Isn't it because.higher criminality leads to stricter gun laws? And wasn't stricter gun controls one of the actions that helped clean up NY? Anyway, most guns are first sold legally, so stricter rules would probably have an effect on criminal gun availability - but with a massive lag. Aren't most guns in Mexico's drug war legally bought in the US first?
Not true. The crime rate plummeted in NYC due to economic growth, more cops, more efficient policing, tougher sentences, and a dying mob; it must also be noted that crime levels fell in most major cities during the same time period, though not as sharply. I'm with Wraith. I highly doubt a state's gun control policies have all much of an effect on the crime rate. Just think about the portion of crimes that are committed with legal guns that would otherwise not be committed (i.e. the person couldn't use a knife instead). And then subtract the amount of crimes deterred due to fear of being shot by the victim.Originally Posted by Flixy
As for reverse causation: the two aren't mutually exclusive. It's quite possible that states impose stricter gun controls in the wake of a spike in crime levels, but that doesn't preclude those gun controls from causing more crime (not saying this is necessarily the case, but one shouldn't automatically dismiss anything one disagrees with).
Hope is the denial of reality
Which seems an awful lot like treating the symptoms and not the disease.
And yet violent crime and homicide levels are at fifty year lows, and gun laws are the most relaxed they've been in years. If your goal is to curb crime and violence maybe you should be aiming for a different target.My "notion" is that "gun control" needs to be re-evaluated, seriously. The topic comes up after every mass killing, but nothing changes. Bills are introduced that never pass, because of polarized politics. Saint Reagan supported the Brady Bill, Romney passed laws outlawing assault rifles, even the NRA once advocated for reasonable and responsible "gun control" laws, including background checks. But nowadays any mention of "gun control" puts certain people into a paranoid tizzy....
And yet still the violence in this country has dropped. Even with the open and increasing sale of military grade items whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible, to the general public. What does that tell you?Loopholes like buying at gun shows, background checks that don't necessarily access complete databases, our fractured mental health system < http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us...pagewanted=all >, 50 states with 50 sets of rules that can conflict, semi-automatic weapons and multiple-round ammunition clips, military grade items (whose sole purpose is to kill as many people possible) that don't belong in civilian hands, etc.
That is a specious argument. Any type of violence, (including accidental injury, suicide, and assaults/robberies where a firearm was brandished) committed with a firearm does not go unreported and unmeasured. Believe it or not there actually are statistics to track each of these variables.Overall *murder* rates include the untracked/unmeasurable effects of advanced medical technology and science; better equipped EMS vehicles and response times, coordinated disaster planning, cutting edge surgery techniques --- Rep. Gifford's point-blank head shot would have likely left her dead back in the 70's, and Aurora's death toll would have been higher, too.
The sky is falling if and only if you fail to realize that a free society is a society that inherently carries with it risks. Part of living in that society is recognizing and accepting those risks. Even if we ignore the impossibility of preventing a dedicated and intelligent sociopath from committing random acts of violence, (would it somehow been better had he loaded his car up with explosives and rammed it into a crowded area, or if he had barricaded the exit doors and set the building on fire?), the danger posed by such individuals, while horrifying, is exceedingly small to your average citizen.Overall *crime rates* didn't matter in Norway, when ONE crazy guy with guns managed to kill a lot of people in ONE incident. Did you think they were chicken little the sky is falling when having a serious look at what the hell happened, and preventative measures for the future?
However, shaping legislation around freak occurrences, (again, the likelihood of becoming a victim in a mass killing is astronomically small) and infringing on enshrined freedoms to achieve an impossible goal is a danger that can impact hundreds of millions of decent, law abiding citizens, and while it may make you feel safer, it is just another form of security theater. A dangerous criminal won't be impacted by these laws, they will circumvent them. Closed loopholes will do little more than shift the balance to an already burgeoning black market, and again, for what? To add another layer of complexity to an already complex system? A system that those who are intending to abide by the laws already have to navigate, and those that aren't, don't?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 07-27-2012 at 08:11 PM.
Call it what you want. If the disease is violence, and one symptom is 70 people shot in a movie theater, in a matter of minutes, and almost half are DEAD....with guns and ammunition obtained legally....that's a screaming symptom.
You're ignoring the problem because it relates to guns. And you're loathe to even consider proposals related to gun control.And yet violent crime and homicide levels are at fifty year lows, and gun laws are the most relaxed they've been in years. If your goal is to curb crime and violence maybe you should be aiming for a different target.
And yet still the violence in this country has dropped. Even with the open and increasing sale of military grade items whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible, to the general public. What does that tell you?
That is a specious argument. Any type of violence, (including accidental injury, suicide, and assaults/robberies where a firearm was brandished) committed with a firearm does not go unreported and unmeasured. Believe it or not there actually are statistics to track each of these variables.
I find it a huge problem when certain types of firearms or ammo, in the hands of just ONE person, can literally mow down large groups of innocent, law-abiding citizens. Same concern applies for bombs/bombers, fires/arsonists, planes/terrorists. It's a similar concern for any other mass-injury or mass-mortality incident, whether it's from a super-contagious communicable disease or virus, a natural disaster, or infrastructure failure. I consider all those things Public Threats that need policies to address them.
Yeah, spare me the lecture about free society and risk. And enough with the crappy comparisons. In case you missed it, we're talking about types of firearms, and the damage they can do in the wrong hands. Take your pick--regulate the weapon or the person, or both. But don't try to equate freedom and liberty with the ability to buy semi-automatic weapons or 6,000 rounds of ammo, or that freedom and liberty will end if we place some restrictions on certain people/things.The sky is falling if and only if you fail to realize that a free society is a society that inherently carries with it risks. Part of living in that society is recognizing and accepting those risks. Even if we ignore the impossibility of preventing a dedicated and intelligent sociopath from committing random acts of violence, (would it somehow been better had he loaded his car up with explosives and rammed it into a crowded area, or if he had barricaded the exit doors and set the building on fire?), the danger posed by such individuals, while horrifying, is exceedingly small to your average citizen.
How many more "freak" occurrences do we need, before you'd admit they're no longer freakish or uncommon? I suppose we could go back to the Wild West days, where everyone feels that being armed is a necessity to participate in society, safely. Or return to the Bonnie 'n Clyde or gangster era, with tommy guns and machine guns, only now it'd be fully-automatic military grade guns, grenades and rocket launchers? No thanks, I don't want to live in Afghanistan either.However, shaping legislation around freak occurrences, (again, the likelihood of becoming a victim in a mass killing is astronomically small) and infringing on enshrined freedoms to achieve an impossible goal is a danger that can impact hundreds of millions of decent, law abiding citizens, and while it may make you feel safer, it is just another form of security theater. A dangerous criminal won't be impacted by these laws, they will circumvent them. Closed loopholes will do little more than shift the balance to an already burgeoning black market, and again, for what? To add another layer of complexity to an already complex system? A system that those who are intending to abide by the laws already have to navigate, and those that don't, don't?
ENSHRINED FREEDOM includes, but is not limited to, the right to assemble in a frickin' public space, like a movie theater, and not be mowed down by one guy with tear gas canisters, an AR-15, and 100 round bullet clips. We already have metal detectors and scanners in public schools and airports, frisks and searches in sports stadiums and large events...it'd be a sad day if we end up with movie theaters doing the same.
The ENSHRINED FREEDOM to own a gun comes with limits and responsibilities. It's been that way since we became a civilized nation, and folks weren't packing their own gun shot or forging lead bullets for their muskets. No one is trying to take away your right to own a damn hand gun, hunting rifle, or shotgun. So please....stop acting as if addressing loopholes in the law, black markets, criminology, sociopathy/psychopathy, or complexities in the 21st century (including new weapon technology) is akin to chasing an impossible goal. Or even worse, that Public Safety will mean the end of individual liberty. That's always been a balancing act that evolves over time, in response to those symptoms and diseases in an ever-changing world.
Okay?
I haven't heard any proposals from you. When I hear one, I'll be happy to consider it.You're ignoring the problem because it relates to guns. And you're loathe to even consider proposals related to gun control.
A car in the hands of just one person can literally mow down large groups of innocent, law-abiding citizens. A semi-truck loaded with gasoline, gun powder, marbles and nails has the potential to take out even more. I don't particularly think an intelligent and dedicated criminal would have a problem gathering those materials, but I also don't feel the need for needlessly restrictive laws prohibiting the sale, distribution, and manufacture of those items.I find it a huge problem when certain types of firearms or ammo, in the hands of just ONE person, can literally mow down large groups of innocent, law-abiding citizens. Same concern applies for bombs/bombers, fires/arsonists, planes/terrorists. It's a similar concern for any other mass-injury or mass-mortality incident, whether it's from a super-contagious communicable disease or virus, a natural disaster, or infrastructure failure. I consider all those things Public Threats that need policies to address them.
I'll do no such thing. We live in a society that values freedom, and there are many in this society that value freedom more than they value security. There are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people who buy semi-automatic weapons and thousands of round of ammunition every year, and the overwhelming majority of those people use both the weapons and the ammunition safely. I routinely purchase ammunition in bulk, (several thousand rounds per order) as do many gun owners. That behavior isn't beyond the pale, nor does it require regulation or extra scrutiny.Yeah, spare me the lecture about free society and risk. And enough with the crappy comparisons. In case you missed it, we're talking about types of firearms, and the damage they can do in the wrong hands. Take your pick--regulate the weapon or the person, or both. But don't try to equate freedom and liberty with the ability to buy semi-automatic weapons or 6,000 rounds of ammo, or that freedom and liberty will end if we place some restrictions on certain people/things.
You are caught up in a world wide echo chamber that places a premium on spectacle. Take a step back and look at the actual statistics. There were on average ~163 people killed in attacks that claimed 4 or more victims in the United States (as of 2006-2008). Now, those are tragedies without a doubt, but in a nation of 300,000,000 people the actual risk is vanishingly small.How many more "freak" occurrences do we need, before you'd admit they're no longer freakish or uncommon? I suppose we could go back to the Wild West days, where everyone feels that being armed is a necessity to participate in society, safely. Or return to the Bonnie 'n Clyde or gangster era, with tommy guns and machine guns, only now it'd be fully-automatic military grade guns, grenades and rocket launchers? No thanks, I don't want to live in Afghanistan either.
I absolutely agree. It would be a sad day indeed, and an overreaction to be sure.ENSHRINED FREEDOM includes, but is not limited to, the right to assemble in a frickin' public space, like a movie theater, and not be mowed down by one guy with tear gas canisters, an AR-15, and 100 round bullet clips. We already have metal detectors and scanners in public schools and airports, frisks and searches in sports stadiums and large events...it'd be a sad day if we end up with movie theaters doing the same.
Of course, the irony here is that had he been using 30 or 20 round magazines, his gun likely wouldn't have jammed and he would have been able to do far more damage. The evil drum magazine likely put an upper limit on the amount of damage he could do in a way standard magazines would not.
It is chasing an impossible goal, GGT, if your goal is to prevent sociopaths from performing random acts of violence. No amount of gun control will stop someone from doing a similar spree with a piece of heavy machinery. Or with a knife, or an axe, in a school, or with makeshift explosives, or sarin gas, or a gasoline can, or a shovel loader.The ENSHRINED FREEDOM to own a gun comes with limits and responsibilities. It's been that way since we became a civilized nation, and folks weren't packing their own gun shot or forging lead bullets for their muskets. No one is trying to take away your right to own a damn hand gun, hunting rifle, or shotgun. So please....stop acting as if addressing loopholes in the law, black markets, criminology, sociopathy/psychopathy, or complexities in the 21st century (including new weapon technology) is akin to chasing an impossible goal. Or even worse, that Public Safety will mean the end of individual liberty. That's always been a balancing act that evolves over time, in response to those symptoms and diseases in an ever-changing world.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 07-27-2012 at 09:59 PM.
The only full-proof solution is to ban people!
Hope is the denial of reality
I already said required registration with a gun club or shooting range wasn't a bad idea (as Flixy says is done in Holland). That could be part of background checks, and would mean the gun-buyer had at least gotten basic gun safety classes, and knew local/state/federal laws. They wouldn't necessarily be "private" clubs with restricted membership, for those concerned about discrimination. More like open-to-the-public operations, similar to swimming pools or golf courses...or paint ball shooting ranges. Hell, gun manufacturers and the NRA could help "sponsor" and fund them, since it would probably lead to more people buying hunting rifles, or taking up skeet or target shooting. You know, guns used for sport, or self-protection.
I linked the NYT article for its "proposals", including closing loopholes, and changing 'reinstatement of gun rights for the mentally ill' who'd lost gun privileges because of their actions. I've stated repeatedly that our mental health system needs serious tweaking (and not just to weed out people who shouldn't own guns). I like the concept behind gun ID that can trace ownership (like a car's VIN), and somehow keeping track of people who are amassing weapons or ammo, or at least make if difficult and inconvenient to do that. It's a pain in the ass to get pseudo-ephedrine (Sudafed) these days, because meth cookers were either buying or stealing it all. But I'd rather be inconvenienced by showing ID, signing a form, and getting a pharmacy tech to ring me up...than have it banned or lose OTC status because the meth cookers ruined a perfectly good medication for everyone else.
What's your point? We require drivers to be a certain age, pass tests, and be licensed. Those with certain medical conditions are disqualified. All vehicles need registered plates. Semi-truck drivers have to pass special driving tests, be certified, and get special licenses. Same for airplanes, boats, ships and their pilots. Purchasing large quantities of fertilizer is reserved for farmers and agriculture use, anyone else doing that raises suspicion because of McVeigh. Guns and gun ownership doesn't have a special exemption simply because of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, certain guns and weapons DO need restrictive laws prohibiting (or limiting) their sale, distribution, and manufacturing....unless you're on board with all semi-automatics, automatics, military grade guns, 100 round clips or hollow point bullets....being treated the same as any other gun or bullet.A car in the hands of just one person can literally mow down large groups of innocent, law-abiding citizens. A semi-truck loaded with gasoline, gun powder, marbles and nails has the potential to take out even more. I don't particularly think an intelligent and dedicated criminal would have a problem gathering those materials, but I also don't feel the need for needlessly restrictive laws prohibiting the sale, distribution, and manufacture of those items.
We live in a nation that values a balance of freedoms and liberties between individuals and groups. We use constitutional rule-of-law to "secure" your right to own a gun, while also protecting the public from molestation of that gun. Every right comes with limits. Question is --- where do you personally draw that line?I'll do no such thing. We live in a society that values freedom, and there are many in this society that value freedom more than they value security. There are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people who buy semi-automatic weapons and thousands of round of ammunition every year, and the overwhelming majority of those people use both the weapons and the ammunition safely. I routinely purchase ammunition in bulk, (several thousand rounds per order) as do many gun owners. That behavior isn't beyond the pale, nor does it require regulation or extra scrutiny.
Wow, can you be any more callous or demeaning?You are caught up in a world wide echo chamber that places a premium on spectacle. Take a step back and look at the actual statistics. There were on average ~163 people killed in attacks that claimed 4 or more victims in the United States (as of 2006-2008). Now, those are tragedies without a doubt, but in a nation of 300,000,000 people the actual risk is vanishingly small.
This statement in particular needs to be unpacked, Enoch. Freedom to do what -- own a gun, carry a concealed gun, collect military weapons, stock a personal armory? Define rational and reasonable limits. Define "security" while you're at it. It's well known that many gun owners claim personal "security" as the primary reason. In that way, freedom and security are interconnected, and the gun is the tool for having both.
Applied to real life situations like the Olympics, the "freedom" to carry a gun is trumped by the "security" risk posed by thousands of people 'packing heat'. Freedom and security remain connected, but now the gun becomes the tool that can destroy both. Surely you understand that balancing act, and wouldn't propose allowing concealed-carry guns at Olympic venues.
What's the status of the GOP convention btw? Last I heard, they were going to allow legal and registered concealed-carry guns in the arena. There were complaints from the mayor and police because of the added security risks/costs borne by the city, and needing to beef up an already high presence of Secret Service protection. Would you advocate for that type of gun presence in large crowds, filled with VIPs, legislators, and a Presidential candidate?
You know the US better than I do so perhaps you'll be able to better determine what the general trend is in this list:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...crime-us-state
To me California looks like an anomaly that may make more sense if we were to control for demographic factors, the makeup of the state and the total number of guns in circulation. May just be my prejudices talking but sorting that list by firearms-murders I don't see many states at the top that sound like they're keen on gun control
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Meanwhile this paints a slightly different picture:
http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart.htm
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Isn't that just a bit dishonest? The comparison should be the murder rates, since anti-gun control people claim guns deter.
I should also note that 9 out of the top 10 states there are dirt poor. Not exactly surprising there's a lot of crime.
Hope is the denial of reality
D.C. is at the very top by a very large margin, and they also have the strictest firearm laws in the country (last I heard basically banned, Supreme Court challenge filed). Maryland is also near the top, and they have strict firearm laws too (with argument that they're unconstitutionally so), with neighboring Va being more lenient and having less firearm crime. Michigan, near the top, also has relatively strict laws. I could keep going on listing above average states with strict gun control laws, and below average states with weak/no gun control laws; the point is that there's not any real correlation between gun control laws and gun violence. States with both types are scattered all over the gun violence chart.
There are stronger demographic and geographical correlations than anything else. Even if you want to control for that, you can use Texas and California which have the same geographical issues and similar demographics, and by that chart you have Texas doing better. The only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that gun control laws have a miniscule effect on illegal gun violence, if any. If you want to reduce gun violence, your efforts are better spent elsewhere.
A small fraction of all counties account for the majority of all homicides, and most of those homicides seem to be drug-related. I can def. accept that regional "gun-control" initiatives may not do much to prevent illegal firearms-related violence in such a context. However, your examples don't show that "gun-control laws don't work", not least because we have little reliable knowledge on what the situation in states with "strict" gun-laws would really look like if they didn't have strict gun control. Never mind the neighbouring states
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Minx,
DC is like a Tale of Two Cities. One is the nation's capitol, seat of US government, filled with senators and representatives, embassies from around the world, international diplomats, people of power, influence and wealth, great museums and universities, too. Georgetown has lovely mansions, tree-lined streets, upscale boutiques and hotels....that's where the VIPs live. Drive a few blocks away, that's the Other DC. It's like entering a different country, practically third world. Decaying buildings, boarded up windows, graffiti and signs of vandalism, vacant lots with weeds and trash, stray dogs roaming around, cars whose wheels have been stripped, corner stores that sell mostly snack foods and booze, pay-day lenders, taverns with blacked out windows. Not a real grocery store to be found. That's what passes for the "neighborhood"....for mostly poor, and mostly black/minorities.
I think part of DC's problem is they're not a state and don't operate like one. They elect a mayor and councilmen, instead of state or US reps. They only have representation from a non-voting delegate in congress, but congress approves their budgets and laws. It's a really quirky set-up that doesn't serve anyone well (except the legislators from other states).
Anyway...drive across the Potomac, and VA is vastly different. That's like the leafy suburbs for the federal government, where lots of tech wizards, defense workers, and military personnel live. Plenty of commerce 'parks', HQ for industries in pharmaceuticals or defense research, etc. Not much crime, not much poverty or unemployment, decent housing market in bedroom communities (apartments, townhomes, single family homes, middle class neighborhoods). Further out are the pretty horse farms and landed plantation style 'estates'. Driving through MD countryside and suburbs looks the same, until you hit urban centers like Baltimore. Pockets of poverty, unemployment, housing decay, crime. Lots of crime. Balto used to be #1 city for violent crime and deaths, but it's undergone a revitalization and gentrification in recent years. Still pockets of crime, almost mappable by zip code.
<Local legend tells it that after NYC flushed out much of their gangs and criminals in the 80's...they simply moved to distressed cities like DC and Baltimore. Once Balto started to flush them out, they crossed state lines into PA. Now, many of the middle class MD people are also moving into PA for the lower housing prices and 'better public schools', commuting back to MD for work. Right along with the heroin rings, stolen car dealers, and people who use guns as part of their "trade".>
It's been years since I was in Michigan, but Detroit and its surrounding areas can skew stats for the whole state. Similar to DC, there are very wealthy areas that abut very poor ones. Can see the slow changes between areas, driving along, almost literally "crossing the tracks" until you're on the "wrong side". Decay, vacant houses, distressed neighborhoods, rampant unemployment, crime. People either have a gun to protect themselves (since there's virtually no police presence in places with no tax revenue), or they're armed because it's part of their criminal 'trade'. Choobs could talk about Michigan better, if he'd grace us with his presence again.
There are statistical tools to control for those demographic factors. I'm willing to bet there are even studies that already did so.Just go and troll some criminology journal.
Hope is the denial of reality
GGT I think "doesn't really enforce gun laws" is a more than sufficient argument against the claim "has the nation's most strict gun laws".
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
When I was in DC I was rather surprised to see hookers flashing cars 2/3 blocks from the White House. Baltimore I only know from the Wire, can hardly be much worse than that
Required registration with a gun club? Who is that going to impact, GGT? People who are already obeying laws? And do you think the impact of a gun safety course, or some kind of gun registration will have on an individual who is already looking to commit mass murder? Is this a measure that you objectively believe will actually drive violence down, or is it something that makes you feel safer?
Why should it be illegal or difficult to amass weapons or ammo? Again, of the hundreds of thousands of guns and bullets sold in this country, what percentage of those are used in the commission of a crime?I linked the NYT article for its "proposals", including closing loopholes, and changing 'reinstatement of gun rights for the mentally ill' who'd lost gun privileges because of their actions. I've stated repeatedly that our mental health system needs serious tweaking (and not just to weed out people who shouldn't own guns). I like the concept behind gun ID that can trace ownership (like a car's VIN), and somehow keeping track of people who are amassing weapons or ammo, or at least make if difficult and inconvenient to do that. It's a pain in the ass to get pseudo-ephedrine (Sudafed) these days, because meth cookers were either buying or stealing it all. But I'd rather be inconvenienced by showing ID, signing a form, and getting a pharmacy tech to ring me up...than have it banned or lose OTC status because the meth cookers ruined a perfectly good medication for everyone else.
And none of those licenses, medical restrictions, or plate registrations would stop someone from hijacking a car or a semi-truck and going on a spree killing. Again, your restrictions are affecting law abiding citizens, not those who are already operating, or looking to operate outside the law.What's your point? We require drivers to be a certain age, pass tests, and be licensed. Those with certain medical conditions are disqualified. All vehicles need registered plates. Semi-truck drivers have to pass special driving tests, be certified, and get special licenses. Same for airplanes, boats, ships and their pilots. Purchasing large quantities of fertilizer is reserved for farmers and agriculture use, anyone else doing that raises suspicion because of McVeigh. Guns and gun ownership doesn't have a special exemption simply because of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, certain guns and weapons DO need restrictive laws prohibiting (or limiting) their sale, distribution, and manufacturing....unless you're on board with all semi-automatics, automatics, military grade guns, 100 round clips or hollow point bullets....being treated the same as any other gun or bullet.
As far as your analysis of existing gun laws, and their impact, it's mostly irrelevent if not inaccurate. One hundred round magazines are weighty, bulky, unreliable, and rarely worth the cost. There's a good reason why military and law enforcement officials use twenty and thirty round magazines instead.
Hollow point bullets, (sometimes erroneously referred to as "cop-killers") are actually less effective against vests, but it's true they can be more effective against soft targets. However, unless you also want to ban drill presses, files, case trimmers, screw drivers, or casting equipment, banning "hollow points," or treating them differently from any other gun or bullet is relatively pointless. You are providing a major inconvenience for law abiding citizens, and a minor inconvenience for a would be criminal.
The same place I draw the line for most any other freedom; where your nose begins.We live in a nation that values a balance of freedoms and liberties between individuals and groups. We use constitutional rule-of-law to "secure" your right to own a gun, while also protecting the public from molestation of that gun. Every right comes with limits. Question is --- where do you personally draw that line?
This most certainly is a reaction to spectacle. Being involved in a mass killing is one of the most unlikely ways to die, period. Full stop. If your goal is to mitigate risks and balance dangers, look elsewhere, because the chances of being caught in the middle of a spree killing are astronomically small. You are around 1000% more likely to win the lottery - for over a million dollars - than you are to be a victim of a spree killing. If your goal is to sensationalize an event, and use it to make political hay, well, keep feel free to keep on trucking, but don't try and sell it as some kind of protective measure for the general public.Wow, can you be any more callous or demeaning? This isn't a reaction to spectacle, or even stats on kill rates or death rates. This is about our violent culture, our freakish love affair with guns, our desensitization to gun violence, our denial of mentally unbalanced people getting hold of guns....wreaking havoc in crowds and turning guns into "WMD". And our reluctance to do anything about it, because y'know, life is inherently risky, and GUNS are surely the same as knives or gasoline, and people can drown in less than an inch of water.
Yes. You realize, of course, that given the desire and necessary funding I could fairly easily - and legally - obtain fully automatic weapons, suppressors, and other so-called destructive devices, (including flame throwers, grenade launchers, explosives, and howitzers - the upper limit primarily being state law). This has been the case for years.This statement in particular needs to be unpacked, Enoch. Freedom to do what -- own a gun, carry a concealed gun, collect military weapons, stock a personal armory?
Now, again, tell me how many of these legally obtained weapons have been used to commit violent or otherwise criminal acts in the hands of their civilian owners?
I couldn't rightly tell you as I don't as a rule follow political conventions, or the hype and drama that typically surround them. As far as what should or should not be acceptable, I leave that up to the people who own the venue. If a business clearly posts that they don't allow firearms on their premises, I do what any responsible gun owner does and leaves my weapon in my vehicle. I'm not sure why this should be any different.Applied to real life situations like the Olympics, the "freedom" to carry a gun is trumped by the "security" risk posed by thousands of people 'packing heat'. Freedom and security remain connected, but now the gun becomes the tool that can destroy both. Surely you understand that balancing act, and wouldn't propose allowing concealed-carry guns at Olympic venues.
What's the status of the GOP convention btw? Last I heard, they were going to allow legal and registered concealed-carry guns in the arena. There were complaints from the mayor and police because of the added security risks/costs borne by the city, and needing to beef up an already high presence of Secret Service protection. Would you advocate for that type of gun presence in large crowds, filled with VIPs, legislators, and a Presidential candidate?
I take it you've never been to a gun show, where a large percentage of the attendees are packing, handling, purchasing and otherwise manipulating firearms, ammunition, and other potentially deadly weaponry, and it is not uncommon to see politicians from the local, state, and even federal level there canvassing for votes.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 07-31-2012 at 08:07 AM.
The idea isn't much different than competency tests for drivers, truckers, captains and pilots. When someone is using a dangerous and potentially lethal 'thing', it's common practice to license and register both the 'thing' and the user. It falls under the category of General Public Safety, which needs to keep up with changes in technology and society. Modern rules for modern times. That would be the time to weed out the mentally unstable....who may never have been in the mental health system to begin with...or not had their gun privileges revoked by a judge.
The tester/licensor having face time with applicants would only affect those who are referred for health evaluation. Same as drivers who pass the vision test but run into curbs as if depth perception is off. Even getting a learner's permit requires a physician to attest kids don't suffer from seizures, narcolepsy, or other ailments that could affect their driving ability. Amputees and the deaf need special drivers licenses, and their car has to have the proper equipment, too.
When it comes to weapons and the right to bear arms --- IMO that doesn't include rocket grenade launchers, flame throwers, or grenades. Automatic guns dance a fine line, but entertainment doesn't seem a very good reason for anyone but military to have them. I think it's a good idea to have some type of registration or certificate or license, renewed each year or two, for any individual buying thousands of ammo rounds frequently/routinely. Of course, if you were a member of a gun club, that would be part of your class or status, and not raise any red flags. Alternatively, we could use the Chris Rock approach and just tax the hell out of bullets.Why should it be illegal or difficult to amass weapons or ammo? Again, of the hundreds of thousands of guns and bullets sold in this country, what percentage of those are used in the commission of a crime?
I never said criminal minds won't find a way to commit crimes -- or use guns in the commission of crimes. But a hijacked car won't injure 70 people and kill half. A semi-truck can cause a pile up with injuries and deaths, but the other drivers have belts and bags and metal shells to protect them. If you're a bank teller being robbed, anyone in the bank would have a chance against a pistol, but not a machine gun.And none of those licenses, medical restrictions, or plate registrations would stop someone from hijacking a car or a semi-truck and going on a spree killing. Again, your restrictions are affecting law abiding citizens, not those who are already operating, or looking to operate outside the law.
Your comparisons fail, because those other 'things' have valid purposes besides killing. They're actually constructive and productive 'things' that, when used for their intended purpose, do no harm. What's the purpose of any assault rifle, other than to kill people?As far as your analysis of existing gun laws, and their impact, it's mostly irrelevent if not inaccurate. One hundred round magazines are weighty, bulky, unreliable, and rarely worth the cost. There's a good reason why military and law enforcement officials use twenty and thirty round magazines instead.
Hollow point bullets, (sometimes erroneously referred to as "cop-killers") are actually less effective against vests, but it's true they can be more effective against soft targets. However, unless you also want to ban drill presses, files, case trimmers, screw drivers, or casting equipment, banning "hollow points," or treating them differently from any other gun or bullet is relatively pointless. You are providing a major inconvenience for law abiding citizens, and a minor inconvenience for a would be criminal.
You're under the impression that gun control laws are intended to prevent every single killing spree, or get rid of all gun-related crimes. And that any gun control law is an affront to law-abiding gun users, or denying 2nd Amendment rights. Instead, you (and the NRA) would do better to consider proposals that could keep guns out of the wrong hands, particularly certain types of guns.
That didn't answer the question at all.The same place I draw the line for most any other freedom; where your nose begins.
I've repeatedly tried to explain the goals and intents of today's gun control law intents. But you prefer to ignore that, and instead keep lecturing about how mis-guided they are...because gun crime and killing sprees will never be totally eradicated, the odds of being a victim are infinitesimally small, and people are generally reacting emotionally to a media spectacle. Making hay and sensationalizing (repeated) mass killings of innocent civilians.This most certainly is a reaction to spectacle. Being involved in a mass killing is one of the most unlikely ways to die, period. Full stop. If your goal is to mitigate risks and balance dangers, look elsewhere, because the chances of being caught in the middle of a spree killing are astronomically small. You are around 1000% more likely to win the lottery - for over a million dollars - than you are to be a victim of a spree killing. If your goal is to sensationalize an event, and use it to make political hay, well, keep feel free to keep on trucking, but don't try and sell it as some kind of protective measure for the general public.
oops, I missed the end of your post.
I wouldn't know, and couldn't say. Are you an arms dealer, a straw purchaser, or involved in selling arms and ammo to other countries? Are you laundering weapons and ammo like people launder money? Do those "legal" things end up in Mexico or in the hands of gangsters and gangs? Or just mentally unstable people.....Yes. You realize, of course, that given the desire and necessary funding I could fairly easily - and legally - obtain fully automatic weapons, suppressors, and other so-called destructive devices, (including flame throwers, grenade launchers, explosives, and howitzers - the upper limit primarily being state law). This has been the case for years.
Now, again, tell me how many of these legally obtained weapons have been used to commit violent or otherwise criminal acts in the hands of their civilian owners?
Ah, such a romantic libertarian view. You'd leave it up to owners of the venue to simply post a sign....and assume the entering public will voluntarily agree to leave their firearms in their car.I couldn't rightly tell you as I don't as a rule follow political conventions, or the hype and drama that typically surround them. As far as what should or should not be acceptable, I leave that up to the people who own the venue. If a business clearly posts that they don't allow firearms on their premises, I do what any responsible gun owner does and leaves my weapon in my vehicle. I'm not sure why this should be any different.
Sure, but I've never gone beyond the parking lot. I've driven my minor son to said gun shows, because he's very interested in antique rifles, and has a friend enrolled in a gunsmith college (to become a master gunsmith). Being pro-gun control isn't being anti-gun.I take it you've never been to a gun show, where a large percentage of the attendees are packing, handling, purchasing and otherwise manipulating firearms, ammunition, and other potentially deadly weaponry, and it is not uncommon to see politicians from the local, state, and even federal level there canvassing for votes.
Last edited by GGT; 08-01-2012 at 05:29 AM.
Great. Do you think James Holmes, Jared Loughner, or Seung-Hui Cho had any problems getting their drivers license?
How many sociopaths do you think lack the intelligence to say what the instructor would need to hear in order to pass the exam? How much leeway would such a person have? And what's stopping someone who has been turned away from your system from looking to the black and grey markets to find a gun?
Thank you for expressing your opinion. I'll try and briefly touch on why I think those are not just bad ideas, but bad ideas that wouldn't impact gun crime much. Breaking gun violence down broadly you have:When it comes to weapons and the right to bear arms --- IMO that doesn't include rocket grenade launchers, flame throwers, or grenades. Automatic guns dance a fine line, but entertainment doesn't seem a very good reason for anyone but military to have them. I think it's a good idea to have some type of registration or certificate or license, renewed each year or two, for any individual buying thousands of ammo rounds frequently/routinely. Of course, if you were a member of a gun club, that would be part of your class or status, and not raise any red flags.
- Criminal on criminal crime - Drugs are the primary driver of this subset. If you want to see a sharp decrease in the amount of gun violence, look no further than drug policy. This is also the least likely subset to be impacted by your rules. Criminals who are dealing, transporting, and storing illicit substances aren't going to have much of a problem getting their hands on black market firearms.
- Crimes committed in the heat of passion - I'm not sure how a class or a limit on the number of bullets you can purchase each year would temper the emotions of a spouse finding their loved one in bed with a stranger, or a marriage spiraling out of control.
- Accidents and suicides - Again, I'm not sure how your plan would prevent these deaths.
- Legitimate cases of self defense
- Planned/orchestrated attacks - I'm not sure how many rounds you think were fired in the theater shooting, but even if he managed to get off one or two hundred rounds that is still a fraction of the amount you think is reasonable. Even if that number were lowered, (which doesn't make much sense, I can easily go through 200-300 rounds in an hour at the gun range) someone who is planning an attack like this could surely scrimp and save bullets until they had enough. What is more, spree killers are often capable of maintaining a somewhat normal life, one that likely wouldn't preclude them from obtaining firearms in your example.
Luckily, the litmus test for freedom isn't what GGT thinks should or should not be allowed. If you want to have a real discussion about laws that might actually do something to impact gun violence, let me know. I'm not terribly keen on discussions that center around what you do or don't believe, especially when most of it isn't rooted in actual facts.
Or we could take the religious right's approach and just tax the hell out of prophylactics, birth control, and abortions.Alternatively, we could use the Chris Rock approach and just tax the hell out of bullets.
Does that seem right to you?
You are underestimating the carnage that can be wrought by a car, truck, or piece of heavy machinery while simultaneously ignoring the twisted creativity that can fuel a depraved mind. I don't consider myself particularly creative or evil, but it would not be too difficult to rig up a vehicle that could cause just as many deaths as your average spree killer. Even more if you pick a soft, well packed target.I never said criminal minds won't find a way to commit crimes -- or use guns in the commission of crimes. But a hijacked car won't injure 70 people and kill half. A semi-truck can cause a pile up with injuries and deaths, but the other drivers have belts and bags and metal shells to protect them. If you're a bank teller being robbed, anyone in the bank would have a chance against a pistol, but not a machine gun.
Those other 'things' are also all that is needed to convert a simple, run-of-the-mill lead bullet into an evil hollow point. Again, I don't believe you know enough about the subject to have a reasonably informed opinion about the subject. If regulating hollow points somehow makes you feel safer, and you see no problem allowing people to own those other 'things,' you are essentially supporting the enactment of laws that have no tangible benefit. Congratulations.Your comparisons fail, because those other 'things' have valid purposes besides killing. They're actually constructive and productive 'things' that, when used for their intended purpose, do no harm. What's the purpose of any assault rifle, other than to kill people?
I'm under the impression that you don't know what you are talking about, and don't care to learn.You're under the impression that gun control laws are intended to prevent every single killing spree, or get rid of all gun-related crimes. And that any gun control law is an affront to law-abiding gun users, or denying 2nd Amendment rights. Instead, you (and the NRA) would do better to consider proposals that could keep guns out of the wrong hands, particularly certain types of guns.
You apparently fail to recognize that your nose is both a restriction and a limitation. I'm not quite sure how you missed that, as you managed to quote it verbatim.That didn't answer the question at all.
So, your goal is not to address mass killings, yet you bring up "assault weapons", (which by any metric are very rarely used in crimes, even mass murders). You talk about gun clubs, and registrations, but I have yet to see any way that would have a measurable impact on gun violence. In fact, much what you are seemingly looking to regulate is not the effectiveness or utility of a weapon, rather how it looks. An AR-15 "assault weapon" isn't functionally much different from another "varmint" rifle chambered in 5.56, but since it looks like the standard issue weapon for our military, it is widely assumed to somehow be more dangerous. Don't worry, you are in good company. The federal crafting of laws based on metrics that include whether or not a firearm has a bayonet lug, a muzzle brake, a pistol grip, or an adjustable stock (features that don't impact the actual function of the weapon) was par for the course, and reflected a deep seated lack of understanding of both how firearms work, and what constitutes sensible restrictions.I've repeatedly tried to explain the goals and intents of today's gun control law intents. But you prefer to ignore that, and instead keep lecturing about how mis-guided they are...because gun crime and killing sprees will never be totally eradicated, the odds of being a victim are infinitesimally small, and people are generally reacting emotionally to a media spectacle. Making hay and sensationalizing (repeated) mass killings of innocent civilians.
If you are asking if I have much faith that reasonable legislation can be crafted when it comes to gun control, the answer is no.
Is there a point, or counterpoint in there somewhere? Did you even attempt to address what was written?I wouldn't know, and couldn't say. Are you an arms dealer, a straw purchaser, or involved in selling arms and ammo to other countries? Are you laundering weapons and ammo like people launder money? Do those "legal" things end up in Mexico or in the hands of gangsters and gangs? Or just mentally unstable people.....
Then you've managed to contradict yourself in the span of two paragraphs. If the mere presence of firearms is somehow a clear and present danger to police, politicians, or other members of the general public, then why would they allow themselves to be put in harms way by visiting locations where thousands of weapons, and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition are not only present, they are being handled by potentially deranged and irresponsible members of the general public? What is more, you drove your own underage son there, putting his life in what I can only imagine was terrible and imminent danger?Ah, such a romantic libertarian view. You'd leave it up to owners of the venue to simply post a sign....and assume the entering public will voluntarily agree to leave their firearms in their car.
Sure, but I've never gone beyond the parking lot. I've driven my minor son to said gun shows, because he's very interested in antique rifles, and has a friend enrolled in a gunsmith college (to become a master gunsmith). Being pro-gun control isn't being anti-gun.
Put another way, how many public figures have been assassinated at gun shows? For that matter, how much violent crime occurs at these same shows? You would think that with as many potentially unstable, irresponsible, and visibly armed people in such close proximity to each other that you would be asking for a blood bath, right? Yet these are the same people you fear when they shamble across the street, or into the Republican National Convention?
Look, if the owner wants to post a sign, or put up metal detectors, body scanners, and full body cavity searches, that doesn't impact me one way or the other. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusions you did, but if you'd like to portray my position in the worst possible light feel free.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 08-01-2012 at 07:40 AM.
It's their ability to buy guns that's up for review.
Mentally ill people don't necessarily possess the planning "skills" you've attributed. Sociopaths and psychopaths are smart and clever enough to conduct their homicides, without attracting much attention at all. Please, stop conflating all gun crimes, or all gun control laws, with all crimes.How many sociopaths do you think lack the intelligence to say what the instructor would need to hear in order to pass the exam? How much leeway would such a person have? And what's stopping someone who has been turned away from your system from looking to the black and grey markets to find a gun?
Thank you for....breaking down gun violence stats, as a way to say ANY gun control is senseless and stupid?Thank you for expressing your opinion. I'll try and briefly touch on why I think those are terrible ideas, and why I believe they wouldn't impact gun crime much, if at all. Breaking gun violence down broadly you have:
- Criminal on criminal crime - Drugs are the primary driver of this subset. If you want to see a sharp decrease in the amount of gun violence, look no further than drug policy.
- Crimes committed in the heat of passion - I'm not sure how a class or a limit on the number of bullets you can purchase each year would temper the emotions of a spouse finding their loved one in bed with a stranger, or a marriage spiraling out of control.
- Accidents and suicides - Again, I'm not sure how your plan would prevent these deaths.
- Legitimate cases of self defense
- Planned/orchestrated attacks - I'm not sure how many rounds you think were fired in the theater shooting, but even if he managed to get off one or two hundred rounds that is still a fraction of the amount you think is fair. Spree killers are often capable of maintaining a somewhat normal life, one that likely wouldn't preclude them from obtaining firearms in your example
Dude, mentioning Chris Rock was nothing more than adding some humor into the discussion. However, taxing bullets could possibly reduce gun crimes, while taxing condoms and birth control couldn't possibly reduce unintended pregnancies.Or we could take the religious right's approach and just tax the hell out of prophylactics, birth control, and abortions.
Does that seem right to you?
You say that as a sane, logical, and reasonable person. What we're going to need in the future is weeding out the insane, illogical and unreasonable person. As a gun advocate, you can be an important part of that process. I'd think you'd want to preserve and secure your use of arms, while excluding those who ruin it. Instead, you treat any proposal as a threat. WTF?You are both underestimating the carnage that can be wrought by a car, truck, or piece of heavy machinery while simultaneously ignoring the twisted creativity that can fuel a depraved mind. I don't consider myself particularly creative or evil, but it would not be too difficult to rig up a vehicle that could cause just as many deaths as your average spree killer. Even more if you pick a soft, well packed target.
Again, you're being callous and demeaning. That does nothing to advance your 'cause'. Congrats?Those other 'things' are also all that is needed to convert a simple, run-of-the-mill lead bullet into an evil hollow point. Again, I don't believe you know enough about the subject to have a reasonably informed opinion about the subject. If regulating hollow points somehow makes you feel safer, and you see no problem allowing people to own those other 'things,' you are essentially supporting the enactment of laws that have no tangible benefit. Congratulations.
I'm under the impression that you don't know what you are talking about, and don't care to learn.
You apparently fail to recognize that your own nose is both a restriction and a limitation. I'm not quite sure how you missed that, as you've managed to quote it verbatim.
Why don't you make some proposals of your own? If you think "freedom to bear arms" includes all manner of mass-killing tools, you need to explain why. If you think the libertarian ideal works, against all evidence otherwise, you need to explain why. As far as I'm concerned, the burden lies on gun advocates, and not gun-control advocates.
So, we know that psychopaths are often capable of passing the tests required to operate a motor vehicles, but somehow they would fail the tests required to own a firearm? Maybe the better question is, why would you trust a sociopath with a car, but not a gun?
Gun violence can only be attributed to the mentally ill in around 3-4% of all cases.Mentally ill people don't necessarily possess the planning "skills" you've attributed. Sociopaths and psychopaths are smart and clever enough to conduct their homicides, without attracting much attention at all. Please, stop conflating all gun crimes, or all gun control laws, with all crimes.
Thank you for ignoring the point. Now, would you care to explain how your common sense gun violence restrictions will help alleviate the problem? I think I've done a fairly decent job of breaking gun violence down into broad categories, now would you care to explain how your new regulations will address any of the potential causes of firearm violence? You are attempting to create a solution in search of a problem, yet you don't recognize that as a backwards approach?Thank you for....breaking down gun violence stats, as a way to say ANY gun control is senseless and stupid?
Taxing bullets would just create a black market for them. Again, it's not something that is only likely to impact lawful gun owners.Dude, mentioning Chris Rock was nothing more than adding some humor into the discussion. However, taxing bullets could possibly reduce gun crimes, while taxing condoms and birth control couldn't possibly reduce unintended pregnancies.
I'm not sure how this follows from what was written, nor do I believe that I have treated any and all proposals as threats. I have treated your bad proposals as what they are - bad proposals - but that doesn't mean that I object to keeping guns out of the hand of people who have proven themselves to be demonstrably violent, unstable, and dangerous.You say that as a sane, logical, and reasonable person. What we're going to need in the future is weeding out the insane, illogical and unreasonable person. As a gun advocate, you can be an important part of that process. I'd think you'd want to preserve and secure your use of arms, while excluding those who ruin it. Instead, you treat any proposal as a threat. WTF?
I'm being honest. You aren't knowledgeable about the subject, you clearly haven't spent much time learning about guns, gun laws, or gun crime. Again, if you want to have a serious discussion, we can, but I'm not going to have one when you ignore anything that doesn't support your view.Again, you're being callous and demeaning. That does nothing to advance your 'cause'. Congrats?
The libertarian ideal isn't that limiting gun laws will automagically eliminate violence. The libertarian ideal recognizes that man is always at war with the better angels of his nature, and no amount of legislation can prevent that.Why don't you make some proposals of your own? If you think "freedom to bear arms" includes all manner of mass-killing tools, you need to explain why. If you think the libertarian ideal works, against all evidence otherwise, you need to explain why. As far as I'm concerned, the burden lies on gun advocates, and not gun-control advocates.
Libertarians also recognize that their ideas aren't made to produce the safest society possible, their goal is to produce the freest society possible. To say that the libertarian ideal would or would not work to curb gun violence is something of a strawman. I will be the first to admit that the "libertarian ideal" could conceivably result it a larger number of gun deaths, just as the socialist ideal might result in a larger number of people on the dole. But to hold it to that standard is to ignore the objective entirely. I personally don't believe that there would be a substantial increase in crime; given that the libertarian ideal would also legalize many controlled substances that are at the root of much of the violence in this country. Failing to recognize this is akin to blaming the Tommy Gun for the violence that occurred during the Prohibition as opposed to the perverse incentives of Prohibition itself.
Cars aren't like guns. There aren't (intentional and planned) daily car-killings, or mass car-killing incidents.
The magnitude and severity of harm, and large numbers of potential victims per incident is why guns are the focus here.
Arson isn't statistically 'common', either. Neither are mass deaths by fire. But we still have fire codes made for public safety. Whether a fire is intentional or not, places with large numbers of people (apartments, row homes, office buildings, restaurants, schools, auditoriums, theaters) have even stricter codes.
The small % of mentally ill, sociopaths or psychopaths, committing gun-killing sprees is less important than the high degree of damage and death they can cause with easily obtained guns, especially the rapid-fire and assault type guns. There's a relatively small % of militant "terrorists" in a large population, too....but when their goal is to cause maximum death per incident, pubic security means screenings for bombs at building entrances, reporting 'suspicious' back packs and/or unattended suitcases. Very few people are vectors of dangerous viruses, but we still monitor Influenzas and have vaccines to prevent large-impact illness/death, or can quarantine or suspend travel....
Crime, or gun crime in general, might be reduced by legalizing or de-criminalizing drugs. I've agreed with that proposal before. When it comes to guns used in mass-shootings and mass-killings, even though the incidents are fewer than gang or urban gun incidents, there's almost always a correlation to mental health of the shooter, and the number of people injured and killed are higher per incident. Improving our mental health system would go a long way...in preventing illness from becoming full-blown psychotic breaks, or desperate people causing harm to self or other. In recent months we've had more than one flight attendant and pilot having a mental crisis in-flight, putting hundreds of trapped passengers at risk. Sure, it's rare, but we don't just say it's rare and unusual, and do nothing to prevent it in the future.
Gun control laws aren't meant to eliminate all violence, nor are they a panacea to preventing bad things from happening. If Libertarian ideology sees man as an individual, that means MY right to liberty includes freedom FROM crime and gun crime, using laws to (pre)serve and protect that. The problem for libertarian ideals is not viewing groups as collections of individuals, or that the world works as groups of societies, and balancing singularity with solidarity.The libertarian ideal isn't that limiting gun laws will automagically eliminate violence. The libertarian ideal recognizes that man is always at war with the better angels of his nature, and no amount of legislation can prevent that.
Ghost, you and I will never agree on where to draw that line, or what kind of society we want to live in. Personally, I don't think it's a 'healthy society' that has as many guns as people. I wouldn't like a country where anyone can buy a gun, any kind of gun, and carry it anywhere (concealed or openly), or amass an arsenal of weapons and ammo. I think we have an 'unhealthy' attitude toward guns...romanticized and hollywoodized...and too many people who think more guns make them freer and safer.
So that guy was seeing a psychiatrist, right, shame the psychiatrist couldn't call some agency to report that he's not fit to own guns.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote