real life the way they do here, then I'm not surprised they feel the need to carry a gun. romanlion, that statement of yours reads like a threat.
It shouldn't.

I'm sure any that would have the reaction I describe would be polite, but they would tell you to pound sand just the same.

Business owners and other gun nuts use guns to save lives, defend property, and stop crimes with regularity. Protests from the one-off recreant will bring a "good riddance" reaction from many of them.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I understand that it was legal to wear your gun into a Starbucks. I don't have a problem with that.
And I repeat, what the fuck is wrong with you people?
I grew up around guns. Fired my first gun when I was seven or eight trying to hit the varmint that were messing up the fields. Was offered a gun of my own when I was eleven, as family tradition held.

I know people (including relatives) who have, at various points in their lives for different reasons, decided to open carry. They have all been not only responsible gun owners but also the type of people who both know the importance of de-escalating conflict and have the skills to do so. They have also known that if they ever need to use their gun, they will likely face fairly severe consequences.

At this point, seeing a civilian openly carrying scares me far less than seeing a cop (who knows he or she can likely use their weapon with impunity).

As I see it, the problem in this country is not with people who grew up around guns knowing they are useful but very dangerous tools and treat the accordingly. The problem is people who only grew up seeing guns on the TV, movie, and video game screens and associate them with glamour and excitement and a sense that they can be used without consequence and the story will come out all right in the end because the good guys always win and the bad guys always lose.

I can see the NRA's point that actually realistically educating kids about guns might help the situation. Because the current attempt at prohibition is working about as well as our attempts to prohibit drugs or stop teens from drinking or just telling teens not to have sex.

We can't keep going the way we've been going. But I have my doubts that parents are suddenly going to start taking their pediatricians' advice about limiting their children's screen time and exposure to violent imagery. And any gun laws written now are not going to change the number of guns already on the ground.

I don't have the solution. But I'm pretty sure banning open carry in Starbuck's isn't it. Unless you're involved in crime, the people you generally have to worry about are the people with the illegal guns who are concealing them and the cops.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Business owners and other gun nuts use guns to save lives, defend property, and stop crimes with regularity.
Some. Some lose it and cause the deaths of others, by accident or design. Sometimes they do that in defense of property as a result of an over-reaction. Some use their guns to commit crimes, not stop them.

Guns can, and do, get misused by all categories of gun owners. Sometimes you can't tell a good guy with a gun from a bad guy with a gun. Sometimes good guys do bad things.

Generalisations are not universals.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I can see the NRA's point that actually realistically educating kids about guns might help the situation. Because the current attempt at prohibition is working about as well as our attempts to prohibit drugs or stop teens from drinking or just telling teens not to have sex.
WHAT current attempt at prohibition? Are you in the same United States that I am?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Generalisations are not universals.
Unless we are talking about legal open carry.

Then just run, RUN!!

Call later to complain.
 
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :
 
I wouldn't only leave a coffee shop if someone came in carrying a gun; I would avoid doing business there again.

How many murders and suicides and fatal accidents are there for every "life saved" by a legally purchased weapon? Why is it that gun freaks keep insisting they need the protection even as the crime rate has been dropping for years? And those corrupt assholes who defend guns and gun freaks are the very same assholes who encourage idiots (in both the current and the ancient Greek senses of the word) to hate and fear the very idea of government. The "rugged individualists" (read: sociopathic bullies) and "pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps" True Believers who fantasize about living on the frontier, a dirty lawless ignorant pit without police or firefighters, without schools or libraries or parks.

If I knew that a business owner was opposed to gun control, I'd boycott.

Despite what saysay babbles about how Americans hate and fear their government (egged on by extremist rightwing politicians), there are plenty of us who don't. Just as there are plenty of us who don't buy into the "American exceptionalism" that came up a couple of pages back and don't believe the Second Amendment guarantees personal arsenals (well-regulated militia, remember). That city-on-a-hill Big Lie was fostered by a couple of the most intellectually limited presidents in history.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Business owners and other gun nuts use guns to save lives, defend property, and stop crimes with regularity.
Generalisations are not universals.
Furthermore, that isn't a generalization so much as it is a demonstrable fact.

Care to dispute it as such?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, in economically trying times a business owner who sends paying customers packing with words to that effect deserves what he gets (which, is likely to be an end to his business). I strongly doubt that there are enough open carry nuts out there to keep him in business if he kicks out all the customers who feel unsafe seeing guns in public.
You apparently have never been to gun-crazy Arizona. The open carry nuts would definitely mean more to most businesses than those of us who hate guns. Then again, there are those with concealed carry permits, so you never know who's got a gun that you can't even see.
[Help]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well, states with the most stringent gun laws see fewer gun-related deaths. If that matters to anybody.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
WHAT current attempt at prohibition? Are you in the same United States that I am?
No, I don't think I am.

I lived in DC under the gun ban.

In most of the states I've lived, the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm keeps getting longer and longer. Which means more criminals (violent criminals at that), but not necessarily less gun violence.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
How many murders and suicides and fatal accidents are there for every "life saved" by a legally purchased weapon?
We already know the answer to this. It's 22.

Although come to think of it I'd have to find the link again to know if the accidents were all fatal ones.

Another article I just saw put it this way: how many times in their life is a gun owner actually going to have a chance to heroically save themselves or another? Maybe once in a lifetime. How many times in their life are they going to have a chance to have an accident, to get in a quarrel that escalates while no-one is thinking straight? A heck of a lot more.

Bringing a gun into your home is significantly increasing the risk that someone is gonna die. It's as simple as that. And you and your family and friends spend a heck of a lot more time in that home than any intruder does, so the idea that the person who's gonna get hit by the gun is a baddie is a fantasy of the highest order.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Also, we have the most venomous snakes in the world. We try to stay away from them rather than thinking a gun is going to solve the problem. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I know people (including relatives) who have, at various points in their lives for different reasons, decided to open carry. They have all been not only responsible gun owners but also the type of people who both know the importance of de-escalating conflict and have the skills to do so.
Great. Now, tell me how I would know whether the bloke walking into the local coffee shop with a gun at his waist is a responsible gun owner and has the skills to de-escalate conflict?

quote:
I can see the NRA's point that actually realistically educating kids about guns might help the situation.
Yes, actually that would help. And, not just kids - educate adults as well.

Here's a simple thing to do. Organise professional gun-education. Include lots of testimony from people who have accidentally shot someone else, and the families of those killed by legal guns used irresponsibly. Include all the studies which prove conclusively that owning a gun for "protection" puts you and your family at significantly greater risk than not owning a gun. Include safe storage. Include some live-fire training. And so on. And, then introduce a requirement that anyone wantign a firearm license has to attend such a course and pass a test at the end to demonstrate that they have assimilated the necessary knowledge. That's not even much more than what's required to get a license to drive a car. I'd expect a good number of people sitting the course decide that actually they don't need a gun after all.

Make that a requirement for any new gun purchases. Give current gun owners a year to sit the course and pass the test, and then start collecting in the guns of those who fail the test or don't even sit it. Put cops at the front of the line to do the course, and those who fail get to go on beat armed with a tazer.

An additional thought came to me. Given the proven increased risks associated with owning guns I would expect insurance companies to be amenable to increasing premiums for those who own guns. If it discourages gun ownership that means less insurance payouts, if it doesn't then the additional costs of payouts for gun related death and injury are covered, and maybe they can look at cutting premiums for responsible people who don't own guns. But, maybe increased insurance premiums are something that gun owners already happily pay.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
How many murders and suicides and fatal accidents are there for every "life saved" by a legally purchased weapon?
We already know the answer to this. It's 22.
What a useless statistic.

You have to factor Chicago out of that number because no one gives a shit about those people.

That should bring it down to about 6 or 8.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
How many murders and suicides and fatal accidents are there for every "life saved" by a legally purchased weapon?
We already know the answer to this. It's 22.
What a useless statistic.

You have to factor Chicago out of that number because no one gives a shit about those people.

That should bring it down to about 6 or 8.
Fantastic. So, you're only going to take 6 to 8 lives for every life you save? Yahoo! Suddenly a gun seems like a useful appliance! My chances of being a hero could be as high as 15%!

That's assuming that your bald assertion about Chicago has any merit whatsoever.

[ 05. October 2015, 02:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
PS For anyone who says it's too hard to change America, read this.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, actually that would help. And, not just kids - educate adults as well.

Here's a simple thing to do. Organise professional gun-education. Include lots of testimony from people who have accidentally shot someone else, and the families of those killed by legal guns used irresponsibly. Include all the studies which prove conclusively that owning a gun for "protection" puts you and your family at significantly greater risk than not owning a gun. Include safe storage. Include some live-fire training. And so on. And, then introduce a requirement that anyone wantign a firearm license has to attend such a course and pass a test at the end to demonstrate that they have assimilated the necessary knowledge. That's not even much more than what's required to get a license to drive a car. I'd expect a good number of people sitting the course decide that actually they don't need a gun after all.

Make that a requirement for any new gun purchases. Give current gun owners a year to sit the course and pass the test, and then start collecting in the guns of those who fail the test or don't even sit it. Put cops at the front of the line to do the course, and those who fail get to go on beat armed with a tazer.

An additional thought came to me. Given the proven increased risks associated with owning guns I would expect insurance companies to be amenable to increasing premiums for those who own guns. If it discourages gun ownership that means less insurance payouts, if it doesn't then the additional costs of payouts for gun related death and injury are covered, and maybe they can look at cutting premiums for responsible people who don't own guns. But, maybe increased insurance premiums are something that gun owners already happily pay.
Explain to me how we're supposed to pass legislation requiring such things in an environment where liberal demands on gun control (and everything else) mean that 5-year-olds caught using their finger as a pretend gun are suspended from public school.

(Because those restrictions are already in place in a lot of places before you can buy certain types of guns or receive permits to carry them).

But we can't teach about it because that would be teaching violence, according to NY or CA.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PS For anyone who says it's too hard to change America, read this.
That article says nothing useful.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Explain to me how we're supposed to pass legislation requiring such things in an environment where liberal demands on gun control (and everything else) mean that 5-year-olds caught using their finger as a pretend gun are suspended from public school.
First off, even in the librul UK I've not come across that sort of extreme reaction. But, I suppose there are probably stories of "loony left" councils doing that (see the Corbyn thread in Purgatory where I pointed out that all those stories, such as banning the "racist" rhyme "Baa baa black sheep", were total inventions by the media seeking to discredit the Labour Party). Do you happen to have any credible source to support your assertion that liberals seek to ban using fingers as pretend guns?

But, let's for the moment accept that there are some nut cases on both sides of the gun control argument; some would seek a ban on anythign gun related, including children playing using their fingers as pretend guns, and others who would seek to have even more guns everywhere. Are you seriously going to say that because of a very small number of complete nutters that we should therefore abandon any attempt to find a common-sense approach down the middle ground?

If there actually aren't a sizeable number of members of Congress, State Governors, Senators and other representatives who are not on either extreme fringe and willing to sit down together and put aside Party affiliation for the sake of finding a common sense solution to the epidemic of gun related deaths in you nation, and to do the work to make that work, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the lunatics have taken over the assylum and your country is on the fast road to hell without even the protection of a handbasket.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Do you happen to have any credible source to support your assertion that liberals seek to ban using fingers as pretend guns?
Link

Government education in the US cannot be characterized as dominated by conservatives, to say the least.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Reading orfeo's article, I think the author is really naive.

And Alan, re your last paragraph: actually, that pretty much is the case, and some of us American Shipmates have said that on many threads, over many years.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Nothing useful? Naive?

It is already established that states with tighter gun controls have fewer deaths.

Fine. Just line yourselves up to be shot. For fuck's sake.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Do you happen to have any credible source to support your assertion that liberals seek to ban using fingers as pretend guns?
Link

Government education in the US cannot be characterized as dominated by conservatives, to say the least.
From teacher's statement, it seems like the kid wasn't so much suspended for making "gun finger", but for repeatedly disobeying a request from said teacher to stop bugging other kids. It may seem extreme, And maybe was an overreaction, but you try getting kids to know you mean business when you never enforce limits.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nothing useful? Naive?

It is already established that states with tighter gun controls have fewer deaths.

Fine. Just line yourselves up to be shot. For fuck's sake.
Why in God's name are you equating Golden Key's mild skepticism with anything at all saysay says? Have you read nothing else she has written?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
orfeo--

IMHO, he's naive about getting it passed, implementing it, etc. He's naive about the obstacles.

I *want* gun control. I *want* shootings to stop. But people have tried for a long, long time, and haven't gotten much traction, certainly not on a national basis. People have been trying hard for a long time. Every bit of that matters. But the author severely underestimates how difficult the level of change he wants is going to be.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks, Kelly.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
orfeo--

IMHO, he's naive about getting it passed, implementing it, etc. He's naive about the obstacles.
Well all I can say to that is that you didn't read it very carefully. Quote: "Summoning the political will to make it happen may be hard." And there's about a paragraph in that vein.

That's not the point of the article. The point is that the solution is not conceptually difficult.

[ 05. October 2015, 04:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
... ( To GK)and anybody bothering to read a damn word you said would know that.
Also:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

And Alan, re your last paragraph: actually, that pretty much is the case, and some of us American Shipmates have said that on many threads, over many years.
Actually several Americans have been saying this repeated times over the course of the last few days. I don't think gun control legislation is impossible, but the route there is definitely going to rival anything Jerry Bruckheimer came up with. We got a lot of crazy to fight past.

[ 05. October 2015, 04:33: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Then vote.

Write.

Call.

Post.

Seriously, I know you've got one of the most corrupt political systems going, but get involved in it. Make it clear to your representative that being against gun controls will lose them votes. TELL THEM. Get everyone you know to TELL THEM.

It's the only language politicians understand.

Meanwhile, I'm finding that my Australian friends are posting more comments on Facebook against American gun culture than my American friends are. See the problem with that? We don't vote in your elections. We don't have any influence over your politicians.

Ooh. You want to get angry with me for suggesting we care about your problem more than you do? Fine. GET ANGRY. And then go and fucking DO SOMETHING with that anger. Be motivated!

Stop fucking wasting your emotion on this sitting around here and whinging at a bunch of international Shipmates about how we don't understand how haaaaaaard it is. Go and use that energy somewhere useful.

[ 05. October 2015, 04:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And what he said was an extreme understatement.

It's not people haven't been trying very, very hard already. The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence comes to mind. It was founded by James Brady, press secretary to Pres. Reagan, who was severely injured during the assassination attempt on Reagan. They've made some progress--over decades.

There aren't any quick, easy, or simple fixes.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
orfeo--

"The point is that the solution is not conceptually difficult."

Seriously, you think the problem is that we don't have the concepts???


[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Then vote.

Write.

Call.

Post.

Seriously, I know you've got one of the most corrupt political systems going, but get involved in it. Make it clear to your representative that being against gun controls will lose them votes. TELL THEM. Get everyone you know to TELL THEM.

It's the only language politicians understand.

Meanwhile, I'm finding that my Australian friends are posting more comments on Facebook against American gun culture than my American friends are. See the problem with that? We don't vote in your elections. We don't have any influence over your politicians.

Ooh. You want to get angry with me for suggesting we care about your problem more than you do? Fine. GET ANGRY. And then go and fucking DO SOMETHING with that anger. Be motivated!
You're judging how people vote, mobilize, etc by what memes they post?

How the hell do you know what petitions we've signed, what lawmakers we have contacted, what groups we belong to? Or what kind of things we say to the people in our lives who are directly involved in this?

Memes on fucking Facebook don't do a hell of a lot, except make like minded people feel better. Maybe your American friends are all quiet because they are trying to organize their thoughts to figure out what will work.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And among California's Congress folk are Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, all of whom work very hard for gun control.

Dianne has quite a background in bad weapon experience-- including finding Mayor George Moscone after he was assassinated.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Seriously, you think the problem is that we don't have the concepts???
It's not true of all Americans, and certainly not true of some posting here. But there does appear to be a collective blindness within American society to some basic concepts.

Examples would include recognising that a gun is an extremely unsuitable tool for self defense.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Nothing there to disagree with. That is the predicament, too-- the solutions/ policy changes are the easy part, making the blind see is the real job.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And getting money out of the legislative system. And getting Congress to actually do the right thing.


(And, for those who don't know, Americans are often glad when Congress hits gridlock in their work, because it keeps them from doing *some* of their crazier ideas.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks orfeo. Saved me a post. As in other aspects of this debate the evidence devalues the mythical assertions.

Serious Hell threads have a lot going for them.

On the RUN point romanlion, nice cross reference to WWE. Seriously, I'm too old to run. Might be able to conjure up a brisk walk. But I don't think I 'd want to turn my back. That doesn't strike me as all that wise either. I'm more into soft answers which - sometimes - turn away wrath. Note that I'm not generalising about that and I haven't got supporting stats either.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
If it wasn't obvious, my thanks were about the posts to romanlion.

On the difficulties and frustrations in getting legislative change, I'm with Kelly and Golden Key. There is a very large elephant to be eaten, one mouthful at a time. And it's hardly surprising if some folks lose heart.

The Man's too Big. The Man's too strong? Powerful song from Dire Straits that. Some lines come to mind.

'I have legalised robbery, called it belief. I have run with the money I have hid like a thief'

'Invented memories. I did burn all the books'

The hearts and minds change is a huge challenge. As we have daily proof.

[ 05. October 2015, 07:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Business owners and other gun nuts use guns to save lives, defend property, and stop crimes with regularity.
Generalisations are not universals.
Furthermore, that isn't a generalization so much as it is a demonstrable fact.

Care to dispute it as such?
Yes. Especially considering that statistics are very hard to come by, and often because your government, under massive pressure from the NRA paid-for shills, can't even collect reliable data to do with gun injuries and deaths.

That you are awash with guns because you are awash with guns is a symptom of your sickness, not the cure.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
orfeo--

"The point is that the solution is not conceptually difficult."

Seriously, you think the problem is that we don't have the concepts???


[Roll Eyes]
Given the number of people I see talking about mental illness being the problem - "oh, if only we could make sure only the sane people were awash with guns" - and the number of people who still think that having a gun of their own is a solution, yeah, I think that overall your nation is still having quite a bit of trouble with the concepts.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
There are lots of issues.

Ease of access to guns

'The Game' - saysay is right about that for some cities at least

The doctrinaire block on information gathering as part of ongoing powerful lobbying

The undoubted truth that self defence issues look different in a society awash with guns

The second amendment

The impact of certain elements of the media

The hearts and minds convictions of a lot of people

As a wise person once said, 'I really wouldn't want to start from here'.

The lack of political consensus is hardly surprising.

[ 05. October 2015, 08:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:


It is already established that states with tighter gun controls have fewer deaths.

Asserted is more accurate than established.

Illinois in general and Chicago specifically have had some of the toughest restrictions on the books for decades. Not exactly a region that leaps to mind when thinking about low gun violence.

Chicago is so bad that Barry doesn't even mention it, and I don't blame him. The place is a bloodbath, and him their best and brightest.

Illinois recently passed concealed carry legislation and has issued over 100,000 permits, a quarter of those in Chicago alone. Those are you hearts and minds right there.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, states with the most stringent gun laws see fewer gun-related deaths. If that matters to anybody.
Except, of course, for DC (yes, I know, not technically a state, but reported as such in your link). Most stringent gun control laws in the nation, and highest rate of gun-related deaths. Not exactly a poster child for stringent regulation.

As for the rest of the data set, the largest average gap shown in the article is very minute[1]. Also interesting to note is that the general difficulty of obtaining a concealed carry permit[2] makes no difference, on average - 3.78 deaths/100,000 population.

We can argue the points of gun control laws, but these stats don't really give you much, I'm afraid. [Smile]

[1]4.23 deaths per 100,000 population vs. 3.02 deaths/100,000 population

[2]It should be noted that laws differ from state to state - some states make no differentiation between open and concealed carry, while others have a two-tier system, with concealed carry permits harder to get.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
If you are going to nitpick other people's examples, don't use Chicago and DC to bolster yours. because one, it is like saying locks don't work because you installed one after your house was robbed. And two, only a complete idiot doesn't realise that neither city is a remote island or walled enclave.
Oh, and three, because tighter gun laws won't instantly change things doesn't mean they won't work.
And fuck the mass shooting. Fuck this conversation with a rusty chainsaw. It is shocking, yes. But the maddening thing is how many people die every fucking week. But bog standard murder, suicide, accidental shootings and the like just aren't important enough to register.
If the gun culture "cannot" change, it is because you do not wish it to change, not because change is impossible.
Forget bans, other countries have responsible gun ownership and many fewer deaths.
Unreasoned paranoia and worship of a fictional, penny dreadful version of history is more important than the lives of your neighbors.

[ 05. October 2015, 15:30: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you are going to nitpick other people's examples, don't use Chicago and DC to bolster yours. because one, it is like saying locks don't work because you installed one after your house was robbed. And two, only a complete idiot doesn't realise that neither city is a remote island or walled enclave.
Oh, and three, because tighter gun laws won't instantly change things doesn't mean they won't work.
I wasn't saying any of that, actually. Only that the cited stats weren't particularly useful to prove his (or anyone else's, frankly) point. I didn't actually mention Chicago, in any case - you must mean someone else.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And fuck the mass shooting. Fuck this conversation with a rusty chainsaw. It is shocking, yes. But the maddening thing is how many people die every fucking week. But bog standard murder, suicide, accidental shootings and the like just aren't important enough to register.
If the gun culture "cannot" change, it is because you do not wish it to change, not because change is impossible.
Forget bans, other countries have responsible gun ownership and many fewer deaths.
Unreasoned paranoia and worship of a fictional, penny dreadful version of history is more important than the lives of your neighbors.
You'll not hear me argue with much, if any, of that, friend. Other than the "your" - but I'm going to assume you didn't mean me, specifically, there.

Pax.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Apparently, Fox News has declared that over here in Australia we have no freedom because we don't have guns.

That rumble you can here in California is 25 million people simultaneously shouting "Fuck You".
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
As for the rest of the data set, the largest average gap shown in the article is very minute[1].
[1]4.23 deaths per 100,000 population vs. 3.02 deaths/100,000 population
[/QB]
I'm not sure if I'd call preventing a (9-11) a year a minute difference. Or 28%.

Of course that's the largest difference. On the one hand you've regression to the mean and correlation not causation.
But on the other hand that's with the other states making life harder.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I would think most people would consider a 25% reduction in gun related deaths a very good start. It does take a particularly pessimistic personality to consider it such an out right failure that it's not worth trying to at least emulate that elsewhere.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Hear, hear. Shut up and start eating the elephant.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
romanlion--

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Chicago is so bad that Barry doesn't even mention it, and I don't blame him. The place is a bloodbath, and him their best and brightest.
Goodness, you said something nice about Obama! Are you feeling well?
[Biased]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Although, to be fair to Chicago the murder rate has halved in the last 20 years. Though, still 15.1 homicides per 100,000 population, 3 times the average for Illinois (at 5.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 from the earlier linked to NJ report) but with at least six states having a larger rate of gun related deaths. Yes, I know, I'm comparing total homicides (according to Wikipedia about 25% of homicides in Chicago do not involve a gun) with total gun related deaths including suicide and accidental shooting. But, I can't be arsed to find the comparable statistics. Just that according to the numbers, rather than media portrayal, Chicago is not as violent a city as implied by some posts here. And, more importantly, the introduction of gun controls (and other policing measures) has reduced the homicide rate by a significant amount.

And, as Chicago Police include a wider range of crimes in such categories as assault and sexual crimes than most other US cities the figures are going to be higher.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
orfeo--

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Meanwhile, I'm finding that my Australian friends are posting more comments on Facebook against American gun culture than my American friends are. See the problem with that? We don't vote in your elections. We don't have any influence over your politicians.
...perhaps...just perhaps...your American friends were dealing with their own feelings...maybe even had some connection to Roseburg...and, just maybe, they didn't want to deal with all the crap that would probably be thrown at them...

If they're your friends, judging them by whether or not they publicly disapprove of their culture in the wake of a tragedy seems...rather strange and unfriendly.

You don't vote in our elections or have control over our politicians? Maybe that's why you're so judgmental. However deeply you may mean the things you say, it's *recreational* for you. Whereas, for those of us who live here, *we* vote, the elections are often messed with, and we don't have much control over our politicians. When we do make progress, often someone rips it away again. "Let's ban individual ownership of assault weapons!" Things get better. "Oh, but we need our assault weapons!" Law runs down and isn't renewed. (Lather, rinse, repeat.)

Telling us "well, if you idiots just do THIS, all will be well, and you'll be like all the rest of us" .doesn't. .really. .help.

[ 06. October 2015, 01:44: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Just to underline the above-- goddamn motherfucking son of a bitch. AAARRRGGHH!!!
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
From the article:
quote:
Conservatives aren’t lying when they say they need guns to feel protected. But it’s increasingly clear that they aren’t seeking protection from crime or even from the mythical jackbooted government goons come to kick in your door. No, the real threat is existential. Guns are a totemic shield against the fear that they are losing dominance as the country becomes more liberal and diverse and, well, modern. For liberals, the discussion about guns is about public health and crime prevention. For conservatives, hanging onto guns is a way to symbolically hang onto the cultural dominance they feel slipping from their hands.
This. This bullshit right here. THIS.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, states with the most stringent gun laws see fewer gun-related deaths. If that matters to anybody.
Except, of course, for DC (yes, I know, not technically a state, but reported as such in your link). Most stringent gun control laws in the nation, and highest rate of gun-related deaths. Not exactly a poster child for stringent regulation.
So a single urban core not more than ten miles on a side, population 635,000 of a 6 million person metro area, a bridge away from a state with some of the loosest gun regulations in the nation, that has seen its murder rate drop to about a quarter of what it was during the gang wars of the crack years (early '90's, when Barry was mayor), is comparable to, say, Oklahoma?

Really?

There's a reason one of our local news sites has made "most recent meaningless comparison between DC and states" a regular feature.

ETA: and did we mention the whole "Congress can overrule or defund any aspect of local government it wants at a whim" thing? You know, the thing that happens when a Republican congress get to control a Democratic city and score points back home in Utah or Texas? There's a reason why the attorney general of DC teaches a course at Georgetown Law about "a federal city-state with limited democracy."

[ 06. October 2015, 02:49: Message edited by: Ariston ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Personally, I think DC should become a state, if the residents want that.

My guess is someone prevented it from being so, once upon a time, because some sort of vested interest was served that way.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Insert more swearing. And some sobbing.

""This is not a gun issue, this is a parenting issue. Our problem with our country now is that we're not stepping in and being good parents. We're not stepping in and teaching them right from wrong," Mr Peterson said." Oh, for Christ's sake! [Mad]

[ 06. October 2015, 04:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{{{{{{{Kelly}}}}}}}

Maybe take a break from articles, for a while? Sometimes, a bit of a "news fast" helps.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Personally, I think DC should become a state, if the residents want that.

My guess is someone prevented it from being so, once upon a time, because some sort of vested interest was served that way.
Because that would mean two new Democratic senators and one new Democratic representative. That's sure as hell not going to happen any time soon with the chokehold the GOP has on the house.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
{{{{{{{Kelly}}}}}}}

Maybe take a break from articles, for a while? Sometimes, a bit of a "news fast" helps.
When I feel I am more extremely pissed off than anyone else on this thread, I will take your advice. Right now I think it's about even steven.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kelly--

Fair enough.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Insert more swearing. And some sobbing.

""This is not a gun issue, this is a parenting issue. Our problem with our country now is that we're not stepping in and being good parents. We're not stepping in and teaching them right from wrong," Mr Peterson said." Oh, for Christ's sake! [Mad]
Of course it's a parenting issue. What sort of parent leaves a gun somewhere that a six year old child can get at it? What is so radically difficult about the concept of a locked, secure gun cabinet? And, with removing ammunition when stored, and storing that in a different location than the gun? The simple application of common sense and making guns inaccessible when not in use would reduce the number of accidents considerably.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
My dad had a rifle for hunting, and the only time I saw it was after he died--I still don't know where he kept it all that time. So yeah, there's that. But to go flying into a " this isn't a gun control issue" like that? What the hell?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
From the article:
quote:
Conservatives aren’t lying when they say they need guns to feel protected. But it’s increasingly clear that they aren’t seeking protection from crime or even from the mythical jackbooted government goons come to kick in your door. No, the real threat is existential. Guns are a totemic shield against the fear that they are losing dominance as the country becomes more liberal and diverse and, well, modern. For liberals, the discussion about guns is about public health and crime prevention. For conservatives, hanging onto guns is a way to symbolically hang onto the cultural dominance they feel slipping from their hands.
This. This bullshit right here. THIS.
Actually, I've been thinking about this. Cultural identifiers are very important when people feel their culture is threatened - whether that's a dominant culture or not. People find emblematic aspects of their culture and not only grab hold of them, but even inflate and exagerate them.

To take an unrelated example. In Scotland, Highland culture has survived by making it important children learn Ghallig in school (even though virtually no uses it in everyday conversation in much of the country), the kilt has been elevated to a mythical status with invented associations of some tartans with particular clans, festivals for pipes, Highland dancing and folk music, we've even taken a type of sausage and given it a mythic status and exagerated ritual for serving it. These are all emblematic expressions of a culture trying to maintain a presence within a dominant British culture.

I'm quite willing to accept that there are groups within the US who feel culturally threatened, and seek something emblematic to hold onto to maintain a cultural presence. And, when that happens attempts to remove that cultural emblem will meet resistance, as an attack on the entire culture rather than just one aspect of it. Another recent example relates to a flag, which is something actually designed as a cultural emblem, as a means to identify where your people are in the chaos of battle (and, in the UK flags have been a major issue in attempts by some groups in Northern Ireland to maintain a cultural identity).

So, I can see how for some groups within the US, gun ownership is an emblematic cultural issue. Openly carrying a gun in public, for example, would then be a statement of cultural identity meeting the same functional requirement as wearing a kilt to a rugby match (although a gun is a lethal weapon which adds an additional element of danger to others). The way American history has been mythologised to support the ownership of guns - the frontiersmen fighting wild animals and rogue natives, the Western cattleman fighting banditos, the revolutionaries fighting off British oppression - even to the point of effectively re-writing the 2nd Amendment is entirely consistent with that whole grasping of a cultural emblem. In that case, arguments about defence of oneself or others is actually a rationalisation, and the presentation of evidence that clearly shows the facts that this is a false security will fall on deaf ears. This cultural symbolism with gun ownership appears from over here to spread across a diverse range of cultural groups - the same fears of other cultures suppressing and dominating your own culture appear in the Alabama red-necks hanging desperately to their guns wrapped in that flag, and the Latino kids Kelly mentioned a few pages back, and almost certainly other groups as well.

It makes guns part of the complex problem that the US has of being a multicultural society. It's part of the same general problems of race, of ethnic identity, of religious diversity. Which doesn't, of course, mean that gun control is impossible. But, it has to be part of a wider program to address the wider issues within society. It means helping each of those cultures who use gun ownership as emblematic to find other parts of their culture they can raise up as identifiers, as something to keep them distinct from the cultures around them, so that they will freely give up their guns as a means of marking themselves out.

I said back on page 1 that a common sense approach to the gun problem has to start with conversation - you need to talk people into realising that their guns are not all that they have to identify their place in wider society. Without that then any gun-control legislation will be seen as others coming to take their cultural identity along with their guns. I also said it would need to be slow.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Hold on to your guns and condemn the gays. What a great pair of cultural signifiers for the modern American conservative Christian, eh?

And the whole either/or thing... it's a gun issue AND a parenting issue. Teaching your kids that they have to accept they can't just have whatever they want whenever they want it is important, but kids have tantrums and it's fucking nuts to make it that easy for a kid having a tantrum to employ lethal force.

Which is kind of why I despair at the whole "just keep the guns away from the crazy people and we'll be fine idea". People go off the deep end all the time, for a whole host of reasons, and lots of them are not mentally ill in any formal sense. Sometimes they're just having a really bad day. But having a gun around can make all the difference to what the consequences are.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alan--

Many good points there. [Smile] Thank you for working through that and trying to understand. I'm not sure who can have those conversations you mentioned. Maybe someone from those cultures who tried putting down their gun, and found that it worked out ok?

Personally, I'd be for a lot of gun safety promos on TV and radio, like the ones I mentioned that helped me when I was a kid. Not anything about getting rid of guns, because that will freak people out, but some basic safety and "don't play with guns" stuff. *Maybe* also a "if you have kids living in or visiting your home, think about whether you really need to have a gun. If you do, then here are some safe ways to store it."

And screen the film "My Bodyguard" a lot. And the episode of "MacGyver" where we saw a flashback of why he hates guns. (A horrible, fatal accident, for which he was partly responsible.) Screen the whole series, because he frequently said "I hate guns".

ETA: Oh, and the episode of "Cagney and Lacey", where Mary Beth's son gets his hands on her police weapon, and she educates him by taking him to the morgue to see a kid who was shot to death. Brutal, but makes the point.

[ 06. October 2015, 07:46: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
The right to bear arms hasn’t actually protected any of the many people on the receiving end of one man exercising that right, in multiple instances.

There was a second multiple shooting on the same day as the Oregon killings, which I only read about this morning. It didn’t receive half as much attention because it was overshadowed, and only involved three people. As one of the people in the article said, it’s a sad thing when the murder of three people is considered commonplace enough not to be particularly newsworthy.

(I’ll try to find the article, but was reading it on my phone and I haven't found it on the regular BBC or Sky news sites.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm not sure who can have those conversations you mentioned. Maybe someone from those cultures who tried putting down their gun, and found that it worked out ok?
It has to someone inside the culture, otherwise it's just another outsider coming along and saying "you need to ditch that bit of your culture" which will just reinforce the impression of being a downtrodden culture, and hence the importance of the cultural emblems.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Barnabas--

Good job on your list of issues. [Smile]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
However deeply you may mean the things you say, it's *recreational* for you.
Fuck that shit with a rusty farm implement. Is that what you really think? When we get exercised about refugees drowning in the Med, or the use of food banks to keep people from starving, that's *recreational*?

No, we don't have to (currently) live it. We don't have to live in a society that is so awash with guns that it's normal (about 1 every day) for a gunman somewhere to kill or injure at least 4 people in a single incident.

Never mind the fact that we might have friends and family who live there. Never mind that we have Shipmates who we might just care about who live there. Never mind that, oh I don't know, we might just come to your country for work, or a holiday, and don't really fancy spending our entire time over there wondering if some idiot with a grudge and a gun is going to start shooting the place up.

If you don't recognise the word 'empathy' then try 'enlightened self-interest'.

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Doc Tor--

I was speaking only to orfeo and *his* particular comments. That's why I addressed the post to him, and quoted him.

What he said was very different from what you just said, in both comment and tone. Go back and read his full original post. I think it's a page or two back. IIRC, it's the one that starts off telling us to write, vote, etc.

[ 06. October 2015, 10:15: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
That should be "content", not "comment".
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
And you don't think that what applies to me, applies to orfeo's friends? That they're somehow disinterested observers, pointing their telescopes across the ocean and tutting?

Maybe it's true for some of them. I'll bet it isn't for many of them.

Yes, it's true that only the US can get its shit together over this, but don't ever make the mistake that this is a purely internal debate in which no one else has anything at stake.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Doc Tor--

orfeo very specifically complained that his Australian friends were loudly protesting American gun regulations (or lack of them), and his American friends weren't, and that somehow meant that Americans didn't give a damn about the shooting or about the gun situation.

He then went on to say what I quoted, which boils down to "we can't fix it for you--get off your asses".

I took exception to his assumptions and arrogance and way of expressing all that.

It wasn't about anyone else.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Oh, hang on. He's right - we can't fix it for you - and you're objecting to him saying it's way past time you got your shit together on this.

You could have constructively spent your pixels in emailing your state and federal representatives instead. If you've already done it once, maybe a letter a week from now on.

We can't fix it for you, but it's sure as hell affecting us.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Doc Tor--

As I posted earlier, my Congress people are all fighting the good fight on gun regulation, and have been for a long time, and AIUI California's gun laws are some of the strictest in the nation.

And I and several other American Shipmates have worn down our keyboards the past few days, explaining what it's like from the inside, what's worked and what hasn't, and the whys and hows. Not one of us has said that no one should bother to make things better. We've said that there are huge obstacles, like Congressional corruption. Some non-American Shipmates either don't read the posts, don't understand them, or don't believe them; then they start yelling at us and telling us What Will Fix The Problem, as if none of us had posted, and as if Americans are just sitting blithely around, not caring, not trying, and not doing anything to help ourselves. So we explain again, and the same comments are thrown at us again, and it keeps going around.

That gets frustrating and tiring.

As Kelly said (paraphrase), the people telling us to get off our asses have no idea what any particular Shipmate has done. And they don't seem to get that you can do all the right things, and the right and good outcome doesn't happen.

Something--I think the article to which orfeo linked--said well, we managed great things re car safety and re tobacco, and we can do that for guns, too.

However, it took major struggles, for many decades, to get as far as we have. Ralph Nader and Nader's Raiders, back in the day, did yeoman's work on car safety and many other things. And the car companies still cover up safety problems and rig cars to fake test results, and eventually (after people are injured or killed) recall millions of cars. And the tobacco companies are still putting out a very harmful product, and still trying to attract children.

Work on gun regulations and safety has been going on much of the same time, and is probably as hard as the car and tobacco work put together. People ARE off their asses and trying, even in Congress. But, as I said in an earlier post, often the good results don't have much traction, and someone rips the progress away.

I was thinking about this, in the wee hours a couple of days ago, and realized (both seriously and cynically) that the one solution that might work is to get a rich gun control advocate to pay Congress more than the NRA and gun industry do. Things might change real fast.

No one (including me) has said for non-American Shipmates to stop caring, or to go away and leave us alone. We just want you to stop and listen to us, and consider that we might have some idea what we're talking about, and might not be just sitting on our asses.

That's it.

[ 06. October 2015, 11:26: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh, hang on. He's right - we can't fix it for you - and you're objecting to him saying it's way past time you got your shit together on this.

You could have constructively spent your pixels in emailing your state and federal representatives instead. If you've already done it once, maybe a letter a week from now on.

We can't fix it for you, but it's sure as hell affecting us.
What he said was "Line up against a wall and let yourself be shot," and he connected this directly to something Golden Key said. If that's empathy, it's a pretty shitty way to express it.

So, those of us who are advocating "eating the elephant" not only have to fight past the despair of what is happening to our own people, the despair of trying to reason with the kind of people described above, but the despair of isolation, when not even the people who theoretically agree with you hold you in contempt because the problem hasn't been solved yet.

[ 06. October 2015, 13:41: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
when not even the people who theoretically agree with you hold you in contempt because the problem hasn't been solved yet.
That. Is. Not. What. Got. Me. Angry.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
... And only listen to those one line bits of what you say that allow them to strike another blow.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
All this " why aren't you doing more" and " why aren't you supporting us" can be solved in stroke if we say "what can WE--Shipmates-- do?"

Seriously, what can we do? Because I am in if you are.

[ 06. October 2015, 14:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
So a single urban core not more than ten miles on a side, population 635,000 of a 6 million person metro area, a bridge away from a state with some of the loosest gun regulations in the nation, that has seen its murder rate drop to about a quarter of what it was during the gang wars of the crack years (early '90's, when Barry was mayor), is comparable to, say, Oklahoma?

Really?

There's a reason one of our local news sites has made "most recent meaningless comparison between DC and states" a regular feature.

ETA: and did we mention the whole "Congress can overrule or defund any aspect of local government it wants at a whim" thing? You know, the thing that happens when a Republican congress get to control a Democratic city and score points back home in Utah or Texas? There's a reason why the attorney general of DC teaches a course at Georgetown Law about "a federal city-state with limited democracy."
Not arguing any of that. I didn't compile (or even link to) the statistics, I'm just going on what's presented. Personally, I concur with you - DC is an outlier that is throwing the rest of the averages off, possibly significantly. I'd love to see the data recompiled without DC included, just to see how that changes the reported averages. (The legendary screwed-uppedness of DC government and Congressional "oversight" is worthy of it's own discussion.)

Again, I was merely pointing out that the link full of statistics didn't actually provide much support for MT's argument. Or anybody else's, from whatever position, for that matter - in large-scale terms, there's just not that much difference between the various states, on average. Which makes one wonder how effective (if at all effective) any of the current laws are.

Mea culpa for trying to look detachedly at data in the middle of an emotional rant. [Biased]
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... the kilt has been elevated to a mythical status with invented associations of some tartans with particular clans, festivals for pipes, Highland dancing and folk music, we've even taken a type of sausage and given it a mythic status ...

I'm quite willing to accept that there are groups within the US who feel culturally threatened, and seek something emblematic to hold onto to maintain a cultural presence.
True, but carrying a lethal weapon as an "emblem" of one's culture is a bit more extreme than wearing a kilt or reciting poetry over a plate of haggis and clapshot.
quote:
... Another recent example relates to a flag, which is something actually designed as a cultural emblem, as a means to identify where your people are in the chaos of battle (and, in the UK flags have been a major issue in attempts by some groups in Northern Ireland to maintain a cultural identity).
Absolutely - and in Northern Ireland people have indeed suffered violence because of differences of opinion regarding flags, but again, the flags themselves aren't actually going to harm anyone. I could handle the fact that our next-door neighbour in Belfast festooned his house and garden with Union flags every July, but I'd have been a lot less comfortable if he'd pruned his roses while carrying a gun.
quote:
So, I can see how for some groups within the US, gun ownership is an emblematic cultural issue. Openly carrying a gun in public, for example, would then be a statement of cultural identity meeting the same functional requirement as wearing a kilt to a rugby match (although a gun is a lethal weapon which adds an additional element of danger to others) ...
That's my point - a gun is a lethal weapon and IMHO no amount of "cultural identity" can justify taking one into a coffee-shop (or for that matter keeping one in a house where an 11-year-old can get access to it).

As an Orcadian, I probably had an ancestor somewhere along the line who wielded a battle-axe, but that wouldn't justify my going into Tim Horton's for a coffee with one slung over my shoulder. The "right to bear arms" as enshrined in the American Constitution may have made perfect sense in 1776, but seems over the top in the 21st century.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
And the car companies still cover up safety problems and rig cars to fake test results, and eventually (after people are injured or killed) recall millions of cars.
Money for the few is more important than the safety of the many. God Bless Capitalism.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
DC...Oklahoma
Not arguing any of that. ...

I'd love to see the data recompiled without DC included, just to see how that changes the reported averages. (The legendary screwed-uppedness of DC government and Congressional "oversight" is worthy of it's own discussion.)
It (on sight) looks* as if the average is average treating each state as the same (which I'm not sure is statistically a good approach). In any case that's what I'll assume, if you want to see it done properly campaign to let the proper statisticians do their job.**

In which case first taking DC as 7.5:
first graph
2.77 - 4.41 (37%)
second graph
3.14 - 4.17 (25%)
(The difference between these 2 is dominated by the difference between Michigan/Minessota)
third graph
3.10 - 3.9 (20%)


*the 50 state list includes other GRD, whereas this is pure homicide, so hard to be sure. But putting the numbers in by eye from the last graph I got 3.7 so I think that's what they've done.
**this is not directed to those who are doing that.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
Oh for fuck's sake! [Mad] [Mad]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Can I just add that I think holding an eleven year old criminally responsible is wrong, and its wrong when we do it in the UK too.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Oh for fuck's sake! [Mad] [Mad]
How the heck can that be described as an accident? It's about as accidental as unintentional pregnancy from unprotected sex.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
How the heck can that be described as an accident?
Because by the reports, the boy did not intend to fire the gun.

quote:

It's about as accidental as unintentional pregnancy from unprotected sex.
Not quite. In the case of the unprotected sex, the man is intending to shoot his gun, but is hoping that nothing will get hit. In this case, he was handling his weapon and it went off in his hand.

Grossly negligent? Absolutely. We could make a list of the safety rules that were likely broken in this case, but it would be quicker to list the ones that probably weren't.

But still an accident.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Right. Twenty little children were shot to gobbets at Sandyhook. Utterly unrecognizable. Little bodies like theirs explode. Disintegrate. It rains eyeballs. Their parents could not ID them. Closed casket. If someone wants to put up an advert in Times square thanking Bushmaster and Glock and their pictures before and after, I'd pay $1000 towards it.

Every time this happens we must FLOOD the media with the pictures and say nothing. Demand nothing.

Until that happens NOTHING will happen. Nothing AT ALL. But more mindless mass murders. In America. The world's moral cop.

God bless America.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But still an accident.
I get to use it again. Fucking hell, what is wrong with you people?

It's not an 'accident'. An accident is where something normal happens and there are unintended consequences. Here, a grown man was letting children play with loaded guns. Why don't you have a wild guess at what's wrong with that scenario, and why it doesn't qualify as an 'accident'?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Maybe to get the pro-lifers interested, what the USA really need is a bunch of mass shootings of pregnant women in the stomach.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
An accident is where something normal happens and there are unintended consequences.
No, an accident is when something you don't intend to happen happens.

quote:
Here, a grown man was letting children play with loaded guns. Why don't you have a wild guess at what's wrong with that scenario, and why it doesn't qualify as an 'accident'?
There's a whole lot wrong with the situation as reported, there's clearly gross negligence on the part of the adult, and were I the prosecutor, I'd be filing charges. I'd think you could make a good case for criminally negligent homicide.

There are perfectly safe ways of shooting with children. This situation failed on just about every count.

Accidents don't preclude criminal negligence on someone else's part. There are any number of accidents at work that happen because an employer doesn't have adequate procedures for ensuring safety, for example. Often, the lack of safety procedures rises to the criminally negligent level. But it's still an accident, even though some third party goes to jail for allowing it to happen.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
God forbid, but it WILL happen. It will be WORTH IT if the images fill every billboard. Convoys had to be sacrificed to crack the Nazi naval codes. And AFTER. Every church should put up a giant cross shaped poster of mass shooting little child victims, sparing nothing, with crossed firearms at its foot.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are perfectly safe ways of shooting with children.
Fucking hell, what is wrong with you people?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fucking hell, what is wrong with you people?
There are perfectly safe ways of shooting guns with children. This is what is called a "fact". It is quite possible to have children go target shooting, say, without running even the slightest risk of anybody accidentally shooting anyone else.

Equally, there are perfectly safe ways of using some power tools with children (not everything - I'm not going to hand a child a circular saw any time soon, just like handing a child an Uzi set to full auto is always a bad idea.) It's also quite easy for a child to badly injure himself with those same power tools if you are not providing adequate supervision.

You might well not consider it desirable for children to fire guns. That's fine - but that doesn't alter the fact that children can fire guns safely, if you provide the right circumstances.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... the kilt has been elevated to a mythical status with invented associations of some tartans with particular clans, festivals for pipes, Highland dancing and folk music, we've even taken a type of sausage and given it a mythic status ...

I'm quite willing to accept that there are groups within the US who feel culturally threatened, and seek something emblematic to hold onto to maintain a cultural presence.
True, but carrying a lethal weapon as an "emblem" of one's culture is a bit more extreme than wearing a kilt or reciting poetry over a plate of haggis and clapshot.
I never said it was a good emblem to pick, in fact I'd say it's a fucking stupid one. I also suspect that a lot of the people who are wandering around openly carrying guns, or in other ways making guns an issue to the extent of preventing more rapid progress towards a safer society, probably haven't considered the real reasons why they holding so tight to the their 'right' to own guns - and if they started to think about where this part of their culture has come from and why they feel the need to defend it so much they might realise that as an emblem of who they are it probably has an emphasis and impact they don't really like. ie: even those who carry guns openly will probably agree that as an emblem of their culture it's a stupid and dangerous thing to wave around.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Can I just add that I think holding an eleven year old criminally responsible is wrong, and its wrong when we do it in the UK too.
I don't agree.

I don't think the American practice of trying a child as an adult when he's accused of a particularly serious crime can ever be justified - the child is still a child, and should be treated as such, whatever he's done, but I don't agree that 11 year olds should be free from criminal sanction.

Children don't suddenly wake up one day and turn into responsible functional adults - it's a gradual transition. It makes sense that the criminal justice system makes the transition with them.

Eleven-year-olds know right from wrong. I have one, and so know many, and whilst they're pretty good at being completely oblivious to things like personal safety and chains of consequence, they're pretty clear about what they are supposed to do and what they are not supposed to do.

Because eleven-year-olds are still children, and still fairly young children at that - dealing with them should look different from dealing with 14-year-olds, which should look different from dealing with 17-year-olds. But I don't think that a get-out-of-jail-free card is the right approach.

(In this particular case, I don't believe any crime has been committed by the 11-year-old. I think the "responsible" adult is guilty of quite a lot.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fucking hell, what is wrong with you people?
Those are almost exactly the same words that the (American) friend of an (American) FB friend used after the second friend posted a link to this.

Apart from the comments by Dr Carson (shouldn't he be struck off?) deserving an airing in Hell, the main point of that is that I have a few American FB friends who are speaking up on gun issues.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fucking hell, what is wrong with you people?
There are perfectly safe ways of shooting guns with children.
Then why don't you make those safe ways mandatory, rather than having 100 fatal 'accidents' a year?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Apart from the comments by Dr Carson (shouldn't he be struck off?)
As far as I know, there are no issues with Dr. Carson's medical record, so no, he shouldn't. I think his politics are unhinged, but they don't affect his fitness to practice as a surgeon.

As far as the opinions of people who don't want to pay for extra teachers in schools but do want to pay for armed guards to patrol the hallways go, I really don't know where to start.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Then why don't you make those safe ways mandatory, rather than having 100 fatal 'accidents' a year?
I would. In my opinion, they already are mandatory, because not following straightforward safety rules with guns around children is criminal child endangerment, and I would prosecute accordingly.

Making them mandatory won't reduce the number of accidents to zero, though. Seatbelts are mandatory, but children are killed all the time because they're not wearing seatbelts. The kind of person who leaves his loaded gun lying around in his house when the kids come to play is the same as the kind of person who won't bother to strap the kids in "for just a short trip".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
when not even the people who theoretically agree with you hold you in contempt because the problem hasn't been solved yet.
Part of that is that we sometimes forget how long it took to get our gun control legislation sorted. In the UK, it's been almost 100 years. Our first real gun control legislation was in 1920, in response to the number of guns in the country following the end of the war. (Earlier Acts required a licence to carry a gun off your own premises, but that was something you could buy over the counter at a Post Office requiring no form of background check etc). The 1920 Act introduced firearm certificates issued by the police.

We had a series of relatively minor modifications over the years (eg: extension to smooth bore guns, raising minimum age for licenses, the 1937 removal of self-defence as a valid reason for having a gun being possibly the most significant) culminating in the 1968 Firearms Act (which more or less brought those small changes into a single act), bringing in controls on long barrel shotguns and requiring firearms to be stored in a locked cupboard with ammunition stored separately, and bans on people with criminal convictions obtaining a licence. Later legislation has reduced the range of guns permitted, largely in response to Hungerford and Dunblane. There are ongoing consultations about further restrictions of firearms (and, whether the legislation should cover things like airguns or weapons able to inflict lethal electric shocks).

So, it shouldn't come as any sort of surprise if legislation in the US seems to be taking a long time. It took 100 years for UK legislation to get to where we are, and we're still on the way. Current US legislation (difficult to classify as it varies from state to state) is somewhere between the 1920 and 1937 UK Acts. I hope and pray it takes significantly less than 30 years for the US to enact legislation similar to the 1968 Act - which at least made it a requirement for a licence that guns are stored in a secure, locked cupboard with ammunition stored separately, which would at least stop 8 year olds throwing a tantrum the opportunity to get hold of a loaded gun.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe to get the pro-lifers interested, what the USA really need is a bunch of mass shootings of pregnant women in the stomach.
Oh fuck off. I'm pro-life, I'm very very VERY much in favor of strict gun control, and I don't need this kind of shit.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... the kilt has been elevated to a mythical status with invented associations of some tartans with particular clans, festivals for pipes, Highland dancing and folk music, we've even taken a type of sausage and given it a mythic status ...

I'm quite willing to accept that there are groups within the US who feel culturally threatened, and seek something emblematic to hold onto to maintain a cultural presence.
True, but carrying a lethal weapon as an "emblem" of one's culture is a bit more extreme than wearing a kilt or reciting poetry over a plate of haggis and clapshot.
I never said it was a good emblem to pick, in fact I'd say it's a fucking stupid one. I also suspect that a lot of the people who are wandering around openly carrying guns, or in other ways making guns an issue to the extent of preventing more rapid progress towards a safer society, probably haven't considered the real reasons why they holding so tight to the their 'right' to own guns - and if they started to think about where this part of their culture has come from and why they feel the need to defend it so much they might realise that as an emblem of who they are it probably has an emphasis and impact they don't really like. ie: even those who carry guns openly will probably agree that as an emblem of their culture it's a stupid and dangerous thing to wave around.
Open carry and "wave around" are not the same thing, and the "bitter clinger" narrative is already well established.

59 dead in Chicago in September, 350+ shot, including an 11 month old. Worst month there in a decade.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Like you actually give a rat's ass about anybody in Chicago.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I'm getting really sick of all this Chicago business. Not least because earlier today I saw an article pointing out that, when Chicago's actual population is taken into account, the numbers in Chicago are lower than average on some measures.

That's right. Lower.

So quit trying to say how awful Chicago is just because the President is from there, and start asking why many of your other cities are actually worse per head of population than Chicago.

[ 07. October 2015, 02:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Like you actually give a rat's ass about anybody in Chicago.
From your lips to Obama's ears...

Maybe he'll swing by the south-side on his way back from Oregon.

[Killing me]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe to get the pro-lifers interested, what the USA really need is a bunch of mass shootings of pregnant women in the stomach.
Oh fuck off. I'm pro-life, I'm very very VERY much in favor of strict gun control, and I don't need this kind of shit.
You may be, and I respect you personally a great deal, but until I see large crowds picketting gun stores on the news beamed to us from the USA, and also line-ups of people trying to prevent people from entering gun stores, and ultimately people being arrested for violating court orders to allow people to enter gun stores, I'm not finding it convincing. Where are the gangs of chanting people blocking entrance to these gun stores while displaying graphic pictures of people with bullet holes in their heads and hearts in these non-existent crowds of gun protesters?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Open carry and "wave around" are not the same thing
Somebody wearing an AR15 into a Starbuck's may not "wave it around" but it's as near as makes no difference. There is no need to open OR concealed carry that kind of weapon.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Open carry and "wave around" are not the same thing
No, but very similar. Afterall Scotsmen don't literally wave around their kilts either (especially if they're true Scotsmen). But, in both cases it's a very public display of alliegence, of identification with a culture or a cause. It doesn't have to be literally waved around to do that, and apart from flags there are very things which are literally waved around but we still use the phrase. You don't need to take a metaphor so literally.

quote:
59 dead in Chicago in September, 350+ shot, including an 11 month old. Worst month there in a decade.
Yes, worst month in a decade. And, for those involved a series of tragedies.

But, in relation to gun control things, by their very nature, take time. Although some things may have very rapid impacts. It's better to look at long term trends rather than outliers.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
....quit trying to say how awful Chicago is just because the President is from there, and start asking why many of your other cities are actually worse per head of population than Chicago.
I don't need to ask why. It's because they have all been dominated by Dimocrat politicians since time out of mind, with strict gun control laws and all other manner of leftist bullshit but hey, we get the government we deserve right?


I don't give a shit about anyone in Chicago but their elected leadership does?

Fuck that.

Literally hundreds dead in Chicago alone this year including very young children and where is Obama off to? White as fuck Roseburg, Oregon. Why? Because that's where the political capital is.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
And the car companies still cover up safety problems and rig cars to fake test results, and eventually (after people are injured or killed) recall millions of cars.
Money for the few is more important than the safety of the many. God Bless Capitalism.
Gotta decrease the population some way, "They" have already taken too hard line on birth control to backpedal.
[Mad]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Meanwhile a friend of Bullfrog's (Gwai's guy) wrote
this:

"Much more than gun control, we must shift our culture of violence to a culture of peace. We need models who will lead us to move beyond resentment and towards an ethic of love, a love that embraces even our enemies."
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
What. You mean that all those politicians sitting in Congress and State legislatures, and the rest of the people who claim to be Christian should maybe, I don't know, try to be like Jesus?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
originally posted by lilBuddha:Money for the few is more important than the safety of the many. God Bless Capitalism.
Gotta decrease the population some way, "They" have already taken too hard line on birth control to backpedal.
[Mad]
They just don't give a shit. More and more, we let politicians who have no connection to the people decide out fates. We are to blame almost as much as they.
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Literally hundreds dead in Chicago alone this year including very young children and where is Obama off to? White as fuck Roseburg, Oregon. Why? Because that's where the political capital is.
Listen, you fucking tool. Obama is going to Oregon because this is where the latest mass shooting was and America doesn't give a fuck about incremental death, especially when the dead are black.
Do I think he should ignore the daily death toll? Hell no. But politicians will focus on the things the public will pay attention to.
If you actually gave a shit, your tirade would mean something. You seem to only use those deaths as a club to swing at a president you do not like, and that is despicable.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What. You mean that all those politicians sitting in Congress and State legislatures, and the rest of the people who claim to be Christian should maybe, I don't know, try to be like Jesus?
They are content with dropping his name. They don't actually know Him.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
....quit trying to say how awful Chicago is just because the President is from there, and start asking why many of your other cities are actually worse per head of population than Chicago.
I don't need to ask why. It's because they have all been dominated by Dimocrat politicians since time out of mind, with strict gun control laws and all other manner of leftist bullshit
You forget, that those gun control laws introduced in major cities have a) had an effect on gun violence (earlier I posted the number of gun related homicides in Chicago which has halved in 20 years - you probably missed that - and other cities have seen similar reductions in gun related crime) and b) been enacted without supporting legislation elsewhere which would have probably made them more effective.

On point b). In big cities there is a lot more crime, a lot more violent crime, and more guns used. That's true of Chicago, New York, LA, London. It's, sadly, part of the nature of big cities. Therefore, moreso than in suburban and rural areas, to cut gun deaths it is more important to cut criminal use of guns (because criminal use is a much more substantial proportion of the total). Which means restricting the access to guns by criminals. There were studies in the US that have looked at where criminals get their guns.

The first thing to note is that the majority (>80% in many cities) of guns recovered were originally legally purchased more than 100 miles from the city. Which, if you hadn't noticed, is because guns (especially hand guns) are very easy to transport. Therefore, to restrict criminal access to guns in a city needs the cooperation of the surrounding areas where those guns are sourced.

Second, those out of city sources basically fall into two categories (indeed many of the remaining 20% of guns sourced within/near the city fall into the same categories). One, stolen from individuals who legally purchased and held them, and the only way to shut down that route of gun access is to remove guns from private ownership (enforcing rules that keep those guns locked in secure cabinets will help as it prevents theft by the opportunist criminal, but no cabinet will keep out a determined thief). The second route was guns legally purchased by people acting on behalf of the criminals, often from a very small number of retailers who were not as rigorous in their background checks as they could be, surely it is not unreasonable to tighten up the retail sector so that people who have do not have the relevant permits or fail the background checks a) don't get to buy a gun and b) get reported to the police for further investigation about why they're wanting a gun? That doesn't evne restrict the rights of the "good guys" to own a gun, though it's possible it may result in some gun stores being closed down if they place their profits above human lives.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
....quit trying to say how awful Chicago is just because the President is from there, and start asking why many of your other cities are actually worse per head of population than Chicago.
I don't need to ask why. It's because they have all been dominated by Dimocrat politicians since time out of mind, with strict gun control laws and all other manner of leftist bullshit but hey, we get the government we deserve right?


I don't give a shit about anyone in Chicago but their elected leadership does?

Fuck that.

Literally hundreds dead in Chicago alone this year including very young children and where is Obama off to? White as fuck Roseburg, Oregon. Why? Because that's where the political capital is.
lilbuddha and Alan have already answered this perfectly well, but I'll summarise in my own way:

1. Mass shooting is a related issue to general gun crime, but it's still a distinct one.

2. Gun controls in the city of Chicago mean very little without some kind of gun-vaporising forcefield at the city limits. I'm pretty sure gun controls in Sydney wouldn't have worked if you could just go and buy the things in Gosford. You want to see gun controls that work? We implemented them across an entire fucking continent.

[ 07. October 2015, 06:12: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
when not even the people who theoretically agree with you hold you in contempt because the problem hasn't been solved yet.
Part of that is that we sometimes forget how long it took to get our gun control legislation sorted. In the UK, it's been almost 100 years.
...

...

Wait a minute, what?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Just for clarification, when I said 'America doesn't give a fuck...' it was not meant that no Americans care. Just that, as a whole and for practical purpose, America does not.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Thank you for that. (And I agree with that, BTW.) But I just read back and caught a glimpse of two people rubbing their hands over the image of pregnant American women getting shot in the uterus, and your post cleanses the palate.

The thing about giving (generic)your hate free reign? You wind up resembling whatever it is you claim you hate. Dick Cheney could not have come up with a more shining piece of ugliness.

"But I can say shit like that because I am RIGHT!" Yeah, he'd say that, too.

[ 07. October 2015, 06:31: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
when not even the people who theoretically agree with you hold you in contempt because the problem hasn't been solved yet.
Part of that is that we sometimes forget how long it took to get our gun control legislation sorted. In the UK, it's been almost 100 years.
...

...

Wait a minute, what?
Basically, don't let anyone from the UK tell you it's taking a long time to get gun control legislation when it took us a century (and counting, as there are still moves to further tighten those controls).

Of course, by all means tell your own politicians to quit sitting on their backsides and take a bite of the elephant. Hopefully you (as individuals, as communities and your representatives) can look at experience in the UK, Australia and elsewhere where progressive (as in, a sequence of Acts each progressively more restrictive) gun control has been introduced as models that will allow the process to proceed more rapidly.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Wow, helpful advice and modeling? I'm a preschool teacher. I kind of believe that stuff moves the world.

I want to clarify something, though, in relation to my last post-- I am not offended by people pointing out the flaws in my homeland, or even saying other lands are doing better. I am not a flag-waver, I do not thing America is pristine and perfect (Hell, I'm in it, for one), and I do not think being an American make me exceptional, untouchable, etc. It simply makes me a human being born in a specific country.

I do, however, have a jingoistic view of what the average Shipmate is like-- in short, when I come on the Ship, I think I am surrounded by some of the brightest, sharpest a most big hearted people in the English speaking world (and affiliates). What offends me is having that rosy picture disturbed by the kind of grotesque characterizations of other human beings that you would find on a John Birch forum. I think we are smarter than that and better than that.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Can I just add that I think holding an eleven year old criminally responsible is wrong, and its wrong when we do it in the UK too.
I don't agree.

I don't think the American practice of trying a child as an adult when he's accused of a particularly serious crime can ever be justified - the child is still a child, and should be treated as such, whatever he's done, but I don't agree that 11 year olds should be free from criminal sanction.

Children don't suddenly wake up one day and turn into responsible functional adults - it's a gradual transition. It makes sense that the criminal justice system makes the transition with them.

Eleven-year-olds know right from wrong. I have one, and so know many, and whilst they're pretty good at being completely oblivious to things like personal safety and chains of consequence, they're pretty clear about what they are supposed to do and what they are not supposed to do.

Because eleven-year-olds are still children, and still fairly young children at that - dealing with them should look different from dealing with 14-year-olds, which should look different from dealing with 17-year-olds. But I don't think that a get-out-of-jail-free card is the right approach.

(In this particular case, I don't believe any crime has been committed by the 11-year-old. I think the "responsible" adult is guilty of quite a lot.)
I don't think criminal liability is appropriate - though intensive intervention maybe required. There are number of reasons for that.

Firstly, your brain is not fully developed until you are in your mid twenties. At the age of eleven the frontal lobes of your brain are a significant way off full development. This is the area of your brain that governs forward planning and behavioural control.

Secondly, children of that age are only just developing formal operational thought.

Thirdly, most children that age have next to no experience of death - and their conceptual understanding of it is limited.

If we don't think a child of eleven has the conceptual equipment to consent to sex, vote, manage a budget - then it is perverse to suddenly assume as soon as they do something catastrophic we'll assume they know exactly what they're doing.

(As for knowing right from wrong, that is different from having a clear understanding of the scale of enormity of the myriad acts you have been told are not allowed.)

[ 07. October 2015, 06:56: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :
 
Just keep it simple.

No civilised society NEEDS handguns, except in the military and to a limited extent with the police.

Shotguns and hunting rifles do have a place, but they can be more easily regulated.

No one can stop the occasional person who is mentally ill from going postal with any kind of weapon, but there is no need at all to hang on to a culture which glorifies the use of firearms against other people in normal domestic life; it's bad enough glorifying it in time of war.

US 'exceptionalism' is a sad and painful blight on the world, but mostly on the citizens of the US.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
DC...Oklahoma
Not arguing any of that. ...

I'd love to see the data recompiled without DC included, just to see how that changes the reported averages. (The legendary screwed-uppedness of DC government and Congressional "oversight" is worthy of it's own discussion.)
It (on sight) looks* as if the average is average treating each state as the same (which I'm not sure is statistically a good approach). In any case that's what I'll assume, if you want to see it done properly campaign to let the proper statisticians do their job.**

In which case first taking DC as 7.5:
first graph
2.77 - 4.41 (37%)
second graph
3.14 - 4.17 (25%)
(The difference between these 2 is dominated by the difference between Michigan/Minessota)
third graph
3.10 - 3.9 (20%)


*the 50 state list includes other GRD, whereas this is pure homicide, so hard to be sure. But putting the numbers in by eye from the last graph I got 3.7 so I think that's what they've done.
**this is not directed to those who are doing that.
Thanks for that. I agree with the sentiment "if you want to see it done properly campaign to let the proper statisticians do their job". I'm of firm belief in having as much accurate data as possible. I also concur that treating each state as the same is problematic - a large state with a tiny population density (i.e, Wyoming, or Alaska) is necessarily going to have a different experience than a small, densely populated stated (Massachusetts, New Jersey), so the effects of an otherwise identical set of laws may well be very different.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Meanwhile a friend of Bullfrog's (Gwai's guy) wrote
this:

"Much more than gun control, we must shift our culture of violence to a culture of peace. We need models who will lead us to move beyond resentment and towards an ethic of love, a love that embraces even our enemies."
Amen.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe to get the pro-lifers interested, what the USA really need is a bunch of mass shootings of pregnant women in the stomach.
Oh fuck off. I'm pro-life, I'm very very VERY much in favor of strict gun control, and I don't need this kind of shit.
You may be, and I respect you personally a great deal, but until I see large crowds picketting gun stores on the news beamed to us from the USA, and also line-ups of people trying to prevent people from entering gun stores, and ultimately people being arrested for violating court orders to allow people to enter gun stores, I'm not finding it convincing. Where are the gangs of chanting people blocking entrance to these gun stores while displaying graphic pictures of people with bullet holes in their heads and hearts in these non-existent crowds of gun protesters?
And since when is a group of people concerned primarily with one issue expected to take on every other issue that comes down the pike? You might as well pick on the Occupy crowd, or the tree huggers.

I have this sinking feeling that you're going to point to the term "pro-life" and announce that the term obligates them to take on any life issue whatsoever at full throttle. In which case they'd better pick up euthanasia, inner city poverty, hunger, "black lives matter," and underemployment. Along with free medical care for all, the marginalization of the elderly, and the obesity crisis.

It isn't at all sensible to damn one group of activists because they don't have the time or money to take on multiple issues full throttle all at once.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
US 'exceptionalism' is a sad and painful blight on the world, but mostly on the citizens of the US.
Yes. Because exceptionalism is the antithesis of community.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And since when is a group of people concerned primarily with one issue expected to take on every other issue that comes down the pike? You might as well pick on the Occupy crowd, or the tree huggers.
I don't think that's np's point. Rather, the impression is that the protesters campaigning outside abortion clinics are often (present company excepted) the same people asserting their extreme version of 2nd amendment rights.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Meanwhile a friend of Bullfrog's (Gwai's guy) wrote
this:

"Much more than gun control, we must shift our culture of violence to a culture of peace. We need models who will lead us to move beyond resentment and towards an ethic of love, a love that embraces even our enemies."
Amen.
You might believe this, but I do not. The UK is
not less violent than the US, but fewer people are shot. The answer is gun control.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Yeah. While trying to drag humans towards a more peaceful society should always be a goal, it's not a sufficient solution in timescales that most people appreciate. I mean, it's been a couple millennia since we nailed a guy to a stick for saying how it would be great if we were all nice to each other¹, and even though many have taken him seriously we're still struggling with it.

The awkward truth is that humans² are sometimes violent. Often unpredictably so (notwithstanding our failures to reign in even the predictable violence). It behooves us, as sentient beings, to recognize that the risks of distributed and portable lethality currently outweigh the benefits³.

Control the distributed portable lethality - at least as much as we insist on controlling other dangerous issues. Meaningful licences, actual enforcement of restrictions, continuous pursuit of better general safety - same as motor vehicles.

And, for fuck's sake, eject the manufacturer's mouthpiece from so much influence. The NRA has done more harm than every terrorist organization combined.

¹ Thanks, Douglas Adams.

² Some humans. There are exceptions, happily.

³ And we don't deny that there are benefits. But a couple statistically-insignificant benefits do not magically banish the overwhelming and idiotic risks.
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
You know one of the biggest contributors to Chicago's gun violence?

Indiana.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't think criminal liability is appropriate - though intensive intervention maybe required. There are number of reasons for that.
I wonder if we're partly dealing with semantics here? You are calling for "intensive intervention", and I assume you wish it to be compulsory, but not "criminal liability". To my mind, compulsory "intensive intervention" sounds like a sensible consequence of a juvenile criminal conviction.

The criminal conviction is the thing that gives you the right to go around imposing your interventions.

quote:

Firstly, your brain is not fully developed until you are in your mid twenties. At the age of eleven the frontal lobes of your brain are a significant way off full development. This is the area of your brain that governs forward planning and behavioural control.
Yes indeed. This is a fine argument for not treating children and adults the same. That's a lot different from "no criminal liability for children".

quote:

Thirdly, most children that age have next to no experience of death - and their conceptual understanding of it is limited.
Not sure I believe this one. I don't think it's relevant - most crime doesn't involve death - and I suspect it also to be false. Every 11-year-old that I know has a perfectly adequate functional understanding of death, many have experienced the death of an elderly relative or beloved pet, and many more have deceased elderly relatives who are regularly discussed in their family.

quote:

If we don't think a child of eleven has the conceptual equipment to consent to sex, vote, manage a budget - then it is perverse to suddenly assume as soon as they do something catastrophic we'll assume they know exactly what they're doing.
I don't claim that we should. To do so would be to claim that we should try children like adults, which I explicitly said that we shouldn't do.

quote:

(As for knowing right from wrong, that is different from having a clear understanding of the scale of enormity of the myriad acts you have been told are not allowed.)
Sure. There is a continuum of understanding of actions and their consequences, and the scale of the enormity of the same. Infants start at one end, and most adults make it pretty close to the other end. Teenage children are in the middle somewhere, and different children will be at different points along the scale.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I would be looking at intervention via health and social care. Lots of things are compulsory for children - without court involvement - school, for example. In cases where children are involved in serious violence it is often a sign of very poor / abusive / ineffective parenting and it may be important to consider whether they should be bringing the child up. If they are to continue to do so, what support the family will be offered.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

I don't think criminal liability is appropriate - though intensive intervention maybe required. There are number of reasons for that.

Firstly, your brain is not fully developed until you are in your mid twenties. At the age of eleven the frontal lobes of your brain are a significant way off full development. This is the area of your brain that governs forward planning and behavioural control.

Secondly, children of that age are only just developing formal operational thought.

Thirdly, most children that age have next to no experience of death - and their conceptual understanding of it is limited.

If we don't think a child of eleven has the conceptual equipment to consent to sex, vote, manage a budget - then it is perverse to suddenly assume as soon as they do something catastrophic we'll assume they know exactly what they're doing.

(As for knowing right from wrong, that is different from having a clear understanding of the scale of enormity of the myriad acts you have been told are not allowed.)
Because of all those reasons, that particular little boy probably fully expected the little girl to get up soon afterward -- like the cartoon characters and the kids playing cops and robbers do. He's old enough to know better, but his gut feeling is different than his brain.

Mostly, I don't want the little boy to suffer consequences for this tragedy because that might take some of the blame off the father who, I think, should definitely do some jail time for his criminal irresponsibility.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
While somebody might actually think it's possible to safely let children drive - and in some exception cases it might be true - the fundamental (and developmentally-appropriate) impulsivity of non-adults is a compelling reason to not allow it generally. How this would be different for weapons is baffling.

No, "baffling" is the wrong word. "Totally fucking idiotic" is more what I was trying to convey.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
While somebody might actually think it's possible to safely let children drive - and in some exception cases it might be true - the fundamental (and developmentally-appropriate) impulsivity of non-adults is a compelling reason to not allow it generally. How this would be different for weapons is baffling.
Driving safely on the public roads, with all the scope for unexpected surprises, other drivers and so on is a rather different affair from driving safely on empty private land, say. I certainly think it's possible to enable a typical eleven-year-old to drive safely in the latter environment, assuming the vehicle were fitted to his or her smaller frame.

Having a child routinely carrying a gun around is like driving on public roads: there exist some children who would be safe, but it's a bad idea in general.

Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
No it isn't. A gun is a very dangerous object, one that is designed to kill. Accidental deaths occur even when trained adults use them. Children using them will only increase this.

As to an 11 year-old understanding death; they do not. Yes, they know people die and even know they will die. However, the connection between their actions and their mortality is, at best, incomplete.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Exactly: an edge state that is fundamentally meaningless in context of general discussion. In much the same way that general dissuasion of using metal objects to penetrate skulls is in no way countered by the possibility of neurosurgery.

[fuck context]

[ 07. October 2015, 23:30: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Meanwhile a friend of Bullfrog's (Gwai's guy) wrote
this:

"Much more than gun control, we must shift our culture of violence to a culture of peace. We need models who will lead us to move beyond resentment and towards an ethic of love, a love that embraces even our enemies."
Amen.
You might believe this, but I do not. The UK is
not less violent than the US, but fewer people are shot. The answer is gun control.
I guess your take on that sample of the much more complex article was, " if we all make like hippies and just lurve each other, we won't need gun control."
The rest of the article doesn't bear that interpretation out, IMO. I think what he is saying is, when we do get gun laws changed, we will still have an attitude problem that needs to be adjusted.

Gun control and a reassesment of values. There is a difference between having occasionally to deal with violence and being constantly up to your neck in it.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Yes, it sure is. When I was a kid in scouts we had a well supervised shooting range at camp and used single shot 22s. Shooting shotguns, though, is recommended for kids 13 and older because of recoil and the like. However, the kids must use just the guns provided and they can't bring their own guns and/or bows.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.

I'm sure it's perfectly possible to find a way to paint myself fluorescent green safely.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I guess your take on that sample of the much more complex article was, " if we all make like hippies and just lurve each other, we won't need gun control."
No, that is not my take on the article. To be honest, I did not read the link, I did not notice it. I was reacting to the bit you quoted. I've now read the article and it does not change my reaction.

This quote
quote:
We need stricter gun control laws, no doubt. But we need so much more than gun control. We need models who will lead us toward a massive shift in our culture.
from just before the one in question is phrased much better, IMO. Unfortunately, he continues and emphasises culture change more than rational gun laws.
I agree that a culture shift is needed, but reducing the easy access to guns will reduce deaths without that iffy shift.
Think of it like reducing weight.
Self-control is more assured when the temptations are not readily at hand.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
No it isn't. A gun is a very dangerous object, one that is designed to kill. Accidental deaths occur even when trained adults use them. Children using them will only increase this.
Nonsense.

You are right - guns are dangerous. They are indeed designed to kill people, by propelling small bits of metal very fast out of the pointy end.

They are not, however, indiscriminately dangerous. If you're not standing in front of the business end, then barring some kind of freak gun explosion failure, you are perfectly safe.

Accidental deaths occur because some "trained adult" has done something very stupid, and because people expect "trained adults" not to do that kind of thing, there's nobody to intercept the error before someone gets hurt.

A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for "accidentally killing someone" is to have the muzzle of your gun pointing at them. On a shooting range, in controlled conditions and with adequate supervision, it is easy to prevent this from happening.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
Target shooting, like archery, is a sport that some people find enjoyable. Why teach a child to play football safely, or to fence safely, or ...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Accidental deaths occur because some "trained adult" has done something very stupid,
Despite your scare quote, this is the point. All it takes is a momentary lapse. With guns, it is not if, but when. Proper training and repetitive, redundant safety measures reduce incidents. But they will never eliminate them.
You are saying your choice is more important than the lives of others. Plain and simple.

[ 08. October 2015, 02:08: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
I know your solution is probably to simply be a household that doesn't own guns. However, if you are a household that does own guns (and here is one of the better things I've read about why one might choose to do so) and you are a household that has children, IME you have two options:

1) Keep the guns locked in storage boxes separate from the ammunition. Teach your children that guns are occasionally useful but always very dangerous things. Tell them that they are only for adults.

IME, childhood curiosity being what it is, this means that at some point the child is going to attempt to get into the box and play with the glamorous adult thing when you are not there.

2) Keep the guns locked in storage boxes separate from the ammunition. Teach your children that guns are occasionally useful but always very dangerous things. Teach them to always assume the gun is loaded, to never point it at anything unless they are willing to see that person or thing die, and to never touch them unless there is an adult in the room supervising them. Teach them safe handling of the weapon and shooting as it seems developmentally appropriate to each child.

Having guns in a house with children but not teaching the children anything about them because it's not an appropriate subject for a child is, IME, a recipe for disaster.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Target shooting, like archery, is a sport that some people find enjoyable. Why teach a child to play football safely, or to fence safely, or ...
I don't hear of children accidentally killing anyone with a football, or swords, or arrows. I haven't heard of anyone killing anyone with any of these things, let alone children killing children.

I'm reminded of the unfortunate trend to have kids trained up in MMA - mixed martial arts. Cage fighting for children. Who would Jesus ground and pound, and make to tapout?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

Having guns in a house with children but not teaching the children anything about them because it's not an appropriate subject for a child is, IME, a recipe for disaster.
Sure. We teach them about knives, matches, electrical sockets, and all sorts of other things that can hurt or kill.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I guess your take on that sample of the much more complex article was, " if we all make like hippies and just lurve each other, we won't need gun control."
No, that is not my take on the article. To be honest, I did not read the link, I did not notice it. I was reacting to the bit you quoted. I've now read the article and it does not change my reaction.

This quote
quote:
We need stricter gun control laws, no doubt. But we need so much more than gun control. We need models who will lead us toward a massive shift in our culture.
from just before the one in question is phrased much better, IMO. Unfortunately, he continues and emphasises culture change more than rational gun laws.
I agree that a culture shift is needed, but reducing the easy access to guns will reduce deaths without that iffy shift.
Think of it like reducing weight.
Self-control is more assured when the temptations are not readily at hand.
Ok, I still see him as generally supporting gun control, but wanting to look at why we are so violent, exceptionalist, capitalist, etc. to begin with. He is a minister, his invoking introspection does not surprise me. What is needed for the flock to do is a lot different than what is needed for the nation to do.

Maybe I will have the energy to compose a post later about the scary level of ingrained violence I am currently seeing in the kid population I am working with, but for now, trust me that, for a certain sector of society, the call to model community, reconciliation, and resistance to violence is a lot more than just an academic excercise. It is vital to survival-- mental and (perhaps) physical.

I wiil say this- I believe every child I am currently working with is suffering from some form of PTSD, purely from the chaotic environment they live in. Gang/ gun culture is a large part of that. Territorialism and hyper- individualism is, too.These kids see escalating fights on their doorstep, a lot of times in their crowded houses, and in some places I have worked they hear neighborhood gunfire about three or four times a week. ( Fourth of July was heartbreaking-- every time a pop was heard, kids would grab a teacher in terror.)
So-- fuck, yeah, bring on the next peace movement. Bring on next new Gandhis. Please.

[ 08. October 2015, 02:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
No it isn't. A gun is a very dangerous object, one that is designed to kill. Accidental deaths occur even when trained adults use them. Children using them will only increase this.
Must contradict. I was a Boy Scout and at 10 we were firing .22 rifles at summer camp. We had strict rules, we always fired prone and on command, we were under constant supervision, and nobody ever got hurt. It is possible for children to use guns safely. But it takes a lot of infrastructure, including in our case the sifting process of becoming and remaining a Boy Scout.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
Because it's a fun contest of hand-eye coordination to see if you can hit closer to the bull's eye than your fellow scouts. It's a difficult skill to master, which makes it even more fun. And it's a lot less painful than archery, in my experience.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't hear of children accidentally killing anyone with a football, or swords, or arrows. I haven't heard of anyone killing anyone with any of these things, let alone children killing children.
I don't hear of boy scouts killing anybody on their rifle range. There was some dumbfuck that put an automatic weapon into a child's hands and paid for it sometime back. But single-loading .22 rifles in the very controlled environment of a Scout camp are much less dangerous by factors of 1000 than playing football, which destroys many young people's spinal cords every year.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
No it isn't. A gun is a very dangerous object, one that is designed to kill. Accidental deaths occur even when trained adults use them. Children using them will only increase this.
Must contradict.

[followed by personal anecdote of not experiencing a gun accident]
What part are you contradicting?

Just because your experience of supervised gun use at Scout camp has never included an accident does not mean that accidents never happen. Nor does it mean that there might have been other safeguards that could have been included. All it means is that you were lucky (albeit in this case in a situation where the chances are significantly improved through good practice).
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Personal tales of not dying are all kinds of confirmation bias, and statistically N=1.

Translation: worthless.

I have varied personal tales of not dying from operating motor vehicles in illegal ways; should those be supportive arguments for such actions? No. Traffic mortality rates overwhelm the stupid.

I have a couple tales of surviving mostly unscathed from unfortunate choices in proximity to grizzly bears and cubs; does it then make sense for me to assure that therefore it can be fine to do so? No. Because it's just too stupid to mention.

Stop being so fucking stupid. Guns don't keep any civilian safe in any meaningful way. Because they're not about being safe. Which is why they should be carefully regulated, like everything else that is dangerous. Like every other fucking country in the world does.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
Mostly unscathed? Do tell!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just because your experience of supervised gun use at Scout camp has never included an accident does not mean that accidents never happen. Nor does it mean that there might have been other safeguards that could have been included. All it means is that you were lucky (albeit in this case in a situation where the chances are significantly improved through good practice).
The "albeit" you slip in at the end is where my entire conversation consisted. "Children should never be allowed to touch guns, even if you did and lived!" is what you're saying. I say bunk. It's scaremongering.

[ 08. October 2015, 04:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
No, it's called risk assessment.

It is factually inaccurate to state that under trained, responsible adult supervision in a suitable location with a suitable weapon that children can use guns without any chance of their being an accident. Nothing is 100% safe, and guns will always be less than 100% safe.

Yes, with suitable precautions the risks associated with using guns can be significantly reduced. We then get into the numbers game, how frequently is it acceptable for something to go wrong? 1 in every 10,000 rounds fired? 1 in every million? What are the consequences of something going wrong? In the worst case, that's someone dead. And, every thing is a balance, what are the benefits from this activity and do they justify the risk? If the benefits are very small then even a very small risk is hard to justify, if the benefits are greater perhaps one could justify greater risk.

Although, as anyone who has every had any experience with risk assessment and risk communication will know, no matter how much we try to quantify things ultimately these things come down to subjective matters of judgement.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, it's called risk assessment.

It is factually inaccurate to state that under trained, responsible adult supervision in a suitable location with a suitable weapon that children can use guns without any chance of their being an accident. Nothing is 100% safe, and guns will always be less than 100% safe.
In which case it's fatuous to use lack of 100% safety as a club to beat it with. Nobody should ever skydive, or ride horses, or play sports, or go on amusement park rides, or go to Who concerts. These things have all taken more lives than Boy Scout camp shooting ranges.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Ugh. Look, I'm for strict gun control, but making something like very carefully supervised shooting at Boy Scout Camp off limits (while keeping rappelling down cliffs, hiking for miles in the Midwest summer, camping in tick-infested and mosquito-ridden West Nile virus prone areas, etc.) is just silly.

Of course there's a greater than null risk. There is a greater than null risk to just about every activity, and turning 18 is not going to magically convert a person into a safer shooting trainee. If there are Boy Scouts interested in hunting, better they learn how to fire a gun safely and properly under trained and paranoid supervision than that they try to pick it up somewhere dodgier.

Seriously, the Scouts don't bring the guns, they don't take them home, they don't lay a finger on them unless they are in the proper location doing the proper thing under trained supervisors (yes, this is what Mr Lamb was forced to get into bed with the NRA for, and I am currently fending them off as they call freaking DAILY in the hopes that he'll re-up--as if. He needed certification to handle this Scout activity in conjunction with other also-trained leaders--in spite of 7 years service in the Vietnam War, and two years of training before that. They take safety seriously in the Boy Scouts.

It so happens that LL isn't interested in shooting (hates loud noises), but I'm fairly sure it's one of the safer activities he could do at Scout camp. And far better than turning guns into utterly forbidden fruit, which always glamourizes things.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, it's called risk assessment.

It is factually inaccurate to state that under trained, responsible adult supervision in a suitable location with a suitable weapon that children can use guns without any chance of their being an accident. Nothing is 100% safe, and guns will always be less than 100% safe.
In which case it's fatuous to use lack of 100% safety as a club to beat it with. Nobody should ever skydive, or ride horses, or play sports, or go on amusement park rides, or go to Who concerts. These things have all taken more lives than Boy Scout camp shooting ranges.
I'm not sure anyone is stating that such activities shouldn't be done just because they're not 100% safe. If you can point to anyone using a "it's not 100% safe" club here, please do so. Because actually, most of what I've read has been the other way round - well supervised shooting ranges are very safe so shouldn't be banned.

Safety is part of the package of considerations that go into deciding if an activity should go ahead, or if my child should be allowed to participate. I've already mentioned judging what the benefits are. There are also questions relating to wider social impacts - for example, does Boy Scout camp shooting increase the social acceptability of gun ownership and use in less controlled situations?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are also questions relating to wider social impacts - for example, does Boy Scout camp shooting increase the social acceptability of gun ownership and use in less controlled situations?
I read your post that way too.

As for increasing social acceptability--

I think I'm going to wait to worry about that one until we can get the constant gun violence off TV and out of the movies, as well as out of the neighborhoods. Scout shooting seems to me to be mentally placed in the context of hunting, not keeping a handgun at home to blow away intruders. There are still plenty of Americans who routinely go hunting to fill up their family freezer, and who help keep the exploding deer population at least a tiny bit more under control. (I'm told venison makes good chili.)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are also questions relating to wider social impacts - for example, does Boy Scout camp shooting increase the social acceptability of gun ownership and use in less controlled situations?
That sounds very social-engineering to me. No, Boy Scouts can't do blah-blah-blah because they could grow up to be such-and-such.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are also questions relating to wider social impacts - for example, does Boy Scout camp shooting increase the social acceptability of gun ownership and use in less controlled situations?
That sounds very social-engineering to me. No, Boy Scouts can't do blah-blah-blah because they could grow up to be such-and-such.
Just part of the package of things to consider. Part of it may be how the Scout leaders present the exercise. I can see a very reasonable "guns are very useful tools for hunting for food, and we're going to teach you to use them responsibly" type approach - fitting in well with the lighting fires etc activities. I can also see a (to me) less reasonable "it's really good fun to shoot things" type approach - and, of course, Scout camps also include lots of things that are just for fun.

Depending on how it's presented, the same activity can have different wider social implications. "Guns are fun things to have to shoot stuff with" is a much less socially responsible attitude to give than "guns are a useful, though dangerous, tool to be used responsibly and carefully".

Besides, what's wrong with social engineering? We teach our kids all sorts of stuff that is effectively making sure they're equipped to live in society. Most of the time those are all entirely positive (good manners, respect for others etc). But, I'm not sure anyone will want to ban debating societies because the kids might turn into politicians or other social scum.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Scout shooting seems to me to be mentally placed in the context of hunting, not keeping a handgun at home to blow away intruders. There are still plenty of Americans who routinely go hunting to fill up their family freezer, and who help keep the exploding deer population at least a tiny bit more under control. (I'm told venison makes good chili.)
My wife (here in East Anglia) had a young lad in her class who would regularly go hunting with his dad from an early age. I think he was given his first "very own" shotgun at the age of about 10. This was perfectly legal as there is no age restriction in the UK for getting a shotgun licence if the parents approve the application. (Not many people know that).

They only killed for meat (which they ate themselves or sold to a local "Game Meat" company that supplies several farm shops); or because farmers wanted to get rid of vermin (e.g. foxes). The boy is now a teenager and left the school; my wife recommended that he follow a career path as a gamekeeper. As far as my wife was concerned, the family was highly responsible in its approach to these guns.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
You do all know that the Scouts and Guides in the UK can offer rifle shooting as an activity? It's provided on some the scout camps sites along with archery and a whole lot more. There are nationally provided risk assessments to do it, properly trained instructors and all the other checks.

And then there are the Air Training Corps, Army Cadets (and probably Sea Cadets, but I don't know for them) who all learn about guns and how to handle them.

We give a lot of our youth opportunities to play with guns legally in the UK too.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, the Scouts use air rifles, not shotguns. But I take the point.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
I know your solution is probably to simply be a household that doesn't own guns. However, if you are a household that does own guns (and here is one of the better things I've read about why one might choose to do so) and you are a household that has children, IME you have two options:

1) Keep the guns locked in storage boxes separate from the ammunition. Teach your children that guns are occasionally useful but always very dangerous things. Tell them that they are only for adults.

IME, childhood curiosity being what it is, this means that at some point the child is going to attempt to get into the box and play with the glamorous adult thing when you are not there.

2) Keep the guns locked in storage boxes separate from the ammunition. Teach your children that guns are occasionally useful but always very dangerous things. Teach them to always assume the gun is loaded, to never point it at anything unless they are willing to see that person or thing die, and to never touch them unless there is an adult in the room supervising them. Teach them safe handling of the weapon and shooting as it seems developmentally appropriate to each child.

Having guns in a house with children but not teaching the children anything about them because it's not an appropriate subject for a child is, IME, a recipe for disaster.
Look, none of this is terribly controversial, and in fact some of it is law in Australia.

But I don't see that teaching/warning a child about guns when there are guns present, in their house, when the adults in the house have legitimate reasons for the guns, is at all analogous to what I was reacting to which was a situation where children were being given guns to use. As a recreational activity of some kind.

Now, kids learning to use guns is in fact possible in Australia, but it is extremely tightly controlled. I'm pretty sure that if a Scout troop wanted to run a gun-shooting activity (and my troop sure as hell never suggested such a thing, nor have I ever heard of that idea here*) I'm pretty sure the only way they could possibly do it would be to go to a licensed range. I also think the minimum age is something like 14, though I couldn't swear to it.

* The whole idea that shooting a gun might be a recreational activity you want to introduce kids to just doesn't compute here. Maybe it does in some rural areas, but I suspect the vast majority of people who ever get into shooting as a sport here are people who initially learnt about guns because they were on farms where guns were practical tools first.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

* The whole idea that shooting a gun might be a recreational activity you want to introduce kids to just doesn't compute here. Maybe it does in some rural areas, but I suspect the vast majority of people who ever get into shooting as a sport here are people who initially learnt about guns because they were on farms where guns were practical tools first.
That's the part that doesn't compute for me either. It's not so much why not as why?

It reminds me of all the mothers of 4 year-old beauty pageant queens. They say it helps build confidence in the child and gives the mothers and little girls a shared activity, just like all the men in West Virginia who can't wait to take their little boy hunting for the first time. Aren't there better things to do together?

Here's some things my parents did with my brothers and me: Made gigantic kites and flew them, went camping, pitched tenets built fires, grew apple trees, made applesauce, built a roller coaster down the hill in the back yard with tracks and carts on roller skates, built soap box derby cars, made clothes, took dance lessons, took piano lessons, learned to paint, played basketball, played baseball, made puppets, put on a play.

So many ways to learn hand-eye co-ordination, spend bonding time together and have fun without ever learning how to use a weapon made for killing things.

[ 08. October 2015, 11:06: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, I'm not sure anyone will want to ban debating societies because the kids might turn into politicians or other social scum.
[looks thoughtful] You know, you've got an idea there.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Gun control and a reassesment of values. There is a difference between having occasionally to deal with violence and being constantly up to your neck in it.
This. A thousand times this.

The problem we're having on this thread is a microcosm of the problem we have here in America - people tend to look at the gun issue (and a host of others) in a binary, black-or-white way. The solutions aren't either-or, they're both-and.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
1) Learning gun safety and proper handling at a young(ish) age, in a strictly controlled environment, leads to less accidents later on.

2) Shooting teaches hand/eye coordination, breath control, and discipline.

3) It's fun. And it's fun to try and outdo your buddies.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'm reminded of the unfortunate trend to have kids trained up in MMA - mixed martial arts. Cage fighting for children. Who would Jesus ground and pound, and make to tapout?
That's just crazy. I study martial arts, and I'm generally in favor of children studying them, as well - but this is just insane. Children that age's bones haven't finished developing yet; injuries can lead to lifelong problems. It's the same reason kids under 16 shouldn't train on a heavy bag - permanent damage to the wrists and elbows is a possibility.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
GodDAMN, I'm about to sound like a right-wing, red-blooded 'Murican right about now. Wooohooo, bring on da gunz!

But if you're handwringing over Scouts learning target practice, you're out of your ever-loving minds.

It's not just that it's a controlled, safe environment. It's that the whole point of the exercise is control. From the moment you arrive at the gun range to the moment you walk away, every movement has to be regulated—and not just by the rangemasters, but by yourself. You move differently, your focus is more intense, you have to regulate your breathing, sync it with your movements, all coming down to an instant, with proof of your self-control thirty yards away.

It's also a chance to see guns used in a way that isn't glamorous—indeed, is kinda boring. Seriously, that description up there sounds halfway like yoga with a bang. Nobody gets killed. Nobody gets hurt. No beers are consumed, no highway signs get shot, no windows are broken, no yelling is allowed—heck, you don't even get the deer camp experience of your uncle telling off-color jokes. If there's anything that deglamorizes gun use and glorification, it might just be getting to use guns. You're taking away the mystery, replacing it with a series of repetitive motions and breathing exercises.

Really, the only people who are going to be attracted to that vision of gun ownership are slightly pudgy, awkward, uncoordinated suburban kids who hate team sports, love being outside, and may have found one of the few sportish things they're good at.

I haven't had the chance to shoot a rifle in many years, but I'd be interested to see if I've still got it.

It's like so many other things—the tool will be used as its owner intends it to be used. For some, it's a test of skill on a range. For others, a tool for harvesting game or protecting livestock. It can be a weapon in the hand of a self-proclaimed "sheepdog," a self-justifying vigilante without a shred of humility or self-doubt, or an emblem of rural roots, a connection to the land and a past fading into memory.

As should surprise nobody, I'm not a Second Amendment type—I have no wish to return to the gang wars of the '90's, and really, really wish the States weren't doing such a great job exporting guns to countries like Mexico that really don't need our own problems exported with them. Frankly, gun culture scares the bejesus out of me, especially in the stark terms in which it justifies a sort of "shoot first, think whether you should later" vigilanteism and moral irresponsibility. I really do think the world would be a better place with fewer guns in it, especially my neck of it. I really don't much care for the way we have become slaves of our tools, cowering before their power.

But, if you're a civilian, that's what guns are in the end—tools. Maybe sporting equipment, if you want to draw a distinction. When I look through a Remington catalog, it's a window on a way of life I'm connected to through my family and vaguely understand but never lived myself, a life where hunters and ranchers need these tools like I need my pedal wrench and shaping ribs.

That may be part of the cultural shift we've been talking about, but I'm afraid things are too far gone for that to happen. I'm pretty sure what I wrote above will be seen as gun nuttery here, but would be mealy-mouthed liberal indecisiveness leaving us open to violence to others.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

* The whole idea that shooting a gun might be a recreational activity you want to introduce kids to just doesn't compute here. Maybe it does in some rural areas, but I suspect the vast majority of people who ever get into shooting as a sport here are people who initially learnt about guns because they were on farms where guns were practical tools first.
That's the part that doesn't compute for me either. It's not so much why not as why?

It reminds me of all the mothers of 4 year-old beauty pageant queens. They say it helps build confidence in the child and gives the mothers and little girls a shared activity, just like all the men in West Virginia who can't wait to take their little boy hunting for the first time. Aren't there better things to do together?

Here's some things my parents did with my brothers and me: Made gigantic kites and flew them, went camping, pitched tenets built fires, grew apple trees, made applesauce, built a roller coaster down the hill in the back yard with tracks and carts on roller skates, built soap box derby cars, made clothes, took dance lessons, took piano lessons, learned to paint, played basketball, played baseball, made puppets, put on a play.

So many ways to learn hand-eye co-ordination, spend bonding time together and have fun without ever learning how to use a weapon made for killing things.
It may not compute THERE, but this country still has a lot of open space suitable for hunting, often close by--and a number of dangerous animals (e.g. bears, mountain lions) which you want to keep in the back of your mind when you're planning that hike / camping / hunting trip way out in the boonies. So it's a bit different here. And in neither case (hunting / protection) is the gun intended for "having fun". It's a working tool, and subject to a shitload of precautions just as any dangerous tool is.

As for bonding activities--

I'm talking about families where the parents go hunting as a matter of course to feed the family (also fishing etc.) whether there are children or not. Naturally the children take part in the family activities once they are old enough and properly trained. This isn't something cooked up to serve as a bonding exercise, it's just a normal part of the work of the year--plant the garden in spring, pick peaches etc. in summer, do canning at harvest, go hunting in fall, etc. Forbidding a teenager to have anything to do with hunting is in this sense more like forbidding them to go grocery shopping than like forbidding them to be in a beauty contest. Yes, they may find it pleasurable, but the point is practical and not just "let's find a recreational activity to do together."

And the Scouts we've been talking about are a minimum of 12 years old, not four-year-olds or whatever.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:

It's also a chance to see guns used in a way that isn't glamorous—indeed, is kinda boring. Seriously, that description up there sounds halfway like yoga with a bang. Nobody gets killed. Nobody gets hurt. No beers are consumed, no highway signs get shot, no windows are broken, no yelling is allowed—heck, you don't even get the deer camp experience of your uncle telling off-color jokes. If there's anything that deglamorizes gun use and glorification, it might just be getting to use guns. You're taking away the mystery, replacing it with a series of repetitive motions and breathing exercises.

Really, the only people who are going to be attracted to that vision of gun ownership are slightly pudgy, awkward, uncoordinated suburban kids who hate team sports, love being outside, and may have found one of the few sportish things they're good at.

YES! Yes! Yes!

The whole boredom thing is why I am always glad when the Scouts decide to do something else, almost anything else, when we're at camp. Watching mud dry, for instance.

And re your last paragraph--this is why I loved archery growing up.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Really, the only people who are going to be attracted to that vision of gun ownership are slightly pudgy, awkward, uncoordinated suburban kids who hate team sports, love being outside, and may have found one of the few sportish things they're good at.
That sounds like me - although I tend to prefer inside to out!

About 15 years ago our family went on a holiday in Scotland which offered some fun, not-too-serious activities in the "package" such as a bit of dinghy sailing with the owner, a couple of gentle horse rides, and some clay-pigeon shooting.

My wife laughed herself silly at my riding but, rather to my surprise, I was quite good at the clay-pigeon shooting. But, after 4 sessions of 20 shots (spread over 2 weeks), I found it rather dull and I've never wanted to do it again.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Where I come from (WV/Ohio) It definitely is something cooked up for fun in about 90% of cases. Sure they may send that deer someplace to be turned into sausage to then be put in the freezer after one meal and left until it's thrown away next year. Mainly it's a macho coming of age tradition where father takes out son to do what his father took him out to do at the same age, and the kid gets the thrill of shooting the gun and takes that step beyond instinct where he pulls the trigger and knows what it feels like to kill something. He probably goes home proud and ashamed in equal confusing measure.

I just don't buy that shooting the gun in scouts teaches them how boring it is or makes for greater safety down the road. The safest way to handle a gun is to not have one. How many teens who are thinking about killing themselves or their classmates are going to think of using a gun if they don't know how to shoot one and there isn't one in the house? Some will still manage to get them and learn how to fire them, but I think it's probably less than the ones who learned all about it somewhere with that oh so fun -- no wait, boring -- target shooting.

I don't know how many families in America use hunting as their main source of family food. I expect, outside of Alaska, it's probably a very small number. We have to ask ourselves if their protein supplement and the gun sportsman's fun is worth 33,000 lives in America every year.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just don't buy that shooting the gun in scouts teaches them how boring it is or makes for greater safety down the road. The safest way to handle a gun is to not have one.
Unless what you're envisioning here is wholesale banning and confiscation, that dog doesn't hunt (sorry, couldn't resist).

What happens when said 12 year old is at a schoolmate's house, and finds a gun unsecured? (The person who left it so needs attention, but that's beside the point I'm making here.) If said 12 year old has learned a thing or two about them on the Boy Scout rifle range, the chances are pretty good he's not going to pick it up, wave it around, and accidentally shoot someone - he (or she) knows what it is and what it does, and can treat it with the caution and respect necessary.

If, on the other hand, the only exposure to firearms said 12 year old has had is video games and TV, there's a lot more cause for concern, to my mind - s/he has no real concept of what it does, and that this isn't just for play.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was a Boy Scout and at 10 we were firing .22 rifles at summer camp. We had strict rules, we always fired prone and on command, we were under constant supervision, and nobody ever got hurt.
Yes, exactly this. This is safe - it's as close to 100% safe as is achievable, or basically any activity. It is safer than many of the activities that we do every day without thinking about it, such as walking across a car park.

(I did much the same thing as a child in the UK, under similar conditions. I was a reasonable shot, but not fantastic. I haven't fired a gun since, but it's not impossible that I might choose to at some point.)
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Upthread there was reference to doing activities in the "boonies" and dangerous animals. IT's the wrong way of thinking. Having spent months at a time in areas which have plenty of "dangerous animals", and no people, we have never ever taken guns. Completely unnecessary, and an approach to the bush that is opposite to ours. Only two animals intimidate and require us to go away: grizzly bears and moose. It is their territory, and we move along. Others, like black bears, cougars and wolves, proper care of cooking and campsite will mean no issues. These are areas where few people travel, there are no facilities at all, and no organized campsites. If idiots (we call them that as a label when we come across what they did) have been careless in an area, the drill is to clean it up, and not to camp there.

I have owned guns, I have fired guns. Long guns, shotguns, pistols, revolovers. The long guns are only useful for hunting, but I gave that up nearly 30 years ago. The handguns are useless for hunting. I used to shoot about 3 or 4 bullets per year per gun I was using. A couple at a range, a couple at a deer, moose or elk. I regret the gratuitous shooting of skunks, porcupines, gophers, magpies, crows, coyotes, foxes, rabbits we did when we were young. We shot at anything you didn't need a license to shoot. This is unfortunately an ongoing pattern and the opposite to what we adopted. Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
I don't think anyone has said that it did. The only thing that the two have in common is the fact that both activities involve both one or more guns, and one or more people.

There do seem to be some people arguing that because it's not safe for kids to wander around school with handguns, it must also be not safe for them to shoot .22s on the range, which I think is false.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
I don't think anyone has said that it did. The only thing that the two have in common is the fact that both activities involve both one or more guns, and one or more people.

There do seem to be some people arguing that because it's not safe for kids to wander around school with handguns, it must also be not safe for them to shoot .22s on the range, which I think is false.
Which is entirely beside the point isn't it? The kids shooting single shot 22s at Scout camp is barely peripherally relevant. Yet you're posting about it in a thread that is about how guns cannot be controlled in the USA because idiots do walk around with guns there. Something to do with idolatry regarding the constitution you have apparently, which is accepted as tightly as flat-earthing biblical fundamentalists do the bible - nothing can be changed in the received text as if it is God's word, notwithstanding that "amendment" would indicate change. Could you folks have a constitutional conference or something?
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Upthread there was reference to doing activities in the "boonies" and dangerous animals. IT's the wrong way of thinking. Having spent months at a time in areas which have plenty of "dangerous animals", and no people, we have never ever taken guns. Completely unnecessary, and an approach to the bush that is opposite to ours. Only two animals intimidate and require us to go away: grizzly bears and moose. It is their territory, and we move along. Others, like black bears, cougars and wolves, proper care of cooking and campsite will mean no issues. These are areas where few people travel, there are no facilities at all, and no organized campsites. If idiots (we call them that as a label when we come across what they did) have been careless in an area, the drill is to clean it up, and not to camp there.
And when you live in an area where the coyote the government introduced to control the deer population and bear sometimes come up to the house in order to steal the chickens? What then?

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Which is entirely beside the point isn't it? The kids shooting single shot 22s at Scout camp is barely peripherally relevant. Yet you're posting about it in a thread that is about how guns cannot be controlled in the USA because idiots do walk around with guns there. Something to do with idolatry regarding the constitution you have apparently, which is accepted as tightly as flat-earthing biblical fundamentalists do the bible - nothing can be changed in the received text as if it is God's word, notwithstanding that "amendment" would indicate change. Could you folks have a constitutional conference or something?
No, we're not likely to have a constitutional conference.

Part of the argument against additional gun control laws is the question of how effective they would be given the number of guns already on the ground. They might very well help in the long term.

In the short term, however, I actually think it might help to de-glamourize guns to the people who have only ever seen them on screens, and teach those people proper gun safety. In which case, people's experience in Boy Scouts is relevant.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And when you live in an area where the coyote the government introduced to control the deer population and bear sometimes come up to the house in order to steal the chickens? What then?
What government where introduced coyotes? Never have heard of gov't introducing coyotes anywhere. They have re-introduced wolves that were exterminated from their normal territories in a number of places. But not introduced, restored. Its incumbent on the humans to adapt and safeguard.

In terms of bears coming up to the house, for starters, the chickens shouldn't be in your house, nor in a building attached to your house. Second, if it's the bears' territory, you have to adapt your construction to be properly secure against them, or you will shoot the first bear, and another will come along to take it's place. FWIW, we have a second home in a wildlife active area: coyotes, bears, moose, deer, wolves, squirrels, raccoons. Someone shot a bear in the townsite last year, if I heard right, they seized his gun and truck as well as fined him $2K and banned him from hunting and using a gun for some period of years, and they will auction his truck and gun off. Which sounds about right. We normally trap them. If the environment ministry wants to destroy an animal, that's their job, not our's, outside of hunting season.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If the environment ministry wants to destroy an animal, that's their job, not our's, outside of hunting season.
[Killing me] And that just shows how different how different both our cultures and our governments are. Here state's have sometimes had coyote bounties, where they pay people to kill coyote (though not often because the money has to come from somewhere and it runs out quickly).

You can say the US should just be Canada as many times as you like, that doesn't make it a realistic possibility.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
[Killing me] And that just shows how different how different both our cultures and our governments are. Here state's have sometimes had coyote bounties, where they pay people to kill coyote (though not often because the money has to come from somewhere and it runs out quickly).

You can say the US should just be Canada as many times as you like, that doesn't make it a realistic possibility.
I never said USA should be like Canada.

We do make lots of money from camo-clad Merkin hunters who arrive at airports all suited up. Can spot them a mile away.

We had bounties on various animals until the 1960s for gophers and 70s for coyotes. We learned some things about ecology, natural cycles and continue to learn from the original peoples. The natural world is something we are part of not something we exterminate.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The natural world is something we are part of not something we exterminate.
[Overused]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...

We had bounties on various animals until the 1960s for gophers and 70s for coyotes. We learned some things about ecology, natural cycles and continue to learn from the original peoples. The natural world is something we are part of not something we exterminate.
Canada has coyote bounties as well as coyote killing contests.

Seems like extermination to me, but I'm sure it's all about ecology, natural cycles, and learning from original peoples. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just don't buy that shooting the gun in scouts teaches them how boring it is or makes for greater safety down the road. The safest way to handle a gun is to not have one.
Unless what you're envisioning here is wholesale banning and confiscation, that dog doesn't hunt (sorry, couldn't resist).

What happens when said 12 year old is at a schoolmate's house, and finds a gun unsecured? (The person who left it so needs attention, but that's beside the point I'm making here.)
Ah. So kids have to learn about guns because even if they don't have one, other people will have one?

I don't think you realise this just illustrates a nutty culture rather than nutty individuals, which is what a couple of us have been saying. The very fact that guns are normalized is why these issues even arise.

You're rather reminding me of a friend who wanted a four-wheel-drive, because being higher up and in a sturdier car made her feel safer on the road with all the 4WDs. So you end up with more and more people in the city driving 4WDs for no reason other than a bunch of people in the city initially bought 4WDs.

Twilight's observation still stands: the safest way to handle a gun is not have one. The safest way for a society to deal with guns is not have many of them around. The best way to deal with the effects of pollution is not to pollute in the first place.

You can argue for all the effective band-aids you like, but they're all fundamentally going to be based on the premise that cutting yourself is a desirable first step.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was a Boy Scout and at 10 we were firing .22 rifles at summer camp. We had strict rules, we always fired prone and on command, we were under constant supervision, and nobody ever got hurt.
Yes, exactly this. This is safe - it's as close to 100% safe as is achievable, or basically any activity. It is safer than many of the activities that we do every day without thinking about it, such as walking across a car park.

(I did much the same thing as a child in the UK, under similar conditions. I was a reasonable shot, but not fantastic. I haven't fired a gun since, but it's not impossible that I might choose to at some point.)
My Scout troop was 100% safe from guns. By not having any.

I'm also 100% safe from being injured by being chased by bulls in Pamplona. So far I have a 100% success rate of not getting a woman pregnant and I'm fairly confident of maintaining that record. My record is also remarkably good at not getting hurt or killed from jumping off clifftops, sticking knives in toasters, and tossing hairdryers in baths.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Target shooting, like archery, is a sport that some people find enjoyable. Why teach a child to play football safely, or to fence safely, or ...
I don't hear of children accidentally killing anyone with a football, or swords, or arrows. I haven't heard of anyone killing anyone with any of these things, let alone children killing children.
I have. My father is the person who tends to get called in as an expert when an archery death happens. Three in the last decade in Victoria, to my knowledge - one of those a child accidentally shooting his next door neighbour.

They're not common, but they happen.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
In a school athletics lesson I had this misfortune to be involved in an accident involving a shot put. Big heavy lump of metal impacting a head is not good (fortunately a large bump, trip to hospital for check out and an all clear). Accidents happen, but we learn from them. In this case the lessons were 1) don't let me try the shot put again, and 2) in future lessons move the class an extra couple of steps back from the person actually trying to throw this heavy lump of metal in one direction in case it manages to go backwards.

The biggest frustration about guns in the US seems to be that there isn't a culture that follows every incident with an inquiry that seeks to learn from the incident to reduce the chances of it, or something similar, happening again. To err is human. To willfully refuse to learn from our mistakes is idiocy, and when those lessons could help save others verging on evil.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The biggest frustration about guns in the US seems to be that there isn't a culture that follows every incident with an inquiry that seeks to learn from the incident to reduce the chances of it, or something similar, happening again. To err is human. To willfully refuse to learn from our mistakes is idiocy, and when those lessons could help save others verging on evil.
Ah, but they already know the answer, Alan. Keep the guns away from the bad and crazy people, and keep them in the hands of the good people!

See? No inquiry needed!

Now, if we can just stop the baddies from removing their black hats all the time and blending in with the crowd...
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...

We had bounties on various animals until the 1960s for gophers and 70s for coyotes. We learned some things about ecology, natural cycles and continue to learn from the original peoples. The natural world is something we are part of not something we exterminate.
Canada has coyote bounties as well as coyote killing contests.

Seems like extermination to me, but I'm sure it's all about ecology, natural cycles, and learning from original peoples. [Roll Eyes]
There's often aberrations like you post about in NS and AB in a large country like Canada, particularly with 10 provinces and 3 territories which regulate resources themselves constitutionally. There's a controversy about BC wanting to kill bears from helicopters too, which is more recent than your links.

The point is that the culture does not sway in that direction, even with the aberrations.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah. So kids have to learn about guns because even if they don't have one, other people will have one?
WTF? Scouts CAN choose to learn about guns, but no one is required to. Most choose not to. Is this so hard to understand?

[ 09. October 2015, 03:14: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
Not the reason it was brought up. It was brought up to counter the "OH MY GOD YOU MEAN YOU LET CHILDREN FIRE GUNS HOW COULD YOU BE SUCH AN IDIOT YOU MORON BEAST ANTISOCIAL IDIOT?!!?!?!" phenomenon that infested this thread on the previous page.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My Scout troop was 100% safe from guns. By not having any.

I'm also 100% safe from being injured by being chased by bulls in Pamplona. So far I have a 100% success rate of not getting a woman pregnant and I'm fairly confident of maintaining that record. My record is also remarkably good at not getting hurt or killed from jumping off clifftops, sticking knives in toasters, and tossing hairdryers in baths.
You are the poster boy for irrelevant.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My record is also remarkably good at not getting hurt or killed from jumping off clifftops, sticking knives in toasters, and tossing hairdryers in baths.
Which, now that you mention it, all seem like behaviors that should be strictly regulated by government. Along with riding in/driving automobiles and swimming in water more than three inches deep.

Deadly business those cars and swimming pools...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My record is also remarkably good at not getting hurt or killed from jumping off clifftops, sticking knives in toasters, and tossing hairdryers in baths.
Which, now that you mention it, all seem like behaviors that should be strictly regulated by government. Along with riding in/driving automobiles and swimming in water more than three inches deep.

Deadly business those cars and swimming pools...
Ahahaha.

I do so love when people start trying to tell me things like this about the proper scope of laws. Seeing as how I work with laws every day.

I continue to be amazed and amused at how people keep trying to compare guns with other devices that don't actually have the explicit purpose of causing harm, as if there's an equivalence.

There really isn't. Although cars and swimming pools ARE regulated, so there's that hole in whatever argument you think you're trying to make.

If you want to discuss whether your posting on the internet ought to be more regulated in an attempt to save you from doing profound self-harm to your reputation, I'm all ears.

[ 09. October 2015, 04:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Deadly business those cars and swimming pools...
You say that like cars and swimming pools aren't already massively better-regulated than devices specifically designed to kill humans. I applaud your idea to introduce training-linked licenses and strict enforcement of operation, along with insurance and continuous safety improvements. Or even you're idea to have lifeguards on duty at all times seems better than what we have now. Good on you, and your progressive brainstorming.

Idiot.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My record is also remarkably good at not getting hurt or killed from jumping off clifftops, sticking knives in toasters, and tossing hairdryers in baths.
Which, now that you mention it, all seem like behaviors that should be strictly regulated by government. Along with riding in/driving automobiles and swimming in water more than three inches deep.

Deadly business those cars and swimming pools...
Beds too. Tens of thousands die in them every day I'll bet.

Does your ignorance and glibness really know no bounds? I'd put a safety catch on your keyboard for now as it's making you look an ass.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
Comparing guns to cars
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah. So kids have to learn about guns because even if they don't have one, other people will have one?
Well, yes. Unless, of course, we're talking confiscation here, as I stipulated above. The number of firearms owned by individuals in the US means the chances are pretty darned good that little Joey has at least one friend whose parents have one.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think you realise this just illustrates a nutty culture rather than nutty individuals, which is what a couple of us have been saying.
This from a man from the land of Dame Edna, the Wiggles, and Foster's "lager". [Razz] (I'll grant you Dame Edna is fairly benign, but the other two are deadly menaces.)

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The very fact that guns are normalized is why these issues even arise.
You do realize you could substitute virtually any controversial thing (or group of persons) into that sentence, and the argument would hold just about as much water, no?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're rather reminding me of a friend who wanted a four-wheel-drive, because being higher up and in a sturdier car made her feel safer on the road with all the 4WDs. So you end up with more and more people in the city driving 4WDs for no reason other than a bunch of people in the city initially bought 4WDs.
Which is a silly reason, I suppose. I drive mine because winters here suck, and the snow can get deep. (And the road plowing leaves quite a bit to be desired, when it gets done.)

To some degree, I see her point, though - if you are driving on a street full of large vehicles, and are concerned you might end up in a collision with one of them, suddenly a Smart Car doesn't seem so, um, smart.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Twilight's observation still stands: the safest way to handle a gun is not have one. The safest way for a society to deal with guns is not have many of them around. The best way to deal with the effects of pollution is not to pollute in the first place.
And the bestest way to ensure everyone has tea and cakes is to give them some at teatime. I admire your idealism, Orfeo, I do. The reality is that this ship has *long* sailed off into the sunset. What we need now are concrete, practical ways forward, not pie-in-the-sky ideals of how the world ought to be.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You can argue for all the effective band-aids you like, but they're all fundamentally going to be based on the premise that cutting yourself is a desirable first step.
Analogy fail.

You may see civilian ownership of firearms as "cutting yourself". Everyone's entitled to an opinion. I may disagree.

Responsible firearm ownership is possible. I've owned a few. No one's been injured by them. My friends and relatives have owned a crap-ton. No one injured there either.[1] So it's obviously possible. The question is how to make it more universal - maybe that's laws on storage, maybe it's mandatory safety classes and background checks, maybe it's something else we haven't though of yet. I'm all ears. But simply repeating "guns bad" ad nauseam isn't a solution. It isn't even useful. It just lowers the signal-to-noise ratio for those trying to find real solutions.

I've got no solutions, either - don't take this as me preaching at anyone. I'm not. I'm just looking for an answer like the rest of us.


[1] Obviously, anecdata. But it makes the point that one can indeed own firearms without them killing anyone.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
Not the reason it was brought up. It was brought up to counter the "OH MY GOD YOU MEAN YOU LET CHILDREN FIRE GUNS HOW COULD YOU BE SUCH AN IDIOT YOU MORON BEAST ANTISOCIAL IDIOT?!!?!?!" phenomenon that infested this thread on the previous page.[qb]
So you make the point. People who do let or teach children to fire guns, drive cars, do mixed martial arts cage fighting, mix drinks, view porn, etc., are introducing children to things with pitfalls and potential dangers. It is certainly possible for children to learn to mix drinks and not drink themselves. It's not about being a moron or antisocial, it's about the consequences and contingencies of certain behaviour and learning. But because the culture is so gun and of violence perhaps it is best to have children know how to shoot. I believe the gun lobby NRA suggested that children should carry guns to school which they thought would prevent things like the Sandy Hook massacre. Bullet proof clothing might also be a good idea at schools. We've understood some American teachers keep peace in the classroom with guns.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Here in gun happy Arizona, there's been another campus shooting.
[Votive]
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Bullet proof clothing might also be a good idea at schools. We've understood some American teachers keep peace in the classroom with guns.
Then those teachers should be sacked. If you can't control a classroom except by the threat of extreme - deadly - violence then you have no business being in charge of one.

Every teacher and every parent ought to know that if you make a threat (or specify a consequence) then you have to be prepared to go through with it, or it soon becomes hollow and worthless. So do these teachers blow away little Lisa for not stopping chatting to her friends, or double tap little Jimmy for chewing gum?
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Bullet proof clothing might also be a good idea at schools. We've understood some American teachers keep peace in the classroom with guns.
Citation, please? This sounds like someone's scare-mongering, or a headline from the Onion (satirical newspaper).
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I know some NRA tool suggested high school teachers should be permitted to have a firearm in class, and I know the Onion savaged this idea by declaring that the NRA suggested teachers should spend the entire day pointing a gun at the class. I want to say, who would be crazy enough to follow the NRA suggestions, but the phrase " Texas open carry activsts" springs to mind.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
An especially blatant and delicious hypocrisy is the NRA's annual convention, which this year is to be held in Nashville TN -- a notably gun-friendly state. They have announced that no one is allowed to carry guns into the convention. "Safety considerations"!
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Heh. I bet the venue managers said," We'll be watching you assholes..."
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah, but they already know the answer, Alan. Keep the guns away from the bad and crazy people, and keep them in the hands of the good people!

See? No inquiry needed!

Now, if we can just stop the baddies from removing their black hats all the time and blending in with the crowd...
Oh, but they don't need hats to tell the good guys from the bad guys, they've already figured it out! The bad guys are the mentally ill!

Now all they need is all the hospitals and doctors to violate patient client privilege and report your medical history to your gossipy neighbor who sells guns at the flea market, then they won't sell guns to people with mental illness and there won't be anymore gun violence! Easy!

Never mind that taking away the right to privacy regarding your own medical issues is a far bigger loss than the right to bear arms.

Never mind that most people who kill with guns are not mentally ill at all.

Never mind that a large portion of people who are involuntarily committed to mental hospitals are anorexic girls too weak to pick up an automatic weapon.

Never mind that many of those who do have serious mental illnesses that might result in impaired thinking haven't been diagnosed so wouldn't be in the data base, while those who are seeing a doctor are probably taking medications that actually make them less likely to be violent than the non-mentally ill.

Never mind that one of the biggest problems with getting help for people with schizophrenia is that they fear, by going to the hospital, they will somehow come under the control of the government. These "gun control," laws would make that previously paranoid fear -- true.

These laws would actually result in fewer ill people seeking treatment and possibly more shootings by mentally ill people.

The political right and the NRA loves to deflect attention from their great big problem by suggesting this bad guy database as a solution.

The left jumps on this idea as a starting point to gun control. It's not gun control at all it's people control. It's a way to further marginalize and stigmatize the mentally ill while doing nothing about the real problem.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
Here is a map showing open carry by each state as of August 2014. All states now have concealed carry, it appears.

Our secretary just recently obtained her concealed carry permit. Her certificate states

"In delivering this course, I attest that I have complied with the requirements of 12 NCAC 09F .0105 for Concealed Carry Handgun Training and that the student named above has received at least eight hours of classroom instruction, with at least two hours on North Carolina law on concealed handguns, handgun safety and use of deadly force, and that the student has passed a written examination. I also attest that the student named has taken a proficiency examination in which the student has fired at least 30 rounds of ammunition at a target with at least 10 rounds fired from the 3 yard line, 10 rounds from the 5 yard line, and 10 rounds from the 7 yard line, and at least 21 of the 30 rounds fired hit the target. I further attest that the student named is competent with a handgun and knowledgeable in the laws governing the carrying of a concealed handgun and use of deadly force."

As I understand it, if you are going to carry in this state it has to be out in the open unless you have a permit to conceal it.

I doubt I will ever decide to spend 8 hours in a classroom and jump through assorted other hoops just to be able to lug around a concealed pistol. I'll probably just stick to a bullpup shotgun for home and for going up to the family mountain.

[ 09. October 2015, 13:53: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Bullet proof clothing might also be a good idea at schools. We've understood some American teachers keep peace in the classroom with guns.
Rhetoric like this is why those of us who acknowledge there's a problem and are trying to do something about it have so much trouble getting shit done.

Yes, we need to take steps to change gun culture in the US.

We also need to completely reverse certain educational trends, as gun culture is only one part of our increasingly toxic culture. But no one has suggested bullet-proof clothing, and schools are generally gun free zones.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
3 yard line, 5 yard line, 7 yard line
How small is the target? That seems ridiculously close.

Also isn't it rather badly worded, giving the capability for more than 30 shots (which kind of makes sense, practice is good), but then drifting into exactly 30 shots by the pass mark (which again makes sense, else you could keep going till you get the hits, and even with percentages you could get someone borderline over the edge). It needs something to split the two bits up.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
originally posted by Mere Nick:
3 yard line, 5 yard line, 7 yard line
How small is the target? That seems ridiculously close.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, it does, on one hand. On the other hand, it might be tough to explain why you just had to shoot someone 20 feet away. 3 yards, though? That's almost close enough to just pistol whip someone. I have no idea about the target size.


quote:
Also isn't it rather badly worded, giving the capability for more than 30 shots (which kind of makes sense, practice is good), but then drifting into exactly 30 shots by the pass mark (which again makes sense, else you could keep going till you get the hits, and even with percentages you could get someone borderline over the edge). It needs something to split the two bits up.
Yes, it seems if it should say you fired ten shots at each of the three test distances and that you hit the target at least seven of those ten shots at each distance.

I get the impression from looking at websites for CCW instruction that class size is only about one to four folks. It would make sense that an instructor would want it limited given what is being taught. Someone couldn't sit in the back and nod off. Maybe it's a rule, I don't know.

[ 09. October 2015, 19:01: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
no one has suggested bullet-proof clothing, and schools are generally gun free zones.
Someone, several someones have suggested. I won't comment about schools being gun free zones.

The Need for Bulletproof vests in Schools

Bullet proof backpacks for kids

Huff Post: With School Shootings Routine, Parents Turn To Bulletproof Backpacks, Child Clothing
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
I stand corrected.

I missed out on that particular flavor of crazy fear-mongering (which, again, makes it more difficult to get anything productive done).

How many shooting on campuses are we up to today?
 
Posted by Josiah Crawley (# 18481) on :
 
Another shooting at a US University [Frown]


ABC reports here
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Still fewer shootings and killings than there were in Baltimore last weekend.

Sigh.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Our secretary just recently obtained her concealed carry permit. Her certificate states

"In delivering this course, I attest that I have complied with the requirements of 12 NCAC 09F .0105 for Concealed Carry Handgun Training and that the student named above has received at least eight hours of classroom instruction, with at least two hours on North Carolina law on concealed handguns, handgun safety and use of deadly force, and that the student has passed a written examination. I also attest that the student named has taken a proficiency examination in which the student has fired at least 30 rounds of ammunition at a target with at least 10 rounds fired from the 3 yard line, 10 rounds from the 5 yard line, and 10 rounds from the 7 yard line, and at least 21 of the 30 rounds fired hit the target. I further attest that the student named is competent with a handgun and knowledgeable in the laws governing the carrying of a concealed handgun and use of deadly force."
So, according to that "competent with a handgun" is a demonstrated ability, at relatively close range in a controlled situation, to hit an unspecified target 70% of the time. If that target was the size of a dime it would be impressive. If it's the human torso targets you see on all the TV cop shows that doesn't seem all that great.

If the aim of concealed carry is to give you a gun for self-defence, then with the added adrenaline and emotions of being in a situation where drawing a gun may be appropriate reducing that accuracy rate that would mean at least 30% of any bullets you fire (probably a good deal more) would hit something (or someone) other than your assailant. And, that assumes you keep up the training to let off a few rounds at the range regularly so that your accuracy on getting the certificate doesn't fall off.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, according to that "competent with a handgun" is a demonstrated ability, at relatively close range in a controlled situation, to hit an unspecified target 70% of the time. If that target was the size of a dime it would be impressive. If it's the human torso targets you see on all the TV cop shows that doesn't seem all that great.
I don't know what the target was. I suspect it would probably be an outline of a torso and head. I'll ask my secretary. I'd expect she'd have no problem, knowing that her dad taught her when she was young and she and her husband like to go to ranges.

quote:
If the aim of concealed carry is to give you a gun for self-defence
It isn't, as far as I can tell. Keep in mind that this is a concealed weapon permit. You don't need a permit to openly carry. It's a permit to hide a pistol you are carrying.

quote:
then with the added adrenaline and emotions of being in a situation where drawing a gun may be appropriate reducing that accuracy rate that would mean at least 30% of any bullets you fire (probably a good deal more) would hit something (or someone) other than your assailant. And, that assumes you keep up the training to let off a few rounds at the range regularly so that your accuracy on getting the certificate doesn't fall off.
Yeah, pretty much. Keep in mind the short distances you are tested on. I believe you'd have a very hard time justifying shooting someone beyond those distances unless there was additional information available, such as the assailant having a gun or some other reason that you would be at risk of serious harm even at such a distance.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The reality is that this ship has *long* sailed off into the sunset.
The reality is that other countries and other cultures have shown it is perfectly possible. The reality is that all of the statistics of the USA in regards to gun ownership and gun deaths are off the chart compared to the rest of the "First World".

The reality is that your country is completely fucked up on this particular issue and yet continues to insist, in the American exceptionalist way, that it's in a perfectly normal situation.

Seriously, when I see people confronting Obama with signs about how gun control is wrong and how gun free zones are kill zones, I wonder just how insular these people must be to not be aware that their wonderful arm-bearing society is the most colossally murderous country in the developed world.

Seriously? Gun free zones are kill zones? These people are trying to tell me that because the odds of me ever seeing a gun in this city are miniscule, I walk the streets in fear? Do they believe that Canberra's crime rates are worse than a comparably-sized US city?

In short, are they batshit insane?

If you're telling me that, after a couple of generations of NRA power, the USA is simply incapable of righting the ship and becoming a society that treats guns in a rational manner, then I feel incredibly sorry for you all.

[ 10. October 2015, 04:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
By the way, I did a quick bit of googling just to see what data I could find.

St Louis is about the same size as Canberra. Because of the way cities are defined in the US, this is only the city proper and not the metropolitan area.

Homicide rate in St Louis in 2014: 49.93 per 100,000. That appears to equate to just over 150 murders for the year.

I don't have the data for the last couple of years here, but before that our worst ever year was 7.

Yeah, the lack of guns puts me in serous danger. [Roll Eyes]


National figures are 4.7 per 100,000 in the United States in 2012, versus 1.1 per 100,000 in Australia in the same year.

But yeah, there are actually a few more guns in some other bits of Australia. A rational, sane person might notice that this seems to increase the rate a bit, not decrease it.

It seems to me that if you want to find the mentally ill people in America and keep the guns away from them, one need look no further than those gun-owners who believe gun control is bad and makes people less safe.

[ 10. October 2015, 04:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Responsible firearm ownership is possible. I've owned a few. No one's been injured by them. My friends and relatives have owned a crap-ton. No one injured there either.[1]
[1] Obviously, anecdata. But it makes the point that one can indeed own firearms without them killing anyone.
I thought hard about whether to come back to this. But I'm going to.

Your friends and relatives. Well, that's handy, because you can decide who to label as "friends".

How about people you know? How about your community?

How about this community.

Because while it's a bit painful to bring it up, I think it's important to bring it up. A Shipmate got hold of a gun and 4 people ended up dead.

Did anyone think she'd do that? Did everyone come out afterwards and say "well, yeah, she was one of those people we want to keep guns away from"?

I'm not arguing that it's impossible to own a gun without killing anyone. I'm arguing that the proliferation of guns increases the chances of it going wrong. I'm arguing that you completely fucking fail at risk analysis.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Just popping in briefly to say that jlg injured 3 people, but only killed herself.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
We also had Geneieve (sp) who was shot and killed [Tear]

Huia
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Thanks, Huia. Link to Geneviève's thread here.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Yes, thanks, Huia. I remembered that, but not her name. IIRC, was shot by a mentally-ill homeless person, off meds or something?

[Votive] for everyone, everywhere, on either end of a gun, and their loved ones.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Just popping in briefly to say that jlg injured 3 people, but only killed herself.
Apologies for the mistake.

That thread is apt, in that at the bottom of the page Comet says "WE ARE ALL CAPABLE". And that's pretty much the point I'm making.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:


If you're telling me that, after a couple of generations of NRA power, the USA is simply incapable of righting the ship and becoming a society that treats guns in a rational manner, then I feel incredibly sorry for you all.
Do you mean that?

Because we-- we being the American members of that community you mentioned upthread-- are in pretty deep shit.

Specifically, according to local news there was a big spike in gun sales nationally-- in response to Obama's call for gun control. Repeat: Obama simply mentioned the need for better gun registration laws, and people nationwide retaliated by stocking up.

That is what keeps happening-- that is what to open carry in shopping malls was about. "If you even discuss the matter, we will load up."
Jbohn's self soothing about "nobody he knows" getting hurt is pretty dim and complacent, but it's not like all the gun nuts are gonna find each other to kill off, either. We're all stuck in the middle of it.

It feels like civil war is looming in our backyard. It is frightening.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Specifically, according to local news there was a big spike in gun sales nationally-- in response to Obama's call for gun control. Repeat: Obama simply mentioned the need for better gun registration laws, and people nationwide retaliated by stocking up.
Seriously? I know you know this, but that just doesn't make any sense at all.

Now, I can see how if someone has it in their head that they are capable of using a gun in defence of themselves and others (and, the number of things I've seen American friends posted on FB from professionals - soldiers who have seen action - that demolish that conjecture puts that fallacy in it's place) then there is some logic that more of them would seek the licenses to have a gun with them at all times. Simply in response to the media showing how many guns are flooding the country and the frequency with which they are used heightening the sense of danger. But, that wouldn't need many new guns to be bought I'd have thought - presumably people who think like that already have at least one (in their mind) suitable weapon to carry around with them.

But, to stock up on guns and ammunition because you think they're going to be taken away? Are they planning armed rebellion against their own democratically elected government? Do they think the few hours they manage to put in at the rifle range will give them the skills to take on the Marine Corps? Do they think their neighbours will thank them for turning their suburban neighbourhood into a war zone?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Allow me a moment of liberal paranoia-- I think They ( whoever the fuck they are) are trying to provoke a situation where the public is threatened to the point that the government HAS to step in, and then They are justified in starting an actual rebellion. A nationwide Waco.

Not exactly the kind of thought that gives you sweet dreams.

[ 10. October 2015, 08:23: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The NIGGAH'S try to take our guns away!
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Still fewer shootings and killings than there were in Baltimore last weekend.

Sigh.
Are we comparing a few too many with a lot too many?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Still fewer shootings and killings than there were in Baltimore last weekend.

Sigh.
Are we comparing a few too many with a lot too many?
Yes, it sounds like one tribe suggesting that the next tribe along is lacking fervour because they only sacrificed twenty children to Moloch.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Thanks, Huia. Link to Geneviève's thread here.
I seem to recall that the murderer was a homeless man who camped out in the woods near the church and regularly was given food boxes by the church. How the hell someone could obtain a gun when he had no money for food or lodging is beyond me.


[Votive] Geneviève
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Ben Carson, a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, blamed the Holocaust on Nazi gun control.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Ben Carson, a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, blamed the Holocaust on Nazi gun control.

[Roll Eyes]
Oh well, I suppose we can be grateful he's not denying it.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Still fewer shootings and killings than there were in Baltimore last weekend.

Sigh.
Are we comparing a few too many with a lot too many?
Yes, it sounds like one tribe suggesting that the next tribe along is lacking fervour because they only sacrificed twenty children to Moloch.
Yeah, I have no idea what the point of that comment was. Good analogy.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The reality is that this ship has *long* sailed off into the sunset.
The reality is that other countries and other cultures have shown it is perfectly possible.
IN THOSE CULTURES. Such studies cannot possibly prove that they can be generalized to the US.

quote:
Yeah, the lack of guns puts me in serous danger. [Roll Eyes]
I believe the argument concerns the relative lack of guns in gun-free-zones in a heavily-armed country. Which the US is, and Australia is not. Your comparison is meaningless.
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
Is the culture of the US so fundamentally different to the UK or Australia that changing attitudes and legislation around firearms is genuinely unthinkable?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Put it this way-- the first step is getting people to see it is not unthinkable.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Is the culture of the US so fundamentally different to the UK or Australia that changing attitudes and legislation around firearms is genuinely unthinkable?
It won't be easy. The USA came into being through an armed insurrection which overthrew the then government. Less than a century later it went through a colossal internal war that all-but split the country. A good deal of its territory had to be taken and maintained at gunpoint. It has, for most of its history, been at war.

I think it's fair to say that Americans have a different attitude to firearms than do Australians and the British. Whether that should lead to so many owning firearms of just about every class is another matter.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Still fewer shootings and killings than there were in Baltimore last weekend.

Sigh.
Are we comparing a few too many with a lot too many?
Yes, it sounds like one tribe suggesting that the next tribe along is lacking fervour because they only sacrificed twenty children to Moloch.
No, I'm just tired of the media's "white woman panic" (their tendency to only report on issues and see them as a problem when they start affecting white women).

And the sudden chorus of voices calling for the politicians to "Do something! Do something now!"

IME, most hastily written laws are bad laws with horrendous unintended consequences.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Why was it necessary for you to veil that quite valid point in secrecy?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Oh FFS. Our news (that's the news in the UK) has been, for months, been about black men, shot dead by your mainly white police force.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
It not just that, (ffs). It's that black and Latino people often wind up in the kind of glorified ghettos I have been describing, that they already have "da gunz" as Martin so charmingly put it, but since they are using them on each other, the media somehow neglects to report these in relation to the nation's gun control problem. When my nephew shot himself and his girlfriend, there was a one paragraph report you could only find buried in the appendix material of the local newspaper's online site, and by the time I found it the comments were already swamped with people exhaulting in the news that those " beaner bangers" were killing each other off.

Saysay is right about the disparity, but it doesn't really bolster her case that gun control is a useless venture.

That's another reason shootingtracker is a great idea-- it allows underreported stories to be reported.

[ 10. October 2015, 18:24: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Specifically, according to local news there was a big spike in gun sales nationally-- in response to Obama's call for gun control. Repeat: Obama simply mentioned the need for better gun registration laws, and people nationwide retaliated by stocking up.

That is what keeps happening-- that is what to open carry in shopping malls was about. "If you even discuss the matter, we will load up."
I realize that the Left is not a monolith. But there really are people on the far left who talk about confiscating guns or Australia and how something similar should be possible in the US. And then people in the moderate left insist that no one is talking about confiscating guns, we're just talking about reasonable gun control legislation, registration, etc. in a 'don't believe your lying ears' move. Which makes people nervous.

As I said earlier, the right does with gun control what the left does with abortion: they act like any restriction, no matter how sensible, is a step onto the slippery slope leading to an inevitable ban.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, to stock up on guns and ammunition because you think they're going to be taken away? Are they planning armed rebellion against their own democratically elected government?
Possibly. The president has admitted that he has given a lot of consideration to passing gun control through an executive order rather than through the legislative process. IME the kind of people who do this already feel like they are not represented in the democratic process. As far as I can tell, they want to make it clear that the people will not stand for much more expansion of executive power.

quote:
Do they think the few hours they manage to put in at the rifle range will give them the skills to take on the Marine Corps? Do they think their neighbours will thank them for turning their suburban neighbourhood into a war zone?
Again, IME, most of these people are rural, not suburban. And an awful lot of them are former military themselves, and they believe that many in the military would go AWOL rather than enforce an unlawful order to confiscate guns.

Granted, I also know one former army guy who is stockpiling weapons in preparation for the inevitable zombie apocalypse, which makes me feel real safe...
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh FFS. Our news (that's the news in the UK) has been, for months, been about black men, shot dead by your mainly white police force.
Those are two completely different issues. How many shootings not involving middle class white people (particularly women) have made the national or international news?

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Why was it necessary for you to veil that quite valid point in secrecy?
Sorry. Didn't realize I was veiling anything in secrecy.

Intellectually I know that people on the Ship aren't necessarily participating in the same conversations off the ship as I am, but I don't necessarily know which conversations they are participating in. Or what I need to say versus what will get me smacked for being condescending or mansplaining.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Saysay is right about the disparity, but it doesn't really bolster her case that gun control is a useless venture.
I'm fairly certain I haven't said that it's a useless venture. In fact, I'm fairly certain I said that putting certain sensible gun control restrictions in place now might have a positive long term effect but won't necessarily lead to any kind of immediate drop in these kinds of shootings because of the number of guns already on the ground. Which is why changing the culture not just the law is necessary.

Mostly I'm just objecting to people in other countries telling us to just do what they did, as if the US shared their exact same culture.

[ 10. October 2015, 18:41: Message edited by: saysay ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh, I see. You wanted to phrase it in such a way to imply the main problem was "white women", and not "16 year old Chicano boys getting their hands on a firearm."
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
.It won't be easy. The USA came into being through an armed insurrection which overthrew the then government. Less than a century later it went through a colossal internal war that all-but split the country. A good deal of its territory had to be taken and maintained at gunpoint. It has, for most of its history, been at war. ...
Don't forget slavery and the genocide of indigenous peoples. Guns made those possible too.
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

Mostly I'm just objecting to people in other countries telling us to just do what they did, as if the US shared their exact same culture. [/QB]
I don't think any non-US person is saying that the US should do exactly the same thing. But they are pointing out that the process is possible, and that these are some of the ways that worked for us (to a greater or lesser extent of working).

Far be it for me to make a suggestion, but in my view your objections would be better focused on the gun problem rather than how other people, offering constructive thoughts as well as sympathy, phrase things.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Mostly I'm just objecting to people in other countries telling us to just do what they did, as if the US shared their exact same culture.
Well, pretty certain if my culture contained things like sacrificing children to Moloch, you'd be pointing the finger and telling me to stop sacrificing children to Moloch.

Of course, I might be all "but sacrificing children to Moloch is part of my culture. You don't understand how important passing our first born into the flames is. If we didn't do it, we wouldn't be who we are."

But then I'd still be part of a reprehensible death cult and rightly shunned by anyone with an ounce of moral rectitude.

I don't care if you object to me saying "what the fuck is wrong with you people?" Because your gun culture is stupid and dangerous.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Oh, I see. You wanted to phrase it in such a way to imply the main problem was "white women", and not "16 year old Chicano boys getting their hands on a firearm."
Yes, that's it. Because what I said was:

quote:
Still fewer shootings and killings than there were in Baltimore last weekend.

Sigh.
Which clearly implies that I think the main problem is "white women."

That's obviously more logical than thinking that maybe I said that because on one of the days of one of these campus shootings we had a shooting that involved more people and barely made the local (much less national and international) news and I didn't think to say that because the response of everyone else around me IRL was to throw up their hands and say "again?"

Followed by a sigh of despair.

Every time one of these campus shootings happens, am I the only one who has to listen in disbelief to a bunch of people try to tell me that the problem is misogyny and men's belief that they're entitled to sex and if we addressed that and banned guns (or bullets) the shootings would stop?

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't care if you object to me saying "what the fuck is wrong with you people?" Because your gun culture is stupid and dangerous.
And where did I object to your saying that?

It is what it is. Wishing don't change that.

(But good for you for not caring and saying something you think is true even if someone somewhere in the world might object or find it offensive. Someday maybe you'll find something you believe in strongly enough that you're willing to stake something important to you on the belief).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not arguing that it's impossible to own a gun without killing anyone. I'm arguing that the proliferation of guns increases the chances of it going wrong.
This is obviously true. Widespread availability of guns means that angry people who just want to lash out and hurt people and don't want to live any more might have (or can get) guns. It means that suicidal people are more likely to commit suicide with a gun, because it's (comparatively) easy and certain) and it means that there are going to be more accidental deaths from stupidity.

All these things have a societal component as well as a gun component (before anyone says Switzerland) but for the same society, more guns must correlate with more deaths.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
In prediction of behavioural risks, there are "static" risks and "dynamic" risk factors. In this case the static or situational risk factors are number of guns and things like how they are stored. Dynamic risk factors are the behaviour of people in situations, like perception of risk, thoughts about motives of others, anger, fear etc.

Both are important. No guns = no risk from guns, whatever the dynamic factors within the individual. Any gun availability probably always increases the risk for gun use. It is just a fact. But the dynamic factors, the motives and character of people, and culture: what are these that make America risky besides the static factor of guns being available? I hear things like excessive individualism, frontier myths, slave owning history, but are any of these actually really involved?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
You mean the stuff this guy was writing about?
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Meanwhile a friend of Bullfrog's (Gwai's guy) wrote
this:

"Much more than gun control, we must shift our culture of violence to a culture of peace. We need models who will lead us to move beyond resentment and towards an ethic of love, a love that embraces even our enemies."

 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, to stock up on guns and ammunition because you think they're going to be taken away? Are they planning armed rebellion against their own democratically elected government?
Possibly. The president has admitted that he has given a lot of consideration to passing gun control through an executive order rather than through the legislative process. IME the kind of people who do this already feel like they are not represented in the democratic process. As far as I can tell, they want to make it clear that the people will not stand for much more expansion of executive power.
I think the majority of people would consider that the President using executive power to over ride the considerations of Congress, Senate and States would be a less than ideal situation.

But, from what's effectively a straw poll of Americans I know (here, on FB, a few in RL) well over half of them have expressed views strongly in favour of increased gun control legislation. If that's reflected in US society as a whole then the failure of Congress to even discuss the issue means that on this issue over half the nation are excluded from the political process. When Congress fails to act on something that is the expressed interest of over half the US population (assuming my small sample of people is reasonably representative) then the President issuing an executive order to redress that democratic deficit is not, IMO, unreasonable.

I don't know if any of the polling organisations have asked for views on gun control legislation. I've not seen anything reported if they have.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The president has admitted that he has given a lot of consideration to passing gun control through an executive order rather than through the legislative process. IME the kind of people who do this already feel like they are not represented in the democratic process. As far as I can tell, they want to make it clear that the people will not stand for much more expansion of executive power.
These are the same people who elected a do-nothing Congress. Serves them fucking right. If they want legislation that reflects the will of the people, they should stop voting for people who have said flat-out and have demonstrated by their deeds that they don't give a flying fuck about the will of the people, and if elected will do exactly what their rich taskmasters tell them to do.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
From what I can see reported in the media, there is currently a definite pattern in Congressional discussion )OK, maybe squabbling over who should be Speaker breaks the pattern).

The pattern is "what can we do to kill the most people this week?" Cut funding to support medical provision to the poor, that will kill people. That gets debated. Cut welfare funding, that will kill people. Find a foreign nation they don't like and send in "our boys" to put them right, that will cost a fortune (paid to their chums in the arms industry) and kill lots of people. Gun control will save lots of lives, therefore they don't discuss it.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Sweet God. Alan is right. I think I will go back to bed. Forever.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If that's reflected in US society as a whole then the failure of Congress to even discuss the issue means that on this issue over half the nation are excluded from the political process. When Congress fails to act on something that is the expressed interest of over half the US population (assuming my small sample of people is reasonably representative) then the President issuing an executive order to redress that democratic deficit is not, IMO, unreasonable.
Congress discussed gun control legislation after Sandy Hook. They just didn't pass any. Given that there hasn't been a huge change in congresscritters and few if any have indicated that they would change their vote if bills were brought again, there's little point in bringing them to the table again. The votes just aren't there.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
These are the same people who elected a do-nothing Congress. Serves them fucking right. If they want legislation that reflects the will of the people, they should stop voting for people who have said flat-out and have demonstrated by their deeds that they don't give a flying fuck about the will of the people, and if elected will do exactly what their rich taskmasters tell them to do.
Given the amount of money it currently takes to get elected to Congress, who exactly is running for the office who is not going to do exactly what their rich taskmasters tell them to do?

Furthermore, given that Federal Law has gotten so convoluted that I'm told the average American commits three felonies a day (with disturbing implications for the future of free speech), please make a case for why these gun control measures favored by the American people should be done at a federal level rather than a state level. Because you can't trust the stupid hicks in West Virginia to enact sensible gun control legislation and it's too easy to cross state lines with a gun purchased elsewhere? Or...

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The pattern is "what can we do to kill the most people this week?" Cut funding to support medical provision to the poor, that will kill people. That gets debated. Cut welfare funding, that will kill people. Find a foreign nation they don't like and send in "our boys" to put them right, that will cost a fortune (paid to their chums in the arms industry) and kill lots of people. Gun control will save lots of lives, therefore they don't discuss it.
And yet you wonder why people might be stockpiling weapons for possible use against the government?

The people in Washington are rich. The rich in this country frequently really, really hate the poor. Although it is more often the case that they will do anything to maintain their wealth and power and simply view the rest of us as collateral damage. IME, the more they talk about understanding how "privileged" they are, the more true it is. They know they never would have succeeded if the playing field were level. But they want to keep the stuff they have. And they want their children - who likely also won't succeed on a level playing field - to succeed.

To quote Leonard Cohen:

"everybody knows the dice are loaded
everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
everybody knows the war is over
everybody knows the good guys lost
everybody knows the fight is fixed
the poor stay poor and the rich get rich
that's how it goes
and everybody knows"
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The people in Washington are rich. The rich in this country frequently really, really hate the poor. Although it is more often the case that they will do anything to maintain their wealth and power and simply view the rest of us as collateral damage.
Just about to post something that I will hope unify most of us in shared disgust.


Ben Carson throws a fast food drudge under the bus.

"Carson said twice this week that the victims in last week’s Oregon community college shooting should have tried to tackle the gunman and would not “just stand there and let him shoot me.”

(snip)

So what happened when Carson allegedly faced just such a threat? He directed the gunman’s attention to an employee of the fast food restaurant.

“I just said, ‘I believe that you want the guy behind the counter,’” Carson said.

The retired brain surgeon did not explain what happened next."

[ 11. October 2015, 00:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Guess old Ben hasn't read many details about the school shootings of the past ten to twenty years, I'm starting to think he doesn't get the paper.

Very few people stand there and let the guy shoot them, unless they're one of the first victims who hasn't had time to realize what's happening. They hide behind desks, climb out windows, play dead, hide under dead bodies, pile furniture in front of doors and run and run. Sometimes a very brave person, usually a teacher, will try to tackle the gunman and, in every case I've read about, that poor person dies quickly.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The reality is that this ship has *long* sailed off into the sunset.
The reality is that other countries and other cultures have shown it is perfectly possible.
IN THOSE CULTURES. Such studies cannot possibly prove that they can be generalized to the US.
Yeah, you're right. Because here, we had what was the largest mass shooting at the time, and the populace generally got behind the Prime Minister and supported the gun laws we've had for the last 20 years. Not everyone, but most people. Both sides of politics in every State and Territory, for one thing, because it required legislation at that level.

We bought the guns back (bought, not confiscated), and got on with lives that were a little less mass-murdery.

Your culture? People start suggesting that everything would've been fine if only so-and-so had been armed. I imagine they look at Port Arthur and ask why the cafe manager wasn't packing heat. There really is no comparison.

[ 11. October 2015, 00:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Reading about Port Arthur for the first time in a while...

He killed 12 people in the first 15-30 seconds. Many of them didn't even register what was happening before they died. This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Very few people stand there and let the guy shoot them, unless they're one of the first victims who hasn't had time to realize what's happening. They hide behind desks, climb out windows, play dead, hide under dead bodies, pile furniture in front of doors and run and run. Sometimes a very brave person, usually a teacher, will try to tackle the gunman and, in every case I've read about, that poor person dies quickly.
Not exactly what a
survivor describes in Oregon. The shooter had time to retrieve an envelope from a pack, and ask individual students about their religion before shooting them.

One young man tried to block the shooter from the class. He was shot multiple times but did survive.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
Tell that to a woman from Oklahoma who still has her
head attached.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
No, it's not bullshit. The problem is that it happens.

If you would like to attempt to persuade me that, statistically speaking, the risks posed by open carry are much greater than the rewards offered, be my guest.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Because you can't trust the stupid hicks in West Virginia to enact sensible gun control legislation and it's too easy to cross state lines with a gun purchased elsewhere? Or...
No "or." It's too easy to cross state lines with a gun purchased elsewhere. That's why all the bullshit about Chicago is bullshit. The Indiana Connection keeps Chicago gangs well supplied with guns despite Chicago's restrictions.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your culture? People start suggesting that everything would've been fine if only so-and-so had been armed. I imagine they look at Port Arthur and ask why the cafe manager wasn't packing heat. There really is no comparison.
Really? I HAD NO FUCKING IDEA THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPENED. You tool. You fucking tool. You think we don't know this? You think a sizeable chunk of America doesn't know this? You think everybody is like this? Burn yourself out in your orgasm of Anti-American hatred. But maybe you could do it offline? Because we already FUCKING KNOW IT.

Tool.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No "or." It's too easy to cross state lines with a gun purchased elsewhere. That's why all the bullshit about Chicago is bullshit. The Indiana Connection keeps Chicago gangs well supplied with guns despite Chicago's restrictions.
So why not a federal law saying that if you sell a gun to someone who is not a resident of your state, the gun cannot be given directly to the person but must be shipped to a licensed gun dealer in that person's city/ county and state to be licensed and registered etc. according to the gun laws in that location? Why does the entire damn country need all of the exact same gun laws even though we have a wide variety of gun needs?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No "or." It's too easy to cross state lines with a gun purchased elsewhere. That's why all the bullshit about Chicago is bullshit. The Indiana Connection keeps Chicago gangs well supplied with guns despite Chicago's restrictions.
So why not a federal law saying that if you sell a gun to someone who is not a resident of your state, the gun cannot be given directly to the person but must be shipped to a licensed gun dealer in that person's city/ county and state to be licensed and registered etc. according to the gun laws in that location?
Excellent plan! You go ahead and get that passed. Will that keep people from Indiana driving across the state line into Chicago and handing over guns to people there? That would be awesome.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Excellent plan! You go ahead and get that passed. Will that keep people from Indiana driving across the state line into Chicago and handing over guns to people there? That would be awesome.
Well, no. But IME a lot of people in Baltimore don't really know that many people who don't live in Baltimore, so it would probably take a while for that particular illegal industry to pop up.

Much better is your plan to (scrolls back through thread). Oh, I see you don't have a plan, in spite of repeated requests by jbohn and me for specific proposals rather than simplistic bitching.

Tell me, are you in the Timothy the Obscure we'll-confiscate-all-the-guns camp or the Democratic Party's Official Camp (we'll pass a bunch of legislation that will make things a huge pain in the ass for legitimate gun owners but wouldn't have actually stopped any of the people who went on shooting sprees from getting guns)?

But your plan of forging the bipartisan consensus necessary to get this federal gun control you seem to so desperately want for the sake of all the poor peasants who can't be expected to know what's in their best interest by insulting and misrepresenting your ideological opponents is sure to work out great!

Oh! I forgot! We'll just elect Hillary, who has already made it clear she'll ram through a bunch of useless legislation by executive order!

That'll work out great for the country.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
You really are a turd, aren't you?

Oh and by the way, you don't pass legislation through executive order. You might want to watch your "SchoolHouse Rock" videos again and learn what the branches of the government are, and what each does.

[ 11. October 2015, 05:18: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Wow. Just... Do you have any idea what your government has been up to or what, in the case of Hillary, it has promised to do? (if you don't like those sources there are plenty of others that say the same thing - google it).

And would someone please start drawing up the articles of secession? The powers that be have made it clear just how much they hate us, maybe they'll let us go quietly this time.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If that's reflected in US society as a whole then the failure of Congress to even discuss the issue means that on this issue over half the nation are excluded from the political process. When Congress fails to act on something that is the expressed interest of over half the US population (assuming my small sample of people is reasonably representative) then the President issuing an executive order to redress that democratic deficit is not, IMO, unreasonable.
Congress discussed gun control legislation after Sandy Hook. They just didn't pass any. Given that there hasn't been a huge change in congresscritters and few if any have indicated that they would change their vote if bills were brought again, there's little point in bringing them to the table again.
Sandy Hook was almost three years ago. And, there have been too many mass shootings since then. Surely the people are demanding something be done? It shouldn't matter what the congresscritters think. I thought the aim was government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not, government of a small elite, by a small elite, for the small elite. If the people demand that their representatives get off their backsides and enact meaningful gun control legislation surely the task of Congress is then to determine the details. I understand there's an election coming up, that should make the politicians take notice of what the people who will vote them back in (or not) are saying.
quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The pattern is "what can we do to kill the most people this week?" Cut funding to support medical provision to the poor, that will kill people. That gets debated. Cut welfare funding, that will kill people. Find a foreign nation they don't like and send in "our boys" to put them right, that will cost a fortune (paid to their chums in the arms industry) and kill lots of people. Gun control will save lots of lives, therefore they don't discuss it.
And yet you wonder why people might be stockpiling weapons for possible use against the government?
To be honest, yes. You live in a democracy. There should be a large range of options to get government to act for the people that don't involve guns. Has democracy failed then? Are you really heading towards a new civil war, with on one side an assortment of dis-organised militia and on the other a load of well trained people who have sworn on oath "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States". Or do you consider that an armed uprising wouldn't be interpreted as domestic enemies of the US Constitution? Although a reasonable President would presumably hesitate against giving orders to send in the army against his or her own citizens.

[ 11. October 2015, 05:53: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Wow. Just... Do you have any idea what your government has been up to
Yes.

quote:
or what, in the case of Hillary, it has promised to do?
Yes.

quote:
And would someone please start drawing up the articles of secession? The powers that be have made it clear just how much they hate us, maybe they'll let us go quietly this time.
How I wish you'd go. Then maybe we could get back a legislature that works, and obviate the executive orders.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sandy Hook was almost three years ago. And, there have been too many mass shootings since then. Surely the people are demanding something be done? It shouldn't matter what the congresscritters think. I thought the aim was government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not, government of a small elite, by a small elite, for the small elite.
I fear that ship has sailed, at least until the next revolution. The one where blood runs knee-deep in the streets, all the wrong people get killed, and the super-rich escape in their private jets to Bimini. The drooling Fox-news-watching idiots will shoot up the few remaining tenured university professors, who are of course the "elite" oppressing the good, honest, hardworking Christian NASCAR fans. The Mother Jones readers will wring their hands and tell each other, "See, I told you?" as they are gunned down by the NRA-backed, gun-sucking goon squads.

The diseducated masses will then invite the super-rich to come back, tell them all is forgiven, and forbid them to give them health insurance, since that would be socialism. The super-rich will then hire whoever's left out to the highest Chinese bidder, then all go back to Bimini because their drinks are melting.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Knowing how gradual the law changes were in the UK, can't you start with small changes that might have traction? So following this Oregon shooting a requirement that everyone who has a gun has a licence and to get a licence they have to pass a medical check? Federally applied.

Sandy Hook was your opportunity to get automatic and semi-automatic guns out of circulation.

Requirements for safe storage is another change - so guns must be kept in locked gun cabinets separately from ammunition. But that one is going to take some serious changing of minds, possibly backed by publicity about the number of accidental killings of children (I vaguely remember we had a few of those to trigger one or other changes in the law). (Looking at Alan's dates for previous law changes in the UK, I was very young when the law changed to storage in locked cabinets here. I must have had very strong prohibitions put on touching guns to even remember seeing them propped in cloakrooms.)

How about regular reviews on the law on firearms? The UK has had a recent consultation as the nature of firearms continues to change.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I agree with Curiosity. Given the scale of gun ownership in America, presumably one single piece of legislation to e.g.ban automatic weapons would involve a massive amount of effort to enforce. It would at least be a start, and in a couple of years the next piece of legislation could ban semi automatics and so on.

Our next legislation will deal with air guns, since they are now the main cause of death and injury.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
There's a meme going around suggesting that gun owners be required to buy liability insurance, just like car owners. That (or the buyback) would be as good a start as any, in my mind.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
saysay: Wow. Just... Do you have any idea what your government has been up to or what, in the case of Hillary, it has promised to do? (if you don't like those sources there are plenty of others that say the same thing - google it).

And would someone please start drawing up the articles of secession? The powers that be have made it clear just how much they hate us, maybe they'll let us go quietly this time.
I find this fascinating. People really think this way.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your culture? People start suggesting that everything would've been fine if only so-and-so had been armed. I imagine they look at Port Arthur and ask why the cafe manager wasn't packing heat. There really is no comparison.
Really? I HAD NO FUCKING IDEA THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPENED. You tool. You fucking tool. You think we don't know this? You think a sizeable chunk of America doesn't know this? You think everybody is like this? Burn yourself out in your orgasm of Anti-American hatred. But maybe you could do it offline? Because we already FUCKING KNOW IT.

Tool.
I find it bizarre that you're yelling at me for knowing the same thing that you know. Where the bloody hell did you get the notion that I was attempting to teach you something?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
Tell that to a woman from Oklahoma who still has her
head attached.
1 time in 23. It doesn't get presented as 1 time in 23, it gets presented as 23 times in 23. That's the bullshit part.

[ 11. October 2015, 11:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I confess I have my Google News set to catch anything about road rage, home gun incidents and Pit Bulls, just to fuel my issues. Clearly some here use different key words like, "gun saved lives," "home invader thwarted."

Scroll down for video. SNL skit.

[ 11. October 2015, 12:13: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
1 time in 23. It doesn't get presented as 1 time in 23, it gets presented as 23 times in 23. That's the bullshit part.
Are you sure it isn't this that happens more often?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I think for every "brave citizen armed with a gun who stops potential homicide" story there is at least one (probably significantly more than one) "citizen who doesn't know what they're doing accidentally shoots innocent person" story - either like that one with the victim of the crime hit (and, I've seen several of those stories), or there are several stories of someone thinking someone has broken into their home shooting a spouse or child who got up for the bathroom or someone innocently ringing the door bell, or several other scenarios that are possible either involving bullets not hitting their target (yep, 30% at close range on a target range not hitting the target is good enough for a permit to pack heat) or mistakenly thinking someone innocent is a bad guy.

So, I suppose the question is do the number of lives potentially saved by the very occasional "brave citizen" greater than those lost because someone carrying a gun for self or other protection gets it wrong?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
Tell that to a woman from Oklahoma who still has her
head attached.
1 time in 23. It doesn't get presented as 1 time in 23, it gets presented as 23 times in 23. That's the bullshit part.
Oh, the part that you left completely out of your post? Got it.

And even if you accept the dubious "23" claim, do suppose that matters at all to the woman with a head?

I doubt that it does.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think for every "brave citizen armed with a gun who stops potential homicide" story there is at least one (probably significantly more than one) "citizen who doesn't know what they're doing accidentally shoots innocent person" story - either like that one with the victim of the crime hit....
The article doesn't make it clear that this is what happened.

More likely I would suggest that the shooter was targeting the carjackers in the first place, thus their hurry to jack a car and get away, and didn't give a shit who he hit.

"Good guys" with guns by definition don't collect their casings and flee the scene.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
So, your conclusion is that this particular story doesn't support the premise that people should be armed to protect themselves and others.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I find it bizarre that you're yelling at me for knowing the same thing that you know. Where the bloody hell did you get the notion that I was attempting to teach you something?
I guess from the fact that you keep saying it over and over, in the most in-your-face and jingoistic way you can, even though nearly every American here keeps agreeing with you.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Agreed. Like I said, if your primary motivator is compassion and solidarity, it's really not coming across. Your disgust with "YOUR nation" is really coming across, and what I guess you are saying is your " agreement" is being delivered with a huge measure of "Can't You People get it to through Your thick skulls?"

Alan, on the other hand ,is saying pretty much exactly the same things you are saying, but when he responds to me it feels like he is responding to " Kelly, who I have known for 13 years" rather than " American Cultural Stand -in #24"

A few days ago I wrote something along the lines of, dude, why don't you donate to the NRA, and help them on their quest to eliminate 10, 000 American Idiots a year? Less stupidity in the world for you to suffer. I deleted it. You know why? I coudn't reconcile the statement I was making with the orfeo I know, of whom I am very fond. I don't think you are returning the favor-- I think you are laying presumed collective cultural traits on people you should know better by now.

There are perhaps 15-20 American shipmates out of the 100 or so Shipmates of other nations that participate on the boards every day, and therefore it would bevery easy for the rest of you to overwhelm us and make us the locus of your cultural frustration.

Well justified cultural frustration, I might add-- what the government, the media, the military, McDonald's, Hollywood, fucking Disney, etc has done to the world disgusts me.

But that's just the point. What does it serve to treat people you know as generic national representatives? And to repeatedly step over the fact that they are AGREEING with you, instead of devoting a sentence or two to acknowledge the agreement exists? It certainly does not facilitate mutual listening.

More than that, though, if there is one thing that has well and truly poisoned America, and can be directly related to just about every moment of cultural shame we bear, it is the historic tendancy to Otherize. Our current war in the Middle East, slavery, the Cold War, internment camps, reservations, you name it-- the very thing that greased the wheels of all of these things was our collective decision that some people were righter, purer, more entitled, more human than others. The whole reason the Black Lists happened in the 50's is that we decided we were so much better than those disgusting Commies that we could jettison the very liberty we preached in favor of punishing the Other.

I don't think Otherization is an American tendancy, though, I think it is a human one. It is the one addiction we can't seem to shake. And it is pure poison. If you (generic you)love your country, if you prize your cultural values, resist the urge to Otherize, because that shit has the historical record of destroying everything good in a people.

[ 11. October 2015, 16:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, your conclusion is that this particular story doesn't support the premise that people should be armed to protect themselves and others.
I don't draw any conclusions from the story, and I don't seek to support any premise.

That people should be armed to protect themselves and others is not a premise anyway, it is a point of fact. Just like that many criminals are armed to commit crimes and protect their jurisdictions thereof.

All the licensing requirements, background checks, and insurance mandates will not change this dynamic in the US. Just like all the similar requirements with regard to automobiles don't stop accidents, criminal operation, and mass death and injury.

[ 11. October 2015, 16:01: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
All the licensing requirements, background checks, and insurance mandates will not change this dynamic in the US. Just like all the similar requirements with regard to automobiles don't stop accidents, criminal operation, and mass death and injury.
Except that it does, so that your analogy works entirely against your point of view.

(Not stop entirely, but massively mitigate. Knock yourself out, google the statistics. They're quite boggling.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
For one thing, if you fuck up enough to lose your car insurance, you better believe you start driving like a geriatic nun. Before they confiscate your car, that is.
And I think "massive mitigation"'is our goal. What country anywhere has achieved " zero gun violence"?

[ 11. October 2015, 16:37: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There's a pastor in Florida who is arguing that being pro-gun is incompatible with being pro-life, and with Christianity. Walt Disney's niece made a movie about him: Move.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
For one thing, if you fuck up enough to lose your car insurance, you better believe you start driving like a geriatic nun. Before they confiscate your car, that is.
This may be true for people inclined to try and obey the laws, but there is no shortage of people operating cars every day with no license, no insurance, and some percentage of those are most certainly drunk.

Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement. All the reasonable gun control measures in the world won't change the street level reality in Detroit or Chicago one iota.

[ 11. October 2015, 16:46: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
there is no shortage of people operating cars every day with no license, no insurance, and some percentage of those are most certainly drunk.
I don't know about you, but over here, we call those people criminals. They get prosecuted, fined, gaoled, and their cars crushed. They don't have to have had any accidents or run anyone over. They just get pulled, and then arrested and charged and processed through the courts.

I kind of assumed that also happened in the USA, but clearly not.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Of course they do. I have no idea what romanlion is trying to prove. That car insurance mandates are useless?

[ 11. October 2015, 17:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement.
I would say this argues very eloquently for making guns rare and hard to obtain. You can't get a gun illegally if you can't get a gun.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:


They don't have to have had any accidents or run anyone over. They just get pulled, and then arrested and charged and processed through the courts.

This bit, especially.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Eventually, taking guns out of circulation and arresting those involved in gun crime, over in the UK, firearms offences in 2012/2013 were 0.2% of the total crimes reported, there were 30 fatalities resulting from offences with firearms, and 8,135 offences with firearms - both last figures down 15% on the previous year.

That's 16 years after Dunblane in 1996 and the subsequent amendments to the Firearms Act (1997). Nobody said it was an immediate effect.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement.
I would say this argues very eloquently for making guns rare and hard to obtain. You can't get a gun illegally if you can't get a gun.
You and I both know that this is not about to happen. Guns are ubiquitous and easy to obtain. Perhaps only slightly less so than cocaine and heroin, which are both completely prohibited everywhere at all times.

Something that could work almost immediately would be a little enforcement of existing laws.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement.[/QB]
Actually I'm not too sure of the premise, a fairly sizable percentage probably are 'law abiding' until something goes wrong.
A sizable higher percentage will have a sensible desire to minimize crimes/profit. And as such although they may nominally 'not give a toss'. It may well shift the balance.
And the others, the facilitators, the enablers, the fifth column, who can at the moment, even afterwards, say 'I did nothing wrong, how was I to know he'd...', they probably will give a stuff. And that probably covers a sufficient majority.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sandy Hook was almost three years ago. And, there have been too many mass shootings since then. Surely the people are demanding something be done? It shouldn't matter what the congresscritters think. I thought the aim was government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not, government of a small elite, by a small elite, for the small elite. If the people demand that their representatives get off their backsides and enact meaningful gun control legislation surely the task of Congress is then to determine the details.


Aye, there's the rub:

quote:
“Eye-popping majorities of Democratic, Republican, and independent voters back . . . boilerplate measures,” Noah Rothman recorded yesterday in Commentary. “But when asked if voters prefer stricter gun control measures, only a majority of Democrats agreed. Just one-third of independent voters and less than one-quarter of GOP survey respondents welcomed new gun control measures.” If the polls are to be believed, this reluctance is in part the product of a lack of trust in the federal government; in part the result of a belief that gun laws don’t actually work; and in part the result of harsh demarcation lines that have been draw in the broader culture wars.
If you can convince our ADD immediate-gratification oriented culture that gun control measures would have an effect in the long term, you're a better man than I.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement.
Actually I'm not too sure of the premise, a fairly sizable percentage probably are 'law abiding' until something goes wrong.
Not likely.

In many of these places mere possession of the gun is a felony. That eliminates "law abiding" before anything even has a chance to go wrong.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Where the &^%$ were these polls taken? And by whom? The same people that claim Trumpmania is sweeping the nation?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Agreed. Like I said, if your primary motivator is compassion and solidarity, it's really not coming across.
*reads sign above board*

Ahem. You'll find compassion and solidarity down the corridor in All Saints.

Seriously? You expect me to give you all a comforting group hug down here? No, here is where I rant against the sheer obstinate stupidity of it all.

As for YOUR culture, again, I can't fucking help it that the English language chose some centuries back to forego the ability to easily distinguish between second person singular and plural, and there's no fucking way I'm going to keep finding awkward ways of describing American culture as not being connected to an American.

But it's complete nonsense to think that I am treating you as "generic national representatives". Do you really think I expect you to represent anything other than yourself? I think you're Americans. I don't think you're America.

[ 11. October 2015, 22:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
From the herpderp files: Facebook comment:

If the early Christians had had guns, Christ would still be alive today.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Of course they do. I have no idea what romanlion is trying to prove. That car insurance mandates are useless?
We carry uninsured and underinsured coverage.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, your conclusion is that this particular story doesn't support the premise that people should be armed to protect themselves and others.
I don't draw any conclusions from the story, and I don't seek to support any premise.
Yes, I know that particular story wasn't raised in support of your premise. But, you're still supporting a premise. Namely, you responded to orfeo
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
With an example of a "good guy with a gun" stopping a serious crime, saysay provided another example. Your premise appears to be the opposite of orfeo - specifically you are claiming that "a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is not bullshit". Or at least that's how it appears to me. That is certainly the premise of those in the NRA and elsewhere who have repeatedly said that the solution to gun violence is for more good guys to be armed.

Now, I think orfeo overstated his case. As both you and saysay pointed out, the claim that "a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit" can be countered by a single example of that happening.

But, IMO the question is much deeper than that and my premise is different from orfeo - although I think we'll both reach the same conclusion on what needs to be done to reduce the rate of deaths from guns in the US. First, I note that there are very few examples of a "good guy with a gun" having any impact on the course of a crime - someone earlier linked to an article in (I think) the Washington Post listing such instances, and there were a few dozen at most over almost 20 years (sorry, I couldn't actually find that post again - it's also possible it was a friend on FB who posted it). Of course, the argument can be made that the more people with concealed (or open) carried weapons then the more chance of an intervention and so that number of incidents of a "good guy with a gun" saving the day would be higher.

My second point would be that that benefit of a "good guy with a gun" saving the day comes at a considerable cost. And, that cost is mostly from two places.

1. "Good guys" aren't so good. They may mean well, but they're only human, not some Hollywood creation. Their aim will not be perfect, if they discharge their weapon there is a high chance they will miss and hit someone else. Given that the chances of them being around just ahead of a mass shooting is very low, the chances are that they will be intervening in a lesser crime - a street mugging, robbery or something where any firearms carried by the criminals would probably not be fired (or, if fired done so for dramatic effect, into the ceiling for example) and so any injuries caused by the "good guy" will be in excess of any the bad guys would have caused. And, added to that the "good guy with a gun" far too often has a lousy sense of judgement. I could link to dozens of examples of someone using their gun on an "intruder" at home, only to find they've shot a family member using the bathroom, teenage daughter sneaking back in late at night, someone ringing their doorbell because their car broke down at the end of their drive ... you should get the point.

The question this part of the cost-benefit analysis is does allowing ordinary "good guys" arm themselves reduce the number of people killed, or increase the number? The evidence is that for every time a "good guy with a gun" intervenes against a criminal another "good guy with a gun" will shoot someone not committing a crime (or, at the very least, not committing a crime liable to cause death or injury to someone else). And, that's even without considering the times a "good guy" flips out and uses that gun for criminal acts or when someone else gets hold of the gun and causes injury accidentally.

2. I said there were two main areas of cost. Here's the second. Letting more "good guys" have guns increases the supply of guns to criminals. The vast majority of guns used by criminals were, at some point, sold legally to someone. The criminals got them through a variety of routes, the most significant being fraudulent purchase from retailers and theft from private owners. If you're going to increase the number of private citizens carrying guns then that will result in it being easier for criminals to obtain guns using fake ids etc. And, it will increase the number of homes where a burglar will find guns they can take. The only sure way to reduce the number of guns used by criminals is to make it harder for them to get guns, which means reducing the number of guns in circulation. Increasing the number of guns in circulation just makes it easier for criminals to get guns.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you really think I expect you to represent anything other than yourself? I think you're Americans. I don't think you're America.
Not. Coming. Across.

See? I can pull the one line out of what you said in disregard to everything else you said, too.

I don't expect cuddles in Hell-- I have been a member for 13 years, as I said. But you specifically expressed puzzlement as to why your understanding that we were in agreement didn't read. The answer was the bombastic, accusatory and (in some cases)somewhat vengeful tone you were taking. If you don't want to take that feedback onboard, fine, but understand nobody is going to read your mind and translate your rage dumps exactly the way you want them to. Cutting people slack for shooting off their mouths indiscriminately is DEFINITELY not required in Hell.

[ 12. October 2015, 03:21: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Of course they do. I have no idea what romanlion is trying to prove. That car insurance mandates are useless?
We carry uninsured and underinsured coverage.
OK, In CA it is mandated. You drive without insurance, you get a fix-it ticket, and if it is not fixed in due time, they come for your license. I think that is the kind of system the meme generator was suggesting for guns.

My point above (geriatric nuns) is that financial constraint can be a powerful motivator-- sadly, even when other tactics don't work. So, someone who might gleefully run stop signs if insurance was not a mandate would chill their jets, because if they got pulled over they wouldn't just get the traffic ticket, they might lose the whole car.

Again, if your goal is complete ceasefire-- not much help. But it might be a start at reduction.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Okay, then!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
See? I can pull the one line out of what you said in disregard to everything else you said, too.
Which is totally cool with me, as the bit you pulled out seems totally consistent with everything else I said.

Also, it saves on scrolling. We don't all need to pull an Ingo with every post.

The purpose of selective quoting is to focus on the bit one is directly replying to. Which is what I'm doing now. If you choose to read that as "he's therefore ignored everything else he hasn't quoted", that's your funeral.

I certainly don't write things expecting people to respond point-by-point to everything I said. It's not actually helpful to do so and makes discussions unmanageable: I had a client a couple of years ago who felt they needed to say they were happy with each and every provision, and towards the end of the project I had to beg them to stop because it was so hard to find the 2 or 3 provisions they weren't happy with (the ones I actually had to do further work on) in between the pages and pages of ones that were okay.

[ 12. October 2015, 07:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Okay, then!
I suppose someone has to say it. Keeping guns away from schools will always be a good thing. But, it doesn't actually address the problem. Which is the next guy who wants his celebrity status and decides to gun down some kids isn't going to worry about breaking the law that says he can't take a gun to within 1000ft of a school.

It still doesn't address the main problem, which is simply too many guns.

Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Okay, then!
I suppose someone has to say it. Keeping guns away from schools will always be a good thing. But, it doesn't actually address the problem. Which is the next guy who wants his celebrity status and decides to gun down some kids isn't going to worry about breaking the law that says he can't take a gun to within 1000ft of a school.

It still doesn't address the main problem, which is simply too many guns.
I have to disagree. The problem is that some guns are owned by people who should not have guns, for the greater good of the whole. There are about 300 million guns in the USA which is practically one per man, woman and child, although I'd suggest that most men, women and children are unarmed and the remainder have a number of guns for different purposes.

quote:

Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
I'm sure that the very people who should be disarmed whould be the last to hand over their firearms.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The problem is that some guns are owned by people who should not have guns, for the greater good of the whole.
Yes, and the problem is that you, I and just about everyone else here will have different lists of who should not have guns, and different lists of reasons. Of course, this only accounts for those who are legally allowed to hold a gun, when there are 300 million guns in the country it's very easy to have one illegally - which is where reducing that number substantially helps to make it much harder to illegally have a gun.

quote:
I'm sure that the very people who should be disarmed would be the last to hand over their firearms.
I'm sure that's true as well. But, it would still make a dent in that 300 million guns figure, which is still a step in the right direction.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
Here in Arizona:
quote:
Cities that conduct buyback programs to get guns off the street will now be required to re-sell those weapons, according to a new law signed by the governor.
Also, there is nothing to keep those who sell their guns in a buyback program from using that money towards bigger and better guns.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
What about a campaign along the lines of "Real Men don't shoot unarmed kids."
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
From the article Pigwidgeon linked:

quote:
Opponents argued that it sent the wrong message and that the state needed to focus on the broader issue of gun control."
This law is about gun control. It is about nothing else.
The United States of America
A wholly owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What about a campaign along the lines of "Real Men don't shoot unarmed kids."
Would it be fair to point out that bringing back legalised duelling might actually save lives?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What about a campaign along the lines of "Real Men don't shoot unarmed kids."
Would it be fair to point out that bringing back legalised duelling might actually save lives?
Compulsory legalised duelling could have some merit.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Okay, then!
I suppose someone has to say it. Keeping guns away from schools will always be a good thing. But, it doesn't actually address the problem. Which is the next guy who wants his celebrity status and decides to gun down some kids isn't going to worry about breaking the law that says he can't take a gun to within 1000ft of a school.

It still doesn't address the main problem, which is simply too many guns.

Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
I guess I assumed a buyback program would be voluntary. I brought up the general idea a few pages back, and saysay had a bunch of problem scenarios in response.

Personally I am at the "just try Something" stage. It's just like trying to introduce new actvities at a lesson planning meeting-- there is always 100 reasons not to try something. At some point you just have to pick a course of action and invest in it.

So, if I had excecutive fiat- buyback and mandated liability insurance. Then see what happens from there.

ETA: Arizona seems to be competing with Texas as far as fuck- you laws, sometimes.

[ 12. October 2015, 17:05: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And as to what the church can do, I do like the idea of declaring, from the pulpit, that Jesus would not have carried. You want to be like Christ, or not?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
As an olive branch to orfeo-- he recently posted an article with a screen capture of the $&@&$ing NRA posting a " What Gun would Jesus Carry" status on their Facebook page. (Or was it Twitter?)

Some smartass managed the first response, which was, "A nail gun."

Shock, outrage, and account-- blocking followed. (Also the guy got something like 700 likes before he got caught.)

[ 12. October 2015, 17:25: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
It occurs to me that the national gun control efforts in the US can be compared to the international nuclear arms reduction efforts-- same problems with proliferation, same arguments about minority entities left vulneable without arms, same struggle to get people to see the value in laying down their arms.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
If you haven't deduced this from Pigwidgeon's link, we already have them. Most of the places I've lived, they're an annual affair, frequently held in the the months before Christmas. The problem of people using the cash to buy bigger and better firearms is avoided by not paying cash, but by offering a choice of gift cards to stores where people can buy Christmas presents for their loved ones.

Unfortunately it barely makes a dent in the number of guns on the ground.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Would it be fair to point out that bringing back legalised duelling might actually save lives?
When it comes to American culture, there's way too much truth in the movie Fight Club.

Unfortunately we've been moving in the opposite of what I think is a helpful direction, with some school districts going as far as banning the game of tag as being too aggressive and too likely to lead to harm.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And there is no desire to shoot others who might shoot back. These are unmanly and cowardly beings who are only comfortable assailing the unwary -- students, or children, or animals. Dueling -- a fair fight toe to toe -- is the very last thing they want. An opponent able and willing to shoot back would blanch them to their toes.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Crosspost-- to saysay's tag comment)

Yeah, if I could ban one stupid school rule, it would be the one where we tell kids not to build excellent upper body strength by climbing up slides. It's stupid and counter productive. If you don't allow reasonable opportunities for rambunctiousness into the rules, kids will find ways to be rambunctious that will take ten years off your life.

"Chase games" are an excellent opportunity to burn off free-floating energy, and to teach the difference between a tag and a punch. If you don't allow kids appropriate venues for filling their mammalian need for physical contact, they wind up snapping and jumping up in the middle of storytime to pummel their friend.

This to say-- yes, we do far too much squelching of people's aggressive energy, and not enough redirecting. But what would redirecting look like on an adult/ national scale?

(What just popped into my head was the WPA.)

[ 12. October 2015, 18:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
If you haven't deduced this from Pigwidgeon's link, we already have them. Most of the places I've lived, they're an annual affair, frequently held in the the months before Christmas. The problem of people using the cash to buy bigger and better firearms is avoided by not paying cash, but by offering a choice of gift cards to stores where people can buy Christmas presents for their loved ones.

Unfortunately it barely makes a dent in the number of guns on the ground.
At least hereabouts, this is partly because the amount offered for them is considerably less than what one might get for them at a pawnshop.

Or, for that matter, in an alleyway, cash in hand, no questions asked. For someone looking to sell - why take the smaller amount offered by the police, and trust them when they say they won't surreptitiously take camera footage of who's turning in what (to be used in later prosecution), when you can sell elsewhere for more money and less chance of problems?

I'm told by acquaintances who collect that they've had good luck in offering more money right outside the police station for specific firearms that interested them, though I've no independent corroboration of that.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Arizona seems to be competing with Texas as far as fuck- you laws, sometimes.
Unfortunately, it seems as if we're winning.
[Frown]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

Yeah, if I could ban one stupid school rule, it would be the one where we tell kids not to build excellent upper body strength by climbing up slides.
I don't know how much of that is Elf'n'Safety, and how much is insufficient climbing equipment. (The throughput of a slide is much reduced if people are climbing up.)

quote:
If you don't allow reasonable opportunities for rambunctiousness into the rules, kids will find ways to be rambunctious that will take ten years off your life.
One of the tricks being how to ensure that the rambunctiousness is mutually consensual.


quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The problem of people using the cash to buy bigger and better firearms is avoided by not paying cash, but by offering a choice of gift cards to stores where people can buy Christmas presents for their loved ones.
Except money is fungible. If you give me a gift card to buy something that I would have bought anyway, it's functionally equivalent to giving me cash. If you give me a gift card that anyone in my extended family or circle of friends can use to buy something they would buy anyway, it's equivalent to cash. As a last resort, I can sell it at a discount.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And there is no desire to shoot others who might shoot back.
Well, no. Why would anyone want that (duels and other nuttiness aside)?

People who want to shoot guns at other people fall into two categories:

1. People who are violent criminals or those who have snapped and want to go on a spree killing.

2. People who want to defend themselves.

Neither group wants a "fair fight". It may well be that the spree killers in group 1 are intending to commit suicide-by-cop, and go down in a hail of bullets and blaze of glory, but they're not interested in doing that until after they've committed their acts of carnage.

People in group 2 aren't interested in trading blow for blow with an attacker - they're interested in stopping whoever's attacking them.

[ 12. October 2015, 19:19: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

Yeah, if I could ban one stupid school rule, it would be the one where we tell kids not to build excellent upper body strength by climbing up slides.
I don't know how much of that is Elf'n'Safety, and how much is insufficient climbing equipment. (The throughput of a slide is much reduced if people are climbing up.)

quote:
If you don't allow reasonable opportunities for rambunctiousness into the rules, kids will find ways to be rambunctious that will take ten years off your life.
One of the tricks being how to ensure that the rambunctiousness is mutually consensual.


To point 1. : climbing up a slide is a specific excercise. Even on elaborately crafted climbing equipment, kids do it. (And the standardized climbing structures in mynstate have a minimum of three slides-- one curly, two straight.) If they can physically do it, and if the only hassle created by it is teachers having more work to do by keeping them off, why are we forbidding an excellent large motor activity? Make a couple right of way rules and let them have at it!

To point 2. If we free teachers up from dumb rules, and if the teachers themselves don't use the playground as a venue to talk about last night's episode of "Hoarders" but as a venue to engage in conversation with the kids (I'm looking at you, Lucy V. ), we will have a chance to teach them the vocabulary (verbal and nonverbal) of consent. " Do you hear him yelling 'ow!'? Do you see her covering her face and backing away? That means they are not having fun. You: ask if he's ok, and you: tell her,' I don't want to play like that! Stop pulling my arms!'"

It's doable.I do it all day long. When I am not stuck enforcing some dumb " down only" slide regulation.

[ 12. October 2015, 19:56: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
To point 2. If we free teachers up from dumb rules, and if the teachers themselves don't use the playground as a venue to talk about last night's episode of "Hoarders" but as a venue to engage in conversation with the kids (I'm looking at you, Lucy V. ), we will have a chance to teach them the vocabulary (verbal and nonverbal) of consent. " Do you hear him yelling 'ow!'? Do you see her covering her face and backing away? That means they are not having fun. You: ask if he's ok, and you: tell her,' I don't want to play like that! Stop pulling my arms!'"

It's doable.I do it all day long. When I am not stuck enforcing some dumb " down only" slide regulation.
Exactly. When I was a kid, girls were allowed to opt out of rambunctious play when we wanted to because we were girls, whereas boys were more likely to face a social penalty (at the very least, being called sissies) for doing the same thing. As long as everyone is clear on the fact that sometimes people (of either gender) don't want to play like that and that's OK, I don't see the problem.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If they can physically do it, and if the only hassle created by it is teachers having more work to do by keeping them off, why are we forbidding an excellent large motor activity? Make a couple right of way rules and let them have at it!
I was thinking of my own local playground (which has a couple of climbing structures with three slides each.) However, the slides are all different, and so there's often three or four children queueing to go down the preferred slide. Climbing up a slide (slow) with several children waiting to slide down it (quick) is kind of assholey.

I'd be quite happy to declare one slide the "up" slide and avoid traffic flow issues that way.

(My eldest still complains about how she was told not to climb on top of the monkey bars [Smile] )
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
If you haven't deduced this from Pigwidgeon's link, we already have them. Most of the places I've lived, they're an annual affair, frequently held in the the months before Christmas. The problem of people using the cash to buy bigger and better firearms is avoided by not paying cash, but by offering a choice of gift cards to stores where people can buy Christmas presents for their loved ones.

Unfortunately it barely makes a dent in the number of guns on the ground.
At least hereabouts, this is partly because the amount offered for them is considerably less than what one might get for them at a pawnshop.
A pawnshop? Why would a pawnbroker part with cash for a gun? Surely they can't resell it, unless of course they're part of a licensed gun dealership. Presumably they wouldn't have access to what's needed to run background checks and ensure the buyer has a valid permit.

Or, am I just being naive and that it's perfectly legal to buy a gun no questions asked?

quote:
For someone looking to sell - why take the smaller amount offered by the police, and trust them when they say they won't surreptitiously take camera footage of who's turning in what (to be used in later prosecution), when you can sell elsewhere for more money and less chance of problems?
I wouldn't have thought of a buy-back as something for "someone looking to sell". More of a means for citizens concerned that they have dangerous items in their homes to get rid of them simply and safely - I know that if I owned guns the last thing I'd want is for them to get into the hands of criminals, and the peace of mind of handing them to the police for destruction would be an important consideration. But, that's just me.

In the UK I don't think we've had buy backs (I may be wrong about that). But, we do have regular amnesties where people can hand in illegally held weapons (guns and knives mostly, the odd sword sometimes turns up). AIUI the amnesty covers the crime of holding the weapon illegally, by handing it over you won't be prosecuted for having it in the first place. The amnesty doesn't cover any crimes that the weapon may have been used for. Although it would take a particularly dumb criminal to use a gun in a bank robbery, fire it, and then hand it into the police to check the recovered bullet to the gun. Any criminal with half a brain would surely know it's easy to match bullets to guns and if the gun was fired during a crime they'd dump the gun in the nearest body of deep water as fast as possible.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

In the UK I don't think we've had buy backs (I may be wrong about that).
There were buybacks in 1997/1998, to compensate owners of weapons that were banned post-Dunblane. This is only right and proper - if we make your legally-owned property illegal, we should compensate you for it.

I'm pretty sure there was one after Hungerford and the resulting legal changes as well.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

In the UK I don't think we've had buy backs (I may be wrong about that).
There were buybacks in 1997/1998, to compensate owners of weapons that were banned post-Dunblane. This is only right and proper - if we make your legally-owned property illegal, we should compensate you for it.

I'm pretty sure there was one after Hungerford and the resulting legal changes as well.
You're right, I should Google before posting ... though, still not finding any post-Hungerford buy-back references (but, the restrictions on the higher power rifles affected very few people as they weren't a commonly held weapon - if you're going hunting you don't want to use a gun that will spread your dinner over several hundred feet).

It is, of course, right and proper to provide some compensation when something that had been legally owned becomes illegal. I suppose the UK had it easier doing that buy-back, we would have known how many guns were coming in and therefore know the cost upfront. If you try that without a list of legally held guns there's a bit of guess work involved in working out what the cost will be.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
On a saner note from Texas #CocksNotGlocks has students doing open carry of dildos.

quote:
“You’re carrying a gun to class?”.... “Yeah well I’m carrying a HUGE DILDO. Just about as effective at protecting us from sociopathic shooters, but much safer for recreational play.”

 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
You might also enjoy Gunlickers [NSFW], a series by artist Kate Kretz. It's kind of a dildo gun thing. Art...

[Hostly edit - while CocksNotGlocks should give the reader a bit of a clue, Gunlickers may not. Technically, artistic portraits of men fellating weaponry isn't porn, but could certainly be misconstrued as porn. So I'm tagging it.]

[ 13. October 2015, 08:03: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
On a saner note from Texas #CocksNotGlocks has students doing open carry of dildos.

quote:
“You’re carrying a gun to class?”.... “Yeah well I’m carrying a HUGE DILDO. Just about as effective at protecting us from sociopathic shooters, but much safer for recreational play.”
You know things are nuts when student stunts seem sensible.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
[Big Grin] Aren't they awesome?

Like I said, some people find 500 reasons not to do something, and some people take a dildo to class.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You might also enjoy Gunlickers, a series by artist Kate Kretz. It's kind of a dildo gun thing. Art...
NSFW warning would have been nice here.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You mean, something described as "dildo gun thing art" hadn't suggested it might not be work safe?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Hostly furry hat on

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, MT. I've tagged the Gunlickers link as NSFW, for the reasons I've stated in my edit.

DT
HH

Hostly furry hat off
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A pawnshop? Why would a pawnbroker part with cash for a gun? Surely they can't resell it, unless of course they're part of a licensed gun dealership. Presumably they wouldn't have access to what's needed to run background checks and ensure the buyer has a valid permit.

Or, am I just being naive and that it's perfectly legal to buy a gun no questions asked?
No - I wasn't clear enough, that's all. [Biased]

In the case of a pawnshop, they need a federal firearms license (most, if not all, have them) and to conduct the appropriate background checks, etc. For a firearm that's legit, they still pay better than the buybacks do - if I were wishing to get rid of a firearm in my home, assuming I have no reason to suspect it's dodgy, I'd likely go to the pawnshop and get a better price.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
For someone looking to sell - why take the smaller amount offered by the police, and trust them when they say they won't surreptitiously take camera footage of who's turning in what (to be used in later prosecution), when you can sell elsewhere for more money and less chance of problems?
I wouldn't have thought of a buy-back as something for "someone looking to sell". More of a means for citizens concerned that they have dangerous items in their homes to get rid of them simply and safely - I know that if I owned guns the last thing I'd want is for them to get into the hands of criminals, and the peace of mind of handing them to the police for destruction would be an important consideration. But, that's just me.
For some, it probably is. For others, they're looking for the best price available, and the buyback isn't it, by any means.

I'm not saying buybacks are somehow wrong and evil, just generally ineffective from what I can see.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
For some, it probably is. For others, they're looking for the best price available, and the buyback isn't it, by any means.
It would probably be the best price for a particular pistol I have. The money could help pay for a particular bullpup shotgun I'm wanting to buy.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You might also enjoy Gunlickers, a series by artist Kate Kretz. It's kind of a dildo gun thing. Art...
NSFW warning would have been nice here.
Is a thread titled "Fucking Guns" safe for work?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
NSFW warning would have been nice here.
Is a thread titled "Fucking Guns" safe for work?
This tangent is getting distinctly Styxish. If you wish to debate when nsfw tags are appropriate on the Ship, including Hell, then you're always welcome to open a thread there.

DT
HH
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Regarding the pawnshop v. buyback. I do not know what the buyback programmes are offering, but a pawnshop is a horrible place for a best offer, unless guns are an exception. An American friend of mine, who made his living buying music gear from pawnshops and selling the merchandise elsewhere, said receiving 10 cents on the dollar of current market worth was a good offer from a pawnshop.
Buy back programmes are meant to remove guns from circulation, especially those which might be problematic to sell through normal channels. As such, they have a different tone to merely selling them.
Whether they are effective is another topic, but comparing them to.pawnshops is a category error.
The new Arizona law demonstrates the difference between direct effectivity and ideological effectivity.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
It seems it depends on the terms of the buyback and what the gun would sell for on the market. I have a pistol that I wouldn't use as a weapon other than to throw it at someone because it is in terrible shape. A gun buy back program might actually give me more than what it was worth. It is not unusual to turn in such guns and using the proceeds to buy a gun one would actually want.

If a gun buy back program will only give up to a certain dollar figure, it is possible that one could still get more at a pawnshop if it is a really nice gun. One could just pawn the gun and get it back later if you are just trying to get some dough to tide you over to later, too.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
On the other hand, if you trade in six busted ass jank guns to finance one extra shiny one, you have theoretically contributed to reduction.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
This maybe a dumb question, but, if you just wanted a weapon for self defence - why go for a handgun rather than a taser ?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and says that a taser is a dangerous weapon and requires extensive background checks, registration and licensing.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
This maybe a dumb question, but, if you just wanted a weapon for self defence - why go for a handgun rather than a taser ?
If I were to be wanting a weapon for self-defense, I'd want the gun, not the taser. The reason is that I'm only going to use it if I'm being attacked with potentially lethal force, and a taser isn't a guaranteed stop.

It's fine as a less-lethal way of subduing a suspect for law enforcement, but there are too many examples of tasers failing to bring someone down (eg. clothing prevents barbs from making good contact) for me to want to rely on one. Also, the standard taser is a single-shot deal: if the barbs miss, it's now a very bad club.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
If all you care about is protecting yourself and harming your attacker, yes. If you think you cannot make a mistake, yes. If you think your purse or wallet is worth someone else' life, yes. If you think your safety is more important than a bystander, potentially your own family member, yes. If you think the risk to your children is worth being able to use deadly force, yes.
You know, all the good Christian values.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and says that a taser is a dangerous weapon and requires extensive background checks, registration and licensing.
Not quite in Canada. They are simply prohibited weapons. Only police may use them, they must verbally warn first, and firing one leads to an investigation just like the use of a gun. General public may not own them, or pepper spray or mace etc.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QB] If all you care about is protecting yourself and harming your attacker, yes.
They would be about it. Our condo is laid out with the kitchen, dining room and living room to the right as you come in with the bedrooms down a hallway. Someone would have to start down the hallway towards our bedroom before I'd shoot them because then I would consider my wife and I to be really threatened. If I were a mind reader and knew they were just going to take our 3 1/2 year old tv that cost only about $600 and just leave, I'd just set it near the front door and make it easy. Making a bloody mess and the property damage from 12 gauge blasts would be far worse than losing an old tv.

[ 14. October 2015, 00:41: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and says that a taser is a dangerous weapon and requires extensive background checks, registration and licensing.
Not quite in Canada. They are simply prohibited weapons. Only police may use them, they must verbally warn first, and firing one leads to an investigation just like the use of a gun. General public may not own them, or pepper spray or mace etc.
I think at least one of my daughters carries spray and/or a stun gun.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I think at least one of my daughters carries spray and/or a stun gun.
God Bless America! But please calm down. You might kill someone.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and says that a taser is a dangerous weapon and requires extensive background checks, registration and licensing.
Not quite in Canada. They are simply prohibited weapons. Only police may use them, they must verbally warn first, and firing one leads to an investigation just like the use of a gun. General public may not own them, or pepper spray or mace etc.
I thought we were talking about guns in The United States of America. Or, have you Canadians decided that there's no point in pretending to be a different country and simply joined the US without telling anyone?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I thought we were talking about guns in The United States of America. Or, have you Canadians decided that there's no point in pretending to be a different country and simply joined the US without telling anyone?
God forbid! We need somewhere to go when it gets REALLY bad here, as it may yet still.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There's still Mexico. Or, Cuba.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If all you care about is protecting yourself and harming your attacker, yes. If you think you cannot make a mistake, yes. If you think your purse or wallet is worth someone else' life, yes.
Doublethink's question stipulated that I had decided to carry a weapon, which implies that I have made these assessments and come out in favour of a weapon.

So that I am perfectly clear:

A taser can, potentially, kill (although it usually doesn't). That means that it must be regarded as lethal force, and there are no circumstances under which it is reasonable to shoot someone with a taser but not with a gun. (Yes, clearly if you have the right conditions it's better to use the taser because he probably won't die, but you still need to be able to justify lethal force to pull the trigger on a taser.) So if your wallet isn't worth killing over, don't get the taser out either.

quote:

If you think your safety is more important than a bystander, potentially your own family member, yes. If you think the risk to your children is worth being able to use deadly force, yes.
You know, all the good Christian values.
It seems to me that a child is just as likely to shoot himself or someone else with a taser he finds as with a gun, so I don't see that as an argument for taser over gun. I agree that it's an important consideration for "weapon / no weapon".

I assume your "safety of bystanders" thing is to do with missing your attacker, and hitting someone else. That's a question of training and practice. I can assure you that I think the typical training received by police officers is woefully inadequate.

I suspect that carrying a taser is actually less safe for those around me than carrying a gun. If I'm going to be using either weapon, it's because I'm being attacked by an armed assailant. If I fire a taser at him, and it fails to incapacitate him because one or both barbs are caught by his clothing, what's going to happen next? Are things likely to go better or worse for me and my family / friends than if I didn't have a weapon at all?

In the real world, I don't carry any kind of weapon, and nor do I intend to. The chance of me encountering a situation in which I'd want to shoot someone is basically zero. But if I did want to carry something, it wouldn't be a taser.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In the real world, I don't carry any kind of weapon, and nor do I intend to. The chance of me encountering a situation in which I'd want to shoot someone is basically zero. But if I did want to carry something, it wouldn't be a taser.
Would your preference be towards a gun, or towards mace/pepper spray? Or simply an alarm that makes an awful lot of noise? Noting that things making loud noises have been classed as weapons (bag pipes, for example - and, used to great effect at times).
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, have you Canadians decided that there's no point in pretending to be a different country and simply joined the US without telling anyone?
Dear God, I think his sphincter clench just sucked up Montana...
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would your preference be towards a gun, or towards mace/pepper spray? Or simply an alarm that makes an awful lot of noise?
Well, I suppose that would depend on what I thought the threat was. If I thought I was under sufficient threat of attack to warrant carrying some kind of weapon, I think I'd just go somewhere else - I don't think there's anywhere that I want to go that badly.

But stipulating that I had some reason to want to put myself in that kind of danger, there are some environments / threats where mace or an alarm might do the trick, and others where they'd be useless.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If I thought I was under sufficient threat of attack to warrant carrying some kind of weapon, I think I'd just go somewhere else - I don't think there's anywhere that I want to go that badly.
Let's put it in relation to the scenario that the NRA pose as justification for more guns (putting aside for the moment that the NRA, on this point at least, are completely nuts).

You're a school teacher. You have to be in school, you have no "go somewhere else" option. And, the threat is potential crazy person with one or more guns intent on shooting you or the students in your care. Also, let's suppose option A (get yourself and your students out of the building to somewhere safe) and option B (barricade the class room door and establish as much protection with desks as possible) are not feasible - ie: the gunman is actually in the room. Would any of the non-gun options be effective at, if not actually disabling the gunman, giving opportunity for you to get your students and yourself to safety? Would mace or pepper spray induce sufficient pain and loss of vision that you would have the opportunity to escape? Or would a rape alarm (or similar) in an enclosed space be sufficiently disruptive of his ability to react?

Basically, in that desperate situation, is a gun your only realistic option? Or, by that time are things so bad that nothing is going to make any difference?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
This maybe a dumb question, but, if you just wanted a weapon for self defence - why go for a handgun rather than a taser ?
If I were to be wanting a weapon for self-defense, I'd want the gun, not the taser. The reason is that I'm only going to use it if I'm being attacked with potentially lethal force, and a taser isn't a guaranteed stop.

It's fine as a less-lethal way of subduing a suspect for law enforcement, but there are too many examples of tasers failing to bring someone down (eg. clothing prevents barbs from making good contact) for me to want to rely on one. Also, the standard taser is a single-shot deal: if the barbs miss, it's now a very bad club.
I would be interested to know if the belief that a handgun has more chance of stopping an attacker - say with a gun - than a taser, is justified.

Unless you are stunningly accurate, a bullet will not stop someone pulling the trigger when they are seriously injured - whereas a taser hit renders you unable to do anything for a period of time. (Some tasers available in the USA for civillian use can fire three times, using three cartridges, without requiring a reload.)
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Alan:
quote:
Basically, in that desperate situation, is a gun your only realistic option? Or, by that time are things so bad that nothing is going to make any difference?
Well, you could do what Professor Librescu did in the Virginia Tech shootings; attempt to grapple with the gunman to give your students time to escape. The teachers at Sandy Hook tried to stop the massacre too. All of them deserve to be remembered as heroes. [Votive]

Unless you actually have the gun in your hand and shoot as the crazed gunman comes through the door I think the only difference the gun would make is that you'd be shot first.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Unless you actually have the gun in your hand and shoot as the crazed gunman comes through the door I think the only difference the gun would make is that you'd be shot first.
If there are lots of guns around for "self defence", sooner or later someone will make a mistake. If you're the "good guy with a gun" who shoots a student bursting through the door of your room to get out of sight of the gunman in the corridor you'll have to live with it the rest of your life.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Oscar Pistorius, anyone?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Let's put it in relation to the scenario that the NRA pose as justification for more guns (putting aside for the moment that the NRA, on this point at least, are completely nuts).

You're a school teacher. You have to be in school, you have no "go somewhere else" option. And, the threat is potential crazy person with one or more guns intent on shooting you or the students in your care. [..] the gunman is actually in the room. Would any of the non-gun options be effective at, if not actually disabling the gunman, giving opportunity for you to get your students and yourself to safety? Would mace or pepper spray induce sufficient pain and loss of vision that you would have the opportunity to escape? Or would a rape alarm (or similar) in an enclosed space be sufficiently disruptive of his ability to react?

Basically, in that desperate situation, is a gun your only realistic option? Or, by that time are things so bad that nothing is going to make any difference?
So if I accept the premise:

Normal pepper spray has a range of about 10 feet. The civilian Taser C2 has a range of 15 feet. A handgun is effective anywhere in the classroom.

To make any kind of defense possible, I think we need to assume you either heard the gunman coming, so have a few seconds to prepare, or he's at the front of the classroom grandstanding about how misunderstood he is. If you're in a classroom engaged in a lesson, and someone comes through the door ready to kill people, most of you are dead, and arming the teacher won't help because the shooter will kill the teacher first.

Let's go with the grandstanding model - it's the closest match to your premise. Some nutter is waving his gun around at the front of your classroom talking about how he hated school, and you and the kids are on the other side of the room. It's hard for me to imagine being close enough for pepper spray to be useful, whereas I could just about imagine the stars aligning so that I could draw a gun and fire before the shooter was able to respond.

Rape alarms? No idea. I have no feel for how incapacitating they are. Presumably you'd set it off and throw it at him; presumably whatever effect it had on the gunman it would have on you and the children as well.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Normal pepper spray has a range of about 10 feet. The civilian Taser C2 has a range of 15 feet. A handgun is effective anywhere in the classroom.
And depending on the power of the handgun, the next classroom too.

What's your priority here? Is it to be a Big Damn Hero, or ensure that as few as possible of your students die? Because at the point where there's a gunman in my classroom, I'm figuring that the janitor's broom is probably going to be my best bet.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I think at least one of my daughters carries spray and/or a stun gun.
God Bless America! But please calm down. You might kill someone.
Calm down? Compared to me Marlin Perkins would be the wild and crazy one.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Police tasers, which theoretically could be made legal for civillians, have a range of 35 feet.

What is the average distance people can fire a handgun accurately ?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
They would be about it. Our condo is laid out with the kitchen, dining room and living room to the right as you come in with the bedrooms down a hallway. Someone would have to start down the hallway towards our bedroom before I'd shoot them because then I would consider my wife and I to be really threatened. If I were a mind reader and knew they were just going to take our 3 1/2 year old tv that cost only about $600 and just leave, I'd just set it near the front door and make it easy. Making a bloody mess and the property damage from 12 gauge blasts would be far worse than losing an old tv.
[Roll Eyes] So now that you have the script written, who's going to play you in the movie?

See what I mean about fantasy shit? Why don't you tell us about the other fantasies where one of your kids is despondent over flunking math or your wife is pissed at the next-door neighbour or your boss yells at you or a truck cuts you off in traffic or whatever and you won't be the hero? You know, the fantasies where you're just one more mouth-breathing Amoronican contributing to the thousands of deaths caused by gun culture?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... Let's go with the grandstanding model - it's the closest match to your premise. Some nutter is waving his gun around at the front of your classroom talking about how he hated school, and you and the kids are on the other side of the room. It's hard for me to imagine being close enough for pepper spray to be useful, whereas I could just about imagine the stars aligning so that I could draw a gun and fire before the shooter was able to respond....
Well, your imagining sucks. How about talking the person down?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The Taser XREP has a 30 metre range. It is a projectile fired from a shotgun.
ETA: adding to DT's comment.
The complete fantasy scenarios, and the idiots who believe them, are a large part of the problem.

[ 14. October 2015, 18:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So now that you have the script written, who's going to play you in the movie?
Gilbert Gottfried. I like his voice.

quote:
See what I mean about fantasy shit? Why don't you tell us about the other fantasies where one of your kids is despondent over flunking math or your wife is pissed at the next-door neighbour or your boss yells at you or a truck cuts you off in traffic or whatever and you won't be the hero? You know, the fantasies where you're just one more mouth-breathing Amoronican contributing to the thousands of deaths caused by gun culture?
No, I'm sticking to where it is someone heading down the hall to our bedroom and, therefore, posing a direct personal threat.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
At that range you could definitely hit them with a taser.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
At that range you could definitely hit them with a taser.
Probably. Someone mentioned one with several rounds in it, so that may be an option, too.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
That would be the taser X3
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Taser XREP has a 30 metre range. It is a projectile fired from a shotgun.
I thought we were discussing things that could conveniently be carried around. So DT's 35 feet for a police model pistol-style taser is arguably OK (they're bulky, but I suppose you could imagine carrying one). It's really not practical for most people to wander around with shotguns...

Note that 35 feet is the range of the taser, not the accurate range. Most handgun rounds can easily travel many hundred feet, but accuracy is the issue.

DT asks about handgun accurate ranges.

Men's Olympic pistol shooting is at a 50 meter range, and a world-class shooter will land all his shots in a circle that's about 7.5 cm diameter.

These are controlled conditions, world-class athletes, and very much special-purpose guns. Normal people and normal guns couldn't get close to that.

Consistently hitting a chest-sized target at 50 feet with a normal handgun is, I think, achievable by anyone with practice.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That would be the taser X3
Lots of choices. I googled taser gun and this is one right here came up.

Between that and the shotgun, fine.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
So, given that, would you commit to taser instead of firearm ?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Consistently hitting a chest-sized target at 50 feet with a normal handgun is, I think, achievable by anyone with practice.
So, Leorning Clint. Given that the police practice regularly, and that they managed to land just 18% of their shots at targets who are actively shooting back (and only 30% of them at targets that aren't), I call BS on the relevance of this.

You are, on average, going to hit anything but your target, no matter what you can do at the range.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
This might be of interest as regards the accuracy of a taser. With a 25-foot range cartridge, accuracy was usually adequate at 15 feet, but not so great at 20 feet. At the end of the document you'll find a protest from Taser about this claim. There were also issues with barb penetration at 20 feet.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I thought we were discussing things that could conveniently be carried around. So DT's 35 feet for a police model pistol-style taser is arguably OK (they're bulky, but I suppose you could imagine carrying one). It's really not practical for most people to wander around with shotguns...
I don't think carrying around either one is all that practical because even a taser looks too bulky. There's an area maybe 50 sq feet plus the size of our bedroom that I'd really think about using either one. Well, the whole condo if someone breaks in when we're still awake. Even then, we are located near the middle of the complex so the chances of anything really happening are remote.

Our unit, and I guess all the others, also have built in fire hose systems. That must mean we all fantasize about our homes catching on fire, too.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Given the pace of technological change, I think I'd want data on products on the market now, not seven years ago. I mean seriously, that's two years before the release of the ipad.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
]So, Leorning Clint. Given that the police practice regularly,
This statement just isn't true. Most police do not practice regularly - most police officers shoot twice a year to re-qualify (and the standard required to qualify in many departments is very low). Many departments don't even practice with their regular carry ammunition, and few departments drill in any kind of realistic scenario.

You'd like it to be true, and I'd like it to be true, but it just isn't.

You can see why it's true as well. Pretty much every cop carries a gun, but most will never fire it outside the qualification range. Shooting guns just isn't a big part of a police officer's job, so it's easy to see why a department might spend its training time on things that will be used more often.

That, by the way, is yet another reason arming teachers is a bad idea. Schools have much less spare money floating around than police forces. How big do you think their teachers' firearms training budget is going to be?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So, given that, would you commit to taser instead of firearm ?
I'd rather use a taser in our condo because if would make less of a mess (does being tasered cause one to lose control of bodily functions?) but will keep the shotgun.

It seems that a motion detector with a limited range that is wired to turn on some of our lights would be a great idea, too. I'd rather a potential home invader just leave.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
How does a shotgun help, in your condo, over having two three shot tasers ?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
How does a shotgun help, in your condo, over having two three shot tasers ?
The taser doesn't always stop folks.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Nor do guns.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that the police practice regularly,
This statement just isn't true. Most police do not practice regularly - most police officers shoot twice a year to re-qualify (and the standard required to qualify in many departments is very low). Many departments don't even practice with their regular carry ammunition, and few departments drill in any kind of realistic scenario.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I can't imagine what it must be like fearing armed intrusion to the extent that I'd be tooled up and prepared to shoot.

I had a fair few break-ins when I lived in a run-down area - one of them as I lay in bed - but the intruder fled as soon as they realised there was someone in.

That was pretty scarey at the time.

I was also mugged once but managed to hold onto my wallet when I realised that they weren't going to offer serious violence.

I appreciate that this makes me fortunate and isn't the reality that many people live in day to day. Someone's normal is someome else's abnormal.

In this instance, I'm glad my normal is normal ... but I don't know what to say to those for whom my normal is abnormal.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Thing
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Thing
As if facts will ever trump fantasy.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
The fantasy ? Clobbering the home invader round the head with a specialty item from njoy ?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
[Killing me]
Wrong kind of toys.
They enjoy having around a magnum whilst stroking their snub nose.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Bloody hell, waving around. Besides, no room for toys with their heads in the way.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Fucking Siri suggestions.
I read this, so fuck you gun-loving bastards, you read it as well.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nor do guns.
A shotgun at the distance under consideration would.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't imagine what it must be like fearing armed intrusion to the extent that I'd be tooled up and prepared to shoot.

I had a fair few break-ins when I lived in a run-down area - one of them as I lay in bed - but the intruder fled as soon as they realised there was someone in.
It's not a big fear and they would have to come toward our bedroom and pose a threat to my wife and me before I'd do something like shoot someone. I've never heard of any of the homes hear being burglarized and doubt that someone would select ours if any were since we towards the middle of the complex.

To read some of the comments here, it seems there are folks who really think there are folks who fantasize about having a bloody mess in their home.

[ 15. October 2015, 00:47: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
A link in that article leads to this study on attitudes to gun ownership and mental health. I find some parts of the gun ownership section (I've not read the mental health bit yet) interesting.

First there is in many of the questions a clear difference between NRA members and other gun owners. For example in questions about banning the sale of military style assault weapons with multiple round magazines <20% of NRA members supported this, whereas 45-50% of all gun owners did - and >75% of non-gun owners. For requiring a law-enforcement issued license only 38% of NRA members support this compared to 59% of all gun owners, and 84% of non-gun owners. On every question NRA members were less supportive than other gun owners. With only 18% of the gun owners in that survey belonging to the NRA, it appears that claims by the NRA that they represent gun owners are bunkum, with the majority of gun owners having different views to the NRA on gun control issues.

Second, I note the level of support for several relatively easily implemented policies. Almost 70% support on banning sale of military style assault weapons with multiple round magazines (with slightly lower support at around 55% for banning ownership of these weapons - which is a step that would require some form of "taking away our guns" step). Requiring licenses issued by law-enforcement agencies supported by 77% of respondents, with restrictions on provision of licenses to people who have been convicted of multiple crimes, violent crime, domestic violence supported by over 75%. Legal requirement to have guns locked away when not in use supported by 67%.

Assuming those figures are correct then legislation that includes one or more of the following would have overwhelming popular support from the American public - including those who already own guns
If so, and that study is more than a year old so this isn't new information on what the people of the US want, why hasn't this already happened? Even more interestingly, why aren't these included in the platforms for those campaigning for the Presidency as there would appear to be votes to be had there?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
Alan,

What do mean when you use the term "assault weapon"?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I take it that it is legal to shoot and kill American intruders to your house. Is it in UK, Australia, NZ, continental Europe? It is certainly not legal in Canada. You may only use force proportionate to the threat. Scaring the intruder is preferrable. I don't recall hearing of anyone shooting in such a situation. Of course legal storage of guns means locked up unloaded separate from bullets, which means no one expects armed intruders or homeowners here.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I take it that it is legal to shoot and kill American intruders to your house.
Well, it depends. Here is our law.

Here is an opinion piece from a former NYPD detective and NRA pistol instructor that helps to put it in layman's terms.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
It seems that burglars themselves agree that the best defense against home intruders is a dog inside with a good, strong bark.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Alan,

What do mean when you use the term "assault weapon"?
In the post above, I'm using the term from the NEJM article. It may not be as clearly defined as you'd like. They use the phrase "military style, semi-automatic assault weapons that are capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading", so the 69% of respondents saying they wanting a ban on the sale of assault weapons (and the 56% who favoured a ban on ownership) were responding to a question phrased with that definition.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nor do guns.
A shotgun at the distance under consideration would.
A shotgun would if you have time to aim the gun and fire it and the proposed target doesn't do anything too bothersome while you're coping with the adrenalin surging through you at the time. Like, I don't know... you can ask them to stand still?

This is all assuming you have the gun to hand of course.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I take it that it is legal to shoot and kill American intruders to your house. Is it in UK,
It appears that in the US it is only legal to shoot someone actually breaking in, or where there is a threat to your life.

I can only comment about the UK, and that in light mostly of some relatively recent gun law research (for this thread and another recent example where we had to consider legal implications of something said here). In the UK, to obtain a license for a gun you need to justify why you need the gun - self defence, or defence of property (except from animal pests), is not recognised as a legitimate reason to own a gun. It is also a criminal offence to use a gun to inflict harm on someone else, or as an act of intimidation (so that also includes unloaded or non-functional guns). However, if you happen to have a gun and there is reasonable cause to consider your life to be in danger then a case for self-defence can be made - you will probably go to court and have to show that either the intruder was armed with a lethal weapon (gun, knife etc) or that you had very good reason to suspect he was, and that you had good reason to assume he was going to use the weapon on you or someone else. You would go through the same procedure if you picked up a kitchen knife to defend yourself or hit someone with the cricket bat you left in the hallway.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nor do guns.
A shotgun at the distance under consideration would.
A shotgun would if you have time to aim the gun and fire it and the proposed target doesn't do anything too bothersome while you're coping with the adrenalin surging through you at the time. Like, I don't know... you can ask them to stand still?

This is all assuming you have the gun to hand of course.
I don't see why a taser gun would be any more accurate or more likely to be in my hand.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It appears that in the US it is only legal to shoot someone actually breaking in, or where there is a threat to your life.
Not quite. In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.

[ 15. October 2015, 03:06: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Alan,

What do mean when you use the term "assault weapon"?
In the post above, I'm using the term from the NEJM article. It may not be as clearly defined as you'd like. They use the phrase "military style, semi-automatic assault weapons that are capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading", so the 69% of respondents saying they wanting a ban on the sale of assault weapons (and the 56% who favoured a ban on ownership) were responding to a question phrased with that definition.
Ok. The difference between a semi-automatic assault weapon and a semi-automatic rifle is one is called an assault weapon and the other is called a rifle. Either one fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. They just look different. As I understand it, automatic weapons are against the law throughout the country but people often think assault rifles, which can be fired automatically or burst, are what is meant by the term "assault weapon".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It appears that in the US it is only legal to shoot someone actually breaking in, or where there is a threat to your life.
Not quite. In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
I was just following the links Mere Nick provided, which at least for North Carolina in the opinion piece in laymans terms, said that merely being in your house wasn't justification for shooting someone - "The law presumes there is an intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, and you have a right to shoot them while they are in the process of breaking in, if you fear you will lose your life.", "You must be able to state that you feared for your life and the facts must back up that statement".

Sorry, my post seems to have gained an "or" somewhere in there which confuses things a bit. And, probably "justifiable assumption of threat to your life" would be better. A really poorly composed paragraph all around on my part. But, in my defence the main point of my post was the summary of UK law - which basically seems to be the same except we wouldn't have a loaded gun handy in all but a very few cases.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It appears that in the US it is only legal to shoot someone actually breaking in, or where there is a threat to your life.
Not quite. In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
Here in North Carolina you have to reasonably believe such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. So, threatened, but what would reasonably be a serious threat.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
Even if the person "threatening" you is carrying nothing but a box of Skittles.
[Disappointed]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
Even if the person "threatening" you is carrying nothing but a box of Skittles.
[Disappointed]
HE WAS BLACK! Are you mad?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The difference between a semi-automatic assault weapon and a semi-automatic rifle is one is called an assault weapon and the other is called a rifle. Either one fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. They just look different. As I understand it, automatic weapons are against the law throughout the country but people often think assault rifles, which can be fired automatically or burst, are what is meant by the term "assault weapon".
Surely "assault weapon" is a generic term covering a variety of weapons with some common features - an "assault rifle" would be one example of that class of weapons, not a different class altogether. And, the article clearly said "semi-automatic" not "automatic".

I would say the main characteristic of concern is the magazine with 10 or more rounds. There are very few, if any, cases where I can see that as necessary. For example, if you're hunting you would want to hit the target with the first shot - if you miss the deer (or whatever) will have gone, along with practically every other critter in the vicinity. It will be some time before the prey calm down and stop being jittery enough to hunt again, certainly long enough to reload. I can see how you might want to be able to get off a quick second shot if your first injures the animal and you want to finish the job as quickly as possible.

So, what is the justification people have for having weapons that have large magazines? Other than paranoid delusions about Communist invasions, alien attack, zombie rampages or deciding to instigate an armed rebellion against the government.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was just following the links Mere Nick provided, which at least for North Carolina in the opinion piece in laymans terms, said that merely being in your house wasn't justification for shooting someone - "The law presumes there is an intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, and you have a right to shoot them while they are in the process of breaking in, if you fear you will lose your life.", "You must be able to state that you feared for your life and the facts must back up that statement".

Sorry, my post seems to have gained an "or" somewhere in there which confuses things a bit. And, probably "justifiable assumption of threat to your life" would be better. A really poorly composed paragraph all around on my part. But, in my defence the main point of my post was the summary of UK law - which basically seems to be the same except we wouldn't have a loaded gun handy in all but a very few cases.
I think what I was providing was information for is the Castle Doctrine, not the Stand Your Ground stuff.

From what I've provided, I wouldn't feel it a life threatening matter unless someone decided to come down the hall to our bedroom. If I shoot down the hallway, the blast would not be directed toward a neighboring condo but toward a hill across the street. I doubt a jury would convict me for shooting an intruder anywhere in my home, but that's not good enough for me. I don't want to shoot someone over mere stuff but I will if my wife or I are threatened. So, it comes down to what are the odds of someone coming to our 225 home condo complex, going towards the middle of it, breaking into our particular unit and coming down our hallway? Very low, I calculate.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, what is the justification people have for having weapons that have large magazines? Other than paranoid delusions about Communist invasions, alien attack, zombie rampages or deciding to instigate an armed rebellion against the government.
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.

In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
Let the reader understand.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
Let the reader understand.
Michonne
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
Not in this state it don't. 3 cartridges max.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the post above, I'm using the term from the NEJM article. It may not be as clearly defined as you'd like. They use the phrase "military style, semi-automatic assault weapons that are capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading", so the 69% of respondents saying they wanting a ban on the sale of assault weapons (and the 56% who favoured a ban on ownership) were responding to a question phrased with that definition.
There used to be a federal ban on the production of new "assault weapons". In that 1994 law, a "semiautomatic assault weapon" was one with two or more of a particular set of features. New magazines couldn't hold more than ten rounds, but old ones were grandfathered in - and there were a lot of old ones. A lot of the features were basically cosmetic. Basically, it was a gun that looked a bit scary.

Which means that manufacturers just needed to tweak their designs a bit to get functionally similar weapons to pass the law. Very few people are fixing bayonets to defend their homes (or chase down Bambi), so the absence of a bayonet mount is unlikely to trouble anyone.

It may be that mass shooters are excited by "scary military-looking" weapons, so a ban on guns with a particular appearance might have an effect on the number of mass shootings. The data isn't significant enough to really say either way. I don't think the 1994 law accomplished much else.

The law expired in 2004, and was not renewed.

[ 15. October 2015, 04:56: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
Let the reader understand.
Michonne
I hope you didn't think I didn't understand.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nor do guns.
A shotgun at the distance under consideration would.
A shotgun would if you have time to aim the gun and fire it and the proposed target doesn't do anything too bothersome while you're coping with the adrenalin surging through you at the time. Like, I don't know... you can ask them to stand still?

This is all assuming you have the gun to hand of course.
I don't see why a taser gun would be any more accurate or more likely to be in my hand.
I'm not suggesting it would.

And to ask that is to ask the wrong question. The correct question is: why have a gun - an item that is more likely to cause death or serious injury to your or your family when it won't be any better for the purpose of protection?

As far as I'm concerned, the point isn't that a taser would be more effective than a gun at the intended purpose. The point is that it would be just as effective but with fewer bad side-effects.

I'm constantly amazed at the ability of gun proponents to focus on the benefits of guns while not mentioning the downsides, when all the evidence is that in real life the downsides are massively more likely to occur. You know all those toddlers who've managed to shoot someone (including themselves) this year? It would be damn interesting to find out whether the guns they found were "for protection" and whether any of the guns they found had ever actually been used for protection.

[ 15. October 2015, 05:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I'm constantly amazed at the ability of gun proponents to focus on the benefits of guns while not mentioning the downsides, when all the evidence is that in real life the downsides are massively more likely to occur.
It's easy to convince yourself that all these downsides are because some other guy was stupid, and that you're not going to be that stupid. And there's a fair amount of truth in that.

Another example: Condoms are 85% effective at preventing pregnancy in practice, and 98% effective when used correctly. This doesn't mean that the average person has a 15% chance of failure - it means that many people will come close to 98% effectiveness, and then there's a bunch of screwups. If you know you're not a screwup, you should feel confident that you would achieve an effectiveness in the high nineties.

The catch is that most screwups think that they're normal.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The catch is that most screwups think that they're normal.
Reasonably certain that almost everyone thinks they're 'above average'. Which is clearly nonsense.

If cops can't hit a barn door when the perp isn't even shooting back, the vast majority of civilians are going to be worse than that.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The catch is that most screwups think that they're normal.
Reasonably certain that almost everyone thinks they're 'above average'. Which is clearly nonsense.

If cops can't hit a barn door when the perp isn't even shooting back, the vast majority of civilians are going to be worse than that.
Actually, I think it's that they can't hit a barn door when the 'perp' is a stationary paper cut out at 10 yards, with time to steady their aim.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fucking Siri suggestions.
I read this, so fuck you gun-loving bastards, you read it as well.
Guns don't kill people.

Babies kill people.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Reasonably certain that almost everyone thinks they're 'above average'. Which is clearly nonsense.
Some years ago an Australian car insurance company did a survey of its customers.

70% of them rated themselves as above average drivers.

The view of the company was that it was the people who rated themselves highly that were a concern, because as a matter of logic a substantial number of them were overestimating their driving skills.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... I've never heard of any of the homes hear being burglarized and doubt that someone would select ours if any were since we towards the middle of the complex.

To read some of the comments here, it seems there are folks who really think there are folks who fantasize about having a bloody mess in their home.
So you've decided to keep a gun in your house so you can risk the lives of your friends, family and neighbours to prevent something that has never happened and you believe isn't likely to happen. That's beyond fantasy, that's fucking delusional. Send me all your moneys now - I found a great deal on insurance against wildebeest stampedes for you.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...
The view of the company was that it was the people who rated themselves highly that were a concern, because as a matter of logic a substantial number of them were overestimating their driving skills.
There's actually been some social science research on this phenomenon, and it's not just the math, it's human nature. People who think they're good at something are often overestimating their abilities; and those who think they aren't very good at something are often underestimating. It's ego vs. reality. "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" usually leads to horrible "accidents".
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
Not in this state it don't. 3 cartridges max.
Really? What state is that? I've done a little digging and can't find anything about it anywhere in the country.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Reasonably certain that almost everyone thinks they're 'above average'. Which is clearly nonsense.
Some years ago an Australian car insurance company did a survey of its customers.

70% of them rated themselves as above average drivers.
If my insurance company asked me to rate my driving I'd rate myself as above average because I would be concerned that if I rated myself below average theyd put my premiums up!
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
Let the reader understand.
Michonne
I hope you didn't think I didn't understand.
I didn't know if you did or didn't, and so what if you didn't?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
No biggie, just a point of pride for me.

Although, returning to "Walking Dead" this season with this thread in mind has left a bad taste-- what is that show but an apologia for " frontier justice," when you come down to it? Some humans are not human anymore, and those who are human humans are justified in eridicating them.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't see why a taser gun would be any more accurate or more likely to be in my hand.
I'm not suggesting it would.

And to ask that is to ask the wrong question. The correct question is: why have a gun - an item that is more likely to cause death or serious injury to your or your family when it won't be any better for the purpose of protection?

As far as I'm concerned, the point isn't that a taser would be more effective than a gun at the intended purpose. The point is that it would be just as effective but with fewer bad side-effects.
No, a taser would not be as effective in all cases. It does happen that some folks, for what ever reason, are not all that fazed by them. I don't know if it is because of certain drugs, adrenaline, or what. It would seem unlikely that a home invader would be willing to allow us to experiment. If it was a 100% certainty that a taser would work, fine. Better than a bloody mess and property damage.

quote:
I'm constantly amazed at the ability of gun proponents to focus on the benefits of guns while not mentioning the downsides, when all the evidence is that in real life the downsides are massively more likely to occur.
There's no reason the mention the downsides because everyone knows them. Do you ever drive a car? Must you always add that people die in car wrecks?

I'm not really a gun proponent. I'm a proponent of the idea that you, orfeo, are more qualified than anyone else, the only one qualified, to make such a decision about such things in your life. If you want one, fine. If not, fine. It's your choice and your responsibility. It appears you don't have any guns. You do have a credibility that is completely lacking in any of our politicians who have armed guards yet try to lecture the rest of us. The can sod off.

I believe it is impossible to calculate how many times guns have been used for protection. Should it be just how many times a gun was used? Shown? How many times would be burglars never even approached a property in the first place because of the thought folks might be armed?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
No biggie, just a point of pride for me.

Although, returning to "Walking Dead" this season with this thread in mind has left a bad taste-- what is that show but an apologia for " frontier justice," when you come down to it? Some humans are not human anymore, and those who are human humans are justified in eridicating them.
Oh? I thought it was to promote the idea that women who are good at baking cookies, killing people and blowing shit up are great to have around unless they want to show you some flowers.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Do you ever drive a car? Must you always add that people die in car wrecks?
No, primarily because (in this part of the world at least) it's possible to successfully use a car for its stated purpose a remarkable number of times before anything bad happens.

Same with all sorts of things that are part of everyday life, generally work fine, occasionally go badly wrong. Heaters successfully heat homes far more often than they burn them down.

With a gun for protection, you're talking about something that is kept around for an unlikely scenario and, despite your attempt now to suggest that it's actually used when it's displayed but not fired, has been shown to more likely harm the residents of the house than to be used successfully.

(If you want to scare people by brandishing a gun, buy a fucking replica.)

This is all just variation of cost/benefit analysis and risk management. I take on the risk of driving a car because of the huge demonstrable benefits it brings to my daily life. I have no problem with gun ownership when it's for a concrete, practical purpose (as is perfectly possible in rural areas).

What I find bizarre is how successfully the NRA/the gun industry has sold an inchoate notion that people need "protection" for an event that is quite unlikely, and with little guarantee the protection will actually work. Soror Magna has already perfectly encapsulated how delusional this is.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
Not in this state it don't. 3 cartridges max.
Really? What state is that? I've done a little digging and can't find anything about it anywhere in the country.
I think what MT is thinking of is Federal law regarding hunting of migratory waterfowl - there is indeed a 3 round capacity limit when hunting ducks, geese, etc.

I'm not aware of any state that prescribes a 3 round magazine limit for general possession or use , however.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...
The view of the company was that it was the people who rated themselves highly that were a concern, because as a matter of logic a substantial number of them were overestimating their driving skills.
There's actually been some social science research on this phenomenon, and it's not just the math, it's human nature. People who think they're good at something are often overestimating their abilities; and those who think they aren't very good at something are often underestimating. It's ego vs. reality. "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" usually leads to horrible "accidents".
The Dunning-Kruger Effect
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
Shotguns are for hunting here. Waterfowl (ducks, geese) and upland game (grouse, pheasants, partridge). Invariably they are 12 gauge (18.5mm), 26" barrels (66cm) and almost always pump action, which will hold 5 shells, but it is required to have a plug in the magazine to restrict it to 3 shells. Guns with shorter barrels and more shell capacity are restricted.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

If cops can't hit a barn door when the perp isn't even shooting back, the vast majority of civilians are going to be worse than that.
Yes indeed - unless they put in the training and practice. There's nothing innate about cops that makes them skilled shots - you'd expect them to be no better and no worse than a bunch of random civilians who have had the same level of training and practice, and have reasonable physical fitness.

They're just people. More or less anyone who wants to shoot significantly better than the average cop can learn to do so. It's not magic, just training and practice, which costs time and money. Spend a lot more time on training and practice than Officer Friendly, and you shouldn't be surprised when you out-shoot him. It's not something that most people do do, but it's something that they are capable of doing.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

The view of the company was that it was the people who rated themselves highly that were a concern, because as a matter of logic a substantial number of them were overestimating their driving skills.
Sure. Someone who is a poor driver and knows that he is a poor driver will give himself extra space/time, because he knows his limitations. Someone who is bad but thinks he's good will take risks and cause accidents.

(It's easy to score someone's shooting - shoot a target from a standard distance, and add up the points. Driving skill is harder to measure objectively, so probably easier to mis-estimate.)

I do wonder exactly what's going on with this stat, though. I would guess (without much of any data to back it up) that most of what's going on is that people are thinking that the average driver is worse than they really are, because examples of bad driving that you encounter stick in your mind more than examples of good driving. So if you rank drivers on a 0-10 scale, with 5 being average, I'd be expecting a whole load of 5s to be ranking themselves as "above average" because they think that an average driver is about a 3.5.

This error is much less dangerous than having a smaller number of boy racer 2s and 3s who think they're 8s and 9s.

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
The Dunning-Kruger Effect
Well, according to that study, my guess would be wrong. That study suggests that it's the very bad who are going around thinking that they are average or a bit above, and conversely the very good don't really understand how bad some other people are.

quote:
A follow-up study, reported in the same paper, suggests that grossly incompetent students improved their ability to estimate their rank after minimal tutoring in the skills they had previously lacked, regardless of the negligible improvement gained in skills.
In other words, people who are useless at X tend to have had no exposure to the range of skill at X, and so don't realize how good other people are. Once they see that other people can easily do what they can't, they realize their ineptitude.

One assumes that the able person would also get better at estimating his superiority by spending time observing the crap.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
Shotguns are for hunting here. Waterfowl (ducks, geese) and upland game (grouse, pheasants, partridge). Invariably they are 12 gauge (18.5mm), 26" barrels (66cm) and almost always pump action, which will hold 5 shells, but it is required to have a plug in the magazine to restrict it to 3 shells. Guns with shorter barrels and more shell capacity are restricted.
I believe the length requirements here are 18 inch barrels and 26 inch for the whole gun. I've no interest in hunting so will probably just take it up to the mountain and shoot targets.

I found this and if you scroll down to The "Shotgun Myth" it says the 3 shell limit is for for when you are shooting at migratory birds. Otherwise, there's no limit.

Way back in 1996 we took a couple of private planes through Canada to Alaska. We stopped off in Edmonton and an officer came to the plane and made sure we didn't have any handguns but did have a rifle. It's the only place I've ever been to where folks wanted to make sure we had a gun. I don't recall if there were magazine minumums or maximums for the rifle.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] Do you ever drive a car? Must you always add that people die in car wrecks?
No, primarily because (in this part of the world at least) it's possible to successfully use a car for its stated purpose a remarkable number of times before anything bad happens.
Same here, but more people die in car wrecks than gun homicide.

quote:
With a gun for protection, you're talking about something that is kept around for an unlikely scenario and, despite your attempt now to suggest that it's actually used when it's displayed but not fired, has been shown to more likely harm the residents of the house than to be used successfully.
Of course it's unlikely. It is a possibility, though, and so we will have one. While you believe it is just a suggestion that showing one counts as a use, I believe that that the idea that folks have them is an actual use. The secret service at the White House is constantly using them, even though they are rarely fired at anyone.

quote:
This is all just variation of cost/benefit analysis and risk management. I take on the risk of driving a car because of the huge demonstrable benefits it brings to my daily life. I have no problem with gun ownership when it's for a concrete, practical purpose (as is perfectly possible in rural areas).
Exactly. That's why I leave it up to you to decide whether or not you will be armed with a gun.

quote:
What I find bizarre is how successfully the NRA/the gun industry has sold an inchoate notion that people need "protection" for an event that is quite unlikely, and with little guarantee the protection will actually work.
Even Joe Biden recommends a shotgun. I don't see a need for me to own a pistol or rifle. If you want one or either, go for it.

quote:
Soror Magna has already perfectly encapsulated how delusional this is.
I find the idea of someone other than you deciding whether or to have a gun to protect your home delusional and assholish. Especially when the person who proposes to do the deciding is armed or has armed guards.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originally posted by LC:
quote:
Yes indeed - unless they put in the training and practice
it isn't merely shooting at a target.
Ask anyone who has experienced war. Training helps, but training is much more than target practice. And nothing but being in the situation predicts how well one will react.

Originally posted by MN
quote:
Same here, but more people die in car wrecks than gun homicide.
Please tell me you are really not this stupid? Cars are not guns. Most of the comparisons used are just plain stupid.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
A thought experiment.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Originally posted by MN
quote:
Same here, but more people die in car wrecks than gun homicide.
Please tell me you are really not this stupid? Cars are not guns. Most of the comparisons used are just plain stupid. [/QB]
Of course cars are not guns. However, more people are killed in car wrecks then by gun homicide. If you want to read more in to it, that's your problem, not mine.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
Here is a summary of stun gun/ taser laws for each state, if anyone is interested. I guess it us up to date.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Originally posted by MN
quote:
Same here, but more people die in car wrecks than gun homicide.
Please tell me you are really not this stupid? Cars are not guns. Most of the comparisons used are just plain stupid.
Of course cars are not guns. However, more people are killed in car wrecks then by gun homicide. If you want to read more in to it, that's your problem, not mine. [/QB]
If you are implying nothing, why bring it into the discussion?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] Do you ever drive a car? Must you always add that people die in car wrecks?
No, primarily because (in this part of the world at least) it's possible to successfully use a car for its stated purpose a remarkable number of times before anything bad happens.
Same here, but more people die in car wrecks than gun homicide.
So the fuck what? Seriously, do you understand statistics so badly that you think an absolute number actually means something on its own?

Do you honestly believe that if device A kills it user once every 5 times, and device B kills its user once every 2,000,000 times, and millions of people are using device B daily whereas only one family is continuing to use device A occasionally, that device A would be better because it kills fewer people?

[ 15. October 2015, 22:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
According to Wikipedia the number of deaths caused by cars is very similar to the number of gun deaths, around 33,000 per year for both.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
it isn't merely shooting at a target.
Ask anyone who has experienced war. Training helps, but training is much more than target practice. And nothing but being in the situation predicts how well one will react.
...all of which applies to cops as well as to other people.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
So, given rate of use, cars are safer than guns to an incredible degree.
Still, not a legitimate comparison. Vehicles are a demonstrable necessity in urban, and many rural, environments.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
it isn't merely shooting at a target.
Ask anyone who has experienced war. Training helps, but training is much more than target practice. And nothing but being in the situation predicts how well one will react.
...all of which applies to cops as well as to other people.
Yes, but likely not in the way you mean.
Granted that American police are generally poorly trained and inconsistent between localities. But, generally speaking, their training deals with conflict and contact that almost none of the general public recieve.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Oh, and even if police are equal to the general public, it would be an argument for their not having weapons either, not you having them as well.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, given rate of use, cars are safer than guns to an incredible degree.
Still, not a legitimate comparison. Vehicles are a demonstrable necessity in urban, and many rural, environments.
Slight nit to pick. Urban environments are where cars are least necessary, if the city has decent public transportation. It's the burbs and rural areas that are impossible without a car.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
more people are killed in car wrecks then by gun homicide.
So fucking what? This is irrelevant. Totally, completely irrelevant.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, given rate of use, cars are safer than guns to an incredible degree.
Still, not a legitimate comparison. Vehicles are a demonstrable necessity in urban, and many rural, environments.
Slight nit to pick. Urban environments are where cars are least necessary, if the city has decent public transportation. It's the burbs and rural areas that are impossible without a car.
Also, cars are major contributors of CO2, are they not?

So they are actually killing everyone just a little each day, on top of the many people that they completely kill each day.

And they are not a necessity, as evidenced by the fact that for statistically all of human history we have survived without them, in both urban and rural environments.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The only relevant thing is that the number of people killed by cars has declined, especially as a proportion of the number of cars on the road/total miles driven. And, that reduction in deaths is a direct consequence of regulations - improvements in car design, requirements for drivers to undertake extensive training and pass a test to demonstrate they can control the car adequately and react sensibly to common situations that may occur while driving, legislation to ban driving while under the influence of drink or drugs and enforcement of those laws, mandatory insurance, etc etc.

If you're going to make the comparison, take it to the logical conclusion. Additional regulation of guns will reduce gun deaths.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Also, cars are major contributors of CO2, are they not?
Which is justification for further motor vehicle regulations, starting with emissions - which ultimately comes down to less car use, and therefore provision of alternative means of getting around eg: by public transport, safe cycle and walking routes, increased car share schemes, etc. But, banning SUVs would be a start.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Granted that American police are generally poorly trained and inconsistent between localities. But, generally speaking, their training deals with conflict and contact that almost none of the general public recieve.
I'm going to quote my previous comment.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Spend a lot more time on training and practice than Officer Friendly, and you shouldn't be surprised when you out-shoot him. It's not something that most people do do, but it's something that they are capable of doing.
I agree - most random people do not have as much training as a random cop. So what? Anyone who wants to spend the time and money can obtain such training.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh, and even if police are equal to the general public, it would be an argument for their not having weapons either, not you having them as well.
Sure. I'm in general pretty uncomfortable with many cops having guns, given the lack of skill they demonstrate. My uncomfortableness is somewhat tempered by the fact that most cops never fire their weapons, so the fact that they wouldn't hit the side of the barn is somewhat moot.

If I ever wanted to own a gun for self-defense, I would want significantly more training and practice than the average cop gets before I felt comfortable with the responsibility.

I'm not at all arguing that Joe Sixpack is going to do better than a random cop - I'm arguing that if he wants, he can develop better skills than the average cop has, and I seem to be faced with a wall of opinion that believes a blue uniform is somehow magic.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
requirements for drivers to undertake extensive training and pass a test to demonstrate they can control the car adequately and react sensibly to common situations that may occur while driving,
You've never taken a US test, have you? [Devil]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, given rate of use, cars are safer than guns to an incredible degree.
Still, not a legitimate comparison. Vehicles are a demonstrable necessity in urban, and many rural, environments.
Slight nit to pick. Urban environments are where cars are least necessary, if the city has decent public transportation. It's the burbs and rural areas that are impossible without a car.
Put that nit back!
For I said vehicles. But also, even the cities with the absolute most crowded public transportation, the streets are full of private vehicles.

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
And they are not a necessity, as evidenced by the fact that for statistically all of human history we have survived without them, in both urban and rural environments.
Stupid argument. No, really stupid. Unless you are proposing guns to thin the population to the point where antique transportation is sufficient.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
According to Wikipedia the number of deaths caused by cars is very similar to the number of gun deaths, around 33,000 per year for both.
My fellow Carolinian specified homicide in his post. Your number includes suicides, which are nearly 2/3 of the total.

I think there is a significant distinction between cars and guns that goes to the crux of the politics of the issue in the US. Driving is a privilege.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I think there is a significant distinction between cars and guns that goes to the crux of the politics of the issue in the US. Driving is a privilege.
To appropriate the words of my colleague down here: what the fuck is wrong with you people?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

I think there is a significant distinction between cars and guns that goes to the crux of the politics of the issue in the US. Driving is a privilege.
Oh, not this again.

This claim is pure nonsense. Driving is a right, as is liberty, being able to engage in commerce, raise children, and all the other normal things that people do all the time.

It's not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, but that's OK. The ninth amendment quite clearly says that there are other rights.

And if you screw up, your rights get taken away. Commit a crime, and you'll lose your right to liberty. Don't take proper care of your kids and you'll lose the right to raise them.

There's no constitutional bar at all for a gun-owner's license requiring some kind of reasonable proficiency test. It can't be made capricious (cf. voting tests for black folks), but it's legal. There's no political will or support for it, though.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
According to Wikipedia the number of deaths caused by cars is very similar to the number of gun deaths, around 33,000 per year for both.
My fellow Carolinian specified homicide in his post. Your number includes suicides, which are nearly 2/3 of the total.
Yes, well if someone is stupid enough to make an unfair comparison between gun homicide and all car deaths then it's only fair the field is levelled. I did that by comparing total gun deaths with total car deaths. Dead is dead, does it make much difference if by homicide or by accident?

Of course, many car deaths are suicides - either people deliberately stepping into traffic, or gassing themselves on exhaust fumes. I suppose some of those car deaths are homicides - we can't take our cars within sight of most airports these days after someone used their vehicle in an act of homicide.

quote:
I think there is a significant distinction between cars and guns that goes to the crux of the politics of the issue in the US. Driving is a privilege.
Yes, driving is a privilege. But, being able to wander into a school with a collection of guns and shoot down kids in their classes is a right? I feel like joining in the chorus of "what the fuck is wrong with you people?"
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
See, I want to say," shut the hell up, you cookie- eating motherfucker, Carol's a BADASS," but by saying that, I am saying, "A woman only earns the term badass when she becomes a female version of a gun toting, blood splashing male action figure fantasy," and that kind of has its fucked up side, don't you see?

I'm still a fan, but the thought does arise.

[ 16. October 2015, 03:01: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
MASSIVE page vertigo. Responding to this:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
No biggie, just a point of pride for me.

Although, returning to "Walking Dead" this season with this thread in mind has left a bad taste-- what is that show but an apologia for " frontier justice," when you come down to it? Some humans are not human anymore, and those who are human humans are justified in eridicating them.
Oh? I thought it was to promote the idea that women who are good at baking cookies, killing people and blowing shit up are great to have around unless they want to show you some flowers.

 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm not really a gun proponent. I'm a proponent of the idea that you, orfeo, are more qualified than anyone else, the only one qualified, to make such a decision about such things in your life. If you want one, fine. If not, fine. It's your choice and your responsibility. It appears you don't have any guns. You do have a credibility that is completely lacking in any of our politicians who have armed guards yet try to lecture the rest of us. The can sod off.
Hear, hear.

I lived in DC during the gun ban. Being a city dweller, I did not want to own a gun, as it seemed to me that the risk/reward ratio was too skewed, so the ban didn't bother me. Right up until a guy repeatedly came to my front door (sliding glass) in order to try to peek through the curtain and masturbate.

Obviously I called the police, but they never came (a friend who was working on the force at the time said they were under orders to reduce crime by simply not taking crime reports). He never tried to get in, but all my police and military friends advised me to risk the legal consequences and buy a gun.

Didn't change my mind about the wisdom of an average urban or suburbanite keeping a gun in their home, but it did change my mind about whether or not the government should forbid it in all circumstances.

quote:
I believe it is impossible to calculate how many times guns have been used for protection. Should it be just how many times a gun was used? Shown? How many times would be burglars never even approached a property in the first place because of the thought folks might be armed?
Yep. It's an odd idea that a gun has to be fired in order to count as having been used for protection.

And unlike tasers, guns have legitimate uses beyond self defense. Doesn't make sense to have a gun for shooting vermin and a taser for self defense.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, being able to wander into a school with a collection of guns and shoot down kids in their classes is a right?
Oh, yeah, sure. As long as you're defining an act that's not only illegal but generally a death penalty offense as being a right.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, being able to wander into a school with a collection of guns and shoot down kids in their classes is a right?
Oh, yeah, sure. As long as you're defining an act that's not only illegal but generally a death penalty offense as being a right.
If you're going to postulate that being able to drive a car is a privilage but owning guns is a right then logically that is a right that is something everyone can enjoy. Therefore, anyone can have guns, and anyone who feels like doing something illegal with them has the ability to do so. And, they then face the legal consequences of their actions. If you're going to defend the right of everyone to bear arms then you're going to have to face the consequences of that - which include young men walking into schools and shooting kids.

On the other hand, if you're going to say that not everyone would be permitted to own a gun then it's not a right but a privilege. In which case the legislature is free to enact whatever restrictions it wasn't to limit that privilege (subject to not so royally pissing off the electorate that they have no hope of regaining their seats next election).
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I seem to be faced with a wall of opinion that believes a blue uniform is somehow magic.
Far from it. Just that the rest of the civilised world assumes a general level of competence from their police officers, and especially where it comes to firearms training. In the UK, they're trained to fuck, and they still make crashing mistakes - though they do at least tend to shoot the person they were intending to hit, even when they ought not to have.

Perhaps it's time you started taking guns away from cops unless they can demonstrate some degree of accuracy and discernment, as suggested above.
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In the UK, they're trained to fuck,
I always assumed it was innate ability.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I lived in DC during the gun ban. Being a city dweller, I did not want to own a gun, as it seemed to me that the risk/reward ratio was too skewed, so the ban didn't bother me. Right up until a guy repeatedly came to my front door (sliding glass) in order to try to peek through the curtain and masturbate.

Obviously I called the police, but they never came (a friend who was working on the force at the time said they were under orders to reduce crime by simply not taking crime reports). He never tried to get in, but all my police and military friends advised me to risk the legal consequences and buy a gun.
What the fuck is wrong... No, in your case we already have a fair idea.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps it's time you started taking guns away from cops unless they can demonstrate some degree of accuracy and discernment, as suggested above.
I was out this evening at a student party (I'm still wondering since when student parties finish at 9.30pm on a Friday night ... but never mind that) and was talking with the captain of the University archery society. They shoot at 30cm diameter targets at 30m, and consider it a very poor day if less than 50% of their arrows are on target. I couldn't help but compare that with the 70% of shots on target, at less than a quarter of the distance, requirement previously quoted here for a concealed carry permit. And, the suggestion that police officers aren't significantly better than that. When it comes down to a choice between a group of cops with guns trained to US standards and a bunch of kids with bows and arrows I know what would make me feel safer.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Also, cars are major contributors of CO2, are they not?

So they are actually killing everyone just a little each day, on top of the many people that they completely kill each day.

And they are not a necessity, as evidenced by the fact that for statistically all of human history we have survived without them, in both urban and rural environments.
As an argument, that doesn't even rise to the level of arm-waving. Flailing, maybe. And the whole car analogy is a fail anyway. How about an abortion analogy? Abortion is a constitutional right too, after all. So maybe gun buyers should have to wait 48 hours before actually getting the gun. They should have to watch a gory video of what happens when people get shot. And there should be crowds in front of every gun shop screaming "WANNA-BE MURDERER!!!" at the customers.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Just that the rest of the civilised world assumes a general level of competence from their police officers, and especially where it comes to firearms training. In the UK, they're trained to fuck, and they still make crashing mistakes - though they do at least tend to shoot the person they were intending to hit, even when they ought not to have.
A UK firearms officer has enormously more firearms training than a typical US cop, and also has much more restrictive rules governing the use of his weapon. Of course, because there aren't very many AFOs, you can have good training without it being prohibitively expensive. I'd guess the secret service could probably shoot straight, too.

(Another news report today - cop stops teenage kid, cop shoots teenage kid with taser, kid is not immobilized, but does get angry, cop shoots kid dead. All because (allegedly) the kid flashed the cop because the cop had his brights on.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And the whole car analogy is a fail anyway. How about an abortion analogy? Abortion is a constitutional right too, after all. So maybe gun buyers should have to wait 48 hours before actually getting the gun. They should have to watch a gory video of what happens when people get shot. And there should be crowds in front of every gun shop screaming "WANNA-BE MURDERER!!!" at the customers.
Heh. There is a meme going around that says just that, almost word for word. I posted it on my FB wall a week or so ago, along with the wish that someone would have the guts to say something like that on the floor of congress.

As for the emmissions thing-- romanlion is for some reason not telling you all that in most states, you cannot complete your yearly vehicle registration without submitting proof that your car has undergone a " smog test". So he is only pointing out another way that cars are more sensibly monitored than guns.

{Code fix, because fucking Ipad.]

[ 17. October 2015, 04:10: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That's a "code-whoops", Kelly.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
See, I want to say," shut the hell up, you cookie- eating motherfucker, Carol's a BADASS," but by saying that, I am saying, "A woman only earns the term badass when she becomes a female version of a gun toting, blood splashing male action figure fantasy," and that kind of has its fucked up side, don't you see?

I'm still a fan, but the thought does arise.
In a world where the dead come back and eat folks, just what would "fucked up" mean?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
It means the show glorifies the fucked-up, Wild West video game fantasy that many gun defending Americans appear to live in.
On a related tangent, it is also Randian porn.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It means the show glorifies the fucked-up, Wild West video game fantasy that many gun defending Americans appear to live in.
On a related tangent, it is also Randian porn.
Yeah, well, that's just your opinion, man.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Abortion is a constitutional right too, after all.
Keep spewing shit like this while wondering why you can't get gun control legislation passed. Go on. (I've decided it's fun to watch the left eat itself.)
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Yeah, well, that's just your opinion, man.
That comment totally brings the thread together. The Dude abides.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It means the show glorifies the fucked-up, Wild West video game fantasy that many gun defending Americans appear to live in.
On a related tangent, it is also Randian porn.
I was about type an elaborate response, but this works as well as anything I can come up with.

Also Barnabas? You are clearly a zombie and I must aim for the head.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Abortion is a constitutional right too, after all.
Keep spewing shit like this while wondering why you can't get gun control legislation passed. Go on. (I've decided it's fun to watch the left eat itself.)
Shooting folks is just post birth abortion. What's the problem. I also heard some genius saying that owning people and guns were both wanted by your founding slave raping and breeding USA constipation writers so what's the problem with either
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
If the genius was an American political satirist advocating a rewrite of the second amendment, then you have been reading my FB page's mind as well.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Shooting folks is just post birth abortion. What's the problem. I also heard some genius saying that owning people and guns were both wanted by your founding slave raping and breeding USA constipation writers so what's the problem with either
Huh?

[ 17. October 2015, 23:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Shooting folks is just post birth abortion. What's the problem. I also heard some genius saying that owning people and guns were both wanted by your founding slave raping and breeding USA constipation writers so what's the problem with either
No, really, keep going.

quote:
I’m not sure I even know what to do with his slavery analogy, which is so incoherent that one suspects he threw it in the piece just to add that extra little seasoning of racial demagoguery that every far-Left essay needs. But really, Watkins makes everybody a winner. He gets to moralize, his fans get to enjoy their two minutes hate, and law-abiding gun owners are reminded, once again, at how poorly they’re understood and how much they’re despised.
I'm sure it'll be fun for you to watch the war from Canada.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Just catching up with this thread, and I noticed the comment from saysay about the man masturbating outside her house.
I would have thought that a bucket of cold water would have been more effective than a gun.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Or a taser.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It means the show glorifies the fucked-up, Wild West video game fantasy that many gun defending Americans appear to live in.
On a related tangent, it is also Randian porn.
“Access to women is the way for men to confirm their status, so the resentment is aimed at women, they’re not able to get that status. The resentment should really be towards the larger culture that makes these ridiculous definitions that men have to be dominant, have to be tall, have to be wealthy, all these kinds of things that really very few men can actually live up to."
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
I'm not sure if the big advert at the bottom for a "platoon rifle" with "consider your man card reissued", spoils or reaffirms it's point. [Frown]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I took it as an illustration of the problem.

ETA yeah, I just checked-- it's not really a working ad; clicking it does not redirect anywhere. It's a still from an ad to underline the point of the article.

[ 19. October 2015, 07:28: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Dad told the six year-old to leave the gun alone.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Dad told the six year-old to leave the gun alone.
Because six-year-olds always obey instructions, and you never find them, for example, sitting in a big pile of mess in a room they're not supposed to be in. [Mad]

Do these people also leave live exposed electrical conductors running around their home, and tell the kids "don't touch the metal"? Store bleach in a milk jug in the fridge, and tell the kids "don't drink the one on the left"? Or are they only stupid with guns?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
All of the above. And they don't want no nanny state telling them how to raise their kids.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It is a sad and ugly way to do it, but these people are simply self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool. There is such a thing as too dumb to reproduce, and what could be more in that line than getting your own kids killed off.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... There is such a thing as too dumb to reproduce ...
I was thinking something along those lines, BC - never mind not being allowed to have guns, maybe some people shouldn't be allowed to have children.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I would be happy to see all these open-carry people in their own town or state or whatever, where they can whip out the assault rifle whenever the barista puts the wrong kind of milk into their skinny latte, or open fire whenever the minister in the pulpit meant to cite 2 Peter but instead referenced 1 Peter. Alas, they are among us, which makes life much more unpleasant for all of us.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is a sad and ugly way to do it, but these people are simply self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool. There is such a thing as too dumb to reproduce, and what could be more in that line than getting your own kids killed off.
It isn't genetic, it s cultural. Read Kelly's link, it illustrates this.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I would be happy to see all these open-carry people in their own town or state or whatever, where they can whip out the assault rifle whenever. . . .
Every once in a while, talk of secession comes up. I say let them secede, and take their guns with them.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Do these people also leave live exposed electrical conductors running around their home, and tell the kids "don't touch the metal"? Store bleach in a milk jug in the fridge, and tell the kids "don't drink the one on the left"? Or are they only stupid with guns?
Most gun owners in the US are men. Most primary caregivers of children (and people who understand developmental stages and the reality that children frequently need to hear the same 'don't touch the stove it's hot' rule repeated multiple times etc.) are women. Most of the people who know proper gun safety and storage are men. Most of the people responsible for child-proofing the living space are women.

An awful lot of parents seem to suffer from the delusion that their children are too smart or know better than to touch or play with guns even if they have been given no explicit instruction when it comes to guns. Too many of them seem to believe that their children don't know where the guns are hidden when the kids do know.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I would be happy to see all these open-carry people in their own town or state or whatever, where they can whip out the assault rifle whenever the barista puts the wrong kind of milk into their skinny latte, or open fire whenever the minister in the pulpit meant to cite 2 Peter but instead referenced 1 Peter. Alas, they are among us, which makes life much more unpleasant for all of us.
So open-carry advocates are now responsible for the fact that a gang member in Chicago had an illegal gun that was improperly stored in his home?

Have you ever actually met an open-carry advocate?

This thread just keeps getting more and more bizarre.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Another father buys a gun "for protection." His three-year-old son was shot and killed by his six-year-old brother.

[Votive]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

This thread just keeps getting more and more bizarre.
I know that I have a self-blindness sometimes, but damn.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
This thread just keeps getting more and more bizarre.
Indeed it does. Just now, I'm trying to figure out what this bizarre statement means.

quote:

Most gun owners in the US are men. Most primary caregivers of children (and people who understand developmental stages and the reality that children frequently need to hear the same 'don't touch the stove it's hot' rule repeated multiple times etc.) are women. Most of the people who know proper gun safety and storage are men. Most of the people responsible for child-proofing the living space are women.

 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
It's all the fault of entitled white women - didn't you get saysay's memo?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

Have you ever actually met an open-carry advocate?

I met one. He moved to Colorado over 20 years ago and his brother told me at the time that the guy was openly carrying. If I've seen others, I don't recall. Everyone I still know that carries have taken the ccw course and carry concealed.

About that guy in DC who was at your window masturbating, did he get re-elected?
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
So open-carry advocates are now responsible for the fact that a gang member in Chicago had an illegal gun that was improperly stored in his home?

Have you ever actually met an open-carry advocate?

This thread just keeps getting more and more bizarre.
1) Ex-gang member. You read the article before casting aspersions, right? You also researched the relevant gun laws in his jurisdiction and the matters of particular fact before coming to the conclusion that the gun was possessed illegally?

Of course you didn't.

Even in DC, if you have reason to believe that your life is in danger for a specific reason—like, say, you snitched on your ex-gang—you are allowed to carry a handgun.

2) Met open carry advocates? Related to quite a few. Grew up with quite a few others. Judging by facebook, some of them are sane, normal, rational people who also own guns—mostly, those are the ones who are also veterans. Some of them are also trigger-happy egomaniacs who post constantly about "sheepdog" this and "civilians won't understand" that, despite having no military or more police background than volunteering a couple times a week. Those people scare me.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Oscar Pistorius is back home today after serving one year for shooting his girlfriend to death. He's a good example of the type who buys guns because he's scared all the time and thinks the guns will keep him safe. He's also the worst sort to have one because he's going to think every little noise in the night is an intruder.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Some of them are also trigger-happy egomaniacs who post constantly about "sheepdog" this and "civilians won't understand" that, despite having no military or more police background than volunteering a couple times a week. Those people scare me.
It seems they would come across as overbearing and boorish, a real drag to be around, gun or not.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Indeed it does. Just now, I'm trying to figure out what this bizarre statement means.
quote:

Most gun owners in the US are men. Most primary caregivers of children (and people who understand developmental stages and the reality that children frequently need to hear the same 'don't touch the stove it's hot' rule repeated multiple times etc.) are women. Most of the people who know proper gun safety and storage are men. Most of the people responsible for child-proofing the living space are women.
I'm not sure what's unclear. IME, people are sometimes stupid when it comes to kids and guns because there isn't necessarily a lot of overlap between the set of people who understand kids and the set of people who own guns and understand (adult) gun safety. There are a bunch of surveys out there indicating that a lot of women who know their husbands own guns don't know how the guns are stored or whether the NRA/pediatrician/etc. advice on safe storage (particularly in a household that includes children) are being followed.

You'd think most parents might ask about it after hearing enough stories about kids getting their hands on guns and accidentally shooting each other, but IME a lot of rural gun owners don't pay that much attention to the national news.

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
1) Ex-gang member. You read the article before casting aspersions, right?


I read multiple articles before "casting aspersions" (whatever that may mean). Most people I know who have worked with gangs don't believe there is such a thing as an "ex"-gang member. They don't tend to let you go.

quote:
You also researched the relevant gun laws in his jurisdiction and the matters of particular fact before coming to the conclusion that the gun was possessed illegally?

Of course you didn't.


No, I read multiple news articles that said it was an illegal gun purchased on the street from one of his "former" gang pals. Given the state of modern journalism, trusting anything a major news network says is probably stupid, but since I'm not planning on driving out to Chicago to investigate the issue myself, it's all I've got.

But of course you also did the relevant research in order to determine that this particular gun was legally purchased, owned, and stored and that's why strengthening gun control laws will totally work to prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future, right?

Of course not.

(Protect the narrative at all costs.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
trigger-happy egomaniacs who post constantly about "sheepdog" this and "civilians won't understand" that, despite having no military or more police background
Obvious response to such comments from people who are civilians. "You won't understand either then".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm not sure what's unclear. IME, people are sometimes stupid when it comes to kids and guns because there isn't necessarily a lot of overlap between the set of people who understand kids and the set of people who own guns and understand (adult) gun safety. There are a bunch of surveys out there indicating that a lot of women who know their husbands own guns don't know how the guns are stored or whether the NRA/pediatrician/etc. advice on safe storage (particularly in a household that includes children) are being followed.

You'd think most parents might ask about it after hearing enough stories about kids getting their hands on guns and accidentally shooting each other, but IME a lot of rural gun owners don't pay that much attention to the national news.
That isn't making things much clearer to me.

Two parents in a household with children. In the majority of cases I would expect both parents to be concerned about the safety and well being of their children, although they will probably express those concerns slightly differently. You seem to be suggesting that in households with guns both parents are less concerned with the safety of their children than in households without guns - the man who owns the guns because he may not think about safe storage properly, and his partner because she doesn't bother to check up on how her husband is keeping his guns.

That seems wrong to me. I can't see how owning guns means parents are less concerned about the safety of their children. Although it would indicate to me that they are mistaken (or have been misled) by believing having a gun in the house makes their children safer from some hypothetical intruder. Being in error about the safety of guns doesn't mean that they care less about their children than people who don't own guns.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That isn't making things much clearer to me.

Two parents in a household with children. In the majority of cases I would expect both parents to be concerned about the safety and well being of their children, although they will probably express those concerns slightly differently. You seem to be suggesting that in households with guns both parents are less concerned with the safety of their children than in households without guns - the man who owns the guns because he may not think about safe storage properly, and his partner because she doesn't bother to check up on how her husband is keeping his guns.
I don't mean to imply that in households with guns the parents are less concerned with the safety of their children than in households without guns. But there is also reality - children are impulsive and frequently unpredictable. They're curious and like to explore. They imitate the adults around them.

Guns are dangerous. There's an inherent risk/reward calculation that people need to make when it comes time to decide whether or not your household will contain guns. I grew up with guns in my house (there are times we likely would have starved without hunting). That doesn't change the danger of having guns in the house.

quote:
That seems wrong to me. I can't see how owning guns means parents are less concerned about the safety of their children. Although it would indicate to me that they are mistaken (or have been misled) by believing having a gun in the house makes their children safer from some hypothetical intruder. Being in error about the safety of guns doesn't mean that they care less about their children than people who don't own guns.
Of course being in error about the safety of guns or proper gun storage doesn't mean that the parents care less about their children than people who don't own guns. It means that they are in error - that they are wrong - about the risk/reward scenario of having a gun and storing it on the top of the fridge wrapped in pajama bottoms. It means... oh, fuck it.

Nobody's perfect, nobody knows everything. People die, and it's all just a game.

As it has always been, so shall it be. (Hated though it is).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You seem to be suggesting that in households with guns both parents are less concerned with the safety of their children than in households without guns
I don't think I'd say that - but I'd probably expect there to be a reasonable correlation between attitudes towards safety and so on between members of a couple. Which means that someone who thinks that "loaded, in a pair of pyjama pants on the fridge" is a smart way to store a handgun in a house with small children probably has a partner who isn't the smartest pair of safety scissors in the drawer either.

Conversely, the kind of gun owners who manage to keep the kids out of the bleach and the medicine cabinet probably also keep the guns locked up.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Ah, so the discussion is about competancy rather than motive. All parents are motivated to look after their children. However, some are more competant at that task than others. I think I'd agree there (there may be a small number of exceptions where parents are not motivated to look after their children).

So, if it's a question of competancy to make the risk/benefit calculation does that mean you're advocating some for of competancy test before allowing an adult in a household including children to keep a gun at home? Or, at least a safe storage requirement that if violated would result in the removal of the permission to keep the gun at home? Would that require some form of enforcement to verify the gun is stored safely?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ah, so the discussion is about competancy rather than motive. All parents are motivated to look after their children. However, some are more competant at that task than others. I think I'd agree there
[..]
does that mean you're advocating some for of competancy test before allowing an adult in a household including children to keep a gun at home?
Or a competency test before allowing an adult to keep a child at home?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
This thread is apparently bizarre enough just arguing about the right to have a gun (note in my last post I carefully talked about keeping a gun at home - your half-arsed Constitution may allow everyone to own a gun, it doesn't say that therefore they're allowed to keep that gun at home) without heading into the right to have children.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
without heading into the right to have children.
I didn't say anything about the right to have children - just about keeping them at home. [Devil]

[I can take neither credit nor blame for the US constitution - I just live here.]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
True. Boarding schools where children can be raised as proper Americans rather than gun totin' rednecks conspiring to rise in armed rebellion against their lawful and God-given government. We Brits should have thought of that before you lot got all uppity and demanded independence.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is a sad and ugly way to do it, but these people are simply self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool. There is such a thing as too dumb to reproduce, and what could be more in that line than getting your own kids killed off.
I can't even imagine the circumstances which would make me personally say anything that completely fucked up. I just can't wrap my mind around that.

[ 20. October 2015, 03:59: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
True. Boarding schools where children can be raised as proper Americans rather than gun totin' rednecks conspiring to rise in armed rebellion against their lawful and God-given government. We Brits should have thought of that before you lot got all uppity and demanded independence.
Boarding schools where children can be raised as proper Americans. Now what does that make me think of? Let me think. Let me think.

Oh yeah. What the Presbyterians did to the native Alaskans.

Pass.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Um, it kinda went on a little further south and east than Alaska also, but I'll give you the ideological point anyway.

[ 20. October 2015, 05:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Um, it kinda went on a little further south and east than Alaska also, but I'll give you the ideological point anyway.
That's the one I have read about most extensively. For obvious reasons.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Your reasons are not obvious to me. Why would you not include the rest of America?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
He's got the hots for Sarah Palin.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Not good.
Unless he shaves, she's likely to shoot him before she mounts him.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your reasons are not obvious to me. Why would you not include the rest of America?
Well, in the West It was European Catholics who ran boarding schools, and on the East coast a variety of European miseionaries from various Christian churches, but in each case it was Europeans forcing a European culture on native Americans.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Self selection through unsafe child rearing practice simply doesn't begin to offset the inability to grasp birth control methods by these same people.

quote:
Which means that someone who thinks that "loaded, in a pair of pyjama pants on the fridge" is a smart way to store a handgun in a house with small children probably has a partner who isn't the smartest pair of safety scissors in the drawer either.

Conversely, the kind of gun owners who manage to keep the kids out of the bleach and the medicine cabinet probably also keep the guns locked up.
So it would seem. This mother thought it would be okay to leave the kids home alone while she went shopping because grandpa was handy in another apartment in the building. Evidently they had been hanging out with him in his apartment until his dog had an accident, so he sent these two tiny kids down to their apartment to get cleaning supplies -- evidently within easy access. The littlest one had supplied himself with macaroni and cheese and was feeding himself at the table when the accident happened. None of this says good parenting to me and covers three adults in the same family.

Mom is currently defending her husband on their "go fund me" website and seems proud of him for keeping a gun to protect the family.

The Idiocracy grows daily.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

The Idiocracy grows daily.
The YouTube channel Cracked has a vid that makes a case for Idiocracy being a utopia compared to what exists now. It is humour and it is not a treatise, but they do make a solid point: problems do not rise up from trailer parks and council estates, but flow down enclaves and country estates.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Heh! Good video, with some sneaky truth. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, if it's a question of competancy to make the risk/benefit calculation does that mean you're advocating some for of competancy test before allowing an adult in a household including children to keep a gun at home?
I live in a state where you have to pass a gun safety class in order to purchase a regulated gun. I don't have an inherent problem with such requirements.

Of course, that didn't stop 270 people in my city from being murdered so far this year with mostly unregulated guns. But it made the process of trying to buy a legal gun more expensive and time consuming, which some suspect was the point.

quote:
Or, at least a safe storage requirement that if violated would result in the removal of the permission to keep the gun at home?
There are states that have laws regulating such things. The problem is enforcement.

quote:
Would that require some form of enforcement to verify the gun is stored safely?
And how exactly do you propose to do such a thing?

Even if you could get Americans to agree to a licensing and storage requirement for guns, I don't think you'll find many who will agree that exercising their Second Amendment rights forfeits their Fourth Amendment rights.

Even if you somehow got people to agree that the safety of their children requires them to allow a government agent to periodically check that they are storing their guns properly (not going to happen, but let's pretend), enforcement would necessarily be limited to households that own guns that the government knows about. Which wouldn't have stopped this particular shooting, as the gun was illegal.

Please explain how this magical law works, and how you would go about enforcing it (without starting a civil war)? Please bear in mind that you are talking about a country where things like this happen and the police currently seem determined to prove that they don't discriminate against black and brown people by also killing and violating the rights of white people.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There's an hierarchy here. If you don't listen to God, nor common sense, then Darwin gets you. He's at the bottom.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, if it's a question of competancy to make the risk/benefit calculation does that mean you're advocating some for of competancy test before allowing an adult in a household including children to keep a gun at home?
I live in a state where you have to pass a gun safety class in order to purchase a regulated gun. I don't have an inherent problem with such requirements.

Of course, that didn't stop 270 people in my city from being murdered so far this year with mostly unregulated guns. But it made the process of trying to buy a legal gun more expensive and time consuming, which some suspect was the point.
I would have said the point was to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by inappropriate use of licensed firearms. Reducing the number of licensed firearms by increasing the expense (both in time and money) to obtain the necessary licenses would also have that effect - every gun removed is one less that can be used inappropriately.

The other part of your comment is the number of illegally held firearms. That number will never be reduced while it is easy, and relatively inexpensive, to obtain guns legally. Increase the requirements to provide id and undergo background checks etc and it will be harder for criminals to obtain guns fraudulently from retailers. Make sure guns are locked away, and it will be harder for criminals to steal them from their legal owners.

quote:
quote:
Would that require some form of enforcement to verify the gun is stored safely?
And how exactly do you propose to do such a thing?
A first step would be that whenever someone goes into a hunting shop to buy a rifle they not only produce their license to have a gun with suitable id, but they also fill in the application to register that particular gun and part of that includes providing proof that they have a suitable storage facility (receipt of purchase, photographs of the cabinets in place), and in signing the application to register that gun sign that they agree to periodic verification that the gun is kept where they say they'll keep it. Which is, more or less, how the system works in the UK. In the UK there is also a requirement to report the theft of a registered gun - and, that can result in the loss of a license if it was deemed that the storage cupboard was inadequate to prevent the theft (which, did happen in the case of the husband of a friend when they had a break in where the thieves brought their own power tools to open the case).

I'm not sure of the relevance of the Fourth Amendment. An inspection of the storage of guns is not a search, just a walk up to the cabinet, check it's locked and the gun is inside, tick a box to say that's been done and go out again. I guess there could be a search and seizure if the gun isn't where it's supposed to be, but that's not exactly unreasonable and all it requires is for the inspector to phone a court and state that the gun isn't where it should be and ask for a warrant to search the property for that gun and to confiscate it when found. If you don't want people wandering through the house, keep the gun locked in the garage.

Do people use the Fourth Amendment to prevent employees of utility companies access to read the electricity meter?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not good.
Unless he shaves, she's likely to shoot him before she mounts him.
Kind of a human inverted-order preying mantis.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Do people use the Fourth Amendment to prevent employees of utility companies access to read the electricity meter? [/QB]
Heck, if that is the problem. Get them to bring the gun to a suitably safe place once a year.* Saves money too.

Gun S252-242, yep. Well done you've not sold it to someone** and then left people wondering how the cunning devils managed to got an illegal firearm. By the way do YOU keep it safely at home?

It would at least have some reminders for the trying to be good parents. And the willfully bad parents can't fool themselves after the fact. So would probably have a non too small effect. And also an effect on the illegal guns (especially if you did the same with stores).

*Any issues that can't be easily overcome, probably form an argument for stronger gun control.
**or at least if you have it's got a fairly traceable history.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A first step would be that whenever someone goes into a hunting shop to buy a rifle they not only produce their license to have a gun with suitable id, but they also fill in the application to register that particular gun and part of that includes providing proof that they have a suitable storage facility (receipt of purchase, photographs of the cabinets in place), and in signing the application to register that gun sign that they agree to periodic verification that the gun is kept where they say they'll keep it. Which is, more or less, how the system works in the UK. In the UK there is also a requirement to report the theft of a registered gun - and, that can result in the loss of a license if it was deemed that the storage cupboard was inadequate to prevent the theft (which, did happen in the case of the husband of a friend when they had a break in where the thieves brought their own power tools to open the case).
Sounds like San Francisco. Fails the don't-start-a-civil-war requirement. Most Americans would move to San Francisco if they wanted to be micromanaged like that. I don't even know where to start...

The feds have messed around with the ID requirements so much that it's no longer possible for some people in some states to get a qualifying government ID. Requiring government IDs for guns but not voting will never fly. Mandating that registered gun owners report the theft of their guns (which most do anyway in case it is later used in a crime) only works if the police take reports. Where is this data stored? How is it shared between states? How are you handling the reality that most states have multiple people with the same name, and that this problem explodes when you start trying to compile data from multiple states? Do you have any idea how big the US is or how many people it contains?

Believing that the US government could successfully track all firearm purchases and (if they somehow managed that) that certain people wouldn't abuse the knowledge requires a leap of faith that most Americans aren't willing to make.

People will never agree to a plan that makes their second amendment right to bear arms contingent on periodic visits by a governmental agent. Maybe 'never' is a bit much. But we'd have to have a government that showed it respected its citizens constitutional rights. We haven't had one of those in a long time.

Of course, your proposal was somewhat vague. The periodic visits could be by the gun sellers, no? In which case expect that all sellers who actually conduct such visits driven out of business by those who don't.

quote:
I'm not sure of the relevance of the Fourth Amendment. An inspection of the storage of guns is not a search, just a walk up to the cabinet, check it's locked and the gun is inside, tick a box to say that's been done and go out again.
Never talk to cops. Never allow a government employee in your home. Accepting any sort of federal aid or public assistance is likely to be met with a demand for sex or blood.

This is basic stuff.

I understand how certain people justify obviously unreasonable searches (but the dog gave me permission! etc). But I'm less clear on how a reasonable person can believe that allowing a government worker into your home in order to check on how your guns are stored isn't inherently unreasonable.

quote:
I guess there could be a search and seizure if the gun isn't where it's supposed to be, but that's not exactly unreasonable and all it requires is for the inspector to phone a court and state that the gun isn't where it should be and ask for a warrant to search the property for that gun and to confiscate it when found. If you don't want people wandering through the house, keep the gun locked in the garage.
Not every gun owner has a garage, and... yeah. It's not unreasonable for the government to search your property and confiscate a gun "if the gun isn't where it should be"?

Apparently we live on different planets.

quote:
Do people use the Fourth Amendment to prevent employees of utility companies access to read the electricity meter?
Employees of the utility companies are not government employees. At most they can shut your electricity or water off. They don't get to deprive you of life, liberty, and/or property on a whim, without consequences, the way government employees can. Also, they don't come inside your home. Also, unlike with the government, your relationship with a particular utility company is voluntary. If its employees misbehave you can terminate your relationship.

Yeah, there's no analogy there.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Apparently we live on different planets.
Agreed, mine's called Earth. What's the name of your planet?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A first step would be that whenever someone goes into a hunting shop to buy a rifle they not only produce their license to have a gun with suitable id, but they also fill in the application to register that particular gun and part of that includes providing proof that they have a suitable storage facility (receipt of purchase, photographs of the cabinets in place), and in signing the application to register that gun sign that they agree to periodic verification that the gun is kept where they say they'll keep it. Which is, more or less, how the system works in the UK. In the UK there is also a requirement to report the theft of a registered gun - and, that can result in the loss of a license if it was deemed that the storage cupboard was inadequate to prevent the theft (which, did happen in the case of the husband of a friend when they had a break in where the thieves brought their own power tools to open the case).
Sounds like San Francisco. Fails the don't-start-a-civil-war requirement. Most Americans would move to San Francisco if they wanted to be micromanaged like that. I don't even know where to start...

Nothing to do with the gun control laws, babe, that's probably a selling point to live here. Check the apartment rental rates.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Sounds like San Francisco.
Two questions immediately jump out from the article. The first is the fairly obvious one of jurisdiction - SF passes a law, the authorities above the city that can judge whether they are able to pass that law should (logically) be the State of California and then the Federal government. What gives other states a say in the question (unless, of course, the Federal government says "we need a nationwide law on this issue")?

The second was from the end of the article. If someone is in such a state that they are unable to open a lock or remember a combination, in what sense are they in a reasonable state to fire a gun? If someone is (at a given time) incompetant to put a key in a padlock, then surely they are (at that time) incompetant to handle a lethal weapon.

quote:
The feds have messed around with the ID requirements so much that it's no longer possible for some people in some states to get a qualifying government ID. Requiring government IDs for guns but not voting will never fly.
I quite agree. Though whether it's the feds or the state governments responsible for the disgraceful fiasco that has developed over voter ID is a (largely irrelevant to this discussion) point for debate. I said way back near the beginning of this thread that there are a range of issues in the US that a directly or indirectly related to the appalling death toll from guns, that included social and racial inequalities. The voter ID issues seem to largely fall into the category of social and racial - when states start to close offices where people can get driving licenses or other recognised ID in poor, black areas but not affluent, largely white areas then race and social status certainly appears to be involved.

Availability of ID is an issue in being able to vote. It's an issue in any (potential) gun registration scheme. These are not separate issues. And certainly if people are denied a chance to vote because someone is preventing them from getting ID that needs to be sorted out pronto, that is a denial of a fundamental right in a democracy. Make it possible for people to get ID and register to vote through the local post office. Set up mobile offices that visit each neighbour frequently (and, make that more frequent as election time approaches) where people can get their ID and register to vote. Sort out a big problem, and coincidentally solve the less serious one of enabling people to register their guns.

quote:
Mandating that registered gun owners report the theft of their guns (which most do anyway in case it is later used in a crime) only works if the police take reports. Where is this data stored? How is it shared between states? How are you handling the reality that most states have multiple people with the same name, and that this problem explodes when you start trying to compile data from multiple states? Do you have any idea how big the US is or how many people it contains?
Police record keeping, sharing relevant information between agencies within a state and between states and the federal government etc are all issues that should be improved regardless of any gun control issues. If the US law enforcement systems are in such a level of disarray that reported crimes do not get entered into the police records, important data can't be shared between states, etc then something is seriously wrong there anyway.

How big is the US? Not much different from Europe, and in most of Europe there doesn't appear to be this inability to enter reports of crimes into the computer, nor for neighbouring forces to work together when appropriate, even forces in different nations with different languages.

quote:
People will never agree to a plan that makes their second amendment right to bear arms contingent on periodic visits by a governmental agent. Maybe 'never' is a bit much. But we'd have to have a government that showed it respected its citizens constitutional rights. We haven't had one of those in a long time.
So, get people together and form soem well organised militia if you're so set on upholding the Second Amendment. The Amendment itself makes the bearing of arms contingent on that.

quote:
Of course, your proposal was somewhat vague. The periodic visits could be by the gun sellers, no? In which case expect that all sellers who actually conduct such visits driven out of business by those who don't.

Yes, deliberately vague. I'm not an American. At the end of the day it's going to be up to US citizens to decide what they want - gun control, if so in what form, or continued mass shootings, toddlers accidentally killing themselves or others, and easy access to guns by criminals.

Why shouldn't gun retailers be required to take all reasonable steps to prevent the guns and ammo they sell fall into the hands of criminals or children? If they fail to do that, revoke their license to sell guns. Then all retailers will conduct the necessary inspections if they want to stay in business, and the playing field will be level.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Two questions immediately jump out from the article. The first is the fairly obvious one of jurisdiction - SF passes a law, the authorities above the city that can judge whether they are able to pass that law should (logically) be the State of California and then the Federal government.
Not quite. The question of whether SF is able to pass a law is one of law, and so is judged by the courts, not any "superior" legislature.

If the state preempts municipalities in a particular sphere (like, for example, gun control), then the state would need to take action in the state court system in order to prevent a city from having such a law on its books. In this case, the supreme court of the state of California would be the highest authority - I don't know whether such a case would be eligible for appeal to the US supreme court. If the state constitution was violated by the city law, then the state courts would again be the venue for dispute.

If the federal government preempts states and localities, it will take action in the federal court system. Similarly, action alleging violation of the US constitution would arise in the federal court system, where the US supreme court is the ultimate authority.


In this case, the 26 states are filing amicus briefs - acting as a "friend of the court" and giving their legal opinions on a case before the court.

The case is a number of individual Californians, the NRA and the San Fransisco Veteran Police Officer's Association taking action in the US Supreme Court, alleging that San Francisco's law violates the Second Amendment.

The 26 other states aren't parties to the case directly, but have an interest in the question of how the US constitution touches on the regulation of safe gun storage, and so have grounds to file a brief as amicus curiae (friends of the court).
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
We have 52 states now?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I thought it was noted a few pages back that Canada had joined the US.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I thought it was noted a few pages back that Canada had joined the US.
Okay, so that's 51. What's 52?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Quebec, of course. Finally got to exert some independence.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We have 52 states now?
Same 26. Clumsy English. Consider me thwacked. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Quebec, of course. Finally got to exert some independence.
Don't forget that No Prophet, etc's butt sucked up Montana. We're still down one.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Can we just add a State of Confusion?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I think Oregon and California are competing for that title.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
From the suit against California's proposals to keep handguns locked up when in the house.
quote:
“It is common to fumble with keys while trying to hurriedly unlock a door, to forget a series of numbers when under pressure, or to struggle with hand-eye coordination when subjected to stressors.”
Mousethief Technologies had better come up with a better irony meter soon...
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Here's one that fits both our traffic gits and gun threads.

A father with two kids in the vehicle and another man get involved in a road rage battle that includes cussing and cutting each other off until one of them takes out his gun and shoots. Killing the four year-old in the back seat. Sympathy is pouring out for the family -- as it should -- but the fact remains that if the father had just let it go his daughter would still be alive.

The murderer was probably keeping that gun in his glove box "for protection."
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
See the thing here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34602621 is the far lower number of deaths nad injuries - than you'd get with the same guy carrying a firearm.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Another school shooting. Unfortunately for them, the gun nuts won't be able to blame this on "mental health". And there aren't enough bodies to make it a mass shooting. But when someone has a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Like this guy.

Fucking guns. And fuck all the idiots who buy guns thinking this can't happen to them because only crazies and "bad guys" shoot people.
 
Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :
 
Who fucking does this? and what kind of society continues to allow this level of weaponry to be available so easily.

Another tragedy, More innocents slaughtered, more hand wringing and more NRA, right wing, red neck morns justifying their constitutional right to own weapons that have no use but to kill a lot of human beings horribly.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
But there's no way to prevent this.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:
Who fucking does this? and what kind of society continues to allow this level of weaponry to be available so easily.
The kind of society that doesn't pay attention to most shootings that injure at least four people.
 
Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :
 
Yeah Right...
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Guessing from the target this will turn out to be an anti Obama care type thing.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Once is tragedy, 994 in 1004 days is ... insane.

America the farcical.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Amont other things, the San Bernadino shooting is causing people to denounce prayer.
Without works, the words are empty.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Yeah, because that'll improve the rhetorical atmosphere of the country.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Guessing from the target this will turn out to be an anti Obama care type thing.
Good thing guesses are free, cause you're gonna need at least one more...
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Whats your theory ?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
One male, one female, tactical gear and semi-auto rifles?

Oh, I don't know....

Not Obamacare though.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
What's your theory, then?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What's your theory, then?
My latest theory is that you can't read.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What's your theory, then?
My latest theory is that you can't read.
This is such a helpful contribution to the conversation. Oh wait, it's romanlion. What was I thinking, expecting helpful contributions? My bad. Irrationality is unlikely to produce helpful contributions, and romanlion is irrational on this subject.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What's your theory, then?
My latest theory is that you can't read.
This is such a helpful contribution to the conversation. Oh wait, it's romanlion. What was I thinking, expecting helpful contributions? My bad. Irrationality is unlikely to produce helpful contributions, and romanlion is irrational on this subject.
This is Hell, asshole. Go fuck yourself.

Give me the rational argument for an "Obamacare" connection to what happened today, shit-for-brains.

Until then, if you want helpful contributions, pick another fucking board you fat sack of shit.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What's your theory, then?
My latest theory is that you can't read.
This is such a helpful contribution to the conversation. Oh wait, it's romanlion. What was I thinking, expecting helpful contributions? My bad. Irrationality is unlikely to produce helpful contributions, and romanlion is irrational on this subject.
This is Hell, asshole. Go fuck yourself.

Give me the rational argument for an "Obamacare" connection to what happened today, shit-for-brains.

Until then, if you want helpful contributions, pick another fucking board you fat sack of shit.
Thank you for the proof. It could have taken me seconds to come up with proof of your irrationality, but you delivered it with a bow.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
One male, one female, tactical gear and semi-auto rifles?

Oh, I don't know....

Not Obamacare though.
So, why was that particular event targetted? Why attack a public health social event?

Either the target was picked at random or it was picked because that was part of the statement the terrorists wished to make. If it was to make a statement, then the obvious conclusion is that it relates to public health and health care provision.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, why was that particular event targetted? Why attack a public health social event?
I believe I read somewhere that one of the attackers had been a guest at the party that was attacked. So without knowing anything more, there's scope for a more personal element in the motive.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, why was that particular event targetted? Why attack a public health social event?
I believe I read somewhere that one of the attackers had been a guest at the party that was attacked. So without knowing anything more, there's scope for a more personal element in the motive.
Bingo. The building is said to include a conference/function centre. Which means people from elsewhere can hire said centre.

Which quite possibly means we're looking at a demented version of "office Christmas party gone wrong", in a culture that continues to subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) push the notion that it is right and proper to resolve your personal conflicts with violence.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, why was that particular event targetted? Why attack a public health social event?
I believe I read somewhere that one of the attackers had been a guest at the party that was attacked. So without knowing anything more, there's scope for a more personal element in the motive.
That had not been in any of the reports I'd seen this morning. But, I'm busy and haven't had the time to read everything.

As orfeo said, it could be a Christmas party gone wrong. We've probably all experienced a party when there's been a bit too much drunk, someone says something stupid and gets punched for it, and then goes home to nurse their wounds and hurt pride. Usually things have calmed down and cleared up not long after the hang-over has faded. But, most of us don't live in places where someone could go home, get dressed up in combat gear and grab a couple of assault rifles to return to the party to settle the grievance once and for all.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
The room was hired out for a party for San Bernardino County health workers. It seems that someone at the party left and came back with a second person and they shot the place up. But officials are also saying they don't know for a fact that the person who left was one of the people who did the shooting. They're not even clear right n