The news is all very preliminary, but they’re reporting two shooters and three people injured. If only it had occurred in a place with armed guards and a concealed carry law…
Oh, wait. It was in Texas. The rootin’ tootin’ cowboy attitude doesn’t help at all, does it?
Just a few days ago, Rick Perry presented his solution for random gun violence.
Prayer.
And of course, prayer worked as well as it always does.
I am deeply sorry for the lose of life and injury suffered by the victims and their families.
I also can’t wait to hear the Republican Tea Party/NRA spin. A lack of public prayer to Jesus will be involved.
Thank Cthulhu they were packing heat, or a FISTFIGHT might have broken out.
The not-praying-enough-to-god will be blamed instead.
/disgust
If you read the report it did help… well not really, there were two people apparently shooting at each other and a couple of bystanders got shot.
Not to jump to too many conclusions, but it pretty-much sounds like what you’s expect if someone starts shooting and someone else is armed too. Who predicted that??
One of the comments under the article:
Nice.
Thank goodness nobody had a hammer!
Teaching my classes online is becoming more and more appealing.
Preliminary reports are that this arose as an argument between two people, who each had guns. So instead of a fist fight, or even a knife fight, it escalated to a shootout, which led to the injury of at least 2 bystanders. (And apparently a third person had a heart attack–it’s not clear yet that this is a direct consequence of the gunfight, but it seems likely that it is.)
If only they’d had a class of 6-year olds to rush the shooters…
(crossposted from the Lounge)
Both of them having a weapon really did a lot towards solving the issue. Too bad about those that got caught in the crossfire. Now, if they had had guns… Things could have turned out differently.
@richardelguru–sorry, after a second read of your comment, I think I may have misinterpreted it. If your point was that having two people with guns simply escalated the problem and led to more people getting injured, then we’re on the same page–my apologies!
Don’t worry. Soon, everyone on public univeristy campuses in the Lone Star State will be packing heat. So we’ll all be safe from this type of thing.
It’s all those damn welfare sluts’ fault!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIops72Xua4
There should be a bingo card on “Who would NRA-supporters blame?”
Nothing in the news about what the argument was about.
So can those welfare moms get guns with their food vouchers?
Fuckin’ morons will see everyone shot in time…’the great leveller’ indeed!
Seems that wonderful guaranteed NRA solution requires only one person to have a gun, not two, that is apparently a grossly unfair scenario cos only the ‘gud ole’ bhoys’ get the gun you see…that is how it works!
Of course if the by-standers had been armed then it would have been a different kettle of fish, they obviously didn’t pray enough against Obama who has deliberately and viciously disarmed them and they have only themselves to blame!
If someone wants to claim that a potential mass murderer was stopped in this incident, it doesn’t fit the reports yet. There is a possibility that the gunman in custody was the person planning a mass shooting and is claiming s/he stopped the other gunman. How would the police know? In the confusion would anyone know? With everyone packing a piece a simple misunderstanding can lead to death, injuries, and a law abiding citizen being charged with murder.
Pff. Another plot from the gun-grabber-in-chief. Whoever heard of this place? Total made up bullshit. Stand by for the same “witnesses” from Newtown on the evening news.
“Texas!” Ya! That’s a real place!
Good to know this was just a gunfight at an LSC campus, as ridiculous as that sounds. I was driving home from a morning gig and heard reports about this from the radio. A few schools from Aldine ISD went into lockdown and there were confused reports about shooters nearby.
BTW, The Lone Star Community College system in the western and northern Houston area is pretty awesome. Most campuses are supported by a local property tax to make up for the fact that The Lege doesn’t give a shit about education.
Crap. I get a break at work and I see this. I owe you some thanks for posting this since I don’t normally check news sites while at work. North Harris campus is where my sister works. I just called to make sure she’s ok.
Grr. It didn’t take long for gun nuts to blame this on the fact that the campus is a “firearm-free” zone.
“Where is Molly Ivins when you need her.”
Last week Texas Senator Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury) introduced bill to allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus. The bill was “about trusting citizens with their God-given, constitutional rights.” http://huff.to/10pFgzb
I guess the second amendment supercedes my right to life, liberty and the pusuit of remaining lead free and to not be in the center of one of these Texas firing squads/shootouts?
Surprising fact (to me anyway): Whenever US gun ownership has been estimated by state in the last 10 years or so, Texas usually comes out quite low on the list – typically in the mid 30s out of all 51 states + DC.
Loads of caveats apply – gun ownership is very difficult to quantify, different reports use different data to compile their estimates, it says nothing about illegal weapons and so on. But I was surprised. And I live in Texas.
Andy, I did a little research for a piece on gun control and as it turns out, Texas does have one of the better records among the Southern states for lowest incidence of gun violence. It ranks far better than Louisiana, which grabs top honors as the state with the most gun related deaths per 100,000 people (Washington DC barely edges LA when you include it). Now, I’m not going to say that there’s any correlation here, but Texas does at least have some gun control measures, while LA does not.
Remember, an armed society is a polite society.
When it comes down to it, the more guns there are in an area, the more gun violence that area has. Legal or illegal weapons, it doesn’t matter. All the NRA wants to do is sell membership and guns while claiming to protect your rights. Once everyone is armed they’ll form the NBAA (National Body Armor Association) and peddle that to the scared and armed people they terrified then armed.
@ Alverant
“an armed society is a polite society”
The politeness comes first, not as a consequence of people packing heat. Witness Canada, where politesse is widespread and plentiful, and arms are uncommon. I leave it as a homework exercise to figure out (a) if there is a cause and effect situation here and if there is (b) which is cause and which is effect.
RFW
Yes and no. The phrase is essentially using a different definition of ‘politeness.’ Honor cultures tend to develop elaborate codes of courtesy/respect/groveling aimed at people who are considered to have ‘honor’ and thus are usually armed, because the slightest thing that they can take offence at might lead the m to use said arms on your person. This leads to a very different sort of ‘politeness’ than Canadians display, and also a lot of people getting dead because someone took offense anyway.
Huh, no Sicko Gun Fetishists yet.
They must still be wiping up and zipping their pants after hearing the news.
Re: Unexpected results for gun violence rates in Texas
I am not a sociologist, but at least this study indicates that social capital and income disparity are factors related to gun violence by state. Louisiana has greater income disparity amnd less social cohesion than Texas, even.
Antiochus:
That lines up with the data I found as well. There were a number of correlating factors listed as contributing to incidence/lack thereof of gun violence. Income disparity and lack of gun regulation were both correlated with an increase in gun violence.
Patriot Bob:
Deplorably shoddy work by God. Not only does he give that constitution to only one country (and not Israel!), he can’t even get it right first time, and has to come back with amendments. Guy’s a slacker.
Of course a shooting never would have occurred at a place where people were prohibited from carrying weapons…
Oh wait, Lone Star College is a weapons-free zone.
The more things change…
When I was a postgrad student (early ’80s) one of my professors spent 6 months in Texas (Houston I think). While he was there a couple of old guys who had been apparently harbouring some sort of life long fued decided to have it out in the supermarket car park. Two empty magazines later nobody hurt but damage to the supermarket on one side and a data centre on the other.
I think public carrying is nuts personally.
@ indicus
Lone Star College is not a weapon free zone. They, in fact, have an armed police force. What it is is a “firearm-free” zone, which prohibits private citizens from carrying. And you know why the shooting occurred? Because two people with apparent anger management issue violated that policy.
So what exactly is your point?
Dalillama @28: “This leads to a very different sort of ‘politeness’ than Canadians display”
Are Canadians more polite than Americans? That is the stereotype, but as a Canadian resident, I wonder how accurate it is, and it’s not been my experience (about the same, if you ask me). Have studies been done?
@ Recreant
Yes, it is a weapons-free zone like all other colleges in Texas, though that may change later this year. As you mentioned, that means that students, teachers, and visitors who hold concealed weapons permits are unable to carry them on campus. Such policies do not affect the rent-a-cops who are hired to patrol campuses and who – based on my undergraduate studies at two different colleges – barely know which end the bullets come out… compared to the average civilian concealed permit holder who practices 10 + times more than the average authentic LEO.
And as you also mentioned, it occurred because of two idiots who thought having a weapon made up for a host of personal issues. I completely agree that morons like that shouldn’t have access to a BB gun. But it would be nice is people would learn to draw a distinction between the yahoos and the millions of responsible individuals who carry a firearm. And as this event obviously demonstrates, no-gun policies DON’T prevent the lunatics and losers from packing heat. That exactly is my point.
@#35: It may be nuts, but I think it’s really cowardice. Just like Craig’s father in the comedy “Friday” says: (to paraphrase) guys who carry guns around are too scared to settle things with their fists, too scared to take an ass-whippin’.
P.S. Looks like no assault weapons were used this time – just like 99% of all other shootings. My condolences to the vultures who were salivating over another opportunity to scream “Ban them!”
And soon they will push through a bill to actually allow people to legally conceal and carry firearms on a campus. It isn’t like this incident will slow that bill down. Hell, it might spur it on. Because more armed thugs is just what would have stopped this.
I heard the other day that the NRA has membership for something like less than 40% of gun owners. If all of the other 60% could be gathered together to directly oppose the NRA’s stupidity, maybe we’d get somewhere.
carlie @41: Most NRA members support much stricter gun control than the NRA leadership. If only they could be convinced to quit the NRA.
indicus:
It’s a very weak point; no-one claimed total prevention, merely minimisation of incidence of events.
(Averted gun events don’t show up)
carlie:
Don’t forget that some of those non-members belong to Gun Owners of America, a rival organisation which regards the NRA as insufficiently hard-line. True, it’s a lot smaller than the NRA, but it’s a reminder that some of that 60% are crazier than the NRA.
@ John No, the number of potential shootings that would be minimized is so small that its easily dwarfed by the number of individuals who would be mugged, beaten, raped, etc if we were to roll back concealed weapons laws. I’m hearing about shootings in the news constantly and have been since I started picking up the paper. None of these individuals had weapons permits… the vast majority were prohibited from touching a firearm in the first place. How exactly are more regulations supposed to stop ANY such events? How is it that shootings were perfectly common in the 1980s-early 1990s when very few states issued permits?
The NRA doesn’t care about members or what any of them might have to say. The NRA gets millions of dollars every year from gun manufacturers. It is a lobbying and marketing organization for those manufacturers. The more fear that can be drummed up, the better for business.
indicus: data or I don’t believe you.
indicus @45: “No, the number of potential shootings that would be minimized is so small that its easily dwarfed by the number of individuals who would be mugged, beaten, raped, etc if we were to roll back concealed weapons laws.”
Do you have data to support the proposition that concealed weapon laws preventing muggings, etc?
indicus
Do you have some links to studies that show the numbers of muggings, beatings, rapes, etc. that have been prevented by concealed weapons.
“the proposition that concealed weapon laws preventing muggings, etc”
Fucking verbs, how do they work? Edit fail. Should be “prevent”.
Still with the blindly unrecognized privilege, indicus?
Most people aren’t born capable of effectively defending themselves with a firearm, concealed or not. Some people can attain that ability with training, but some cannot. Some cannot do it physically. Some cannot do it psychologically.
Just because YOU happen to be one of those, or might happen to be one of those, who are blessed with the privilege of being able to do that doesn’t mean that everyone or anyone can.
It was demonstrated on an episode of Mythbusters that within a fourteen foot radius, an attacker with a knife, given initiative and surprise, can close the distance and kill a defender with a gun, before the defender gets the chance to draw, aim and fire the gun.
Now given that Mythbusters isn’t exactly the most rigorous of shows, we can be generous with that estimate and suppose drop that radius to 10 feet, or even 5 feet. Well, most assaults and muggings occur within exactly that sort of confined space. The bad guy gets iniative, and you often don’t get any warning of an impending attack until they are within 5-10 feet of you. At that range your concealed weapon is no better than a 50:50 proposition against a large knife. And not everyone has the privilege of being a quick draw expert or a crack shot.
indicus:
But with guns, there’d be gun-enabled muggings, there’d be gun-enabled muggings and there’d be gun-enabled rapes.
Regulations need to be enforced.
(Duh)
Gun culture. You Americans have it.
Citation needed. This sounds like utter bullshit, as civilian training is even more minimal.
Just heard on the radio Glenn Beck is gonna have one of his pay per view specials where he shows kids how to use AK-47’s safely, so we should all be safe going forward if you just pay to tune in.
John @52: “Gun culture. You Americans have it.”
The boys need their lethal toys, because Jesus came back briefly in 1791 to add a rewrite of the English Bill of Rights, which guaranteed them guns (the English only gave that right to Protestants), to the Holy Constitution.
There are a multitude of theories that have attempted to explain the decline in violent crime, including shootings, over the last 30 years. The most recent one to receive coverage is the dramatic correlation between the introduction of unleaded gasoline and the decline violent crime.
If you want to make a convincing argument for the efficacy of concealed-carry permits, you should present data on violent crime that occurred in public places over the last 15-20 years, and compare concealed carry versus non-concealed carry states. Ideally, your comparison should be between states with similar demographics, income disparity, etc. If you simply focus on crime in a state before and after the introduction of concealed carry laws, you may be confounded by the general, US-wide decline in violence.
indicus wrote:
That’s your point? It doesn’t make much sense. There are laws against burglary yet people still commit burglaries. Shall we get rid of those laws since they don’t prevent every single violation? In fact, every law ever passed is violated at some time or other. Let’s just get rid of all laws. How many crimes have the no-gun policies prevented? No one knows, but one thing is for sure. They have not increased the number of gun crimes committed.
You seem to be against any restrictions on guns ever, since they won’t eliminate every single transgression. Just like every other law.
Point of order: the shooting took place in North Harris county, which is (mostly) Houston.
If it wasn’t for &$/;! gerrymandering, Houston would be damn-near deep blue. Our schools are Gun-Free zones, and we likes ’em that way.
Only the RW clowns in the state government (and the rural, inbred “Texas militia”-types) are the gun-happy idjits.
indicus:
Take solace in knowing I would be ever so happy if guns-across the board-were largely banned (for those who’s occupation they are necessary, for shooting ranges, and specific hunting grounds).
@ Rob I could pull up a pile of studies to show concealed weapons laws lead to a reduction in violent crime. Likewise, you could pull up an equally large number of studies that say the opposite. Its essentially Disraeli’s take on statistics. The problem is that all such studies – both pro and con – are little more than judging crime rates before and after the institution of concealed carry laws. They don’t take into account demographic changes, economic indicators, social factors, and a couple dozen other things which would have an enormous impact on crime rates.
All that being said, keep in mind that the vast majority of instances in which firearms are used in self-defense do not involve firing the weapon, merely brandishing it. Even though such incidents typically lead to police reports (at least they are supposed to), its the actual shooting incidents which turn up most readily on the public radar and are easiest to press into usable data. So how many incidents are there? Kleck & Gertz did an often-cited study – Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun (1995) – which argued that 1 million to 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use occur each year. I have not read the study in its entirety and really comment on it, though off the top of my head I’ll admit this seems a bit high. On the other end of the spectrum, David Hemenway did an analysis of this study in which he took serious issue with their numbers and methods. Keep in mind, Hemenway has been extremely vocal that he does not consider firearms to be a deterrent to crime. Still, his review of Klech & Gertz which found their number to be greatly inflated gave an estimate of defensive gun uses (depending on how he figured Kleck & Getz missed their figures) of between 150,000 and 600,000 instances a year. Even taking his bottom figure (which I would think to be an underestimate), that is a hell of a lot of robberies, rape, and murders prevented.
The other basis I go on is simple experience. I’ve known a number of individuals who were mugged, two rape victims, one attempted murder victim (by knife), and one murder victim (again, by knife). None of them had a firearm with them. None of their perpetrators had a firearm. If they had been allowed to carry, it would have been a lot less heartache. I also know several individuals who have used firearms in self-defense… all but one cases of break-in, the other a probable rape. None of those individual fired a shot but if they didn’t have those guns it would have ended differently. I’ve had a carry permit since I was old enough to get one. I’ve never considered unholstering my weapon despite plenty of cursing, hand gestures, and other things sent my way which the anti-gun side claims should have sent me off in a homicidal rage. When states started handing out carry permits everyone was screaming doomsday, that the streets would run red with blood as everyone turned to vigilante justice. It never happened and if the only examples you can come up with are gang-bangers and depressed losers who want to go out in infamy then I’d say my side has done a pretty good job acting like grownups. You don’t want a gun? Fine. You don’t want to know that I’m carrying one? I won’t tell you. But I’ll be sure to hold onto mine because I will NOT subject myself to the 1 in a million chance that I’ll be looking into some punk’s face begging for my life because some sanctimonious shits don’t trust me to defend myself.
TrollScore™: 0/10
If people are going to hide behind the second amendment as the reason they can keep an arsenal in their homes, they must honor the amendment fully and be part of a “well regulated militia”. Regulated by who? By the state, of course. They will need to partake in mandatory drills on weekends to learn how to saftley use their toys and will have to register with the state.
Indicus, can you document a single instance of a shooting being prevented by an armed bystander?
Do you have any idea what the research says about the correlation between being armed and being a victim of a crime on one hand, and between guns in the home and deaths from accidents and suicides on the other?
Translation: You can’t make me! Nyah nyah!
indicus:
If they had been allowed to carry, then so would the perpetrators.
(You really don’t grok it, do ya?)
Hmmm, I wonder why there is so little information, stats, etc. on gun usage, ownership, injuries, and such. Oh wait, I know! It’s because the NRA lobbied Congress to eliminate funding to the CDC so those studies could no longer be done. Why would stopping these studies be so important to the NRA? Perhaps because the information would not support all these claims of guns used for successful self-defense? Just maybe they would provide even more information that gun owners are more likely to be injured/killed by their own guns as well as their family members?
Indicus: “Because I say so” isn’t a valid argument.
Then, of course, we compare the rigor and depth of the studies to determine which are the best and most likely to give the proper answers. Your problem, is if they come from an NRA site, they are likely to be quickly done, bad statistically, and show what the NRA wants to hear. Not what reality says.
indicus:
Heh. And before you were wanking on about assault weapons.
(Hidden assault weapons, oh my!)
@ Amphiox, the average handgun has 4 or 5 mechanical controls, as opposed to the average car which is several times more complicated. Anyone with average eye-hand co-ordination can physically handle one. As far as the mental aspect goes, its the idiots learn all they know about guns through movies or video games that are dangerous. The ones who are actually taken to the range and taught what a gun is and what it does are the ones who know what the hell they are doing.
@ John, the fact of the matter is that with close to 200 million firearms in circulation in the U.S. you will never get more than a tiny fraction off the street. So thinking you could pass any law which would make a dent in their availability is moronic. The only chance you have is a complete, “Turn them all over” style ban which would take substantial numbers out of circulation. Of course, that’s assuming the millions of criminals and gun-nuts alike have any intention of actually handing them in. Good luck with that.
@ Nerd, once again, real-life experience is always the best teacher. Most of the LEOs I know are not firearms enthusiasts are only qualify with their duty weapons as needed, which isn’t much. Initial weapons training for your regular beat cop is minimal. Your typical civilian gun owner takes his guns apart inside and out for fun so they know them intimately. They also go to the range a couple dozen times a year or more. My friends and relatives in the Marines (the one branch relatively obsessed with firearms training) bitch that basic training doesn’t teach nearly enough and few of their competent shooters were not gun nuts before they enlisted.
@ tomh, You are comparing apples and oranges in comparing the banning of an action (robbery) with no possible legitimate use to the banning of an object with many legitimate uses. My point – if I have beaten everyone over the head enough with it – is that criminals will ALWAYS be able to get guns and if you think any number of laws can change that you are living in a dream world.
My solution is to focus on the roots of crime and shootings… social, economic, etc, etc. The ones that we might actually be able to influence. And while we are at it, maybe tighten the loopholes in background check databases (which the NRA supports), make ALL gun-running a felony (which the NRA has been screaming about for years), and make it where individuals who store guns sloppily which wind up being used in crimes get crucified (I’m to the right of the NRA and even I support that).
indicus #60
In other words, you got nuthin’.
You are clearly a thoughtful person who has read about the subject, but you spoil your argument by making bad faith generalizations about people with different views. Likewise for your question about declining crime rates and concealed carry permits.
That’s also a hell of a lot of cases of mistaken identity/intent. Got stats on people defending themselves from intruders, only to find out they just shot a member of the family?
The details are a bit shakier than the initial report, but let’s stick with that scenario.
Two people are having an argument, and they both pull guns and start shooting at each other.
Now lets add that concealed carry is allowed, and there is at least one bystander who is armed, and willing to act. What does that person do now? What legal actions can they take that will result in fewer people being shot?
…
Okay, so the two are shooting it out and the third person has intervened with their gun. Now a fourth armed person arrives and witnesses the scene as it now stands. What action to they take?
If none of these people officially represent law enforcement, how can it not devolve into a complete clusterfuck?
indicus:
Is reducing the number by 50% percent making a dent?
What about 10%? 5%? 1%?
(Your counsel of despair is noted)
I put it to you that it would be far easier (in the sense of ‘actually possible) to fix your gun culture than to eliminate the social and economic roots of crime and shootings; ironically, your previous counsel of despair would apply in spades to your own purported solution, which pretty much entails achieving a post-scarcity economy.
(Also, it’s kinda hard to shoot someone without having a gun handy)
On the drive home, I found myself remembering a shampoo commercial from the late 70s/early 80s. And they’ll shoot two friends, and they’ll shoot to friends, and so on, and so on . . . .
———–
Indicus:
You claim that the NRA is fully supportive of laws making ‘gun running’ a bigger deal. So why is the NRA fighting, tooth and nail, a proposal in Pennsylvania to require that all stolen fire arms be reported as stolen?
@ Gary, last time I checked, the Second Amendment was considered to be an INDIVIDUAL right by the Supreme Court. Just like every other reference to “the people” in the Bill of Rights has ALWAYS been considered to relate to individual rights. The fact that militias are mentioned in the same amendment doesn’t have any more significance than the fact that free speech and religion are both mentioned in the same amendment. So by your logic, only speech related to one’s religions views is protected.
@ Azkyroth, I could mention a couple just from personal relations. I could also spend thirty seconds of my life looking a few dozen up on Google. Fine, here is one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings Once again, the fact that guns prevent crimes is not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is how often.
@ John, Whether they were allowed to or not wouldn’t have made any difference. Or perhaps you should mention that to the hordes of bang-bangers in New York City or LA who certainly aren’t allowed to carry, yet – for some odd reason – still do.
@ allegro, yeah its not like any media outlets, academics, private criminologists, etc, etc have touched the issue :/
Yawn, Indicus has nothing of evidence, will never have anything of evidence, just its idiotoloogy personified by imagufactured evidence. BORING.
John:
It’s just gosh darn difficult to get away from that oh so pesky fact.
@Indicus: Do you support research into gun violence and gun control?
Also, please answer Kagato’s post at #73. I’m interested in your thoughts, especially if you had been a bystander with a weapon in that situation.
feelin’ like a pixel
Does anyone make zip-guns any more.
@ Andy, my main point is that in a country with as many firearms as the U.S. you will NEVER prevent those irresponsible or criminal who want to get a gun from getting one. Making life harder on those who respect firearms and know what they are doing won’t help anything.
@ Suido, Almost every study I’ve seen giving a high figure for accidental gun deaths includes suicide as ‘accidental’, which is horseshit. How many really occur? About 20 per year… http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html
@ Kagato, it that situation, I wouldn’t do a goddamn thing except find something to get behind. My pistol wouldn’t even come out of its holster unless one of the gun-carrying ones approached me.
@ John, Yes reducing the number by 50% would be making an enormous dent. Even 20% would be significant. Hypothetically, how in fuck’s name would you actually expect to do that?
@ Ogvorbis, I’ve heard about that law but haven’t seen the actual language. Any way you could link to it?
indicus:
So, what’s their statistical likelihood to be involved in incidents of gun violence?
(Or, are they really safer by virtue of “carrying”?)
@ Suido, Yes I absolutely support research. I’ve never understood how the simple accumulation of data could be harmful. How it is used is another matter, but that bridge can be crossed when we come to it.
@ John, Well since they are carrying specifically for the purpose of threatening or shooting other people I’d say their chance is pretty damn high. And that is also their problem for being assholes. Or was that not a serious question?
P.S. Suido, in regards to Kagato’s answered question… when I took my CCW course at least two-thirds of the time was spent telling us exactly when we should NOT shoot. And these are courses done by private individuals, often the NRA. Nobody is interested in shooting except when absolutely necessary.
Thank you. I was quite aware that there is one recorded case of…
…too little, too late, with a somewhat loose definition of “bystander” insofar as a retired police officer explicitly serving in a security role was involved.
I note that seven homicides were not “prevented” in your choice situation. This is really the best you can come up with? If your bluster were at all justified there would surely be hundreds of cases of Honest Citizens ripping open their shirts to reveal
a big red letter S on a yellow backgroundtheir concealed weapons and stopping criminals dead in their tracks.So, um…
You were saying?
The point of yours I initially responded to was making a claim about the efficacy of concealed carry laws in reducing shootings. You appear to have backed away from that claim.
Your “main point” is still a bad faith argument, as you appear to be intentionally obscuring the difference between prevention and reduction. To use your phrasing, locking my car or installing a security device will NEVER prevent someone from stealing my car. However, those actions may reduce the chance that my car is stolen.
indicus, of course it was a serious question.
And you’ve just admitted their chances of being involved in gun incidents is “pretty damn high” by virtue of the fact that they operate in a gun culture milieu.
(Of course, responsible gun owners don’t carry for the purposes of threatening or shooting other people — it’s just a hobby and they would never defend themselves by actually threatening or shooting other people)
Indicus wrote:
Really? The biggest loopholes in background checks are gun shows and individual sales, which together account for 40% of sales. Yet on a previous thread, you argued tooth and nail that such background checks would be useless and would even prevent millions of people from selling privately owned guns. You were adamant that a law requiring such checks should not be implemented. Now you claim you want to tighten loopholes – just what loopholes are you talking about now?
NRA-ILA: Gun Shows in Minnesota Under Attack!
NRA Supports Colorado Bill Repealing State Background Checks
NRA seeks to weaken background check system in Virginia
I also saw a reference to NRA president David Keene opposing any efforts to perform background checks on private sales, but I haven’t found a direct quote so far. I did find this amusing part in an NPR interview though:
And in his very next answer:
Just like there is no mandatory registration of cars. Oh wait.
@ Azkyroth, So she only prevented more murders and stop all of them? I didn’t know this was an all or none game. Once again, the notion that guns are used in self-defense ISN’T in doubt and all your whining for more examples won’t change that. Refer to one of my previous posts… a study by someone trying to DISPROVE that guns are effective in crime prevention claims they are used 150,000 times (or much more) per year.
@ Andy, No, I never claimed that CCW laws specifically lowered crime rates. I think they probably have but since the only data available doesn’t take into consideration other important factors I can’t say for sure. Nor was my point that having a gun would always protect you. My point is simply that a person without a gun is ALWAYS at the mercy of a criminal they encounter whereas one with a gun might stand a chance.
@ John, Wow, I never realized someone could really be that dense but I’ll give it a go… I don’t give a rat’s ass about some gang-banger who winds up getting shot. They brought that on themselves, fuck them. I don’t care about anyone who wants to wave a gun around like it makes up for whatever is wrong in their life. What I care about are the millions of gun owners who carrying to protect themselves or to hunt or for range shooting and ONLY for those things. And no, none of them actually want to shoot someone. If that’s really what you think American gun culture is like then pass me some of whatever you are smoking.
indicus:
I’m sure you can explain how do they use their gun to protect themselves without actually, you know, threatening or shooting other people with their it. ;)
(And sure, hunting or range shooting are hobbies.
(Smiting dummies with battle-axes isn’t))
I ♥ it when they call John Morales “dense”.
—-
indicus
You are what most of us think of as ‘American gun culture’.
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
@ John, The difference is that the gang-bangers go out of their way to threaten other people. Almost all gun owners don’t shoot unless they are forced to. In which case, yes, they have shot someone. Whoopty-fucking-do. I didn’t say gun owners never shoot other people, I just said they do everything not to and only shoot them when given no other option. Or perhaps you thought we were all pacifists?
@ Chigau, Considering that I’ve never pulled my gun and have said I’d go out of my way not to (even in today’s college situation), I’ll take that as a compliment.
@ Rev, Even without reading the entire study I’ve got a pretty good feeling that they will include individuals without weapons permits, individuals who are prohibited from carrying, individuals who are carrying in order to commit a crime, etc. in their ‘statistics’. Kinda slants the results. Show me a study based entirely on individuals with CCW permits.
Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence
This is pretty much beside the point, but just out of curiosity: for which of those activities is an AR-15 or equivalent the most appropriate choice?
Please review my previous posts… truly accidental (non-suicide) deaths by firearms happen on the order of 20 times a year. The number of times a firearm is used in self-defense each year is in six figures, and that’s coming from a study which OPPOSES guns as self-defense. Again, the point is not to kill the intruder. The point is to eliminate them as a threat any way you can and if that only means scaring them off, fine.
indicus
Don’t take it as a compliment.
You don’t need a gun (for self-defence).
You have never used a gun (for self-defence).
but
you
wannawannawanna
have a gun.
—
American gun culture.
Kagato, AR-type rifles are extremely fun to shoot. They are accurate, light, and handle very well. Its hard to explain to someone who isn’t a shooter just like a motorcycle enthusiast would have a hard time explaining the difference between a Harley and a whatever to me. As far as hunting goes, many AR models have been developed specifically for hunting (i.e. Ambush Arms 6.8 Hunter) and are completely useless as any sort of battle rifle. That still hasn’t stopped them from hitting the banned lists being worked up.
It could have been far, far worse.
If they’d been in Canada, a hockey game could have broken out. Far, far more violent.
(/sarcasm)
Chigau,
“You don’t need a gun (for self-defence)”
Tell that to the two women I know who were raped you shit.
“You have never used a gun (for self-defence)”
And hopefully I won’t have to. But I’d rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it.
“but you wannawannawanna have a gun”
Yes, I do. Because I enjoy them. And since I’m not affecting anyone by owning them, feel free to piss off.
Oh, and sorry for mot following up earlier:
So, in the scenario originally reported, even though innocent bystanders are getting hit, the presence of a concealed carry civilian would have changed the outcome not one bit… assuming they acted as you would.
Armed civilians are presumably therefore incapable of making this situation better. Do you concede they could (quite easily) make it worse?
Ah yes they wouldn’t be raped if they had guns…everyone here is so insensitive to rape.
This is going to be funny
The most important thing, obviously, is that we salve the butthurt of gun fetishists who have to trip over themselves every time something like this happens explaining how but guns don’t… and if only more guns… and OMG guns I’m cumming…!
Frankly, I wish Obama really was coming for our guns. So sick of this shit.
indicus:
Like so many gun owners, it appears you make the same mistake of assuming that that gun control advocates are focused on firearm *fatalities*. Many of us are concerned with gun *violence*, which includes people who accidentally injure themselves or others.
Also, of the fatalities, we are not focused only on those mass shootings that turn up in the news. Stories such as
are tragedies that we speak out about too. I don’t know all the details of this one, but the shooter obviously was able to acquire these guns relatively easy (laws that require gun owners to store their weapons in a safe place, even at home could make a difference in the lives lost in cases like this), and in a fit of rage, expressed his frustration in an irreversible manner. Unlike using a hammer (for instance) or a sword, the lethality of a gun makes situations like these so much more devastating.
indicus, dunno much about guns, but I know about bikes.
A Harley is like a motorcycle as a tractor is to a car.
(IOW: the American version of a motorcycle; loud, heavy but no guts, no cornering)
—
Completely useless, eh?
indicus
Are you seriously equating possession of a firearm feel freedom from rape?
‘you shit’ barely begins the words you deserve
indicus:
Have you ever given thought to how this would work?
Many, many rapes are done by men that women *know*. Their guard is down. They aren’t anticipating being violated by these friends and/or family members. They have no reason to have a gun. Once the attack has begun, how exactly are they able to have the time or ability to reach their gun?
If it is the case of a rapist attacking a woman on the street as she leaves a club, think about how that would occur. The rapist isn’t likely to approach her politely. Unless she has her hands on a gun at all times, and is not overpowered at the onset of the attack, the gun *might* be useful.
You’re not thinking things through. You think the presence of a gun would *magically* make women able to fend off rapists. Engage your brain and think.
Kagato, I don’t know too much about the actual situation but let me explain my rational:
‘
1) In the short time the situation unfolded, there are simply too many unknowns. Who are these people doing the shooting and why? For all I know, one could be an undercover cop in a sting gone wrong. Or in a similar (non-campus) situation where carry was allowed, one could have been another civilian with a carry permit defending them self from whoever. Quite unlikely to be sure, but the one thing that gets drilled into your head when you are taught to handle firearms is never pull the trigger unless you are certain. A person aiming a gun at me gives certainty. Two individuals shooting at each other doesn’t.
2) Is there an immediate danger to myself or others around me? From what I’ve heard, the shooting happened between the two idiots with one person getting nicked in the crossfire and another suffering heart issues. Considering who the two were aiming at, firing at them would have been likely to merely draw their fire on me and people around me where it had not been before and would have created a serious situation in which there was previous a somewhat less serious one. On the other hand, had either of the shooters started blasting random individuals it would have been a very different situation.
3) While I don’t know what the place looked like at the time, since it was a college campus I’ll assume it was crowded. Background is everything in firearms safety training and I would have to take my chances ducking for cover rather than firing in a poor set-up with any chance of hitting a bystander.
indicus:
People with access to guns, because those without cannot shoot anyone.
</Captain Obvious>
@ John, Yes, completely useless… 5 round magazine capacity, heavy barrel which makes lugging one more difficult, different trigger pull, no bayonet lug, etc, etc. Of course you could kill someone with one. You could also kill someone with the antique musket hanging over my fireplace. Doesn’t mean anyone would bother picking up such a weapon though…
@ Chigau and Tony, Yes, it would help in many cases. One of the women I know was approached by a man she never met, chased and run down with plenty of time to reach into her purse and shoot the fucker if New York state had decided to bless her with that option. Once again, you two seem to think I equate gun ownership with a panacea which I do NOT. I think that it gives a person an option which might help or it might not whereas being defenseless will certainly not help.
So you’re admitting that reduced magazine capacity and other changes to a gun’s design render it significantly less dangerous, particularly for offensive purposes. This suggests a potential need for refining the assault weapons ban criteria, but not that such are ineffective.
indicus, I quote from the blurb:
“From Black Creek, GA, Ambush Firearms™ debuts the premiere 6.8 SPC hunting rifle, delivering 6.8 takedown power in a package light enough for the most mobile hunter.
No longer do you have to compromise weight for takedown power, now you can have both. The Ambush 6.8 is not only lightweight, it’s modular.
Rifle manufacturers often overlook the shooting comfort of the hunter. At Ambush Firearms we have taken everything into consideration. The adjustable butt-stock gives another way to adjust the rifle to fit you, no matter your size or the clothes you’re wearing. To further augment the Ambush 6.8, we have included modular rail sections and an adjustable indexable foregrip, enhancing your natural shooting position. Outfitted with a Geissele Super Semi-Auto two-stage trigger to decrease rifle movement, the Ambush 6.8 realizes its superior accuracy to take ‘em down in one shot. The Geissele SSA has a total pull weight of 4.5lbs, 2.5 lbs on the first stage and 2 lbs on the second stage. The pull weights and sear engagement are non adjustable.
The Ambush 6.8 features a monolithic upper rail platform allowing you to mount optics where they suit YOU best, not the rifle. The free-floating hand guard extends 12 inches protecting the barrel while giving you plenty of real estate for hand placement or accessories.
The Ambush 6.8 is finished in either MOSSY OAK® Break Up® Infinity™ or REALTREE® AP™ Camo patterns ensuring the rifle will be heard, but never seen. We carefully researched and configured
this rifle to suit the needs of modern hunters. With our lifetime guarantee, Ambush is the best choice for hunters.”
—
(® ™ Ambush Firearms)
indicus
You are a meathead.
Dead from the neck up.
[hush]
As a Canadian, I’ve just got to know: indicus, have you been to the Calgary Stampeed yet?
Yawn, idiotological fool is still foolish slogans instead of evidence. Situation normal…
@ Azkyroth, of course reduced magazine capacity reduces a weapon’s ability to kill lots of people. I was referring to sporterized AR rifles in that part and it doesn’t change the fact that I enjoy going to the range with high capacity magazines. Oh, and that the majority of pistols carried by law enforcement and civilians have a magazine capacity higher than the ‘magical’ number of 10. In short, there is enough reason for me to own them even if its because I “just wanna”.
@ John, I simply pulled that model off the top of my head and that one does not have a heavy barrel. Other models – those designed for long-range shooting – do have such barrels.
@ Chigau, Eloquent and well thought-out retort there. That doesn’t change the fact that there is at least one more woman who would have not undergone the experience of rape if she had been allowed to carry a pistol. Personally, I don’t give a shit whether you have a crushing phobia of an inanimate object. But what I do care about are the people who ARE mugged and raped and murdered because shitheads like you and the shitheads they elect who don’t think adults can be trusted with their own self-defense. Go fuck yourself.
@ ckitching, Thanks for demonstrating my reason for rolling my eyes anyone tells me that LEOs and only LEOs are responsible and well-trained enough in the mold of Jedi warriors to be capable of handling a gun.
@ Nerd, I’m pretty sure I cited evidence in many of my previous posts. Feel free to go back and read them because I’m not going to spoon-feed you.
And what makes you think the fucking rapist won’t have a gun? Well, often they do AFTER they take it away from the person they’re attacking and turn it on them. In those rare occasions where the rapist is that ‘leap from the bushes/alleyway’ kind and not the far more common ‘person they already know rapist’.
ckitching
hahahhhahahahhhhaa
Thank you!
I’d forgotten that.
@ Ariaflame, If said rapist has a gun they would likely pull it right away (again, nothing is sure protection). If they don’t, then they would be looking down the barrel of their intended victim’s gun and them pulling it would be a moot point.
Oh, they’re fun! Why didn’t you just say so? The degree of fun had while operating a firearm entirely justifies its availability for ownership. /s
I’m sure firing a SMAW is a real hoot too, but that doesn’t justify making them available on the retail market!
ckitching,
Please don’t give the idiot ideas! I take myself for walkies in that park – and I feel safe there (well, except for the day that a hawk made objection to my presence, causing me to hasten on my way).
Somehow, we Canadians do just fine without carrying firearms for self-defense. Maybe because no one gets to, no one needs to.
Now explain why you have to take it home with you, if it’s just for range use.
indicus @120: “But what I do care about are the people who ARE mugged and raped and murdered because shitheads like you and the shitheads they elect who don’t think adults can be trusted with their own self-defense.”
So muggings, rapes and murders are much more common in countries with strict gun laws?
Sorry, evilDoug. I just can’t remember another story that properly captures how utterly ridiculous the entire “more guns is the solution to gun violence” situation in the U.S. looks to Canadians. Strange how our violent crime rates have decreased, and concealed carry still isn’t allowed here.
@ indicus
Tell me again, perhaps I missed it, what are the background check loopholes you want to “tighten”? Do you support Obama’s proposal to require background checks for private sales and gun shows? If not, what background loopholes do you want to tighten up?
Once again, we’re missing the larger point… gun ownership is a RIGHT. I don’t have to justify why I should be allowed to own firearm model X. We can argue all day about whether I have a ‘need’ for any gun in particular but in the end it doesn’t matter. We could make the same argument for fast cars or motorcycles or alcohol or any other dangerous product… just leave it at the range (or racetrack, bar, etc) when you are done. That ignores the fact that it is still my property and I am entitled to own it, regardless of how it makes you feel. I use my guns in a safe manner and I store them locked. Now if that bothers you I really don’t care. Its my right. It isn’t up for a vote. Get over it.
indicus @131: “Its my right. It isn’t up for a vote. Get over it.”
So the ultimate argument is that baby wants his bottle. Tactical nuclear weapons for all!
If the patriarchy would just recognize the need for a safe form of safe illusory power* (GI Joes and towel-capes spring to mind) I’m sure this would be much less of an issue.
*Teh Menz need that sometimes.
Right has nothing to do with utility and it actually working as you claim fuckwit. That is your problem. If you have to get to right, you have lost the utility argument. As you just acknowledged….You lose.
Indicus, lets say you’re in the following situation:
You’re walking around
A violent assailant repeatedly stabs you in the chest/stomach and takes all your stuff
What do you do?
Or a violent assailant points a gun at your face and asks for all your stuff
what do you do?
@ Rob, Sigh… If we think we can reduce the crime rate down to a single issue then we are kidding ourselves. While I think increasing the number of firearms carried has, in general, had some effect on crime rates I freely admit it comes in a distant place to social and economic factors. Its not such a simple matter of more guns = less bad guys as the NRA says. But on an individual basis, nobody should be told you do not have the right to defend yourself.
@ Tomh, When talking about background checks by licensed dealers, there is at least something to stand on since these represent how the vast majority of guns initially enter the black market. Gun shows account for less than 2% of firearms directly purchased and used in crimes and most of these are by those with no prior record. You would be putting a considerable burden on hunters and collectors (who provide virtually all private gun transactions at shows) to eliminate a problem that doesn’t exist.
there are less guns in western/northern europe and less people get shot here
@ Nerd, That last statement isn’t even written in English so I’m afraid I can’t tell you how stupid it is. But I’ll rephrase it for you… if I want to slap a high capacity magazine in my AR, mount up a bayonet, and head to the range to practice for when the zombies rise like a complete idiot that is my right. As long as I act responsibly and safely it doesn’t matter at all whether you think I have a need for it or utility or whatever the hell you tried to spit out. Right = I don’t have to explain it to you. Get over it.
@ imkindaokay, What part of this is so difficult to understand??? Having a gun will not stop all crime. It will stop some which is far better than none.
indicus @137:”But on an individual basis, nobody should be told you do not have the right to defend yourself.”
On an individual basis, nobody should be told to simply accept being collateral damage in the crossfire. Rights sure are messy ain’t they?
Think twice as smart as anything you have said in days. Dumbshit.
Oh, and look up the rate of gun ownership for Switzerland and Finland and compare them to Western Europe. Compare their murder rates, too.
indicus:
Once again, you display an inability to actually think about the situation you’re positing. Said woman who is running for her life from a rapist is somehow going to reach into her purse, pull out the gun, spin around and magically shoot her attacker with perfect aim to deter him from raping her?
Your scenario of “guns protect women from rape” only works under *ideal* conditions. Those don’t often exist in the real world.
Stop with the magical thinking. That’s a quality of religion.
Ahh, I see. So, do you actually believe all that garbage you wrote before, justifying how useful guns are? In the end it really does not seem to matter to you whether or not guns make anyone more safe. Even if fewer guns resulted in a huge reduction in gun crime you would still demand that you be allowed to be have your guns, wouldn’t you? As you say, you think it is your right. So why did you bother arguing all this time and not just stick to this point? All I can think of is that you really, really know this right is a bit silly and in order to make yourself feel better about supporting it you have to find imaginary scenarios and fantasies to justify it, even if there is nothing to back them up.
@ Rob, Go back to my post #112. Also, read some news articles about the recent Oregon mall shooting and why the person with a concealed handgun didn’t fire. And while you’re at it, marvel at the fact that since CCW has become widespread the street have not run red with the blood of people caught in the crossfire as gun control proponents said they would. Could it perhaps be that most gun owners really are responsible and mindful of not shooting wildly and in general don’t have their heads up their asses as you seem to think? Naw, that’s just crazy talk.
Gun nuts like Indicus are True Believers™. Nothing but presuppositional thinking, nothing but sloganeering, and absolutely no evidence will refute their presuppositions. True Idjit™ in other words.
“To obtain a firearms license, an individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun (self defense is not considered “valid”). Acceptable reasons include hunting, sports or hobby shooting, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signalling. The applicant must provide evidence supporting the acquisition license application to prove that he or she is actually using firearms for the stated purpose(s). Such proof may consist of written declarations from other license holders as referees, shooting diaries or certificates from a shooting club.[6]
The applicant is also subjected to an extensive background check from police accessible databases and even citations for speeding or drunk driving can be grounds of not granting the license.” (finland)
= much better than american gun control. regardless it’s still about two/three/four as bad the uk/germany/france/italy/japan etc
*times as bad
indicus:
So the fuck what!
Why is it a right?
Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness…those are rights.
The right to an education.
The right to free speech and expression.
These are rights.
There are justifications for these.
Please explain how owning a gun compares to these essential human rights.
@ Tony, Said woman in question was able to run half a block before she was caught up with. That is more than enough time to reach into a purse, pull out a gun, turn around, and pull the trigger.
@ Travis, No I stand by the fact that guns are very useful and as I mentioned several times tonight, even those trying to limit their availability admit that they are used quite often (150,000-600,000 per year to give you THEIR figures). I just brought up the concept of rights because I got sick and tired of saying the same thing over and over and justifying it with the same studies over and over as if I was arguing with some half-wit creationist and decided to take the cheap way out by saying “The Constitution says I can so I can and if you don’t care for it tough shit”
@ Tony, Please go back to elementary school and study something called the Bill of Rights. Free speech is in there. So is expression and the ability to be secure in one’s possessions. And believe it or not, gun ownership is sitting there as well.
“gun ownership is a RIGHT. I don’t have to justify why I should be allowed to own firearm model X.”
Yes, but just as with free speech, there are certain limitations to that right. Libel and slander are crimes, and famously, it is illegal to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is not actually a fire. We allow these restrictions on free speech in order to protect individuals from the speech of others. So why would it be different to curtail certain rights of gun ownership (by instituting background checks for any gun purchase, limiting the types of weapons/magazines an individual can own, etc.) in order to keep people safer? (And yes, all the stats show that countries with stricter gun regulations have fewer deaths and injuries due to guns: http://www.gunpolicy.org/)
Also, from the link, the number of unintentional deaths (not including suicides) in the US in 2011 was 851, which averages to 2.3 per day. That’s not nearly as insignificant a number as your estimate above.
And there it is.
Any justification for why owning a gun is necessary, advantageous, or even desirable, is mere window dressing.
US citizens can own any weapon they like because a decision 220 years ago has been interpreted that way.
So I guess I can have that SMAW after all, huh? How about artillery? Bombs? Face it, “firearm model X” is already prohibited; just for different values of X.
Of course it is. How do you think that amendment got into your constitution in the first place?
It can be removed the same way. (The chances of such an action succeeding are vanishingly small at present, but the process is there.)
indicus @145: “Go back to my post #112.”
No, you want to make this about rights. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 has an arms clause. Subsequent laws have, how shall I say, amended those rights. What is sacred about the American version?
indicus wrote:
Kagato posted several links about the NRA specifically attempting to repeal background check laws that you seem to have ignored, and here’s another one where they oppose new background check bills. Requiring background checks on gun sales at gun shows does not need to impose a huge burden on “hunters and collectors”, since those doing the show could easily provide that service for their patrons (and no doubt charge a small fee for it).
But you said gun ownership was a right, correct? Why should there be background checks on something that is a fundamental right? You have freedom of speech and religion regardless of the outcome of a background check, and you still have the right to a trial by jury, even if you’ve committed a crime in the past.
Yawn, closed mind of Indicus is still closed as a sealed vault. Nothing but slogans from Xim.
“I just brought up the concept of rights because I got sick and tired of saying the same thing over and over…”
Oops, so it’s not about rights anymore? Guns are good and Switzerland Finland something something.
why don’t we just test the hypothesis and throw guns onto the street fo’ free and watch as crime falls immensely
Have you ever tried this?
after all, if it’s a right, it should be free shouldn’t it
And not everyone has the privilege of being able to run so fast.
And sometimes the attacker runs faster than you.
And sometimes the first shot misses.
I wonder if we would not be allowed to talk about repealing the Federal Marriage Amendment had it be made part of the US constitution. After all, it would be part of the constitution in the exact same way the 2nd amendment is.
Yes you do.
Because you DON’T have the right own any firearm model you choose.
You may have noticed that fully automatic models are illegal, and even as far right a jurist as Scalia agrees that this is constitutional.
If one type of firearm model can be subjected to reasonable controls and restrictions, so can ANY OTHER.
And of course, as others have pointed out by now, even with the 2nd amendment there is room for all sorts of restrictions of various types. I think your 2nd amendment is pretty silly and outdated, but even with it there is room to bring in stronger gun control.
Indicus #83
Indicus #
So, simple accumulation of data is fine, but if the data indicates that restricting civilian access to guns will lead to a safer society, you’ll ignore it?
How very critical thinking of you.
Oops, second quote is from #131.
One can argue about the theoretical source of rights until one is blue in the face, but in practical reality, rights exist when a majority collectively agrees that individuals should have such rights, AND believe in this strongly enough to fight to keep (or grant) those rights. The entire history of the expansion of civil rights lies in the fight to persuade enough people of the above two points to constitute a majority.
And with every liberty comes responsibility. And when a free people wilfully choose to refuse to accept that responsibility and either enable or through inaction allow for the abuse of the right, then, inevitably, the right will be taken away from them.
The responsibility that attends the right to the ownership of lethal weaponry is the willingness to submit to reasonable controls to ensure proper use and safety.
Those who REALLY love the Second Amendment, who REALLY believe in preserving the rights it grants, are people who should support reasonable gun controls, reasonable gun safety measures, and reasonable gun regulations.
For if you go the way of the NRA, if you insist that the Second Amendment is and must be linked with an unfettered right of any individual to do whatever he or she wants without any consideration for the needs and concerns of their fellow citizens, then as events like Newtown inevitably stack up, the public outcry will only grow and grow and grow until that critical threshold of public opinion is reached and the Second Amendment goes the way of the Eighteenth.
The path the NRA and their sympathizers currently walk is the path to the inevitable eventual repeal of the Second Amendment. Be it 10 years or 20, that is inevitable. Of that much one can be assured. If the NRA does not change course, that is the only possible final destination.
If you believe in the Second Amendment, you fight for reasonable gun safety controls and regulations.
So just for fun, I plotted some data from http://www.gunpolicy.org/
For the US, UK, and the first 20 countries (alphabetically) that had data available for guns owned per 100,000 people and gun deaths per 100,000 people, I found a nice linear relationship with an R^2 value of 0.73. In other words, across different countries, with different laws and cultures, 73% of the variation in the number of deaths by guns can be explained by the number of guns owned by civilians. While this is completely unsurprising, I just wanted to point out to anyone who is skeptical that more guns = more gun deaths. It really is that simple.
Data: here
and
here
@ #152
It’s much simpler than that. One decision by the Supreme Court could strike down the right of an individual to keep firearms. The decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), struck down Washington D.C.’s restrictions on gun ownership and established, for the first time, an individual’s right to keep a firearm for the purpose of self defense. It was a 5-4 decision and a single vote would have changed the outcome. A seat or two changing on the Supreme Court and we could watch people like indicus implode over their “rights” being taken away. They don’t understand that their rights are whatever the current Supreme Court allows.
There is no need for an Amendment or to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Pass a law banning gun ownership for self defense and almost everything else and, if a more enlightened Supreme Court interprets the law as Constitutional, problem solved.
Tomh, true enough; my reply was regarding indicus’ claim that his gun ownership right “isn’t up for a vote”, when it very much is (however unlikely the vote itself may be). There are definitely other, far more viable routes to regulating gun ownership.
[meta]
… meanwhile, here in South Australia: Knife sale ban to come into effect
But don’t worry:
—
Oh, sorry — this is about America, no?
(Guns, not knives)
cactusren, thanks for those graphs @167. They really drive the point home.
And, as I live in Finland, I find them disturbing.
John Molrales
What in hell do they mean by knife?
I never leave the house without my swiss army knife.
Your welcome Weed Monkey! It’s an interesting site to browse. Oh, and as an addendum to my post at 167, it’s guns owned per 100 people (not 100,000), vs. gun deaths per 100,000. I guess I got a little excessive with my zeroes up there.
And I’ve since added the values for the other countries that have data for both gun ownership and gun deaths. This dropped the R^2 to 0.60 (Montenegro is a real outlier, with many more gun deaths than would be expected for the number of guns owned). Even so, 60% of gun deaths accounted for simply by the presence of more guns is still reason enough to reduce the number of guns.
Indicus, in the 1938 Miller case the Supreme Court upheld that restrictions on individual ownership of certain firearms are constitutional.
@Chigau #172
If it’s anything like Melbourne, there’ll be a full page spread in the Murdoch owned newspaper in support of the ban, showing the array of deadly weapons police have confiscated from hoodlums. Including screwdrivers. Rabble rabble rabble, inner city violence, youth gangs of varying skin shades, rabble rabble rabble.
Australia already has pretty stringent limitations on weapons designed for combat, such as knuckledusters. Every now and again, pollies will beat the drum about rising crime and push for knife bans and the like, but the fact is that if the police have reasonable suspicion, they can search you and confiscate anything anyway. While I don’t doubt that there are discriminatory applications of these powers, we live in a very peaceful society here, at least until alcohol/drugs, tribalism, income inequality and right wing shock jocks get involved.
*confiscate anything that they consider dangerous anyway.
Not sure where Aussie police are on confiscating cameras that have recorded arrests, I haven’t heard of it happening at all.
Back to topic now.
(TRIGGER WARNING: Some discussion of relationship sexual abuse below.)
Regarding some of the comments above about Law Enforcement use of firearms and training, Indicus is correct. Firearms handling and marksmanship is a very small part of the average LEO’s training. The main focus of the training is on WHEN to use the various tools that cops carry around, and who to use them on, and how to (preferably) defuse the situation to the point where firearms are unnecessary.
Full disclosure: I’m a LEO (We say Peace Officer), Hunter, Target Shooter, and one of those damn Canadians. I have drawn my service firearm several times, but never discharged it. My personal firearms are kept locked up, except when used for their intended purpose (hunting/target shooting). I am aware that some American law enforcement agencies require their personnel to carry firearms off-duty, and I think this is appalling. I would not wish to carry a pistol on my own time.
The reason is simple: a firearm is a blunt instrument, it can do one of two things, discharge and possibly kill someone, or not discharge and not possibly kill anyone. Using a firearm in any situation in which you are not willing and able to shoot is inappropriate. If I pull my service weapon, I am going to issue one warning, and then I am going to use it. That’s it. If you intend a gun as a threat only, it is an empty threat. The situations in which I have been required to ready my firearm are, without exception, situations that I was required to be present as a function of my job. I have never been in a deadly-force situation outside of that context. I avoid situations likely to become violent. As far as Canadian law enforcement is concerned, the role of an off-duty police officer is limited to “best possible witness”. I would apply the same criteria to the public at large. If you insist that every person should be allowed or encouraged to equip themselves for vanishingly implausible threats, then the population of heavily armoured vehicle-averse (cars are MUCH more likely to kill you than anything else in modern society). Of course, your rape-fearing friends are probably best advised to avoid men entirely, and NEVER to befriend one, since they are far more likely to be victimized by a boyfriend, friend, acquaintance or relative than they are by some conveniently criminal-looking stranger. (Anecdotal ‘fact’: I have been a police officer for three years, and not only have I never investigated a stranger-sexual assault, I’ve never even been in the vicinity of anyone else who was investigating one. They are really rare.) The gun in your friend’s purse is notgoing to be a lot of use when her new boyfriend pressures her to have one more drink than she wants, then pushes her past her comfort level in making out, and has sex with her when she’s too drunk to resist effectively, and can’t remember if she said no or not (but definitely didn’t say yes). At which point in that interaction do you envision your friend pulling her heater?
In an average lifetime (here at least) the average person will simply not be involved in a situation where they will be justified in employing or threatening lethal force. The likelihood that you will actually, legitimately use your CCW is dwarfed by the chance that you will mishandle, lose, or mishandle it. That is why Canadians are very rarely issued concealed carry permits. If it makes you more comfortable to have a gun on your hip, you need to find some better way of instilling self-confidence.
I find the gun-fondler’s lust for ever more powerful and deadly weaponry at once comical and sad. Of course you need to have a .50 calibre rifle with a 20 round magazine ‘for target practice’. No compensation involved there….
There is a certain fun involved in shooting automatic firearms with large capacity magainzes, I spent too much time on army machine gun ranges not to know that, but I wouldn’t want to own one of the damn things. Absolutely no use except for extremely expensive ‘fun’ or suppressive fire intended to immobilize or slaughter large groups of people. If you have a need for more than five rounds in a rifle, you need to learn to shoot better.
ubique
Thank you.
I look forward to indicus’s response, when time zones permit.
Hey, indicus, I have one for you.
You mentioned people who would have suffered less “heartache” had they been carrying (that is, they would not have been raped/robbed/murdered). Your solution is that every person should be allowed to carry in order to protect his/herself… Well, except those who shouldn’t be allowed.
Do you see the issue there? You are creating a class of people who do not have that same right. If everyone else is allowed to carry, these people have to live in constant fear that one of the “normal, responsible” people may turn out not to be such an upstanding citizen.
I have dysthymia, which has occasionally turned into episodes of depression. I have had thoughts of suicide before. I probably should not be allowed to have a gun. (I personally, however, feel this is between me and my loved ones, and that a waiting period for purchasing a gun is enough to deter someone with as low-grade depression as mine).
If all healthy and apparently normal people were allowed to carry, how do you expect me to ever walk alone in public again? Anyone out there could be carrying, screening for psychological issues won’t catch all the frightening people. How am I to be secure that they won’t use this power over me?
By the majority to carry guns, but not people like me, you are actually depriving me and others of security.
Long time lurker here, making my first tentative foray out of the cave and into the fray.
Indicus, you must be feeling a little lonely in this thread by now. So I’ll offer a little company and mention that my thoughts on gun ownership in the USA tend to be similar to yours. You might be interested in a recent episode of Dan Carlin’s podcast “Common Sense.” ( Show number 244, titled “Gunning for Violence” http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive/Show-244—Gunning-for-Violence/guns-firearms-gun%20control).
I enjoy Carlin as a challenging and stimulating speaker. Be forewarned that he is one of those crazy radicals from Eugene, Oregon. Must be something in the water down there – seems that radical thinkers and zebrafish thrive in it.
My heart and best wishes goes out to those injured in Texas. Stupid, senseless violence – it makes me want to sleep all winter.
Old Mr Bear
indicus (and, I guess, oldmrbear):
It seems like you have two arguments for why the proliferation of guns should be encouraged in the US (well, three, but I don’t think “I really like owning and shooting them” warrants a response). The first is that it is a right protected by the Second Amendment; the second is that guns are an effective means of self-defence.
I’m curious – if the Second Amendment did not protect the right of individuals to own guns privately (which, on a proper construction, it actually doesn’t, but that’s beside the point given the perverse judgment of the Supreme Court on this issue), and if it could be shown that the harm caused by unregulated private firearm ownership was, on balance, greater than the benefit, would you still believe that unregulated private firearm ownership was a good idea?
Well, if you’d cut DoD budget by 10%, and spent saved money on the gun buyouts, then at average price of 1000$ per piece you would take out about 30% of all guns in the USA. In one year. And there would be a lot of job creation in all these foundries doing melting and stuff…
Just sayin’.
As Switzerland has been mentioned, it may be worth pointing out that the Swiss ‘own’ their guns in the same way that I ‘own’ those in possession of the British Army, albeit that they have hands-on access that I don’t.
Also, since they noticed that the army issue assault rifle was the most popular murder weapon, the Swiss no longer issue ammunition to be kept at home: it’s only handed out as needed at training venues.
For instructional purposes: http://theleaveneddead.blogspot.com/2013/01/on-guns.html
Note the link to an article discussing correlating factors and incidence of gun-related deaths.
Indicus:
I think you misunderstood me. I am aware of the Bill of Rights. I am asking you to explain why owning a firearm is a right. In your opinion, what is the justification for gun ownership to sit alongside free expression (incidentally, I note that the International Declaration of Human Rights-though possessing no power and holding no sway over any country-does not list gun ownership among its list of human rights), both in relation to society in 1789 and in 2012?
I understand why people should be able to express themselves.
I understand why people should be able to receive a fair trial.
I understand a prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment.
I do not understand making firearm possession a right. In the context of the era the Bill of Rights was conceived in, that I can get. But gun ownership is not an essential, timeless human right. The Constitution has been revisited. It has been revised. Nothing in it should be treated as so sacred, so revered as to be immune to criticism. Having no need of citizen led militias, there is no need for citizens to own guns. A privilege, not a right, it should be.
This is what happens when bad people have guns. Now, if they had been good people, it would have been different.
If only the college had thought to ask potential students if they were good person or a bad person!
@indicus 131
Lots of rights have changed over the years. Just because something is in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s sacrosanct. Replace “gun ownership” with “slavery” and your argument sounds downright scary. “I don’t need to justify why I should be allowed to own slave X. We can argue all day about whether I have a need for any slave in particular. … I use my slaves in a safe manner … It’s my right. It isn’t up for a vote. Get over it.”
And plenty of other rights have restrictions. Free speech doesn’t including crying fire in a crowded theater. Freedom of the press doesn’t include libel. Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean people can occupy any place they want at any time.
Ok this has been bugging me in several of these gun threads. People keep making the car comparison; “cars are more dangerous”, “more people die in traffic accidents”, etc. What doesn’t seem to get mentioned is that we require everyone who drives a car to have a license. Not just those who want a certain type of car or to use it in a certain way. As a matter of fact, there are more requirements for motorcycles and commercial trucks. All vehicles are supposed to be registered and insured, with people subject to fines and prosecution when they are not. Gun ownership and use are in no way subject to this amount of regulation and scrutiny in most states in the U.S.
puppygod @182: “And there would be a lot of job creation in all these foundries doing melting and stuff…”
If the buyouts were in the form of limited term credit cards, it would be a great stimulus to the economy as well.
cactusren @167: Great links!
ubique @177: Thanks for that.
I’m willing to bet that if I looked ONLY at the number of forum posts on PZ’s articles I could pick out the gun posts based solely on the volume.
So, what is the solution? Background checks & magazine size limits? Ban assault rifles? Ban Handguns? Ban all guns? I see a lot of snark, ad hominems and name calling but very little in the way of actual and workable ideas.
As with any argument both sides contain elements that are completely unwilling to compromise in any way. And, as in any argument, these elements should be completely ignored. Unfettered gun ownership with no conditions or constraints is not going to happen and shouldn’t happen. But, a complete ban & confiscation isn’t going to happen either.
Given those parameters, what is the best route to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane but to not restrict the rights of ordinary people to own guns within reasonable boundaries?
@ O-P-E
To add to that this interesting bit of data: There are nearly twice as many cars as guns in America, but only a 17% greater chance to be killed by a car rather than a gun.
Current headline:
I wonder who was the “good guy” and who was the “bad guy.”
And you supply nothing either, just tone troll.
What I want to see is gun safety enforced by law, with severe and increasing sanctions for repeat offenders. “Three strikes and out” type penalties. No loaded weapons stored anywhere, anytime. Loaded weapons must be under direct and close control of the responsibile person. Even just setting the gun down to cross a fence or take a dump during hunting is call to unload and separate the gun and ammo. One doesn’t carry loaded firearms in public unless one is a trained professional. This was basic firearm safety when I learned it fifty years ago. No logical reason for the NRA not to want basic firearm safety followed.
@Nerd.
Hey, thanks for starting off by insulting my sincere attempts to develop serious dialog.
Any idea how to enforce anything you mentioned? I know every time I go over a fence I certainly unload my gun but how do we make other people see the wisdom in not climbing fences with a gun.
Shit, nevermind, I’m doing it too. No-one on this blog is actually interested in coming up with a compromise solution on this. I was an idiot for even bothering to try.
You only ever come here when there is a discussion on firearms, and you never contribute anything, and it seems you also never learn anything.
So just why do you think you are being sincere ?
Oh, and why would people want to compromise on how many people should be allowed to die in order to keep gun fetishists such as yourself happy ?
Sincere dialog starts with “this is what I think is a compromise, and this is why it will work (evidence)”. That is how you start a dialog. Not say “talk” or “you come up with an idea”. Thats tone trolling. That was what I was complaining about.
Oh eric. Why don’t you maybe try reading those super-duper long gun threads first before whining about tone? Maybe then you would see that the snark is being directed at opponents of any kind of restriction, by people who DO NOT WANT TOTAL BANS. You know, like how the NRA and other assorted right-wing gun-nuts oppose any kind of gun control while Democrats want gun control BUT NOT TOTAL BANS? But you are really going tut-tut us for trying to convince people that you yourself say are wrong that they are wrong? You are going to whine that we haven’t come up with specific gun control policies, as if we were a fucking legislative body? Fucking moron.
Also: I love that indicus’s first few steps in his gun-nut waltz was to blame this on a college campus not allowing guns. These are two people who were shooting AT EACH OTHER. How would OTHER people having guns possibly have helped? Why are wingnuts always so consistently idiotic?
How does law enforcment work? Stupid comment, by somebody not listening. Force of law….
That’s because the left already has what should be the compromise position: gun control measures just short of a total ban on guns. But, sadly, because the left has ALREADY BEEN REASONABLE AND COMPROMISED, while the right continues to say “Nuh uh, guns with zero restriction”, the left would be compromising twice to get whatever meager gun control measures the right would be willing to accept with minimal whining and shrieks. No-one on this blog is interested in coming up with a specific solution because it doesn’t fucking matter what the specifics we would come up with would be because our political system is fucked. Because we don’t have a system of left extremist vs. right extremist, but a system of moderate vs. right extremist. Everyone cries for us to meet in the middle, but the Democrats are already at where the middle should be, while the right-wingers just sit still and hope that the Democrats will come even closer to them. This is consistent on almost every issue and gun control is one of the more blatant ones. So fuck off with your “come up with a compromise” nonsense.
what is the best route to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane but to not restrict the rights of ordinary people to own guns within reasonable boundaries?
What do you mean by “criminals”? Quite frankly, I don’t know anyone who hasn’t, at some point in their life, committed some crime. I have two speeding tickets myself and that was just the times I was caught going 40 in a 35 zone. Who are these totally law abiding “ordinary people” who you say can safely have guns? It seems likely-though by no means certain-that the shooters in this case were “ordinary people” who got into a fight and used guns rather than fists or even knives to settle their differences. Would your opinion of the advisability of letting “ordinary people” who aren’t “criminals” have guns change if both shooters had spotless records prior to this?
Then there’s this whole “insane” issue. Who is “insane”? Is a past diagnosis of, say, anxiety or dysthymia enough to keep people from owning guns? If a person goes through significant life stress, they may develop a mood disorder or symptoms similar to a mood disorder. Should every person going through a life changing event (be it positive or negative) be ineligible for gun ownership until their situation stabilizes?
Actually, I kind of like this idea. People with no record whatsoever-no history of trying to buy alcohol when less than 21, no speeding in a speed trap, no jaywalking-can buy guns. If they go through any sort of life stress-buying a house, getting married, losing a family member, getting fired, having someone close to them get sick-they have to turn in their guns for, oh, say a year’s stabilization period. That’s the only way you’re really going to keep guns out of the hands of “criminals and the insane” while allowing “ordinary people” to still have them.
Eric:
Another thing- yes, gun threads often rack up a lot of comments, but they are nothing compared go many of PZs feminism posts. Last one of those we had reached 1500+ comments.
dianne:
I wonder how many people would be amongst those “ordinary people”…
Tony, I’m guessing that number would be zero. How many people out there can genuinely say that they have NO criminal convictions, when one includes things like parking tickets and jaywalking and NO history of mental illness if one includes anxiety disorders and dysthymia? Eric appears to be trying to make a dividing line where no clear division exists.
Follow on from Tony #204
Or, you know the lounge and thunderdome. Eric, you’re clueless.
And if even if a person has no criminal convictions, it does not mean they are law-abiding. It just means they have never been caught, prosecuted and convicted.
A race of diabolical evildoers known by their sheer delight in wreaking havoc and casually ending the lives of Decent Folk. They are an excessively violent group, and are immune to anything that isn’t a gun. Though most people claim that they are indistinguishable from normal humans, a True Gunwielder knows better and can sense their aura of Pure Evil from a mile away. And, as True Gunwielders will inform you, they are everywhere, so guns need to be everywhere. Some argue that Criminals are just True Gunwielders until they get desperate or make a mistake, as the sensing of Pure Evil everywhere that characterize the Gunwielders is not actually accurate. Those people are filthy commie Nazi libruls who want the Criminals to win.
speaking of which, anyone for bigotry bingo?
Blaming gun violence on… welfare fraud?
Technically, Eric didn’t say that the gun threads had the highest volume, only that he could pick them out by volume which suggests a consistent volume.
@209: That seems to be the implication…probably TrueGunwielders know criminals by their hoodies and bags of Skittles. Or maybe some other feature…
If other people had guns, they could have shot the bullets out of the air, and then blasted the guns out of the hands of the two who started this whole mess, thereby protecting everyone. Good guys with guns can do that, you know. Because of the Good Guy Gun Training.
Separating people between “criminal” or “insane” and “ordinary/sane” asserts that those two are distinct, well separated categories of humans.
This is so beyond simplistic that it is demonstrably false. As dianne said, “ordinary” people can commit crimes, or lose control of themselves, in very specific circumstances and a blank criminal or psychiatric file is absolutely no guaranty of someone not commiting horrible crimes at a later date.
A few years ago in my place there was a cardiologist with a blank criminal and psychiatric file, a man with a very good social standing, appreciated by his patients, a so-called “pillar of his community” who killed his two young children in a manner so gruesome that it was decided not to make the police description of the crime scene public even after the trial.
Previously to this act, anybody would have described that man as “normal” and “good” without a backwards glance. In fact, that very reputation probably had some weight (along with a questionable psychiatric expertise) in the final verdict which declared him non-criminally responsible.
The fact is we don’t know, and we have no way to know, who might misuse a firearm. Smart psychopaths are usually very careful about their reputations and are described as ordinary, law-abiding and even charming people by those who know them. An “ordinary”, “sane” joe shmoe / jane doe might be turned into a “criminal” by stressful circumstances.
Another thing is that we know that less firearms in circulation means it is much harder for people with criminal intent to kill, and that it limits the number of victims should they still decide to proceed.
So my criteria to allow/refuse gun ownership would be very simple : if you would use it for “protection”, when your job specifications don’t include carrying a weapon, that would be grounds for refusal.
If you like shooting as a sport, you are allowed to possess a firearm, provided that it is always under lock, possibly with a trigger guard, at all times except at a shooting club. Failure to do so may get you jailed, have your weapon seized and your permit permanently revoked.
If you like to hunt, specific weapons are allowed, provided that you pass a firearm handling class, have your weapon registered with the police, and prove that you have a proper storage place for it.
Death threats of any kind gets your permit permanently revoked, as does mishandling the weapon.
Translation: You poopeyheads didn’t so exactly what I said exactly when I said it exactly how I wanted it, so FLOUNCE!
glodson – I thought that was the super powers passed on to (only) straight white dudes by His Holiness Clint Eastwood, He Who Speaks To Furniture. Or was it his holiness Charleton Heston? John Wayne?
Eh, whatever straight white dude that plays characters in dude flicks that all these wannabes think they’re totally going to be just like, just as soon as there’s a horrible, entirely preventable tragedy for them to show their manly colors!
Shooting bullets out of the air, magically saving the day and getting the girl. that’s totally what’s gonna happen, y’all.
Yeah, umm.. Still waiting, since these people probably where not “mentally ill”, how exactly you, and other gun advocates, plan to work out which idiots are going to develop personal issues, at some random point in time, and therefor shouldn’t be given access to a gun. What? There isn’t a way? Then what the F is your point exactly?
In this report by FOX affiliate in Houston, the acting Harris County Sheriff stated that “there was maintenance man that was injured and shot due to friendly crossfire”.
Friendly crossfire? That’s like when EVERYONE has guns and nobody really know who the bad guy is, right? I’m surprised the carnage was not greater.
If it was truly friendly, the friendly crossfire would stop, offer you a drink and pull up a chair for you to sit in before impacting your body and damaging your tissues.
Guns in the hands of someone without a history of criminal behavior or mental illness. Apparently, not everyone announces that they have homicidal ideation before murdering their families.
Read this thread last night.
@indicus: I had a question about the “gang-bangers” you “don’t give a rat’s ass” about.
You said that they “go out of their way to threaten other people”, thus justifying any harm they might bring on themselves. However, you suggested that the “vast majority of instances in which firearms are used in [presumably responsible] self-defense” involve “merely brandishing” one’s firearm.
How do you distinguish between a “gang-banger” threatening someone and thus forfeiting his or her right to safety, and a responsible gun owner brandishing a firearm in self-defense? Both instances involve people suggesting they will use gun violence in the immediate future if they feel more threatened than they already do.
Exactly how immediate must the threat be before pulling out the strap becomes responsible? Keep in mind you made this a life-and-death issue, because you would allow gangbangers to die but you presumably would want to prevent responsible gun owners from dying. You have to be exact.
Banning cars would sky rocket poverty and poverty related death and misery and tank the US and by extension world economy. Practicaly speaking it would not save any lives and cost a lot more it bquite literally could collapse civilization.
Ok so what negatives would gun restriction and control (not banning!) Cause that are comparible
Are we really talking about millions of responsible gun-owners or just millions of people who haven’t shot anyone yet?
In joining the NRA to promulgate rabid conspiracy theories, the religious right has come up with some doozies.
I mean if you are legally carrying a firearm, you are one bad decision away from seriously hurting someone. You don’t have to be mentally ill to do harm with a gun. You don’t have to be malevolent. If you carry a weapon, you just need to be wrong.
So maybe we should permit people who are never wrong to carry them. The rest of us will have to settle for towel capes.
More interesting comments from the religious right:
Matt Barber is a lawyer for Liberty Counsel, and he wrote the above for World Net Daily.
Actually, I would kind of like to have a candy keister.
How many middle school or high school teachers have you known that you would trust with a loaded assault rifle to fight off the bad guys?
From the comments section below the Salon article Religious right joins the NRA in gun control battle.
lliberals are candy ass panty waist pussy fags who can’t even begin to know what it’s like tob a REAL MAN *linkara punch*…
..and were fucking terrified of what they’d do to US!
kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith, you have a serious mistake in your #213: we know that
lessfewer firearms in circulation means FTFY. Otherwise, great comment! Also, kudos to so many of the reasonable people (i.e. those not named indicus or erichoug).Stonekettle has some good rants on this subject. Not that I agree with 100% of what he says always, but he does come to the table with some relevant background (read the series in order, and pay attention to the paragraph on his qualifications).
So, no cross (main symbol of the church), no resurrection story (no Easter … no chocolate eggs), no redemption (“died for our sins”), etc. … the whole story crumbles. Do these people even think
through their arguments? [FTFM]All of those documentaries I watched as a kid in the 80’s and 90’s taught me that. All police procedures end with the renegade cop killing the bad guy, no innocents get gunned down, unless done by the bad guy. And if the good guy spares the bad guy, the bad guy always makes the suicidal decision to go for the good guy even though it often didn’t make any sense.
That’s reality!
That’s some good facts, that is. It isn’t like those horrible statistics that show a strong coloration between the amount of guns owned and the acts of violence done with guns having a strong positive relationship, or the fact having a gun in one’s possession seems to great increase the chance of violence being done. Don’t pay attention to that.
Years of playing video games based on the most rigorous interpretation of violent events, and the great documentaries starring Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Stegal, and others prove this to be the case. More guns = more good guys having guns to kill all those bad guys. The great series on proper police procedures called Lethal Weapon also makes a great point. These, in no way, can all be juvenile fantasies that help push our gun culture.
I haven’t read all the comments (not enough time), so forgive me if I missed something. Let us define a variable E, representing the ease with which one person kills another. E is based on two components, the level of physical difficulty involved and the safety of the shooter. I’ve seen so many comments about “people kill other people with hammer, why don’t we outlaw them?”, so let’s create a continuum of scenarios based on E:
– The attacker has a hammer, knife, corkscrew, whatever. They must get close to the victim, struggle with them, and put themselves at risk. Low E quotient here.
– The attacker has a handgun. They can shoot from a distance (making them safer). They might have to reload which makes them vulnerable though, and handguns are really only accurate enough for close range. A middlin’ E quotient.
– The attacker has a sniper rifle. They can kill from a longer distance, and probably get away. Much higher E quotient.
– The attacker has a semi-automatic weapon with a large clip. They have to pull the trigger each time, but this can be done very quickly. More potential casualties in a short period of time, so on average (per kill) a really big E quotient.
– The attacker has an automatic weapon. Just point and spray bullets. Max E quotient.
What is needed is an agreed to threshold in terms of the ease in which any idiot can kill other people. Any weapon that makes it too easy, take it off the market and out of circulation. Above that E quotient threshold, and it is illegal. Below it, and its use is legal but carefully regulated due to risks to the public. Perhaps with this kind of approach, we can do away with some of the stupid arguments about outlawing hammers.
Disincluding suicides from gun deaths is shit. They’re deaths, via guns. More guns more gun access means more suicide attempts are fatal. Period. No study suggests otherwise.
#193 Recreant @23 January 2013 at 8:29 am (UTC -6)
And far more access to guns, some estimates that 30% of American households have access to guns, the access to cars is near total.
#221 Ing:Intellectual Terrorist “Starting Tonight, People will Whine” @ 23 January 2013 at 12:21 pm (UTC -6)
Uhh, why would this happen? That just doesn’t follow. There are many types of transportation than personal cars, and there’s no particular reason why personal cars prevent poverty. We’d need alot more public transport, obviously, but that’d increase jobs not decrease them; we’d lose car factories but gain bus/train/bicycle factories in exchange. Public transportation of any type is cheaper per rider mile than personal cars – even taxies, which are the least cost effective of public transportations.
I don’t mean this as an attack, just that as an argument, it’s not well thought out. Any transition has pain involved, of course, but it just doesn’t follow that cars prevent poverty when no one has cars.
Howdy Casus! (at #181), Old Mr Bear here.
Since you called me out by name I figure I should try to respond to your inquiries. But first I’d like to reiterate something you probably already know (and it seldom hurts to review these things.) Trying to guess another person’s unspoken opinion is difficult business. A business that most human beings are particularly bad at. In my personal experience, I find that in the end I am merely projecting my own thoughts, experiences, stereotypes and biases. My guesses are at least partially correct just often enough to tempt me to continue the gamble. Hey, just sayin’.
For the record, I in no way want to encourage the proliferation of firearms in the USA. The way I see it, if you don’t have a gun then my world is a safer place. Second, the reason I own a gun is because I really, really, really enjoy shooting (targets, I’m not a hunter.) Kinda like I really enjoy riding a motorcycle, mountain climbing, scuba diving or snow skiing. Simple, crass, self-indulgent fun. Take away my ‘biners, bottles or boards and I’d be unhappy about that too. Should the day ever come where I successfully use a gun in self defense that will be an excellent but unexpected side benefit.
Cost benefit analyses are interesting exercises. It would be interesting to compare what we each consider benefits and costs and their relative values. My own analysis has led this old fart into severely curtailing big wall climbing over the past couple of decades. Such is life.
I support highly regulated private gun ownership, universal and permanent gun registration, and severe penalties for violations, say minimum 30 years incarceration for first infraction.
Crissa
Banning cars, today, would have a catastrophic effect, as Ing outlined. Phasing cars out as new infrastructure is installed would be a whole different story.
@234: The thing about mass transit is that it only works where there are masses of people to transport. In rural and some suburban areas cars are really the only practical means of transport. A bus or train would be a waste of resources and bicycles or even motorcycles wouldn’t be practical due to distance or weather. I’m all for improving public transportation and maybe banning private cars in some places (Manhattan below 125th comes to mind), but they do have their uses.
Actually, guns do to. If you’re on a sledding expedition to the North Pole, for example, it’s practical to have something to protect you from polar bears who think you’re an easier catch than seals. Some people derive significant nutrition from hunting and they probably want to use the most efficient method, i.e. guns, rather than, say, bows and arrows. Law enforcement officials have a reasonable case for having them around. And they make great props for TV shows. But they just aren’t practical in some places. Like among civilians in cities. As is demonstrated by the original incident, they turn arguments into acts of extreme violence.
I support highly regulated private gun ownership, universal and permanent gun registration, and severe penalties for violations, say minimum 30 years incarceration for first infraction.
But do you vote for politicians who support such policies? For example, the policies you outlined are much stricter than those proposed by Biden and the Obama administration. Will you support their (watered down) policies?
Crissa:
Ing already outlined this pretty well, but I’ll add: Communities like mine where we’re widely spread out and there is no public transportation in place whatsoever would crumble. As it is now, even a robust public transportation system couldn’t adequately meet the needs of an area like this because of the distances involved.
*briefly ducks in* Personal cars prevent poverty when you’re required to have one to get or hold a job. *relurks*
cyberCMDR@232:
Only if those stupid arguments are being made in good faith as a legitimate objection to gun control laws. If such arguments are used primarily as diversions, stalling tactics, or markers of ingroup/outgroup identity then they won’t be phased out any time soon.
Guess which scenario I think pertains.
Even reasonable people with fairly sensible views on gun control end up locking step with the fiercest NRA zealots on issues like this. And it backfires (no pun intended) since they end up looking a lot like the idiots I’d prefer not to have guns in the first place. And by getting gun control advocates worked up and into argue mode it prevents any possibility of reasonable discussion about sensible gun control policies.
The bad arguments are bad for a reason. Consider the fact that the forthcoming “assault rifle” ban seems to be completely the work of Congress and not in any way a result of a consensus view among the people of the US. If we’re divided into two groups of roughly equal size who are always fighting each other then what little political power we have will inevitably be squandered trying to stick it to the other “side”. (The real “sides” here are inside and outside, not left and right.)
Glodson #231
In such a sarcastic post, that highlighted tpyos made me laugh. Indicus’ arguments about letting gangbangers shooting each other – it’s not racism or causation, it’s coloration.
oldmrbear #235
You describe shooting another person as “excellent”?
I hope you dont really mean this. Wouldnt it in fact be “excellent” if you never have use a gun in self defence?
@ indicus
This is lies. The mag is interchangeable with any 6.8mm stanag mag. The heavy barrel allows for more firing before heat warping and it’s still very light for a rifle at 6.0 lbs empty compared to 6.4lbs empty for an M4. The match style trigger allows for more accuracy and lighter trigger weight for faster pulls. It has a lower rail that a rail based bayonet lug can be attached to. It’s not an ideal rifle that one would equip armies to go to war with, but it’s a combat worthy rifle none the less.
I have an assault rifle, don’t BS me and those I respect about them.
For a firearm that will purportedly only ever be used for hunting, target shooting or self defence, why the hell is a friggin’ bayonet mount even up for discussion?!
Diane @ 238:
I would be sorely tempted to vote for any politician that supported my gun control policies. Of course it would be nice if she also was an atheist, pro-abortion, pro-science and shared my ideas on fiscal policies and foreign affairs. Always searching for that elusive greatest good/ lesser of the evils candidate. Seriously though I am unforgivably ignorant of the Obama/Biden gun control initiatives. Too ignorant to comment, sorry.
Koshka @ 243:
Hmmm, I don’t think that is an accurate paraphrase of what I wrote. In any case, I’ll try to clarify and be more specific. Intentionally injuring another person is never “excellent”. Those who have done such things tell me that it is a terrible, life altering affair. What I would find most excellent would be the preservation of my own life when forced to engage in some type of lethal confrontation. I have no problem admitting that I value my own life more than I value the life of an assailant. I would definitely try to prevent my own murder. And just so you know, I have never used a gun in self defense nor have I used a knife. I have never used my fists in a fight, never engaged in a shoving match and have never raised my voice in anger against another person. I have lived an immensely privileged and ‘charmed’ life. And I hope it continues for a good long time.
@ Kagato
I don’t really get indicus’s thinking, but I think that xie obfuscating over the fact that his gun, and by extension many hunting/target/varmint variants of ar-15’s aren’t a full-up war guns, they shouldn’t be scrutinized like war guns.
But it’s really easy to turn them back into a war gun do to their accessories and modular nature. Hell throw on an m4 pattern upper with a 5.56mm bolt and barrel, replace the trigger with the standard one, slap in a 30 rnd mag and you’ve got a civvie m4 with a painted lower because it wasn’t necessary to replace.
indicus’s gun
https://ambushfirearms.com/ambush-firearms-68-rifle-specs
@oldmrbear – Thanks for the response.
I absolutely agree, and I try not to do that. Most of my post was a response to the prolific contributions of indicus (so I was not trying to guess any unspoken opinion), and I took your statement in #180 (“[your] thoughts on gun ownership in the USA tend to be similar to [indicus’s]”) to mean that your thoughts on gun ownership in the USA tend to be similar to the thoughts expressed by indicus (so neither was I attempting to guess any unspoken opinion of yours). If that’s not so, I apologise for the misunderstanding.
This alone indicates that you don’t, in fact, share the the thoughts of indicus on gun ownership in the USA in any sense that’s significant to the current debate, which is about whether there should be more regulation of private gun ownership.