What? Zen Buddhists too? »« Jacquelyn Gill has a good question

An argument for gun control that might finally resonate with wingnuts

A tragic story: a man stuffed a gun in his pants and it accidentally went off, shooting him in the penis and leg.

Let’s forestall the usual comments: no, he didn’t deserve to be mutilated this way, OK? But still, this kind of event is what we should worry about more, and which will occur far more, than some murderous villain blazing away at innocents with a gun. Accidents will happen, and the more casual (and incompetent) people end up with deadly weapons in their hands, the more often these irreversible and unfortunate errors will occur, and they will inevitably occur with far greater frequency than homicidal sprees. The best thing that can be said is that at least no one was killed…this time.

Although this particular man will be reluctant to ever hang out with his gun-toting companions in the future. Especially with the little detail that he shot himself with a pink pistol.

Comments

  1. travisrm89 says

    Using this as an argument for gun control is the same as saying that if people have easy access to cars, then more car accidents will happen, and therefore we shouldn’t allow cars.

  2. says

    Using this as an argument for gun control is the same as saying that if people have easy access to cars, then more car accidents will happen, and therefore we shouldn’t allow cars.

    Nope. It’s the same as saying that if people have easy access to cars, then more car accidents will happen, and therefore we we should license and regulate access to cars carefully.

  3. says

    Umm Travisrm89 there’s a difference between control and bans. Taking guns away isn’t the entirety of the gun control discussion nor the most common solution. You can have registrations, licenses, checks etc etc etc.

  4. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    This is an obvious problem with people not following gun safety rules. In which case the ammunition and gun are kept separate until the weapon is ready to fire. Which did, and injuries are a result of not following proper guns safety rules….

  5. says

    Using this as an argument for gun control is the same as saying that if people have easy access to cars, then more car accidents will happen, and therefore we shouldn’t allow cars.

    except that of course car-driving is highly regulated, you don’t get to do it without training, and your license can be revoked easily if you prove yourself too inept to do it.

    Also, preventing car accidents by reducing the number of cars on the road is in fact an excellent argument for more public transportation.

  6. says

    also, unless you live in the middle of nowhere and need to hunt your own food, guns aren’t a necessary part of surviving in the US the way cars are (which again is an argument for more public transportation, not against gun regulation)

  7. indicus says

    If I were ever to walk onto a range with a handgun tucked into my waistband, I would be told to leave immediately and not ever come back. Doing what this idiot did is as far removed from typical (even in the loosest terms) behavior by gun owners that if it represents the best case you can make for regulating firearm ownership then I suggest you try harder. I’ve seen far more stories of LEOs accidentally discharging their weapon than I have of civilians doing such. Despite the fact that millions of Americans carry concealed, cases like these are once in a blue moon events. Far removed from the doom and gloom predicted in the 90s when concealed carry really picked up.

  8. Christopher says

    Glock-cock to go along with the infamous glock-leg.

    The brittish military ought to take note now that they have replaced their Browning Hi-Powers for Glocks that encourage negligent discharges. (Hi-Powers have an external safety and are thus slightly safer when stashed somewhere other than a holster while Glocks will go off when anything hits the trigger and that is not getting into the pull-the-trigger-to-dissemble bullshit Glocks pioneered)

    To be fair though, the news piece didn’t mention the brand but it is a fair bet that if it wasn’t a glock it was another plastic pistol with no external safeties that basically swiped the basic Glock design. These types of pistols should never be holstered in anything but a holster and even then care must be taken to avoid holsters that can catch the trigger upon entry or exit (retention holsters are the prime example of this)

  9. moarscienceplz says

    guns aren’t a necessary part of surviving in the US the way cars are

    But, but, that mooslim Obama is gonna send his eeviil gubmint stormtroopers to my house any day now to force me to have adequate healthcare! How in hell do I stop ‘em if I dont have a couple dozen AR15′s?

  10. erikthebassist says

    Jadehawk,

    It’s also an argument for self driving cars. With the excellent safety record Google is achieving, the government should incentivize the sales of automated vehicles with an eye towards eventual mandates as soon as they are street ready, which isn’t too far off.

  11. Christopher says

    also, unless you live in the middle of nowhere and need to hunt your own food, guns aren’t a necessary part of surviving in the US the way cars are

    access to a car isn’t a specifically protected constitutional right enumerated by the Supreme Court like access to a pistol for self defense is

  12. John Morales says

    indicus:

    Despite the fact that millions of Americans carry concealed, cases like these are once in a blue moon events.

    I don’t believe you.

    Can you adduce official data showing that accidental shooting injuries are “once in a blue moon events”?

    (Are there really over ten thousand blue moons each year?)

  13. jnorris says

    More of this will happen as more states allow Roy Rodgers want-a-be’s to take their guns into bars. Nothing says safe gunmanship like pistols and whiskey.

  14. moarscienceplz says

    @ erikthebassist,
    Since I still can’t go online without the constant threat of viruses, worms, and other nastiness, I’m not super thrilled about the idea of 100 million computer driven cars on the road.

  15. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    access to a car isn’t a specifically protected constitutional right enumerated by the Supreme Court like access to a pistol for self defense is

    Legality has nothing to do with using a gun safely. If you can’t admit that simple fact, you have nothing cogent to say on the subject. Why isn’t gun safety #1 on you list of what is necessary?

  16. notsont says

    “Doing what this idiot did is as far removed from typical (even in the loosest terms) behavior by gun owners”

    I’m gonna have to call bullshit on this. There are a ridiculous number of gun accidents every single day in this country. Most of the people who have these accidents were “responsible gun owners” right up until they shot their neighbor through the wall or shot their dick off, or toe or pointed their loaded firearm at the reporter sitting in front of them or let the 7 year old get their hands on it.

    Guns are not toys, yet there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of videos of “responsible gun owners” doing stupid shit with their guns. Every 4th of July and new years eve “responsible gun owners” are shocked shocked to find out when you shoot guns in the air that the bullets actually come down and can kill people.

    There are responsible gun owners but they are not in the majority, they are usually just lucky that its a big world and when they do stupid things it usually doesn’t have dire consequences.

  17. kyoseki says

    According to WISQARS, around 15,000 people were non-fatally injured through unintentional firearms accidents in 2011

    For comparison purposes, approximately 355,000 were bitten by dogs.

  18. Christopher says

    Legality has nothing to do with using a gun safely. If you can’t admit that simple fact, you have nothing cogent to say on the subject. Why isn’t gun safety #1 on you list of what is necessary?

    Uh, where did I list what was necessary?

    Gun safety is paramount and I fully support this dipshit being charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm. Hell I’d support a PSA campaign that put an advertisment in gun mags that contained a picture of his blown off penis with an accompaning message of safety.

  19. kyoseki says

    notsont

    There are responsible gun owners but they are not in the majority, they are usually just lucky that its a big world and when they do stupid things it usually doesn’t have dire consequences.

    There are 80 million gun owners in this country, if you factor in ALL firearms injuries and deaths, including murder and suicide, the total number of people getting shot is only just over 100,000.

    That’s roughly 1/8th of 1 per cent.

  20. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Gun safety is paramount and I fully support this dipshit being charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm. Hell I’d support a PSA campaign that put an advertisment in gun mags that contained a picture of his blown off penis with an accompaning message of safety.

    Then, get the fuck out in front of condemning carrying concealed weapons….

  21. erikthebassist says

    @ erikthebassist,
    Since I still can’t go online without the constant threat of viruses, worms, and other nastiness, I’m not super thrilled about the idea of 100 million computer driven cars on the road.

    Something like a car is a closed environment where variables can be controlled and thus drastically reduce the chance of a code related problem, and there are undoubtedly redundancies built to account for the possibility.

    Again, Google has a perfect safety record and they are road testing hundreds of these things every day. The reason you’re under constant threat surfing the web is mostly due to your own clicking. I’ve been virus free for oh about ten years now, because I keep up to date protection and I’m careful where I click.

    User error isn’t going to be an issue with the Google cars like it is with your PC.

  22. says

    access to a car isn’t a specifically protected constitutional right enumerated by the Supreme Court like access to a pistol for self defense is

    and what? I don’t know if you know this, but there’s nothing in the constitution or in Supreme Court rulings about stricter gun regulation en par with vehicle regulation

  23. anuran says

    An idiot doing “Gangsta Carry” auto-Darwinated. This isn’t the first or even the fifty first time it’s happened. As a gun owner I laugh at him and mock. He knew it was stupid. He knew it was unsafe. But he did it anyway and managed to remove himself from the gene pool without harming anyone else.

  24. Christopher says

    Then, get the fuck out in front of condemning carrying concealed weapons….

    Why should I?

    This would have never happened if he utilized a proper holster or even carried Israeli style with an empty chamber.

    I am fully out front in condemning unsafe CCW.

  25. indicus says

    John Morales, I’m referring to people who are legally capable of carrying handguns in public. In virtually all states that means the person holds a concealed weapons permit, Arizona being one of the few exceptions. Almost every case of accidental shooting involves a gang-banger (You know, the ones already prohibited from carrying guns?) or some shithead who left a loaded firearm out for their kids to wander into. Though certainly not unknown, CCW-holders accidentally shooting themselves are rare events and not nearly enough of a public safety concern to make the millions of us jump through even more hoops.

    Again, the problem is that you are taking examples and attempting to paint a broad picture with them. LEOs already undergo firearms training and I can post plenty of news stories of them accidentally shooting themselves. No amount of training will make up for raw stupidity.

  26. says

    oh yes, and I note that telling me about supreme court rulings as a response to me pointing out what is or isn’t necessary fpor living in the US is a complete non-sequitur

  27. indicus says

    Also, the fact that such a gun friendly state as Arizona is looking at charging this dipshit with who-knows-what makes me think there is some part of this story we have yet to hear which makes a comparison to concealed carry even more of a stretch.

  28. notsont says

    “There are 80 million gun owners in this country, if you factor in ALL firearms injuries and deaths, including murder and suicide, the total number of people getting shot is only just over 100,000.

    That’s roughly 1/8th of 1 per cent.”

    Sure and that would be fine if we were talking about something people absolutely needed to have cars for instance. But as is quoted so many timed guns are just tools, how many people were accidentally killed by their socket set last year?

  29. kyoseki says

    Jadehawk

    and what? I don’t know if you know this, but there’s nothing in the constitution or in Supreme Court rulings about stricter gun regulation en par with vehicle regulation

    Actually, you’d be surprised.

    DC vs Heller found that it was unconstitutional to force people to even keep their firearms locked up when not in use specifically because it prevents access to them for self defense.

    I’d LOVE to see mandatory gun safety training, California has a basic safe handling drill and a laughably simple test, but it’s pathetically simple.

    The problem is that I don’t know whether you could make something like that a prerequisite for firearms ownership with the Constitution as it currently stands.

    I suspect the solution is going to be more a case of peer pressure rather than legislation.

  30. Christopher says

    and what? I don’t know if you know this, but there’s nothing in the constitution or in Supreme Court rulings about stricter gun regulation en par with vehicle regulation

    So long as they don’t substantially infringe on the core right….

  31. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    LEOs already undergo firearms training and I can post plenty of news stories of them accidentally shooting themselves. No amount of training will make up for raw stupidity.

    Which is why gun safety considerations should have the force law, including confiscation/fiiring of LEO’s who handle guns in an unsafe manner.

  32. indicus says

    Once again, y’all are missing the point entirely. Ignoring the millions of people who hunt for meat or who carry so that they are not mugged or raped… firearm ownership is a RIGHT. What sort of need one has for a firearm relevant to their daily life is completely meaningless. Even if firearm ownership was completely frivolous, it would not matter.

  33. throwaway, promised freezed peach, all we got was the pit says

    According to WISQARS, around 15,000 people were non-fatally injured through unintentional firearms accidents in 2011

    For comparison purposes, approximately 355,000 were bitten by dogs.

    You know, for someone who, in the previous thread, stated that they avoid emotional arguments, I can now see why. You’ve chosen to propose false dichotomies, non-sequiturs, question begging, and other such tosh instead. No room for your emotional responses in your repertoire.

  34. logicpriest says

    I’m not ready for anther circular argument! I am still dizzy from the last time. All the straw men and irrelevant tangents all over again.

  35. cotton says

    Cars are often brought up in this discussion, and the standard response is “but we NEED cars, we do not NEED guns.”. Ok, what about muscle / sports cars? Virtually every car in the United States can go over any speed limit in the United States. Two counties in Texas allow 85 MPH (the highest speed in the country), yet my old Ford Explorer could go 110 mph before the governor kicked in. That tells me we have the technology to limit cars to whatever speed desired, but we simply choose not to even though it is actually against the law to speed.

    Why? Because speeding is fun. How many lives would be saved if no car could go over 85 mph? My guess would be a helluva lot. But we don’t want that in this country b/c we tacitly accept that Mustang GTs, Lambos, Porsches, and Corvettes are worth the concordant loss of life . We are clearly ok with dead children, wives, sons, friends, and strangers for no other reason that it is fun to drive fast.

  36. kyoseki says

    notsont

    Sure and that would be fine if we were talking about something people absolutely needed to have cars for instance. But as is quoted so many timed guns are just tools, how many people were accidentally killed by their socket set last year?

    There’s a “machinery” section on WISQARS, apparently 590 people were accidentally killed by machinery, which is roughly the same number accidentally killed by firearms (606).

    Most firearms deaths and injuries are deliberate and not accidental, which sort of undermines the idea that all gun owners are reckless yahoos, if they were, there’d be a lot more injuries and deaths out there.

  37. indicus says

    Nerd, and I completely agree with taking the guns away from and potentially imprisoning the idiots who, due to gross stupidity or the desire to look like a gangsta, accidentally shoot themselves or (worse yet) someone else. So where is the disagreement?

  38. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    So long as they don’t substantially infringe on the core right….

    Safety isn’t a fictitious constitutional (when was the last time you were at the meeting of the “well regulated militia”?) right, but a human rights consideration. You aren’t for human rights, to be reasonably safe, are you? Only a singleminded idjit would think otherwise. What’s your excuse?

  39. Christopher says

    Also, the fact that such a gun friendly state as Arizona is looking at charging this dipshit with who-knows-what makes me think there is some part of this story we have yet to hear which makes a comparison to concealed carry even more of a stretch.

    Even in Arizona it is illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits except in very limited circumstances. Negligent discharges like this can be charged as a crime. If he did it in an unincorporated area a specificed distance from a road or dwelling it would be legal. Still a shitbrained action, but a legal one.

  40. indicus says

    John, that’s a pretty bad example to prove your point… one case of a woman caught in a crossfire, one case of a toddler who found his asshole parent’s gun, one case of a soldier (what was that again about training?), one case of a moron playing around at home, etc, etc. I thought the topic was civilians who carry handguns in public?

  41. indicus says

    Oh, and the reason gun owners are so opposed to forcing more training and regulation for concealed carry (besides the whole RIGHT thingie) is that those pushing for such measures have stated point-blank they don’t want anyone carrying period and have opposed concealed carry from the beginning. So call us cynical, but we don’t see a common-sense measure designed to cut down on accidents. We see a bullshit measure to make carry so restrictive that more people simply don’t bother.

  42. cunninglingus says

    I’ve noticed that on any thread involving guns, Christoper and indicus appear as the designated NRA apologists. Also they invariably invoke the 2nd amendment, as if it was some holy scripture written in the blood of Charlton Heston.

  43. John Morales says

    indicus:

    I thought the topic was civilians who carry handguns in public?

    No.

    The topic is gun control.

    Guns are tools the sole purpose of which is to expel a projectile at high velocity for the purpose of damaging what the projectile hits.

    That is: they are armaments. Weapons.

  44. kyoseki says

    throwaway, promised freezed peach, all we got was the pit

    You know, for someone who, in the previous thread, stated that they avoid emotional arguments, I can now see why. You’ve chosen to propose false dichotomies, non-sequiturs, question begging, and other such tosh instead. No room for your emotional responses in your repertoire.

    I’m terribly sorry for trying to put things into perspective, you’re absolutely right, we should assume based on anecdotal evidence that all gun owners are as irresponsible as this pillock who shot himself in the cock.

  45. logicpriest says

    @46 I thought you knew that the 2nd amendment was handed down by Moses himself?

    The Constitution protects certain rights to a certain extent, but it is not any more holy than the bible. It is a piece of paper written by human beings which can and is often wrong. It is also up for interpretation how much regulation a well regulated militia should be regulated.

    But a certain group of gun owners are always on the defensive. They think all talk of regulations or even talking about talking about regulations is an all out assault on their personally owned weaponry. They think that regulating guns is the worst crime imaginable, regardless of any arguments we may or may not have against their necessity.

    So they circle like vultures around a dead horse.

  46. gridironmonger says

    I was curious how “rare” this particular type of wound is. In my line of work I sometimes encounter people who have been shot, and I can recall at least 2 who have been shot in the penis (amongst other places).

    FWIW, I did a quick Pubmed search and found a couple of case series about penile GSWs. And with a very back-of-envelope calculation, extrapolating nationally the experience of those two trauma centers, it looks like the national rate of being-shot-in-the-penis is 1-2 people daily.

  47. indicus says

    Priest, they’ve stated explicitly that they do not want anyone to be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. They’ve stated explicitly that they do not want anyone to be able to own a wide range of rifles they they personally deem distasteful. And they also seem to delight in taking the occasional example of a twit who blows his dick off as a representation of those who carry weapons in general. Tell me again why I shouldn’t be on the defensive?

  48. throwaway, promised freezed peach, all we got was the pit says

    I’m terribly sorry for trying to put things into perspective, you’re absolutely right, we should assume based on anecdotal evidence that all gun owners are as irresponsible as this pillock who shot himself in the cock.

    Now you’re deflecting. What was the purpose of citing (rather, casually mentioning without citing) the dog injury statistic if not to infuse the most special brand of fuckwittery into the conversation known as an appeal to worse problems. I may be jumping the gun here but you were essentially saying that “We should solve a more prevalent issue before a less prevalent one. X is more prevalent than Y. We haven’t solved X yet. Therefore we shouldn’t attempt to solve for Y.”

    That’s what you were doing. That’s what I’m calling you out on.

  49. logicpriest says

    Maybe the people with the largest most powerful lobbyists in the US shouldn’t be defensive against any talk of regulation. Maybe the group with a multi billion dollar arms industry blocking enforcement of even existing laws shouldn’t whine about losing their rights. Perhaps instead of crying foul and buying weapons in droves after every mass shooting gun owners should be willing to fucking talk and stop coming up with their own anecdotes about this or that little old lady blowing away villains.

    Maybe the gun owners’r privilege is showing in a country that has a legislature bent on protecting the one right that can kill others so easily.

  50. John Morales says

    indicus, you really don’t seem to get it.

    I (and others) don’t want anyone other than the military or law-enforcement officers to carry firearms, whether concealed or otherwise.

    (If I had my way, there’d be an outright ban other than for that category of people)

  51. evilDoug says

    Jane to Dick, as he shoves a gun under his waistband: “If that thing goes off, you’ll be going on this robbery half-cocked.” Fun With Dick and Jane (1977 version)
    The expression “going of half-cocked” originally referred to caplock or flintlock rifles discharging from the half-cocked position of the hammer (more or less a “safety” position) – back in the days when David Barton tells us that gun accidents just didn’t happen.

  52. kyoseki says

    throwaway, promised freezed peach, all we got was the pit

    Now you’re deflecting. What was the purpose of citing (rather, casually mentioning without citing) the dog injury statistic if not to infuse the most special brand of fuckwittery into the conversation known as an appeal to worse problems.

    Given that I had just explicitly mentioned WISQARS in the previous injury cite, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that I probably got the dog bite number from the same source.

    I may be jumping the gun here but you were essentially saying that “We should solve a more prevalent issue before a less prevalent one. X is more prevalent than Y. We haven’t solved X yet. Therefore we shouldn’t attempt to solve for Y.”

    That’s what you were doing. That’s what I’m calling you out on.

    Since I actually would love to see MUCH better training and regulation on the part of gun owners, do you seriously think that I would be making that argument?

    What I’m attempting to point out is that gun owners are not nearly as irresponsible as gun control advocates make out.

    Do dog owners have a reputation for being irresponsible idiots? Not insofar as I’m aware. Yet dogs are responsible for VASTLY more unintentional injuries than negligent discharges even though there appear to be fewer dog owners than gun owners in the US.

    Why don’t dog owners have the same reputation for being irresponsible that gun control advocates attempt to saddle gun owners with?

  53. logicpriest says

    Sometimes analogies get in the way of a legitimate debate. Bringing up cars and dogs and probably shoes or something next is meaningless to the debate over gun control. For one thing cars and dogs and everything that isn’t a gun is open to regulation without massive threats of violence and secession. For another thing each one has no bearing on the other. IF we have an issue with guns, we regulate guns. Saying there is a bigger issue with some other thing does not invalidate that.

    Say it with me know: one problem does not negate another.

  54. kyoseki says

    John Morales

    I (and others) don’t want anyone other than the military or law-enforcement officers to carry firearms, whether concealed or otherwise.

    If a civilian (and by that I mean non cop) has undergone the same level of weapons and decision making training as a police officer, then where’s the problem?

    Unlike cops, civilians are not expected to put themselves in harm’s way, but if a civilian’s response is going to be no different than a police response, wouldn’t you rather have a more immediate response than having to wait for the police to show up?

    All of this, of course, is dependent on having that training, of course, not just packing heat determined to “do some good”.

  55. kyoseki says

    logicpriest

    IF we have an issue with guns, we regulate guns. Saying there is a bigger issue with some other thing does not invalidate that.

    Ok ok, fair enough, let’s ignore the dog thing, I apologize for bringing it up.

  56. indicus says

    @John, no I really do get it. I get it loud and clear and have for quite a few years. Which is the reason I’m so often accused of being paranoid and defensive when it comes to my guns. I KNOW PERFECTLY WELL THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON’T WANT ANY CIVILIAN FIREARM OWNERSHIP. So once again, that you for instilling within me a firm grasp of the obvious. Perhaps you can share that with some of the other posters here who keep asking me why I seem to think anyone is interested in taking away my guns (here is a hint: because they’ve said so).

  57. Doc Bill says

    Nothing new. Eons ago I volunteered at the local hospital emergency room. Every New Year’s Eve we had gunshot victims who shot themselves either putting a gun in their belt or taking it out. Mostly .22 shots to the knee or leg. All very embarrassing to the victims who didn’t want to be transported to the hospital.

  58. notsont says

    “Do dog owners have a reputation for being irresponsible idiots? Not insofar as I’m aware. Yet dogs are responsible for VASTLY more unintentional injuries than negligent discharges even though there appear to be fewer dog owners than gun owners in the US”

    Injuries yes, deaths no.

    You cited machine deaths at almost the same rate as gun deaths. Do you know what happens EVERY time there is a machine death? They investigate it and attempt to see if future deaths or injuries can be avoided through better safety regulations. I won’t go into the fact that machines outnumber guns by an order of magnitude or that they provide necessary services.

    While there are some here who want guns banned, I am actually not one of them. I just want reasonable laws. If you own a gun you are responsible for what it does. If its stolen from you you better be damn sure you took reasonable precautions. If a child shoots themselves with it you go to jail. If you discharge it while cleaning it and it hurts someone you go to jail. If you do an accidental doubleshot while at a range and one bullet goes high and hurts someone you go to jail.

    There is no reason why 80% of all guns used in crimes can come from 1% of gun dealers and nothing is done about it. There is no reason for people to own guns that are unregistered.

    My dog is registered if it bites someone I’m responsible for it even if someone else were to let my dog out, it cost me thirty bucks to register my dog and they ask quite a few questions about it. In my city I can’t take my dog out without a leash. Dogs are regulated.

  59. erikthebassist says

    Indicus,

    My step brother in law was an LA Sheriff’s deputy. He drew his weapon during the LA riots and the trigger caught on the holster and he shot himself in the leg.

    He was highly trained, highly experienced and was also a 7th degree black belt, so athletic as well. It turned out to be a faulty design in the holster which netted him $400k in a lawsuit against the holster company, so yeah, “raw stupidity” on his part wasn’t really a factor.

    AGSW’s don’t just happen to “gang bangers” and “idiots”, but good job of combining racism and ableism in to your argument.

  60. logicpriest says

    @kyoseki
    Yay progress. Bad analogies get thrown around too much in gun debates. Everything I have ever seen come up is far too different from gun control to actually hold relevance.

    Now let us please discuss guns on their own merits/demerits.

  61. John Morales says

    kyoseki:

    If a civilian (and by that I mean non cop) has undergone the same level of weapons and decision making training as a police officer, then where’s the problem?

    The problem is they can easily injure or kill me, even at a distance, should they for whatever reason decide to do so.

    (Not so easy if they don’t have a firearm)

  62. indicus says

    Erik, I fail to see what the example of your step brother has to do with anything. Accidents happen. We aren’t talking about those. We are talking about shitheads who act irresponsibly, i.e. stick a handgun in their waist band. For a wonderful example of that we can turn to this gem:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0

    Oh, and as for “gang-bangers” the term applies equally to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and yes, even white guys who feel like acting like a thug to compensate for… whatever. As for “idiot”, the term is just as often applied to someone who acts foolishly, dangerously, etc. regardless of mental capacity. Before you search for fodder for which to take offense at every turn might I suggest you flip through a dictionary?

  63. kyoseki says

    notsont

    You cited machine deaths at almost the same rate as gun deaths. Do you know what happens EVERY time there is a machine death? They investigate it and attempt to see if future deaths or injuries can be avoided through better safety regulations.

    Investigations into a machine’s risk level are, of course, usually spurred by lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits.

    Ironically enough, you’d probably only be looking at a lawsuit on the part of a firearms manufacturer if their gun DIDN’T kill someone when it was supposed to.

    When a person is accidentally injured or killed by a firearm, the cause is invariably negligence on the part of the operator rather than a functional problem with that firearm (contrary to popular opinion, guns do not just “go off”, even when dropped, unless someone’s taken a file to important internal parts).

    .. of course, that hasn’t stopped California creating a “safe gun” list (seriously, I’m not making that up) which is really just a hurdle that manufacturers have to deal with before they can sell any specific firearm in California.

    I won’t go into the fact that machines outnumber guns by an order of magnitude or that they provide necessary services.

    I would imagine that would depend on the machinery, or are you asserting that there are 3 billion life threatening machines in this country? Are there really 10 deadly machines for every person in this country? Because there are roughly 300 million firearms out there.

    While there are some here who want guns banned, I am actually not one of them. I just want reasonable laws. If you own a gun you are responsible for what it does. If its stolen from you you better be damn sure you took reasonable precautions. If a child shoots themselves with it you go to jail. If you discharge it while cleaning it and it hurts someone you go to jail. If you do an accidental doubleshot while at a range and one bullet goes high and hurts someone you go to jail.

    I don’t particularly disagree and in a lot of States, this is actually the case.

    California has a lot of dumb gun laws and they seem resolute in their determination to introduce more, but it’s safe storage law with regard to minors isn’t one of them.

    There is no reason why 80% of all guns used in crimes can come from 1% of gun dealers and nothing is done about it. There is no reason for people to own guns that are unregistered.

    I’m with you on the prosecution of straw buyers and questionable dealers, but this is what the NRA is referring to when they say “enforce existing law” – it’s already illegal to sell a gun to a felon or to purchase a gun on behalf of someone you know isn’t eligible to own one, but hardly anyone ever gets prosecuted for it.

    You aren’t going to get registration legislation, not least since the vast majority of the firearms already in circulation are unregistered and the registration marks can be easily removed anyway (only one part of a firearm carries a serial number), there’s also the inherent resistance to the idea because it’s seen as a precursor to confiscation.

    Canada recently did away with it’s long gun registry because they found out that it was largely useless.

  64. julial says

    I’m a glass half full sort of person.
    Look at the positive effects of gun ownership.

    Two thirds of gun deaths in the United States are suicides. So the most likely victim of gun ownership is the gun owner himself.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

    And the next most probable victim will be a close family member.
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

    I’m way down on the list and being hit by a rampage shooter is a low probability event.

    Personally, I think the best way to influence gun owners, other than appealing to their own self interest is to sue them to hell and back. As I am totally unlikely to trigger a valid self defense attack in some gun nut, if I am shot it will be because of negligence or malevolence on their part. My family is instructed to make sure that the gun user will never again draw breath possessing assets should such shooting prove fatal.
    It worked against the KKK. It should work against individuals. Concealed carry advocates have to consider financial ruin as part of their Dirty Harry fantasies.
    Mandatory insurance carry could be a part of concealed carry. There’s nothing more scary in my world than insurance company lobbyists and lawyers.

  65. kyoseki says

    John Morales

    The problem is they can easily injure or kill me, even at a distance, should they for whatever reason decide to do so.

    (Not so easy if they don’t have a firearm)

    The same argument applies to cops though, they could decide to kill you from a distance with the firearm you seem to think only they should be allowed to carry, is there something magical about cops that means they’re no more likely to do that than a well adjusted civilian?

    … I should probably point out that I live in Los Angeles, so I’m honestly a lot more concerned about getting shot by the LAPD than any civilian – not that it’s a significant concern, trying to navigate the freeways here without getting into a collision is a far greater threat.

  66. John Morales says

    kyoseki:

    When a person is accidentally injured or killed by a firearm, the cause is invariably negligence on the part of the operator rather than a functional problem with that firearm (contrary to popular opinion, guns do not just “go off”, even when dropped, unless someone’s taken a file to important internal parts).

    <Googles briefly>

    That would be why lawyers advertise such as: “An accident involving a faulty firearm or defective ammunition can have devastating consequences. If you or a loved one has suffered injury or death as a result of such a situation, contact a Cumming personal injury lawyer right away. A qualified lawyer can help you file a personal injury or wrongful death claim in an effort to recover compensation for your losses and emotional anguish.”

    (Why they advertise against incidents that “invariably” never occur is a mystery)

  67. John Morales says

    [addendum]

    Oops, forgot the citation.

    I shan’t link it, but a Google search for that string will find the source.

  68. John Morales says

    kyoseki @69, nothing magical; they’re a necessary evil.

    (Unlike lethally-armed civilians)

  69. indicus says

    @notsont, “While there are some here who want guns banned, I am actually not one of them. I just want reasonable laws. If you own a gun you are responsible for what it does. If its stolen from you you better be damn sure you took reasonable precautions. If a child shoots themselves with it you go to jail. If you discharge it while cleaning it and it hurts someone you go to jail. If you do an accidental doubleshot while at a range and one bullet goes high and hurts someone you go to jail.”

    No argument here. And I’m someone who wishes we could go back to the days when automatic weapons were sold at hardware stores, so its safe to say I’m somewhat right of center on the issue. I and every other gun nut I know would be perfectly happy with such laws being implemented. The problem is, whenever the issue comes up the first, second, and last words out of the mouths of the gun control crowd is “Ban them!” which immediately sets people like me on the defensive and makes any semblance of bipartisanship impossible.

  70. erikthebassist says

    Indicus, you made the comment that accidents by non-shit heads happen once in a blue moon (paraphrasing), while anecdotal, my example was meant to illustrate that this isn’t true. Where there are guns, there is a much higher probability of serious injury or death, full stop.

    Oh, and as for “gang-bangers” the term applies equally to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and yes, even white guys who feel like acting like a thug to compensate for… whatever.

    yeah that’s not racist at all /sarcasm

    There’s a whole other recent thread discussing the ableism of terms like idiot and moron. It’s the splash damage caused to people with real mental disabilities that is of concern, so take your dictionary definitions and stick em where the sun don’t shine.

  71. kyoseki says

    John Morales

    Why they advertise against incidents that “invariably” never occur is a mystery

    My guess is that they’re referring to guns exploding when being fired rather than guns going off unintentionally – even unintentional discharges are invariably the result of someone snagging the trigger on something and not a case of the gun discharging without any user input.

    I’ve seen a few guns allegedly fire “out of battery” (triggering the primer before the breech is fully closed) as well as firearms exploding due to a barrel defect, but they’re extremely rare and again, more likely to injure the shooter than anyone else.

    All modern firearms incorporate drop safeties, they require pressure on the trigger in order to release the firing pin, even if the hammer releases due to dropping, unless the trigger remains depressed, it won’t actually allow the firing pin to strike the primer.

    Of course, none of this will help you if you’re stupid enough to stick a gun with a round in the chamber into your bag without anything protecting the trigger assembly.

  72. logicpriest says

    I actually have a few specific suggestions that I am sure most would agree with, then one I think is controversial:
    1) Allow the ATF to maintain a registry of dealers and to demand inventories from said dealers
    2) Establish a national registry of people who can’t buy guns and require it to be searched for gun purchases
    3) Charge accidental shooters for their carelessness – that is when it is carelessness
    4) Punish heavily the assholes who whip out guns in nonviolent confrontations – perhaps with attempted murder or something. This seriously is my main complaint against concealed carry are these people.

    And now for the one which some may hate:
    1) Ban gun ads the way we did tobacco ads – that is to say strict regulations and complete ban from child oriented ads. This can help to slowly change the culture of revenge fantasies and vigilantism so prevalent in the “bad” gun owners.

    Critique these specific regulatory suggestion instead of straw regulations.

  73. kyoseki says

    John Morales

    kyoseki @69, nothing magical; they’re a necessary evil.

    (Unlike lethally-armed civilians)

    Ok, but the question still remains, why do you trust police to carry firearms but don’t trust an equally trained and tested civilian?

    Other than the fact it’s a cop’s job to respond to threats, I don’t see that there’s any difference between the two in terms of accidentally or deliberately shooting someone.

  74. John Morales says

    kyoseki:

    My guess is that they’re referring to guns exploding when being fired rather than guns going off unintentionally – even unintentional discharges are invariably the result of someone snagging the trigger on something and not a case of the gun discharging without any user input.

    Well, then, do you deny that this is contrary to your earlier claim that “When a person is accidentally injured or killed by a firearm, the cause is invariably negligence on the part of the operator rather than a functional problem with that firearm”?

  75. logicpriest says

    @kyoseki
    There is a difference between a cop and a civi, though. It is less about training and more about legal authority and trust. Whatever issues we have with various police abuses, cops are entrusted with some authority civies don’t get. It is part of the social structure. Your argument leads to the same conclusion for arrests and searches, which I am sure you don’t want your neighbor doing.

  76. John Morales says

    kyoseki:

    Ok, but the question still remains, why do you trust police to carry firearms but don’t trust an equally trained and tested civilian?

    What part of “necessary evil” was confusing to you?

    (Law enforcement officers need enforcement tools, civilians don’t)

  77. indicus says

    @ Erik, my aren’t we the touchy bleeding-heart. Do a quick search on the history of the word “idiot”. It’s English usage dates back to the Middle Ages but it wasn’t until the 18th Century that it was at all applied to situations of mental retardation. In modern casual usage, most people do not use the word because they are attempting to express some sense of mental impairment. If they want to do this they say ‘retard’ or such. There is nothing worse in the world than the professionally offended. I’ve got no intention of altering my use of a word instantly recognized by hundreds of millions of English speakers as a very minor insult NOT directed at a person’s mental state because shitheads like you dredge up an alternate use from a couple centuries ago. And as for gang-bangers, the term is applied to all street thugs regardless of race and only in your sorry little head does it instantly constitute a racist slur. In short, feel free to go fuck yourself on both counts.

  78. kyoseki says

    logicpriest

    I actually have a few specific suggestions that I am sure most would agree with, then one I think is controversial:
    1) Allow the ATF to maintain a registry of dealers and to demand inventories from said dealers

    The ATF already licenses most dealers insofar as I’m aware, at least the commercial ones and extending the background checks to private party sales is pretty widely supported too.

    In terms of inventories, dealers ARE required to retain the information about who they sold a particular gun to and have to provide that information to law enforcement attempting to track a sale.

    2) Establish a national registry of people who can’t buy guns and require it to be searched for gun purchases

    Already done for the most part, the problem here is poor mental health reporting on the part of the states, but in terms of criminal convictions, NICS will show whether or not a particular individual is allowed to own guns.

    3) Charge accidental shooters for their carelessness – that is when it is carelessness

    Agreed, if you accidentally kill someone, you should be charged with manslaughter, of course, I feel the same way about traffic accidents, but I’m trying to stay on topic here :)

    4) Punish heavily the assholes who whip out guns in nonviolent confrontations – perhaps with attempted murder or something. This seriously is my main complaint against concealed carry are these people.

    This is already illegal, it’s called “brandishing”, basically if you pull a gun out you had better be about to shoot someone.

    Additionally, in certain states it’s even illegal if a person carrying a concealed weapon allows the weapon to be visible through clothing (ie. you can see the shape of the holster through someone’s shirt), this is called “imprinting”.

    So again, a lot of the problems here are simply a lack of will to enforce existing laws.

    I would rather see a standardization of laws across states, prevent states from enacting their own legislation, what’s the point in California outlawing any magazine over 10 rounds if I can just drive to Nevada and buy a dozen there?

    And now for the one which some may hate:
    1) Ban gun ads the way we did tobacco ads – that is to say strict regulations and complete ban from child oriented ads. This can help to slowly change the culture of revenge fantasies and vigilantism so prevalent in the “bad” gun owners.

    The biggest advertisement for ownership of certain guns is how they’re portrayed in the media rather than adverts telling you you can apparently “reclaim your man card” (I’m told this is a thing, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it).

    Maybe it’s because I’m in California, but I couldn’t actually tell you the last time I saw a gun ad, but I don’t have a problem with this idea in principle.

  79. kyoseki says

    John Morales

    Well, then, do you deny that this is contrary to your earlier claim that “When a person is accidentally injured or killed by a firearm, the cause is invariably negligence on the part of the operator rather than a functional problem with that firearm”?

    Ok, sure, let’s amend that to “when a third party is accidentally injured or killed by a firearm…”

    Modern guns do not “just go off” and when it comes to malfunctions, you’re statistically more likely to be killed by your trousers.

  80. kyoseki says

    … oh and it’s also worth pointing out that when a firearm explodes or fires out of battery, it’s still pretty rare for anyone to be killed.

    The most common result is significant hand (in the case of a handgun) or facial wounds (in the case of a rifle) usually on the part of the shooter.

    As stated though, these kinds of events are extremely rare.

  81. logicpriest says

    1) The ATF literally can not require inventories. They cannot look at them and they cannot keep data across state boundaries. Seems dumb because it is.
    2) Not at all. Different states have different registries and once more NRA lobbying has prevented nationalization thereof. As it stands, these are fairly well supported by the majority of Americans, and are the majority of “regulations” the NRA fights.
    3) I mean if you leave the gun out and your child gets at it, you are charged. As for the other, most states have some laws but they are poorly enforced.
    4) I am actually happy you don’t see in CA what I have seen in the south. But they are also all over various non gun magazines and southern papers, on non gun based websites and they are often aimed at children.

    The real point is that these are the types of things most people mean by regulation, yet a lot of gun owners who actually agree with such provisions get freaked out about jackbooted thugs stealing guns.

    Then you have the idiots like Nugent talking about armed revolt over the democratic process going against them and other gun owners wonder why we think little of them. They let people like Nugent and Wayne Pierre represent them, people who literally threaten violence if they lose their guns.

    The only other regulation I want but that won’t happen in the US is a ban on semi auto handguns. Even for the self defense claims there seems to be little reason for someone who is supposedly responsible/trained needing a weapon with more than 6-8 rounds that can be easily fired or modified to fire at high rates of fire.

    I actually am against concealed carry as well, but that would involve a way to remove already existing hand guns from the populous, which is pretty much impossible.

  82. erikthebassist says

    @ Erik, my aren’t we the touchy bleeding-heart. Do a quick search on the history of the word “idiot”. It’s English usage dates back to the Middle Ages but it wasn’t until the 18th Century that it was at all applied to situations of mental retardation. In modern casual usage, most people do not use the word because they are attempting to express some sense of mental impairment. If they want to do this they say ‘retard’ or such. There is nothing worse in the world than the professionally offended. I’ve got no intention of altering my use of a word instantly recognized by hundreds of millions of English speakers as a very minor insult NOT directed at a person’s mental state because shitheads like you dredge up an alternate use from a couple centuries ago. And as for gang-bangers, the term is applied to all street thugs regardless of race and only in your sorry little head does it instantly constitute a racist slur. In short, feel free to go fuck yourself on both counts.

    Asshole, you quantified what you mean by gang banger by saying it applies equally to [apparently all brown people] but felt the need to put a special qualifier on white people who meet the description. By doing so, you implied that it’s a natural state for [apparently all brown people] but only applies to white people in special circumstances, such as when

    even white guys who feel like acting like a thug to compensate for… whatever.

    If you don’t see how that statement was racist, then you’re a privileged, racist ignorant fuck on top of not being able to make a cogent argument.

  83. indicus says

    Priest, there are very few auto-loading handguns which can be converted to automatic. This takes some degree of technical skill and is by no means “easy”. And the finished products – even when done correctly – turn out rough, difficult to use, and prone to jamming. And the fact that some assholes feel like illegally modifying theirs seems a piss-poor reason to ban the tens of millions of the rest of us from owning them. As for rate of fire, take a look at some videos of firing/reloading of revolvers and how rapidly that can be accomplished. There isn’t a thing that makes auto-loading pistols any more dangerous or prone to misuse than revolvers, which is why the later remain widely popular after a century of auto-loaders becoming the prevalent design.

  84. erikthebassist says

    Indicus, from wikipedia for “Idiot”:

    In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an “idiot” was a person with a very severe mental retardation. In the early 1900s, Dr. Henry H. Goddard proposed a classification system for mental retardation based on the Binet-Simon concept of mental age. Individuals with the lowest mental age level (less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbeciles had a mental age of three to seven years, and morons had a mental age of seven to ten years.[9] The term “idiot” was used to refer to people having an IQ below 30.[10][11] IQ, or intelligence quotient, was originally determined by dividing a person’s mental age, as determined by standardized tests, by their actual age. The concept of mental age has fallen into disfavor, though, and IQ is now determined on the basis of statistical distributions.[12]
    In current medical classification, these people are now said to have “profound mental retardation.”[8]
    United States law

    Until 2007, the California Penal Code Section 26 stated that “Idiots” were one of six types of people who are not capable of committing crimes. In 2007 the code was amended to read “persons who are mentally incapacitated.”[13] In 2008, Iowa voters passed a measure replacing “idiot, or insane person” in the State’s constitution with “person adjudged mentally incompetent.”[14]
    In several U.S. states, “idiots” do not have the right to vote:
    Kentucky Section 145[15]
    Mississippi Article 12, Section 241[16]
    New Mexico Article VII, section 1[17]
    Ohio (Article V, Section 6)[18]
    The constitution of the state of Arkansas was amended in the general election of 2008 to, among other things, repeal a provision (Article 3, Section 5) which had until its repeal prohibited “idiots or insane persons” from voting.[19]
    “Idiots” are also barred from voting in British parliamentary elections

    Who is it again that needs to read up on what the word means?

  85. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    oh and it’s also worth pointing out that when a firearm explodes or fires out of battery, it’s still pretty rare for anyone to be killed.

    Why should it happen at all, if gun safety rules are followed. Something like that happens when people are stupid and follow unsafe practices…

  86. indicus says

    Wow, you really have a hard time digesting English sentences and the nuances of conversation. The only reason I mentioned ANY of those races was in response to the idiotic claim that the term gang-banger is a racist remark, rather than one directed at ANY street thug. And my clarification indicated that the term refers to ALL individuals, regardless of color, who feel the need to compensate by sticking a gun in their waistband and acting like an ass. To reiterate: gang-banger is NOT a racist term. It does not refer to or exclude any racial group. It refers to everyone who acts like a street thug. Get that through your thick, sanctimonious head. Stop finding offense every time someone sneezes, you victimhood-seeking fuck.

  87. indicus says

    P.S. Congratulations, you were able to repeat one part of what I said (referring to mental retardation since the 18th Century) while ignoring the other two parts (in English usage since the Middle Ages with NO connection to mental abilities… massive modern usage having nothing to do with mental condition). Fucking idiot.

  88. cyberCMDR says

    There’s an old joke about why guys tend to name their penises. It’s because they don’t want a total stranger making 90% of their decisions…..

    Well, now he has to think with his head.

  89. kyoseki says

    logicpriest

    1) The ATF literally can not require inventories. They cannot look at them and they cannot keep data across state boundaries. Seems dumb because it is.

    What, specifically, do you mean by inventories?

    You want gun dealers to report every firearm they have in stock to the ATF? I’m not sure what purpose that would serve since gun dealers themselves rarely commit murder.

    Dealers DO have to retain sales records (form 4473) so that it’s possible to trace an individual firearm at least to the first person who bought it.

    2) Not at all. Different states have different registries and once more NRA lobbying has prevented nationalization thereof. As it stands, these are fairly well supported by the majority of Americans, and are the majority of “regulations” the NRA fights.

    NICS is a Federal system, some states (like California, because we’re special) do run their own background checks, which is asinine, as I say, it should all be standardized.

    3) I mean if you leave the gun out and your child gets at it, you are charged. As for the other, most states have some laws but they are poorly enforced.

    As I said earlier though, California does have that law and it’s one of the few California gun regulations I’m completely OK with.

    4) I am actually happy you don’t see in CA what I have seen in the south. But they are also all over various non gun magazines and southern papers, on non gun based websites and they are often aimed at children.

    Interesting, fair enough then, yep, I’m ok with banning advertising for the things just like tobacco, but you won’t get them removed from video games, movies or TV shows.

    The real point is that these are the types of things most people mean by regulation, yet a lot of gun owners who actually agree with such provisions get freaked out about jackbooted thugs stealing guns.

    Except that the problem is that these kinds of ideas are not taking center stage, instead we have stupidity like Feinstein’s assault weapons ban.

    Then, of course, you have to realize that a lot of anti gun states actually ARE talking about confiscation. There’s legislation in the California house to get rid of grandfathering clauses, forcing people to surrender guns they acquired legally, which as far as I’m aware is WILDLY unconstitutional but it’s not stopping them from pushing it.

    The state level gun legislation is what really concerns me. Look at New York with it’s 7 round limit – almost no handguns can be bought with 7 round magazines rendering most of them illegal for sale until manufacturers start producing magazines specifically for New York

    … and where did they get the 7 round limit from? I’m not normally much of a conspiracy nut, but I’ll lay any money you like it’s because Cuomo owns a Remington 870 shotgun, which holds 6 shells in the tube and 1 in the chamber.

    He’s kept his own gun legal and rendered almost every other gun illegal for sale.

    Then you have the idiots like Nugent talking about armed revolt over the democratic process going against them and other gun owners wonder why we think little of them. They let people like Nugent and Wayne Pierre represent them, people who literally threaten violence if they lose their guns.

    Oh jesus, don’t get me started on those two – it actually wouldn’t surprise me if we see WLP get the boot as the NRA spokesman, I’ve heard too many gun owners fed up with his brand of hysteria.

    Ted Nugent is a private individual, so he can say what he likes, I just wish fewer people listened to him.

    The only other regulation I want but that won’t happen in the US is a ban on semi auto handguns. Even for the self defense claims there seems to be little reason for someone who is supposedly responsible/trained needing a weapon with more than 6-8 rounds that can be easily fired or modified to fire at high rates of fire.

    Well, again, the issue here is how the gun is used, it really doesn’t matter how many rounds a gun carries if you don’t have the intention of using all of them.

    The idea that reducing magazine capacities reduces casualty counts in mass shootings (which is the only instance where shooters typically reload) is demonstrably false (most mass shootings involve multiple reloads and multiple firearms, limiting people to 10 rounds instead of 13 per magazine doesn’t really help).

    And most firearms are not easily modified to fully automatic, not without some serious gunsmithing.

    Rate of fire is also secondary to target acquisition, you can fire a handgun or rifle as fast as you can pull the trigger, but you won’t hit anything or you’ll hit the same thing a dozen times.

    I actually am against concealed carry as well, but that would involve a way to remove already existing hand guns from the populous, which is pretty much impossible.

    It’s not only impossible, the right to own a handgun is Constitutionally protected (per DC vs Heller), so any proposed legislation has to consider that – mandatory safety training on the other hand would disabuse people of the notion that owning a handgun makes them John McClane and so would make them less likely to purchase the things in the first place.

    I’m on the fence when it comes to concealed carry, I’ve never felt the need to and while I think it should be allowed, the training should be astronomical.

  90. kyoseki says

    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Why should it happen at all, if gun safety rules are followed. Something like that happens when people are stupid and follow unsafe practices…

    In my experience that is the case, just about every instance I’ve heard of involving a firearm malfunction was invariably operator error.

    Still, nobody’s going to take the blame for something if there’s a lawsuit to be had.

  91. Christopher says

    1) Allow the ATF to maintain a registry of dealers and to demand inventories from said dealers
    2) Establish a national registry of people who can’t buy guns and require it to be searched for gun purchases
    3) Charge accidental shooters for their carelessness – that is when it is carelessness
    4) Punish heavily the assholes who whip out guns in nonviolent confrontations – perhaps with attempted murder or something. This seriously is my main complaint against concealed carry are these people.

    And now for the one which some may hate:
    1) Ban gun ads the way we did tobacco ads – that is to say strict regulations and complete ban from child oriented ads. This can help to slowly change the culture of revenge fantasies and vigilantism so prevalent in the “bad” gun owners.

    1) Already exists. FFLs have to keep full records of all sales and current stock and are randomly audited by the ATF.

    2) Already exists. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

    3) Already exists. You can’t discharge a firearm within city limits or within a given distance from a dwelling or road unless you are legally using deadly force in defense of your or another’s life

    4) Already exists, it is called brandishing.

    5) The only firearm ads I’ve seen are in newspapers and basically have a picture of a gun and the price. I don’t see how that is advertising to children. Furthermore, since you need to be 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a pistol, why would gun dealers waste money with advertising targeting children?

    So there, all your suggestions have already been implemented.

  92. logicpriest says

    @Indicus

    This is a similar tangent to the one from yesterday. And it is unrelated to my actual suggestions. I, personally, want semi-auto handguns eliminated. It won’t happen.

    And for the only thing I will say about your tangent, they are faster. End of story. Some people can approach the speed of a semi-auto magazine fed, but they could never approach the actual potential output. Magazine fed weaponry is used by the military (and I wish only them) because it is faster and easier.

    As for modifications, it depends on the particular pistol. Something like an M-9 would be a pain, but there are a few models out there, one of which was a Glock something or other, that can be easily modified to full auto. It doesn’t really matter, because it is tangential to the discussion.

    Now, I am not responding to any more tangents about manufacturing or “this one guy can totally do this thing” or petty lexical arguments. They are not in good faith. If you actually have an argument against my suggestions or have other suggestions, go ahead and I will engage with you (tomorrow, tis late here.)

    If instead anyone decides to whip out straw men regulations or jackboots or cocaine farms or made up stats or individual instances of outliers then I will just mock you relentlessly. My good faith in any argument extends only as far as the your ability to avoid circular arguments.

  93. logicpriest says

    Hi Christopher, while I am glad you seem to be ok with such regulations, you are vastly mistaken as the the authority of the ATF to actually enforce them. In fact, I remember quite clearly sourcing that for you yesterday. If you cannot be bothered to read, then I doubt you argue in good faith. I find it likely at this point you are just here to scream at us crazy gun stealing jackboots.

    And once more, if you haven’t seen ads, good for you. I see them all over and they have shown up in the news for some of the ones in poor taste after Sandy Hook. You have yet to grasp the meaning of “anecdote.”

    As for the federal registry, it cannot force states to report to it. It technically exists, but it is damn near useless. The very first step to gun regulations that almost all Americans can support is to find a way to actually allow enforcement. The second is to limit access to arms that are unnecessary to the public, which I know we disagree on what level that line is drawn. The third is to work on our gun obsessed revenge/hero complex culture. The issue seems to be an unwillingness of people, like you Christopher, to actually discuss it. If you are willing to actually talk, go ahead. But if you are back to spew nonsense and repeat yourself, kindly fuck off.

  94. erikthebassist says

    yeah so you still don’t get it do you lab partner? You betrayed your own racism by saying it applies equally to all brown people and even to white people under certain special circumstances.

    Being so viscerally angry at “street thugs” also betrays your ignorance of your own privilege. It ignores socio-economic factors that lead to the existence of “street thugs” to begin with, and shows that you don’t posses an iota of sympathy for people who find themselves in that situation. Your contempt is obvious and noted.

  95. logicpriest says

    Oh, and for the repeated claims of accidental discharge – I know the laws exist. I want them to be enforced and to carry steeper penalties. Like the loss of the right to bear arms, if it can be shown to be due to user error. Someone who wants the right to own and bear a life ending device should be held to high standards to keep that right. And just like any other right, you can lose it if you become dangerous to others.

    As for brandishing – bullshit. Once again, they exist and are not enforced. And again, I want the penalty to be the loss of the right to carry and own firearms. If you whip out guns in arguments, you have shown yourself to be too reckless to own firearms.

  96. erikthebassist says

    And now I see you suffer from reading comprehension problems as well. Can you explain why you ignored the part of my wikipedia quote that refers to modern legal usage of the term “idiot” asshat?

  97. indicus says

    Priest, Glock makes a fully automatic model which is of course illegal for a civilian to own. There are conversion parts which can turn other models automatic but these are regulated as class III objects and not something you will see on the streets. Pistol models that can be converted to automatic in someone’s garage – such as the TEC-9 – turn out, as I said, to be little more than junk.

    There are individuals who EXCEED the speed of semi-auto pistol feed. Practice, practice, practice. Oh, and in the real world civilian shooters just might have a need to reload in a hurry, as difficult as that is for you to contemplate.

  98. logicpriest says

    Or, before I sleep, I shall clearly lay out my suggestions:

    1) Enable actual enforcement of gun laws at the federal level and a high level of accountability for dealers. Also no backyard deals.
    2) Make a working registry of anyone disallowed from owning guns and require all purchases to check said registry.
    3 &4 – take away the right to carry concealed and possibly own guns for people who accidentally discharge or brandish their weapon. They have shown themselves as either irresponsible or too dangerous to allow to carry firearms. And charge adults whose children die from poorly kept guns with manslaughter.

  99. kyoseki says

    logicpriest

    As for brandishing – bullshit. Once again, they exist and are not enforced.And again, I want the penalty to be the loss of the right to carry and own firearms. If you whip out guns in arguments, you have shown yourself to be too reckless to own firearms.

    Depending on the state, brandishing is considered a felony, or at least a violent misdemeanor which WOULD render you ineligible to own firearms.

    If people aren’t willing to enforce existing laws, why is the solution more laws?

  100. logicpriest says

    Kyoseki – do not whip out that card, please? About the more laws BS.

    My first suggestion is actually allowing enforcement. As for the others, it should be federal or required of the states, not state to state. States like Florida you can get away with a lot more than NY.

    Enforcement is an issue not because agencies don’t want to, but because decades of lobbying congress has made them unable to. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/atf-gun-laws-nra

    Just one example above. Any time someone says “oh more laws won’t help” they are once more not arguing honestly. Solutions are always going to be partly laws, that is how a society works. Unless you are an anarchist, you agree with me.

  101. kyoseki says

    Regarding enforcement of federal laws, this is a lack of funding more than anything else isn’t it?

    If there’s actual legal hurdles to it, I’m actually very interested in knowing what they are, but I know that in California, we do maintain a list of people ineligible to own firearms, but the team responsible for confiscation of those firearms can only clear around 2,000 people a year, while 3,000 a year are being added to that list, and it’s JUST because they won’t fund them properly.

  102. kyoseki says

    Well ok, sure, but for the most part (some new laws are fine, like background checks on private party sales) unless the new law effectively just says “here are the tools to enforce existing law” I really don’t know any proposed legislation is likely to be more effective than existing legislation if nobody’s willing to fund it.

  103. indicus says

    Priest, if you brandish a handgun in Virginia without cause you WILL loose your weapons permit. Simple as that.

    Erik, I didn’t say the term applied to white people under special circumstances. I didn’t say it applied to anyone under special circumstances. I said it applied to everyone under any circumstances who feels the need to act like Tony Montana. Learn how to read English you fuck.

    Erik again, darn how did you figure out I was born into a life of obscene wealth? I must tell the community officials to double the guards. By the way, that was sarcasm since you have such a difficult time with the English language. I work for a living and paid my own way through college and don’t count as privileged by any stretch of the imagination. If I was poor I’d be insulted that a shitdick such as yourself could possibly find any rationalization for acting like a street thug; i.e. selling drugs to kids, robbing people, etc. Poverty does not cause individuals to mug innocent people. Greed and in general being an dick does. Why not remove your head from that bleeding-heart abyss called your ass and enter the real world?

    Erik once more, yes I know one of the modern uses of the word idiot refers to mental state. But may other modern uses of the word have nothing to do with it. And if anything, the knowledge that it pisses off ball-less shitsacks like yourself is more reason for me to keep saying it. Thus to close out an enlightening evening, go fuck yourself you pathetic, victimhood-whore (idiot).

  104. logicpriest says

    Most states have a list, but it is not coordinated across state borders and they are not required to report to the fed. As for laws, see above. Federal gun enforcement is effectively crippled, and not just by budgets. The Surgeon General has actually been banned from spending money to even study gun violence, because the NRA is a shill for Colt and such. They have a large membership, but they know who they actually serve.

    The official party line for the NRA is that a federal registry is satan himself, despite prior support for it. And really, one of the biggest issues is that the ATF cannot require dealers to report inventories so that they could possibly track illegal weapons, which lots of people bring up as a “why bother since criminals have them” argument.

  105. indicus says

    Oh, and regardless of opinions, we all know that a federal assault weapon ban or magazine ban or anything similar is DOA and the number of people carrying handguns will continue to rise. Fucking deal with it.

  106. Christopher says

    1) The ATF literally can not require inventories. They cannot look at them and they cannot keep data across state boundaries. Seems dumb because it is.

    Where did you get this idea?

    http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-15.pdf

    You
    MUST
    at all times maintain on your licensed
    premises A&D records that document the acquisition and
    disposition of firearms. The A&D record must include
    information about the acquisition and disposition of
    ALL firearms for sale or trade, consignment firearms,
    pawned firearms, repair firearms (if sent for repairs or
    kept overnight), replacement firearms, firearms loaned
    or rented for use off your licensed premises, and all other
    acquisitions and dispositions of firearms. All firearms
    that you acquire must be documented in your A&D
    record.

  107. logicpriest says

    And as a general rule, individual states having good laws doesn’t mean much, since you can freely drive to another state. Like it or not, federalism failed and we live in a country that needs to have a common set of laws to deal with problems as large and complex as gun regulation. Every citation of “this state blah blah” is absolutely useless and not even an argument against my ideas to begin with.

  108. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I see no gun safety from Christopher. What it his problem with safety of both gun nuts and the general public? He seems to have an idiotlogical problem where if people get hurt, not a problem….

  109. logicpriest says

    Christopher, they can’t check it though. Please read something for once. The “requirement” is as useful as a teacher requiring a class to do homework but not checking it. But with far worse consequences. And arguing that something exists is still ignoring the actual debate. Are you, personally ok with such regulations? Since these are what are being proposed by congress and Obama? That and a limit on magazine size, which has minimal benefit if it expires every ten years.

  110. Christopher says

    Oh and…

    http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-ffl-compliance.html

    There were approximately 65,000 FFLs engaged in business in fiscal year 2011 (excluding persons holding collector licenses). During that time, ATF conducted more than 13,100 firearms compliance inspections. About 50 percent of the licensees inspected were determined to be in full compliance with the law and regulations and no violations were cited. Approximately 71 federal firearms licenses were revoked or were denied renewal due to willful violations of the GCA. This figure is approximately .54 percent of the number of licensees inspected.

    Compliance failures, which constitute violations of law and regulation, commonly disclosed during the inspection process include failure to verify purchaser eligibility; inability to account for firearms received and disposed; failure to ensure firearms traceability due to improper recordation of firearms receipt and disposition; failure to properly document firearms transfers; and failure to report multiple sales of handguns. These types of violations, among others, can hinder the FFL’s ability to support law enforcement criminal investigation efforts

  111. Christopher says

    I see no gun safety from Christopher. What it his problem with safety of both gun nuts and the general public? He seems to have an idiotlogical problem where if people get hurt, not a problem….

    What the fuck are you smoking?

    Cite please.

  112. says

    Whenever we discuss gun control, we must be mindful that universal unrestricted gun ownership is a right because the constitution says it is, even though the highest court in the USA has already ruled that gun control is not unconstitutional. Ignore the Supreme Court, because there are a couple of Constitutional geniuses who know better right here in this thread.

  113. Christopher says

    Christopher, they can’t check it though. Please read something for once. The “requirement” is as useful as a teacher requiring a class to do homework but not checking it. But with far worse consequences. And arguing that something exists is still ignoring the actual debate.

    The ATF conducts over 13000 compliance audits a year. During the audit ATF agents pour over (and photocopy) the FFL’s bound book and catalogs all firearms in inventory. It is an in depth audit that puts the IRS to shame.

    Are you, personally ok with such regulations? Since these are what are being proposed by congress and Obama?

    None of these already existing regulations are too onerous. But they are existing regulations. No need to pass new laws.

    That and a limit on magazine size, which has minimal benefit if it expires every ten years.

    Or to quote the NIJ
    http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

    Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D.
    Deputy Director
    National Institute of Justice
    January 4, 2013

    In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability
    to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously
    owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an
    extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions
    would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize

    You would have to have massive confiscation to be effective and that ain’t going to happen any time soon.

  114. Christopher says

    Whenever we discuss gun control, we must be mindful that universal unrestricted gun ownership is a right because the constitution says it is, even though the highest court in the USA has already ruled that gun control is not unconstitutional. Ignore the Supreme Court, because there are a couple of Constitutional geniuses who know better right here in this thread.

    The type of gun control commonly advocated for by anti-gun folks on these threads (ban semi-auto pistols, require guns be stored locked and disassembled to name a couple) has been ruled unconstitutional by the USSC. Doesn’t seem to stop them though. Doesn’t seem to stop anti-gun politicians form proposing blatantly unconstitutional laws either.

  115. John Morales says

    [OT]

    Christopher:

    Doesn’t seem to stop anti-gun politicians form proposing blatantly unconstitutional laws either.

    Does the word “amendment” mean anything to you?

    (You do realise your Constitution can be amended, no?)

  116. kestrel says

    I am for gun control and really have no issue with the ideas listed by Logicpriest.

    The big problem I see is, there are already so many guns out there… some of this seems almost impossible to enforce. How would we get any way of accounting for all of those guns? It just seems overwhelming. For this reason I don’t believe a ban would ever work. More, or better, regulation just might. Also I would like to see gun control turned to a national law instead of state by state, but at present that seems almost impossible as well.

    For a full disclosure I am a gun owner and have been most of my life. TBH I don’t get the way most people view guns; I live on a farm, I raise livestock. The rifle is to put down an animal that is injured, sick or old. Occasionally I’ve had to shoot dogs that were in the process of killing my animals. Never, not in my wildest dream, would I THINK of shooting at a human. I do not regard a gun as “self defense”.. And I would NEVER, EVER walk around with a loaded gun stuck in my pants! For crying out loud. That goes way beyond foolishness.

  117. erikthebassist says

    Wow indicus….

    Erik, I didn’t say the term applied to white people under special circumstances.

    Oh, and as for “gang-bangers” the term applies equally to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and yes, even white guys who feel like acting like a thug to compensate for… whatever.

    Clearly you did…

    I didn’t say it applied to anyone under special circumstances.

    ditto
    I said it applied to everyone under any circumstances who feels the need to act like Tony Montana.

    Because any one who ends up being a criminal is completely responsible for that right?

    Learn how to read English you fuck.

    I read it and type it just fine. You are clearly the deficient one here.

    Erik again, darn how did you figure out I was born into a life of obscene wealth? I must tell the community officials to double the guards. By the way, that was sarcasm since you have such a difficult time with the English language. I work for a living and paid my own way through college and don’t count as privileged by any stretch of the imagination.

    So clearly you have no idea what the term privileged means. I’m not surprised. I’d you link you to something that could educate you on the term but based on our limited interaction I think I can rule out the possibility that you would bother.

    If I was poor I’d be insulted that a shitdick such as yourself

    Nice homophobic slur there. Way to play in to the stereo type of the angry white straight man.

    could possibly find any rationalization for acting like a street thug; i.e. selling drugs to kids, robbing people, etc. Poverty does not cause individuals to mug innocent people.

    Yes it most certainly does. The causal link from poverty to crime is pretty well established by the scientific data.

    Erik once more, yes I know one of the modern uses of the word idiot refers to mental state.

    Once more? This is the first time you’ve acknowledged that. Until now you’ve insisted that the clinical usage was at least 2 centuries old. Which is it?

    But may other modern uses of the word have nothing to do with it.

    So what?

    And if anything, the knowledge that it pisses off ball-less shitsacks like yourself

    And not having balls is an insult why? Misogynistic much?

    is more reason for me to keep saying it. Thus to close out an enlightening evening, go fuck yourself you pathetic, victimhood-whore (idiot).

    More misogyny, wow, you’re batting 1.000. Any one’s bingo cards not full yet?

  118. Christopher says

    Does the word “amendment” mean anything to you?

    (You do realise your Constitution can be amended, no?)

    You realize that there is no way in hell 2/3 of both the Senate and Congress (or 2/3 of state legislatures) would vote for repealing the second amendment much less having 3/5 of the states vote in favor of such a repeal. Four states have unrestricted CCW and thirty seven others have shall issue CCW. This is a huge change since 1994 and has been enacted by the various state legislatures. If anything there is a higher chance of amending the constitution to make it more pro gun.

  119. erikthebassist says

    Erik, I didn’t say the term applied to white people under special circumstances.

    Oh, and as for “gang-bangers” the term applies equally to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and yes, even white guys who feel like acting like a thug to compensate for… whatever.

    Clearly you did…

    I didn’t say it applied to anyone under special circumstances.

    ditto

    I said it applied to everyone under any circumstances who feels the need to act like Tony Montana.

    Because any one who ends up being a criminal is completely responsible for that right?

    Learn how to read English you fuck.

    I read it and type it just fine. You are clearly the deficient one here.

    Erik again, darn how did you figure out I was born into a life of obscene wealth? I must tell the community officials to double the guards. By the way, that was sarcasm since you have such a difficult time with the English language. I work for a living and paid my own way through college and don’t count as privileged by any stretch of the imagination.

    So clearly you have no idea what the term privileged means. I’m not surprised. I’d you link you to something that could educate you on the term but based on our limited interaction I think I can rule out the possibility that you would bother.

    If I was poor I’d be insulted that a shitdick such as yourself

    Nice homophobic slur there. Way to play in to the stereo type of the angry white straight man.

    could possibly find any rationalization for acting like a street thug; i.e. selling drugs to kids, robbing people, etc. Poverty does not cause individuals to mug innocent people.

    Yes it most certainly does. The causal link from poverty to crime is pretty well established by the scientific data.

    Erik once more, yes I know one of the modern uses of the word idiot refers to mental state.

    Once more? This is the first time you’ve acknowledged that. Until now you’ve insisted that the clinical usage was at least 2 centuries old. Which is it?

    But may other modern uses of the word have nothing to do with it.

    So what?

    And if anything, the knowledge that it pisses off ball-less shitsacks like yourself

    And not having balls is an insult why? Misogynistic much?

    is more reason for me to keep saying it. Thus to close out an enlightening evening, go fuck yourself you pathetic, victimhood-whore (idiot).

    More misogyny, wow, you’re batting 1.000. Any one’s bingo cards not full yet?

  120. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Still not seeing the gun nuts talk about true gun safety. Must be a character defect. They don’t give a shit about collateral damage caused by improperly used firearems…

  121. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Christopher @124, so you grant that change is possible, and you merely deem it so unlikely that you think it practically impossible*.

    (That’s where discussions like this come in; they can shift the Overton window)

    * Was a time when there was “no way in hell” a black person could become President, too, though the possibility was always there.

    (Things change; get used to it)

  122. Amphiox says

    You realize that there is no way in hell 2/3 of both the Senate and Congress (or 2/3 of state legislatures) would vote for repealing the second amendment much less having 3/5 of the states vote in favor of such a repeal.

    Not yet. But they said the same thing about the 18th as well.

    But if the 2nd Amendment continues to be associated with gun nuts who refuse to even countenance even the mildest and most reasonable gun safety measures, such as universal background checks, it is only a matter of time before that 2/3 threshold is reached. It may take 20 or 30 years, but it will be inevitable.

    If you force people into a binary choice between the right to own an object and the right to feel secure about their children’s safety, and refuse to allow any, even the mildest, compromise between the two, in the end people will choose their children, every time.

    Those of cherish the 2nd Amendment and wish to see it preserved long into the future are those in favor of reasonable gun safety measures.

    Those who oppose reasonable gun safety measures are the true enemies of the 2nd Amendment.

  123. Holms says

    I suspect that this will simply be dismissed by any gun enthusiast, on the grounds that he wasn’t an example of the gun-filled NRA utopia Murica. Purely by virtue of the fact that he engaged in irresponsible gun care, he will simply be ‘no true Scotsman’d’ out of the discussion.

  124. says

    Amphiox, 128:

    I hope you’re right, and I like how you’ve framed this. But these threads and the daily news have me emotionally worn down. This country (the USA, where I am stuck) is so fucked up, and seems to be getting worse. In my more positive moments I realize that things improve slowly; that we do make progress. But when people who are capable of stringing words into sentences make arguments like the ones here, I really want to get out. Just after Newtown, I had hope, but the nuts have made it clear that the time is not right. 20 dead first graders mean nothing next to their ‘rights’. And no politicians seem willing to take them on.

    But it used to be a ‘right’ to own slaves, too; and slave-owners used the same righteous bullshit language. It won’t happen in my lifetime, but maybe this insanity will also end some day.

  125. viggen111 says

    Accidents will happen, and the more casual (and incompetent) people end up with deadly weapons in their hands, the more often these irreversible and unfortunate errors will occur, and they will inevitably occur with far greater frequency than homicidal sprees.

    I once again do not agree. Arbitrarily imposing the rule because you think people aren’t trustworthy is not a reason to dictate what people other than you should be allowed to do… how often do you make a similar case regarding religious freedom and why you’re against government sponsored prayer? When it comes to guns, you rationalize being the dictator. Moreover, you think people are not trustworthy enough to handle guns, but you conveniently think that the power you will trust to implement the set of rules you want to champion is somehow exempt from these same failings. It is not… as you yourself have pointed out too frequently in the past. I remember a self-righteous post some time ago about how the U.S. government should be condemned for having nuclear weapons. You trust the theocrat military of this country to be the only ones with guns? Really?? Good thing your son is more responsible than you about this issue and is hopefully getting into a position to balance that theocracy. Liberals are desperately needed in the military and they mostly avoid it on grounds as poorly thought out as your typical knee-jerk reaction against guns.

    The answer is not stripping people of rights, it is to educate people and make certain they understand how to manage their rights. The education necessary to own a gun responsibly is the thing failing, not the gun. There will always be another accident for you to cherry-pick, regardless of what gun legislation you support and it will always result in you wanting more draconian rules to take away more rights that you, in particular, do not like. That is the road to fascism, where guns in the hands of civilians may again be ethically needed, and if you have any say in it, not available –and I will not support that road.

  126. Holms says

    Oh, my bad:

    Doing what this idiot did is as far removed from typical (even in the loosest terms) behavior by gun owners that if it represents the best case you can make for regulating firearm ownership then I suggest you try harder.

    I see Indicus has already ‘Scotsman’d’ the incident, within half an hour of the post going up.

  127. Amphiox says

    The answer is not stripping people of rights, it is to educate people and make certain they understand how to manage their rights.

    Banning military style semi-automatic assault weapons does not strip people of any more rights than banning military style fully-automatic assault weapons did, and the latter one has been accepted law for quite some time.

    Enforcing universal background checks does not strip anyone of any rights.

  128. John Morales says

    viggen111:

    The answer is not stripping people of rights, it is to educate people and make certain they understand how to manage their rights.

    In my country (Australia) there is no such right, but plenty of people still own guns.

    (What they are is regulated)

    There will always be another accident for you to cherry-pick, regardless of what gun legislation you support and it will always result in you wanting more draconian rules to take away more rights that you, in particular, do not like. That is the road to fascism, where guns in the hands of civilians may again be ethically needed, and if you have any say in it, not available –and I will not support that road.

    Congratulations on the Godwin.

  129. John Morales says

    viggen111:

    You trust the theocrat military of this country to be the only ones with guns? Really??

    Well, they are the only ones with such weapons as ballistic and cruise missiles, Predator gunships and carrier battle-groups (not to mention nukes), no?

    (Sheesh!)

  130. thumper1990 says

    @christopher

    access to a car isn’t a specifically protected constitutional right enumerated by the Supreme Court like access to a pistol for self defense is

    The constitutional right you have is the right to bear arms. Nowehere in the constitution does it specify what arms. Pedantically speaking, the Government would be perfectly within their rights to ban all guns and say you can carry a knife, but legal precedence is on your side.

  131. says

    The arguments from the gun rights crowds always wind up flowing the same exact way every single time we have this argument:

    It’s in the Constitution. Then when that’s rebuked we get…
    Cars / machinery / dogs / bicycles / ice cream are just as / more dangerous than guns. When that’s rebuked we get…
    We need guns for self-defense. When that gets rebuked…
    I like guns. And then when that gets rebuked it goes back to the beginning.

    It’s a circular argument every single time and you’re not winning any points in doing so. Some gun rights crowd will use the ‘libruls wanna ban all guns’ argument without addressing the fact we want regulation of guns, but that’s just as stupid as the other arguments.

    I’ve never heard a decent argument for this question, so let’s see if someone will answer it better this time:

    Why do you need a semi-automatic pistol with 17 rounds (standard size for a Glock) for self defense?

  132. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    access to a car isn’t a specifically protected constitutional right enumerated by the Supreme Court like access to a pistol for self defense is

    Neither is access to a computer or cell phone.

    Perhaps it has to do with the fact that none of these things, as well as modern firearms and massive urban populations, were even in the imagination of people at the time your constitution was written.

    Pedantically speaking, the Government would be perfectly within their rights to ban all guns and say you can carry a knife, but legal precedence is on your side.

    I’d allow swords for self-defense. Less chance of collateral damage, and if you haven’t got the skills and still insist on using one, the first duel you’d find yourself into would also be your last.

  133. says

    @Kemist:

    Now I’m just seeing an anime style sword battle going on between two maligned pedestrians.

    *Dramatic music entering the scene, our two pedestrians… one on a cell phone, one with coffee. Cell phone smashes into coffee, cup goes everwhere*
    Cell Phone: Raah! You got your coffee on my suit! You have spoiled my honor!
    Coffee: If it was not for your lack of attention, this coffee would be filling my body with energy!
    Cell Phone: So be it! We fight!
    *everything dropped, swords grabbed, battle begins, coffee wins, flawless victory*

  134. thumper1990 says

    @ Indicus

    … firearm ownership is a RIGHT. What sort of need one has for a firearm relevant to their daily life is completely meaningless.

    and I completely agree with taking the guns away from and potentially imprisoning the idiots who, due to gross stupidity or the desire to look like a gangsta, accidentally shoot themselves or (worse yet) someone else. So where is the disagreement?

    …so you have the RIGHT to carry a firearm, but you’re OK with circumventing the RIGHT of others to do the same if they have an accident? Because you personally enjoy emptying thrity rounds at a target,a s you said in the other thread, people have the RIGHT to automatic weapons. People have the RIGHT to keep guns at home, unsecured, fully assembled and loaded.

    I actually agree with your point in the second blockquote above. If you’ve proven that you can’t act responsibly with a firearm you shouldn’t be allowed one. But you seem to be contradicting yourself.

  135. thumper1990 says

    @Katherine Lorraine #143

    PfffffBWAhahaha! Aw, now there’s an unappetising mix of water and saliva on the screen :(

  136. dianne says

    and I completely agree with taking the guns away from and potentially imprisoning the idiots who, due to gross stupidity or the desire to look like a gangsta, accidentally shoot themselves or (worse yet) someone else.

    The difference between a person who keeps their guns unsecured and loaded who hasn’t shot themselves or someone else and same who has is luck and time. Do you support regular inspections of firearm storage to ensure safe storage, mandatory classes in firearms safety prior to buying a gun, and licensing of all firearms?

  137. twosheds1 says

    This accident underscores my belief that gun owners should be licensed, with safety training (and background checks, etc.) part of the licensure process. Obviously accidents will stilll happen, but licensure would reduce them. Also, better regulation of exactly how someone can carry their concealed weapon might be a good idea.

  138. dianne says

    Re cars and guns: I want to propose a semi-revenge fantasy law: Make it legal for pedestrians to attack cars with swords, as long as they don’t attack the passenger compartment. Guns won’t work. A gun can go anywhere and there’s no real way to prove that the attack was warranted since guns are distance weapons. OTOH, a car that is close enough to a pedestrian to be attacked by a sword probably did something to deserve the attack, because otherwise why would it be within arm’s reach?

  139. dianne says

    I remember seeing an article about gun control and popular opinion in the US that suggested that the majority of US-Americans support various forms of gun control, including background checks, restricting access to high powered weapons, and other restrictions (but not outright banning of firearms)–including, in most cases, members of the NRA. So why is it so hard to get the most cautious and conservative restrictions passed?

  140. thumper1990 says

    @dianne

    As long as we don’t extend that right to cyclists… a cyclist vs. motorist swordfight would be a bloodbath.

  141. says

    In an odd coincidence, a friend of mine shared a link about how shoulder holsters can result in people shooting themselves in the brachial artery and/or the median nerve, causing permanent disability and even death. And, of course, standard holsters can result in shooting ones foot or leg.

    But then, shooting things is the sole purpose of a gun.

  142. thumper1990 says

    @twosheds1 #151

    This accident underscores my belief that gun owners should be licensed, with safety training (and background checks, etc.) part of the licensure process.

    I am constantly amazed that it is possible to buy guns with out a license in some places in the US. Here in the UK, you require a license to own a firearm of any kind; owning a firearm without a license is a crime and selling a firearm to an unlicensed individual is a crime. The latter obviously serves rather well to avoid unlicensed individuals getting hold of them. The seller is required to take down your license number when they sell you the gun, and all firearms must be registered. Possession of an unregistered firearm is a crime regardless of whether you have a license or not.

    Obtaining a license is certainly subject to a criminal records check, and you also have to demonstrate cause for owning a gun (i.e. you can’t just have a gun, you have to prove you are a collector, or go hunting, or own a farm etc.). I think you are also required to undergo a check by mental health professionals who will ascertain whether you pose a significant danger to yourself or others… but don’t quote me on that last one, I may have made it up. I’d certainly support such a measure. I have no idea if they are required to undergo safety training or not.

    I personally think the measures we do have are sensible. Why not use them as a base model for gun reform in the US? Would anyone have any strenuous objections to such licensing laws?

  143. anteprepro says

    So why is it so hard to get the most cautious and conservative restrictions passed?

    Speculation Time: Because Republicans aren’t going to actually go out of their way to make those laws, for fear of being seen as a liberal, gun-hating coward. And also because Republican politicians are mouthbreathing assholes, extremists even in comparison to the Republicans who haven’t been able to get a position of power, let alone in comparison to Democrats and Independents.

    Then, you also have the fact that Democrats are shouted down whenever they open their mouths on the subject, because they are liberal, gun-hating cowards, and anything they say about gun regulation MUST be them saying that they want a total gun ban. Gun control is banning all guns. Regulation is Obama coming around the block and taking the gunz from every good law-abiding white man (you know, the only kind of person whose gun rights matter to like the indicus). So we get into the situation where people who support something on a survey will not be able to hear a filthy librul saying the same fucking thing over the sound of their knee jerking. They are good little authoritarians, obediently closing their eyes and thrashing blindly whenever they hear the Culture War Trigger Words.

  144. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Speculation Time: Because Republicans aren’t going to actually go out of their way to make those laws, for fear of being seen as a liberal, gun-hating coward.

    ding ding ding

    Plus

    This is actually something they can use as a weapon in the political war and the more they drum up the rabid gun nuts while sucking in what would be more moderate gun owners, the more political power they can hold onto while the rest of the world moves on without them on so many other topics.

    It’s desperation.

  145. Matt Penfold says

    Obtaining a license is certainly subject to a criminal records check, and you also have to demonstrate cause for owning a gun (i.e. you can’t just have a gun, you have to prove you are a collector, or go hunting, or own a farm etc.). I think you are also required to undergo a check by mental health professionals who will ascertain whether you pose a significant danger to yourself or others… but don’t quote me on that last one, I may have made it up. I’d certainly support such a measure. I have no idea if they are required to undergo safety training or not.

    It depends on the type of license you want. For a shotgun, there is an automatic entitlement to a licence provinding you meet certain criteria. Your GP must confirm you do not have a history of mental illness, you must pass an imspection of the premises where the shotgun will be kept (and you must keep the shotgun secure in a cabinet that is bolted to the wall) and you must not have been convicted of a serious criminal offence. Also, you are not allowed to own a shotgun with a capacity of more than two rounds (and then only two if it is double-barreled).

    To get a licence for a rifle is even more rigorous. You must show the need for one, meaning you either do target shooting or your need one for the culling and control of animals. If you want rifle for target shooting you must be a member of a recognised club, have the agreement of the management of that club and keep the rifle at the gun club.

  146. ck says

    *everything dropped, swords grabbed, battle begins, coffee wins, flawless victory*

    Is it bad that I imagined not the cell phone guy and coffee guy going at it with the swords, but the coffee cup and cell phone itself picking up tiny swords and fighting?

  147. says

    @PZ Are you actually encouraging the shaming of someone for using something pink (i.e. coded feminine)?

    @kyoseki

    Canada recently did away with it’s long gun registry because they found out that it was largely useless.

    This is not true. Law enforcement lobbied to keep it because they found it useful. The provinces wanted to keep it for the same reason (and Quebec managed to save data before it was scrapped). It wasn’t as useful as it might have been because as soon as the Conservatives got into power, they stopped enforcing it. The reason the federal government did away with it is because they knew doing so would play well in rural areas (especially after years of priming with NRA-funded propaganda bemoaning how unreasonable it was to require every gun to be registered and how much over-budget it was to set up in the first place). It was an entirely political act, not pragmatic or evidence-based.

    @indicus

    Fuck off with your misogyny. It isn’t welcome here.

  148. Holms says

    Once again, y’all are missing the point entirely. Ignoring the millions of people who hunt for meat or who carry so that they are not mugged or raped… firearm ownership is a RIGHT. What sort of need one has for a firearm relevant to their daily life is completely meaningless. Even if firearm ownership was completely frivolous, it would not matter.

    I don’t think you quite get the idea of rights. Anything can be described as being a ‘right’, but the nation determines which ones you actually have. Rights can be granted, and they can be taken away.

    As an example, it was formerly considered quite reasonable to own black people. The right to own this particular property was subsequently taken away.

  149. thumper1990 says

    @Matt Penfold

    Thanks for filling the gaps in my knowledge :) I meant to mention our laws regarding storage of firearms, forgot about that. D’oh. But now you’ve covered them so all is well.

    That’s another thing that amazes me about America; it’s ok to just stick a gun on a rack on the wall, loaded and everything, in some states. Or in a rack behind the driver’s seat and blithely drive around everywhere. And then the gun nuts wonder how felons are getting hold of guns. D’oh.

  150. dianne says

    As long as we don’t extend that right to cyclists… a cyclist vs. motorist swordfight would be a bloodbath.

    Aww! (Sighs. Drops katana before getting on bike.)

  151. anteprepro says

    As an example, it was formerly considered quite reasonable to own black people. The right to own this particular property was subsequently taken away.

    Not to mention that, short of completely removing a right, limitations on rights are perfectly acceptable and perfectly common. At least in the sense that “my rights end as soon as they start infringing upon the rights of others”.

  152. dianne says

    a friend of mine shared a link about how shoulder holsters can result in people shooting themselves in the brachial artery and/or the median nerve, causing permanent disability and even death. And, of course, standard holsters can result in shooting ones foot or leg.

    I don’t actually know much about guns, but don’t most of them have something called a “safety” that keeps them from being fired accidentally while they are being carried? It seems like that would prevent a lot of this sort of accidental shooting. Also, don’t most need to be cocked to be shot? It seems to me that keeping a gun in a holster with the safety off and/or cocked is about as sensible as walking around with an uncapped needle in your hand: of course you’re going to eventually get hurt. (This is not to say that someone who does that deserves to be hurt, just that it’s the inevitable result of the behavior. Cigarette smokers don’t deserve lung cancer, but they get it pretty frequently anyway.)

  153. Matt Penfold says

    That’s another thing that amazes me about America; it’s ok to just stick a gun on a rack on the wall, loaded and everything, in some states. Or in a rack behind the driver’s seat and blithely drive around everywhere. And then the gun nuts wonder how felons are getting hold of guns. D’oh.

    It has been estimated that around 75% of illegally held firearms in the US were obtained by stealing them from people who own them legally. That figure suggests that the current rules about keeping weapons secure are inadequate.

  154. kestrel says

    I haven’t seen any gun regulations yet that I feel will help at all with all the guns already out there. That’s what makes the whole thing seem hopeless to me. I am surely not the only person who has inherited a gun from a family member who died; the rules I see, deal with the sales of new guns but do not address all the guns already out there “in the wild” so to speak.

    I like the idea of registering guns sold now, but how do you possibly account for all the other ones?

    On gun racks in trucks: hopefully they are NOT loaded. But yeah, people need to be trained to understand what a bad idea it is to keep the gun loaded when you are carrying it around in a truck. I used to hope they could just figure that out by themselves but maybe not.

  155. Matt Penfold says

    I don’t actually know much about guns, but don’t most of them have something called a “safety” that keeps them from being fired accidentally while they are being carried?

    Some guns do have such devices, but it is a foolish person who relies on one to keep themselves and others safe. They are far from being totally effective.

  156. thumper1990 says

    @Matt Penfold #169

    It has been estimated that around 75% of illegally held firearms in the US were obtained by stealing them from people who own them legally. That figure suggests that the current rules about keeping weapons secure are inadequate

    My point exactly. But the gun nuts won’t have that, will they? “How am I supposed to shoot an intruder down like Wyatt Earp if my penis extension, er, I mean gun, is locked in a safe? *whimper*”. They fail to take into account that such measures would result in almost no criminals having guns, so you wouldn’t need one to defend the home. Which to me seems like a much better solution, but then I’m one of those limp wristed libruls who’d rather avoid shooting someone if I can help it.

  157. dianne says

    Some guns do have such devices, but it is a foolish person who relies on one to keep themselves and others safe. They are far from being totally effective.

    I agree in general, but cars have airbags, seat belts, crumple zones, etc. Shouldn’t there at least be an effort to make guns as safe as possible, i.e. more effective trigger locks, two step safeties, maybe some sort of identification mechanism so that they can only be used by the owner, that sort of thing? There are engineering solutions that could make them at least safer, if not safe. (Because something made to shoot holes in things is never going to be completely safe.)

  158. says

    Re: 10 indicus 20 February 2013 at 6:52 pm (UTC -6)

    This is not because of some magical ‘guns are handled more safely’. This is because also in the mid-ninties, Republicans stopped us from recording such data about gun safety. They made it illegal to come to the conclusion guns are dangerous, and removed nearly all public funding for studies and records. So of course we don’t see an uptick: There’s no data to see.

    Being blind of a danger is not the same as a danger being lessened.

  159. daniellavine says

    I’ve never been in an argument like this were a gun ownership advocate actually admitted there were sensible steps we could take to improve gun control laws. Never. Someone here poses a few suggestions on how to improve things and the gun owners immediately respond “We already do that!” So the person making these suggestions points out they aren’t enforced at all and the gun owners respond “So you want MORE laws?!”

    What’s your suggestion, guys? If you don’t have any bright ideas I’m going to continue to lean towards the conclusion that my fellow Americans are too stupid and irresponsible to be allowed to own weapons. You guys really are your own worst enemies.

    Meanwhile while you slam “libs” for “just not getting it” Congress is enacting gun control laws that don’t reflect the best interests of anyone at all. Maybe if you idiots were willing to have a real conversation about this the two sides could find some common cause. As it is I think you can blame yourselves for any gun legislation that gets passed while you’re busy making the same stupid arguments over and over again.

  160. puppygod says

    @Dianne

    Well, most of the guns these days are very, very safe to use from the engineering and ergonomic points of view – they have multiple safeties, quite often including ones that allow discharge only when the gun is held properly (grip safety) and trigger is pulled properly. It is virtually impossible to have accidental (or should I say negligient?) discharge if you keep the basic four rules of gun safety. The problem is, as we see in the OP, apparently those rules are too much for some people.

    As to built-in ID, there is quite a few such solutions being researched and designed, but I know of none that actually is available comercially. The reason, as I assume, is that without laws requiring such devices they have many disadvantages: cost, reliability (additional point of failure), weight/bulk etc. vs. only one advantage, that is negligible anyway when the weapons operated by properly trained personnel.

    Besides, even such devices would not prevent accidents like the one in OP – even if the gun had proximity lock paired with the bracelet, if the guy decided to point the gun at his unmentionables and he couldn’t keep the proper trigger discipline, then there is not much more that technology can do to save him from his own stupidity.

  161. says

    Re: 32 kyoseki 20 February 2013 at 7:15 pm (UTC -6)

    What an insipid position. A Supreme Court that won’t allow you to require locks isn’t going to allow requiring training, either.

    A lock doesn’t stop you from using it for self-defense. It’s a ridiculous position, but here we are.

    PS: A lock would’ve stopped the mass shootings last December.

  162. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    “Is that a gun in your pocket…
    or is it your accidentally amputated penis?”

  163. says

    118 Christopher 20 February 2013 at 10:49 pm (UTC -6)

    The ATF conducts over 13000 compliance audits a year. During the audit ATF agents pour over (and photocopy) the FFL’s bound book and catalogs all firearms in inventory. It is an in depth audit that puts the IRS to shame.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12

    There are more gun stores than the number you gave. And there are only about 3,000 agents, as well as a mandatory 24-hour destruction of documents, as well as a mandatory no-databases law, which means of course those audits are going to have to be very hands-on. And they only have 25 offices in the US (and another dozen or so elsewhere) so those 25 offices are conducting almost two of those audits per day.

    Yeah. I feel safe. Not.

  164. robpowell says

    @daniellavine 176: I commented in the previous thread on the loon with the double-drummed Glocks. I’ve revised several of my positions on areas in this arena, chiefly concealed carry, which I now see as dubious at best. The issue of existing legislation v. new legislation is that, for example, all of logicpriest’s 4 suggestions @76 are already laws or regulations: The BATFE is required to inspect Federal Firearms Liscense Holders, obtain records of sales, etc. Background checks are conducted through the federal NICS system. It is illegal in damn near every state to use a firearm as a tool of intimidation. Kyoseki covered all of this in good depth. Problems occur when agencies or politics attempt to sideline or derail these existing laws, such as the fact that the ATF hasn’t had a non-acting agency head in almost 6 years. The other matter is that if the existing legislation is not being enforced, can one reasonably believe new legislation will be as well? I was fucking OUTRAGED when I heard that a number of states were either too backed up or to belligerent to submit criminal and mental health records to NICS. ThI believe the key things here would be to do the following:
    1) Federal mandate on NICS submissions: No NICS submission, no FFLs in your states, with threat of revocation. That would probably light a few fires.
    2) Enable enforcement of existing laws. Throwing a few hundred million of DOD funding to the ATF and letting them actually have some leadership would go a long way, but they can still wind up where they are now: Paralyzed by congress politicking.
    3) General Federalization of the standards on Brandishing, training, and safe storage. If you don’t have time to unlock the safe and load a magazine, you’re already fucked and/or should not be attempting to make decisions. Training is something i’m really big on. Require nasty wound videos on what can happen when you fuck around with a firearm (especially the whole darwinization thing that seems so common among untrained pillocks that eschew proper holsters). Brandishing should be moved to the federal felony level.

    @Crissa 32: I don’t think I understand where you’re coming from here. Kiyoseki was highlighting a rather regrettable position taken by SCOTUS on the 2nd amendment. I don’t think he/she/they personally object to locks on guns. As to your second point, you are correct. Keeping the guns in a secured safe would have decreased Lanza’s access as well.

    4) Canadian style inspection: If you’re storing firearms in your home, you need to prove that you have safe, reliable storage, preferably a safe, not a cabinet.

  165. robpowell says

    @181: To amend one last item onto this: Removal of the no-database clause. If you want to own firearms, they’re going to be tracked, and if you lose yours, enjoy your felony conviction if you don’t report it post-haste.

    Also: LICENSING. Period.

  166. says

    robpowell: My position was just that the Supreme Court ruled that locks were too much of a burden. I find it dubious to even suggest they’d allow any sort of rigorous training or licensing requirement, if it came to them as a ‘instead of’.

    Honestly, I can’t understand Kiyoseki’s position at all. It does not seem internally consistent, nor with the reality of gun rights lobbyists. Once you start using the language of the gun rights lobbyists, you have adopted their positions – you don’t get to say ‘yeah but’ because that’s not consistent. It’s like saying you’re a forced-birther and voted in an anti-contraception pol but hey you didn’t really mean it.

  167. robpowell says

    @Crissa 183: Kiyoseki’s position, to me at least, is that of agreeing with the vast majority of suggestions for control, or pointing out that these laws already exist, and need to be reinforced. He is completely divergent from the mass opinion of NRA et al, in that he supports control measures, in line with the previously quoted portion of gun owners. I stand beside the call for more control to be put in place, largely for the same reasons as many others. The only issues I tend to take in these areas are arguments from ignorance in regard to the function of firearms.

  168. brucecoppola says

    #16:

    pistols and whiskey

    I’m going to start a Country & Western band just so I can call it that.

  169. daniellavine says

    @robpowell:

    1) Federal mandate on NICS submissions: No NICS submission, no FFLs in your states, with threat of revocation. That would probably light a few fires.
    2) Enable enforcement of existing laws. Throwing a few hundred million of DOD funding to the ATF and letting them actually have some leadership would go a long way, but they can still wind up where they are now: Paralyzed by congress politicking.
    3) General Federalization of the standards on Brandishing, training, and safe storage. If you don’t have time to unlock the safe and load a magazine, you’re already fucked and/or should not be attempting to make decisions. Training is something i’m really big on. Require nasty wound videos on what can happen when you fuck around with a firearm (especially the whole darwinization thing that seems so common among untrained pillocks that eschew proper holsters). Brandishing should be moved to the federal felony level.

    If you guys said shit like this more often you’d be more convincing. Kyoseki’s “there’s already a law!” stuff always strikes me as saying “No, we’re already doing enough. Shut up, stupid libs.” As does just about any other gun nut saying “no your ideas suck” without offering any of their own.

    Again, own worst enemies.

  170. silomowbray says

    @Ibis3, Blighter and Trampler since 1971 #162

    Indeed, and as a gun owner in Canada I also supported the long-gun registry. In fact, I support gun controls and registration in general, because I value the safety of my community over the desire to own and use firearms.

    But, the legislation surrounding the long-gun registry as I understand it needed serious reflection. An RCMP officer or firearms officer could walk into my home without a court order simply on the basis of wanting to examine my single registered firearm and its safe storage thereof. Bring the registry back, just not the part about strolling into my home.

  171. says

    Katherine:
    I am curious about the answer to your question too.
    I also wonder _why_ any civilian _needs_ a gun. ‘It is in the Constitution’ is not an answer. That it is a right American citizens possess is not in question (another question I have is _why_ should gun ownership _today_ continue being a right?). With the deadly nature of firearms, the strong link between home firearm possession and household casualties, the ability to acquire food without hunting, and armed forces and police up the wazoo (those well regulated militias have been replaced), I see no need for gun ownership to remain a right. Especially in the face of the casualties (i.e. loss of life and injuries) of gun violence. I think gun ownership should be a privilege that one has to earn. I think shooting ranges are fine, as long as guns are kept locked up and unloaded until use. I see no need for the average citizen to walk around in public with guns.
    As I have said before, it is highly unlikely that a complete ban on guns will take effect in the near future, so strong regulations on them are necessary to protect the citizens of this country.

  172. robpowell says

    @daniellavine 186: I would distance myself from anything resembling the arguments you’ve shown i.e “yer ideas suck go away lalalalala”. I firmly believe that if car usage is licensed, guns should be as well. Seems pretty common sense. Your tone seems to imply that I’m right leaning (apologies if I’m reading too far into this. The internet can be a troublesome medium in these regards), which I am not. I consider myself socialist. Beside that, I’ve tried to point out the myriad ways that we can remedy this issue. I’d like to see a macro approach of improved medical care and support in combination with my proposals above. A well cared for populace is, on the statistical side, less likely to engage in violent acts of all kinds, as well as being generally more productive and raising quality of life.

  173. Lofty says

    Gun nuts “need” for guns is exactly analogous to religious nuts “need” for a controlling deity. It is a product of the society they are immersed in. It only seems rational from the inside. Non nutty societies manage perfectly well without these needs.
    The way out is education, proper applying of regulations, and by blowing a few more penis heads off. And a communion wafer can do much harm when inserted in the wrong orifice.

  174. robpowell says

    @Tony the Queer Shoop (now with 30% more melanin) 188: Looking at your justification here, some of this rationale could also be applied to the use of bows, with the exception of criminal intent and potential for lethal accidents. I think this actually highlights WHY firearms require a stronger standard of control, as the potential for, say, accidental castration is exponentially higher with a pistol than a compound bow, as well as the fact that a bow is only loaded when an arrow is BOTH nocked on the string AND the bow is drawn, both of which are extremely deliberate actions, requiring a conscious decision as well as a great deal of strength. No remotely intelligent archer would mistake a drawn bow as unloaded. Contrast this to a pistol, where by necessity of the action, it is more difficult to check the loaded status, as well as the fact that the trigger can be actuated, on the high end, by a mere 11lbs of force, from anything that can slide between the trigger guard and the trigger itself. Combine this with the recent popularity of the Glock pistols, which have no external safety lever sans a small nub on the trigger itself, and you have a recipe for injuries.

    Frankly, I think most “gun nuts” need to go through military training to some degree, if nothing else to change the perception of firearms from “cool toy that goes bang” to “Heavy fuckoff piece of shit that I don’t want to see unless absolutely necessary.” As stated before by Holms, “gun culture” is just as much, if not more of, a problem than the legislation itself.
    And the legislation is still damned important.

  175. daniellavine says

    robpowell@190:

    I would distance myself from anything resembling the arguments you’ve shown i.e “yer ideas suck go away lalalalala”. I firmly believe that if car usage is licensed, guns should be as well. Seems pretty common sense. Your tone seems to imply that I’m right leaning (apologies if I’m reading too far into this. The internet can be a troublesome medium in these regards), which I am not.

    I didn’t mean to imply that you were one of the people I’m complaining about. I’m sorry. My rantiness got the better of me.

    I consider myself socialist. Beside that, I’ve tried to point out the myriad ways that we can remedy this issue. I’d like to see a macro approach of improved medical care and support in combination with my proposals above. A well cared for populace is, on the statistical side, less likely to engage in violent acts of all kinds, as well as being generally more productive and raising quality of life.

    Yes, I actually really appreciate the way you took the time to make positive suggestions instead of just tearing down the suggestions of others. It really does make all the difference.

  176. robpowell says

    @danielleavine 193: Thanks! I feel a bit out of place in that most of my commentary on this issues feels a bit contradictory, as I also have similar (and much more strident) issues with the FREEZE PEACH folks who think screaming racist and misogynist comments is just A-OK because “ER MAH GERD FREEZE PEACH YA FUCKIN’ NAHTZI!” Thusly my dislike for a good portion of Reddit. Speech is a right. Speech is regulated. And as someone said, the Constitution and it’s amendments are technically living documents, and the 2nd amendment could be repealed by further congressional consent (see prohibition).

  177. daniellavine says

    @robpowell:

    Besides the possibility of repeal or further amendment, it’s clear (to me, anyway) that the fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments have been interpreted and legislated right out of existence. The first has been gutted — “freedom of the press” is now restricted to credentialed journalists belonging to some established journalistic institution and “freedom of assembly” seemed to disappear somewhere in the 90′s with the erection of “free speech zones” at protest sites. For some reason the only guarantee of rights in the constitution that is sacrosanct is the second amendment. I suspect a lot of the same people who scream about the second amendment had absolutely no problem with the Patriot Act and probably mocked liberals and civil libertarians who did have problems with it.

    So the ruddy-faced, fist-pounding arguments about “rights!” strike me as completely hollow emotional appeals, not honest arguments.

    Which is sad because those of us who do not own guns are rather counting on responsible gun owners to have better ideas than we do about how to effectively regulate firearms. The fact that I barely ever see responsible arguments on regulation from gun owners sometimes makes me think that there are no responsible gun owners.

    Once in a while folks like you come by to remind me that the responsible ones are also the quiet ones. I wouldn’t mind if gun owners with positive suggests for firearm regulation got a little louder to be honest.

  178. Christopher says

    I suspect a lot of the same people who scream about the second amendment had absolutely no problem with the Patriot Act and probably mocked liberals and civil libertarians who did have problems with it.

    “The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights.” – Gene Hoffman

  179. Menyambal --- son of a son of a bachelor says

    Christopher, we Americans have no gun rights. The Second Amendment has to do with a well-practiced militia, and maintaining a citizen-based defense force. The Constitution says nothing about individual ownership of guns.

    The drafters very properly left gun ownership up to future generations, allowing us to make our own decisions (if, that is, they thought about it at all). They did not, no matter what the rightists tell you, arm the citizens against their government—they put enough safeguards and rights in place that the citizens controlled the government.

    It happens that the NRA and the gun worshippers have deluded themselves about the Second Amendment, regarding it as holy scripture, and misunderstanding it like their favorite scripture, and resolutely ignoring the rest of what was written.And, like most religious folks, rabidly attacking anyone who doesn’t agree with them most heartily, with, in their case, the guns they cherish.

  180. Christopher says

    Christopher, we Americans have no gun rights. The Second Amendment has to do with a well-practiced militia, and maintaining a citizen-based defense force.

    No it doesn’t. Read the Heller decision. It is an easy if long read with plenty of background information.

    If you are too lazy for reading the whole thing, here is the section that addresses your point:

    The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

    Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4

  181. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    As long as we don’t extend that right to cyclists… a cyclist vs. motorist swordfight would be a bloodbath.

    Cyclists could get broadswords. The fact that you would have to let go of both handlebars while hacking would make it interesting.

    For motorists, what about old-fashionned jousting lances ?

  182. daniellavine says

    @Christopher:

    Is the supreme court omnipotent now? Or is that just one possible interpretation that might not actually reflect the intentions of the authors?

    Please look up Dredd Scott vs. Samson if you do think the supreme court is omnipotent and that their decisions should count as holy writ.

    Your joke at 196 was very funny btw.

  183. Christopher says

    Is the supreme court omnipotent now? Or is that just one possible interpretation that might not actually reflect the intentions of the authors?

    If the USSC has given a written opinion on federal law, that is the only interpretation that matters.

    Furthermore the USSC very, very, very rarely overturns itself. When it does it is for grievous errors. Following a straightforward linguistic analysis and reference to similar contemporary formulations is far from a grievous error.

    There have been exactly three cases about the second amendment decided by the USSC in the history of the country.

    Miller: sawed off shotguns aren’t in common use by the military, therefore aren’t necessarily protected by the 2A.

    Heller: people means people, right means right, keep means keep, arms means arms. The government cannot forbid people from keeping a pistol in their home for the express purpose of self defense.

    McDonald: the 2A protects people that live in states as well as federal enclaves

    Even more silly than thinking you could get 3/5th of the states to nullify the 2A is to think that any future USSC will overturn Heller or McDonald. I’ll bet the opposite: before too long (few years time frame) there will be a USSC ruling that bare means bare: there must be some sort of shall-issue mechanism for the people to have a gun in public for the express purpose of defending themselves.

    McDonald

  184. Christopher says

    Cyclists could get broadswords. The fact that you would have to let go of both handlebars while hacking would make it interesting.

    Nah, the appropriate sword is a nice patriotic US Army cavalry saber.

    Left handers will have a distinct advantage.

  185. Menyambal --- son of a son of a bachelor says

    Christopher, I hadn’t heard of the Heller decision, and am not impressed by your use of it. If you are to lazy to read the Constitution, I am not going to read it to you.

    Short version: I agree that:

    The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

    And I respond “Because a well regulated Militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be infringed.”

    We now have a standing army, which is strictly forbidden by the Constitution. We no longer need a militia.

    The militia was issued with state-owned arms. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with individual ownership.

    Your belief in written authority is very religious, and I mean that in the worst possible way.

  186. Christopher says

    Your belief in written authority is very religious, and I mean that in the worst possible way.

    It’s not religious, it’s legal. That is just how the system works.

    If you want to change it you’ll have to modify the constitution. Good luck with that, there is a reason it hasn’t been modified all that often…

  187. robpowell says

    @Menyambal — son of a son of a bachelor 203: I think the greater issue in Christopher’s quotation of the Heller decision is that, generally speaking, SCOTUS rulings on constitutional matters are largely considered both precedent setting as well as decisive. Not saying this could change, but in this case, it’s the current official reading of the law as it stands. It will take some time and some replacements of sitting justices before this can be readdressed, as well as a case that can make it through the appellate courts without being struck down by this selfsame ruling. Such is the way common law rolls :(

  188. says

    Christopher:
    You’re completely missing Menyambal’s point.

    Here:

    And I respond “Because a well regulated Militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be infringed

    I agree.
    One of the biggest justifications for the Second Amendment comes from a need for a well regulated milita, which was necessary during the infancy of the USA. We have a standing Army, therefore there is *no* need for citizens to bear arms (and we no longer need to hunt for our food). This nicely segues back to my point earlier at #188–that I have seen insufficient justification for citizens of this country to continue bearing arms. Arguments from “gimme my guns, waaaahhhh, Second Amendment” are not arguments.
    Your response “because the US Supreme Court says so” is not an argument for *why* guns should be legal.
    Again, what is the justification for citizens being able to possess firearms in the 21st century?
    Why should firearm ownership be a right?

    I do hope any answers you have reflect reality (i.e. the facts surrounding these deadly weapons created to kill other humans far more quickly and efficiently than katanas, bow&arrows, hatchets, hammers, etc).

  189. says

    @Christopher:

    Can you, perhaps, answer my question? I’ll rephrase it here:

    If you need guns for self-defense, why do you need a semi-automatic pistol with more than 17 rounds? Are you a really, really shitty shot? Do you anticipate your home being burgled by a small army? Are you too lazy to reload and just leave the other 15 or so rounds in the clip?

    Expand said question to an AR-15.

  190. dianne says

    Cyclists could get broadswords.

    Too heavy to be practical. Cyclists generally don’t have much upper body strength since their exercise is all about leg muscle development. OTOH, that might be an additional control: If you’re not angry enough to heave the broadsword on sheer adrenalin the offense wasn’t worthy of a broadsword attack.

  191. dianne says

    We now have a standing army, which is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.

    And how has that one snuck past the courts anyway? Seems like this “constitutional” thing has some selective enforcement issues.

  192. Christopher says

    If you need guns for self-defense, why do you need a semi-automatic pistol with more than 17 rounds? Are you a really, really shitty shot? Do you anticipate your home being burgled by a small army? Are you too lazy to reload and just leave the other 15 or so rounds in the clip?

    Expand said question to an AR-15.

    Why do cops carry high capacity magazines and AR-15s?

    If worst comes to worst and you need to protect your life or the life of another with deadly force, you will want as many rounds on hand as you can without reloading. It is called stacking the deck in your favor.

    As for why and AR in particular. They are lightweight with modern ergonomics, can have a light mounted easily, have huge aftermarket support, have a low recoil, are very accurate, and has the same controls and method of operation as the standard military rifle of the last generation. The ammo might be a bit underpowered, but it is cheaper than the alternatives and would work fine in civilian defense situations even against soft body armor. It does the job of a rifle quite well. Why shouldn’t one have an AR?

    As an aside, if we were to follow the logic of Miller, the only constitutionally protected long arm might be an M16. Though I imagine if the SCOTUS ever weighs in on long arm 2A protection they will stick with the Heller “common use” criteria and limit us to AR-15s rather than M16s; ARs are the most commonly sold rifles these days with dozens of companies making them due to patent expiration.

  193. says

    @Christopher:

    Answer my question:

    If guns are for self defense, why do you need 17 rounds when one or two would suffice? (If you shoot a burglar, they are either not going to get back up if you’re a really good shot or they are going to back off because they’ve just been SHOT.)

    If you’re firing off 16 shots that miss and one that hits are you firing at Sonic the Hedgehog, or are you a particularly shitty shot? If the latter, why the fuck would we trust you with a gun if you’ve got a 1-in-17 chance of hitting a target?

    Why do you anticipate a burglar in body armor? Hell, why do you apparently envision 8 burglars in body armor?

    I’m not a practiced shooter – I’ve fired guns once (a pistol, an MP-5, and a shotgun) and even I could hit a target in the chest. No one, except for people in military-type shootouts, needs more than 10 rounds. No one, except for people in military-type shootouts, needs semi-automatic pistols (I’ll concede their acceptability under law because that’s how they’re manufactured now but they’re still not needed.) No one, except for people in military-type shootouts, needs an assault rifle.

  194. thumper1990 says

    @Christopher

    Why do cops carry high capacity magazines and AR-15s?

    *headdesk* Not this shit again. You are not a cop. Cops face more danger than you do, more regularly than you do. You do not need to be armed to the same standard they do. Seriously, I was under the impression that this was a fairly simple concept.

  195. Christopher says

    If guns are for self defense, why do you need 17 rounds when one or two would suffice? (If you shoot a burglar, they are either not going to get back up if you’re a really good shot or they are going to back off because they’ve just been SHOT.)

    Terminal ballistics are a bitch.

    To stop someone immediately, you have to hit the CNS: brain and spine.

    To stop someone in a couple dozen seconds, you need to hit the heart, a major artery or a hard organ. But if someone is trying to kill you, a couple dozen seconds is a looong time.

    Any other shot placement and they could keep trying to kill you for the foreseeable future.

    Since bullets and the targets that need to be hit are pretty small, and the stress of trying to not be killed fucks with accuracy, you cannot assume that a couple of rounds will stop the person trying to kill you.

    *headdesk* Not this shit again. You are not a cop. Cops face more danger than you do, more regularly than you do. You do not need to be armed to the same standard they do. Seriously, I was under the impression that this was a fairly simple concept.

    They might face the danger more often, but the danger is not any more. Every dangerous situation cops find themselves in has already been experienced by non-cops before the cops arrive.

    When seconds count, the police are only minutes away….

  196. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Christopher, do you have other fantasies outside your vigilante cop wannabe rambo ones?

  197. thumper1990 says

    They might face the danger more often, but the danger is not any more. Every dangerous situation cops find themselves in has already been experienced by non-cops before the cops arrive.

    When seconds count, the police are only minutes away….

    *puts head through desk*

  198. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Man you guys suck at constitutional history.

    Man, you suck at logical thinking, rational thinking, thinking you could be wrong, and definitely suck at safety. Typical gun nut, thinking with the wrong head.

  199. dianne says

    But if someone is trying to kill you, a couple dozen seconds is a looong time.

    Or a very short time. Because if you’re defending yourself, as opposed to aggressively shooting someone for wearing a hoodie, they’ve already got their gun out and have fired at your brain, heart, lungs, etc before you can manage to get yours out of the holster (preferably without shooting yourself), cocked, aimed, and fired. Even if they only have a knife, they can likely rush you before you get your gun out and facing the right direction. (Perhaps this is the reason why people carry guns in their pants without the safety on? Because they fear losing the seconds needed to get it off if the mythical attacker is going for them? Bad reasoning and only likely to make you lose a significant body part, but at least an explanation of a sort.)

    Guns aren’t good defensive weapons. They’re good offensive weapons. They don’t protect you well from an attacker, but they make you a more effective killer.

  200. says

    @Christopher:

    Your average burglar is not going to keep coming at you if you’re shooting at them. Most of them will probably think “oh holy fuck this nutjob is shooting at me” and get out of dodge. You don’t even need to shoot a gun to make that happen, either, cause swinging it will get the burglars to go away. They’re there to steal your stuff, not go on a bullet-riddled rampage of your home (did you know that things with bullet holes in them don’t sell?)

  201. Christopher says

    Christopher, do you have other fantasies outside your vigilante cop wannabe rambo ones?

    My firearm ownership does not imply that I fantasize about shootouts any more than my fire extinguisher ownership implies that I fantasize about my house burning down.

    Your average burglar is not going to keep coming at you if you’re shooting at them. Most of them will probably think “oh holy fuck this nutjob is shooting at me” and get out of dodge.

    Then you have some rounds left in the magazine when the dust settles. What happens if you aren’t dealing with an “average burglar”? Just jacking some shit isn’t a good reason to use deadly force, they have to be trying to kill you or another in which case you aren’t dealing with an “average burglar,” you are in a life or death situation whose outcome is far from certain.

  202. Matt Penfold says

    Why is no surprise to learn that on top of Christopher being a gun-nut, he is also happily throws around sexist slurs ?

    Christopher, care to explain your sexist language ?

  203. says

    @Christopher:

    Still doesn’t answer my question on why you need a semi-automatic gun with 17 rounds if one or two will do just fine to deter the average burglar.

    Most people are not going to have to deal with a life and death situation involving gun wielding criminals trying to besiege your home with assault rifles and body armor. That just doesn’t happen unless you’re… like a CIA agent or something like that. If you’ve got someone trying to break into your house to shoot you, most of the time one or two bullets will still do the job.

  204. dianne says

    What happens if you aren’t dealing with an “average burglar”?

    Indeed. What if you’re actually dealing with your son or daughter trying to sneak in without being caught coming back late? Or your spouse trying to not wake you up when she or he comes home late from a trip? Or even your dog or cat quietly entering the room? All of these are far more likely scenarios than the crazed burglar one that you seem to have in your head. And they all can result in a dead or permanently injured relative because someone has a gun and a paranoid imagination.

  205. Matt Penfold says

    And they all can result in a dead or permanently injured relative because someone has a gun and a paranoid imagination.

    Don’t forget the evidence that shows owning a gun can increase a person’s paranoia!

  206. glodson says

    Don’t forget the evidence that shows owning a gun can increase a person’s paranoia!

    Is it that owning the gun increases paranoia or is that a person sufficiently paranoid already will seek to buy a weapon?

  207. Christopher says

    Indeed. What if you’re actually dealing with your son or daughter trying to sneak in without being caught coming back late? Or your spouse trying to not wake you up when she or he comes home late from a trip? Or even your dog or cat quietly entering the room?

    Always positively identify your target before even putting your finger on the trigger. One of the basic rules of firearm safety. Any firearm I keep for self defense has a light on it for that very reason.

  208. Matt Penfold says

    Christopher,

    You have not explained your sexism. Do you not have anything to offer in your defence ?

  209. glodson says

    Matt,

    Wow, that was rather interesting. That’s one I had not come across. This does explain how easy it can be for someone to make a shockingly bad decision while holding a gun. The person is responding to a bias that I didn’t even know existed.

    Thanks for that.

  210. robpowell says

    @Christopher 220: My question regarding your scenario is why are you using a pistol for home defense? A 12 gauge pump-action or semi-automatic shotgun with frangible buckshot would be more ideal. Less expensive, easier to use in a situation such as this, MUCH lower wall penetration, and much higher chance of first round incapacitation. For those not familiar with some of the relevant legal and physical issues at hand: It is a general rule, proven by terminal ballistic studies both formal and informal, that rifles and pistols can be disastrous in a home defense setting due to the fact that they will most likely punch through the bad guy, and 2-4 rooms behind them. On the other side of the coin, this forceful exit doesn’t necessarily translate to increased damage to living tissue. The 9mm parabellum round leaves a permanent wound channel approximately the diameter of the bullet (9mm, or just over 1/3 of an inch) in the person, and provided it doesn’t hit bone or dense cartilage, will exit with the vast majority of it’s force intact.
    Contrast this to a shotgun, where the terminal force is spread amongst a set of pellets that will hit within a fist sized region at 10 feet and very likely impart all of their force into whatever they hit. Less penetration, more chance of incapacitation.
    All of this aside, these situations are going to be rare, as you’ve noted in a roundabout fashion. Someone stealing your stuff is most likely going to bail at the first sign that someone is still home. Even then, escalation of force and case law indicate that one has to be in SEVERE danger of gross bodily harm or death to justify homicide in self defense, as you stated. But as said before, intruders with malicious intent on the occupants is exceedingly rare.

  211. Christopher says

    You have not explained your sexism. Do you not have anything to offer in your defence ?

    Is that a bitch in your profile picture or a dog?

    “Life’s a bitch” in my mind always brings up mental imagery of the XX canine companions I have had the pleasure of spending time with. They do have their quirks though, especially if not fixed (for the record, I fix all my dogs, but have also have helped out breeders before)

  212. Matt Penfold says

    Is that a bitch in your profile picture or a dog?

    “Life’s a bitch” in my mind always brings up mental imagery of the XX canine companions I have had the pleasure of spending time with. They do have their quirks though, especially if not fixed (for the record, I fix all my dogs, but have also have helped out breeders before)

    Why not just admit you have no explanation, other than you clearly think using sexist slurs is acceptable.

    That makes you a pretty shitty person don’t you think ? Now please, fuck off with fantasies of gunning people down, and your sexist attitudes.

  213. robpowell says

    @Dianne 223: This is a huge problem with the way people perceive how they should handle a situation like this versus how it is recommended. It seems that there is a hollywood-esque perception that one needs to creep around like a ninja with a pistol to try to ambush a suspected intruder. This results in you killing or severely injuring a family member or friend because you are a fucking jackass that wanted to be a hollywood hardass (see Oscar Pistorious, who needs to serve prison time no matter what happened that night). The correct course of action is to call out in a loud clear voice, and state your intentions. The other side of this is making sure your family understands that one does not be a ninja for the same reasons. The biggest point I would make is that if you DO live in a area that has these sorts of dangers, invest in:
    1) a security system
    2) a well trained dog
    3) a can of pepper spray

    All of these are excellent deterrents to such elements, as well as being less likely to maim your relatives and friends (the dog might slobber on you a bit much, though.)

  214. Christopher says

    @Christopher 220: My question regarding your scenario is why are you using a pistol for home defense? A 12 gauge pump-action or semi-automatic shotgun with frangible buckshot would be more ideal. Less expensive, easier to use in a situation such as this, MUCH lower wall penetration, and much higher chance of first round incapacitation. For those not familiar with some of the relevant legal and physical issues at hand: It is a general rule, proven by terminal ballistic studies both formal and informal, that rifles and pistols can be disastrous in a home defense setting due to the fact that they will most likely punch through the bad guy, and 2-4 rooms behind them. On the other side of the coin, this forceful exit doesn’t necessarily translate to increased damage to living tissue. The 9mm parabellum round leaves a permanent wound channel approximately the diameter of the bullet (9mm, or just over 1/3 of an inch) in the person, and provided it doesn’t hit bone or dense cartilage, will exit with the vast majority of it’s force intact.
    Contrast this to a shotgun, where the terminal force is spread amongst a set of pellets that will hit within a fist sized region at 10 feet and very likely impart all of their force into whatever they hit. Less penetration, more chance of incapacitation.

    Shotguns are longer than rifles (due to legal reasons) and thus are harder to maneuver. They hold less ammunition, can be thwarted by cheap body armor and the recoil from any round that would pass FBI requirements is strong enough to make follow up shots slow and difficult.

    All of this aside, these situations are going to be rare, as you’ve noted in a roundabout fashion. Someone stealing your stuff is most likely going to bail at the first sign that someone is still home. Even then, escalation of force and case law indicate that one has to be in SEVERE danger of gross bodily harm or death to justify homicide in self defense, as you stated. But as said before, intruders with malicious intent on the occupants is exceedingly rare.

    The only reason thieves in the US rarely hit homes when they are occupied is because they fear being shot (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm).

    And yes home invasions are quite rare, but they happen often enough to be far from a zero probability.

  215. dianne says

    Always positively identify your target before even putting your finger on the trigger. One of the basic rules of firearm safety. Any firearm I keep for self defense has a light on it for that very reason.

    But in the time that you take identifying the target, the malicious burglar bent on homicide you’re postulating will have a chance to shoot first, aiming at the light you’ve provided for him or her, rendering your firearm less than useless.

  216. Christopher says

    Why not just admit you have no explanation, other than you clearly think using sexist slurs is acceptable.

    That makes you a pretty shitty person don’t you think ? Now please, fuck off with fantasies of gunning people down, and your sexist attitudes.

    Well if it twists your knickers that much, I formally retract my “terminal ballistics is a bitch” and replace it with “terminal ballistics is a complex scientific inquiry but the TL;DR is that it is harder than you think to immediately incapacitate someone with a single bullet outside of an assassination”

  217. Christopher says

    But in the time that you take identifying the target, the malicious burglar bent on homicide you’re postulating will have a chance to shoot first, aiming at the light you’ve provided for him or her, rendering your firearm less than useless.

    When using a weapon mounted light you flash the light while on the move, aiming at the wall or ceiling to better bounce the light. It is pretty easy to get a full readout on who and what is where in that flash while any intruders will only be able to aim where your light used to be. Of course if you know by other means that there really are intruders coming after you with the intent to kill (like you just heard them shoot your dog), then you are right, it is better to not give them something to aim at other than gunfire.

  218. thumper1990 says

    @Christopher #234

    The only reason thieves in the US rarely hit homes when they are occupied is because they fear being shot

    Absolute bollocks. Thieves everywhere tend to avoid homes where people are in because it’s easier; they don’t have to sneak around, there’s less chance of the alarm being raised and there’s less chance of being caught. Thieves avoid houses where people are home everywhere, including here in the UK where almost no one has a gun, not just in the US. No amount of unverified quotes from “Arkansas Burglar” or Newspaper stories cited as credible sources is going to change that. Are you being dimwitted, disingenuous, or just plain dishonest?

  219. Christopher says

    The biggest point I would make is that if you DO live in a area that has these sorts of dangers, invest in:
    1) a security system
    2) a well trained dog
    3) a can of pepper spray

    The only thing I would change is to replace 3 with a gun or at least a tazer. You do not want to let off pepper spray in an enclosed area.

  220. Christopher says

    Maybe replace 3 with a sword or other old school mele weapon, but those require even more training than firearms in order to be more dangerous to your opponent than to yourself.

  221. allegro says

    @Christopher

    When using a weapon mounted light you flash the light while on the move, aiming at the wall or ceiling to better bounce the light. It is pretty easy to get a full readout on who and what is where in that flash while any intruders will only be able to aim where your light used to be. Of course if you know by other means that there really are intruders coming after you with the intent to kill (like you just heard them shoot your dog), then you are right, it is better to not give them something to aim at other than gunfire.

    The more you write, the creepier you get. You appear to be so paranoid that you spend an inordinate amount of time fantasizing about scenarios in which you can play Rambo and blow someone away. It goes far beyond reason.

  222. dianne says

    So you don’t always verify the target before shooting. I think you’re fairly typical in this: multiple studies have demonstrated that gun ownership and guns in a household result in higher rates of victimization by gun related homicides, even after adjusting for confounding factors.

  223. Christopher says

    The more you write, the creepier you get. You appear to be so paranoid that you spend an inordinate amount of time fantasizing about scenarios in which you can play Rambo and blow someone away. It goes far beyond reason.

    Wait, so gun owners are supposed to be trained, but if we get trained somehow now we are wannabe Rambos just waiting to have a reason to kill something. That’s a pretty fucked up “have you stopped beating your wife” hole you want to shove us into.

    So you don’t always verify the target before shooting.

    I have always verified every target I have ever shot at as well as what was around and behind my target. Every single round.

  224. allegro says

    Wait, so gun owners are supposed to be trained, but if we get trained somehow now we are wannabe Rambos just waiting to have a reason to kill something. That’s a pretty fucked up “have you stopped beating your wife” hole you want to shove us into.

    If you were really interested in self defense you wouldn’t be gun obsessed. Guns are not defensive weapons and they will not protect you in the vast majority of instances. Prevention is the best defense as has been pointed out above. Having dogs and security systems have been proven to be the best deterrents from home burglaries and invasions. On a personal level, the best defense is martial arts training or at least a good working knowledge of defensive moves. So yeah, an obsession with guns and offensive training does indicate a Rambo wannabe.

  225. Don Quijote says

    The more I read Christopher the more I think there is another Oscar Pistorius waiting to happen.

  226. glodson says

    I have always verified every target I have ever shot at as well as what was around and behind my target. Every single round.

    How many shoot-outs have you been in?

  227. Christopher says

    Having dogs and security systems have been proven to be the best deterrents from home burglaries and invasions.

    And once they’ve gotten past your dog?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/naked-man-shot-choking-dog-miami_n_2395851.html
    “A naked burglar was shot by a Miami homeowner Wednesday morning after he allegedly attempted to choke a pet dog and bite the residents.”

    The more I read Christopher the more I think there is another Oscar Pistorius waiting to happen.

    Now you are going to cut to the chase and directly insinuate I’m a wife beater. Fuck off.

  228. The Mellow Monkey says

    Christopher

    Shotguns are longer than rifles (due to legal reasons) and thus are harder to maneuver. They hold less ammunition, can be thwarted by cheap body armor and the recoil from any round that would pass FBI requirements is strong enough to make follow up shots slow and difficult.

    If you think you’re going to have to fire multiple times at someone wearing body armor, whatever situation you’ve found yourself in is already so absurdly dangerous that it should be classified as a war zone.

    Either that or you’re planning on shooting law enforcement officers.

  229. allegro says

    And once they’ve gotten past your dog?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/naked-man-shot-choking-dog-miami_n_2395851.html
    “A naked burglar was shot by a Miami homeowner Wednesday morning after he allegedly attempted to choke a pet dog and bite the residents.”

    You don’t see how ridiculous this example is? LOL A baseball bat would have been just as effective against such a mentally disturbed individual and it would have been a safer alternative for the other residents in the home.

    I note that you ignored the rest of my post. Not surprising.

  230. Christopher says

    How many shoot-outs have you been in?

    None. The closest I’ve ever come was to escort a thief at gunpoint off my property in the middle of the night while I was buck naked. He never threatened me and left empty handed so there was no reason to even put my finger on the trigger. Kinda sucked that he didn’t sit down and wait for the cops like I asked, but my escalation of force continuum was limited to foul words or deadly force, so he walked. I have no regrets about the situation. Oh and the dude was white if that matters to any of you racist-insinuators.

  231. Christopher says

    You don’t see how ridiculous this example is? LOL A baseball bat would have been just as effective against such a mentally disturbed individual and it would have been a safer alternative for the other residents in the home.

    In my state it is illegal to have a bludgeoning weapon for self defense. And yeah, it was a nutty example, but that is Florida for you. It was the most recent of many news story that came up with a simple google search.

    What other parts of your post haven’t been addressed previously?

  232. dianne says

    I was buck naked.

    So you were naked with a gun? Where do you keep your gun? Under your pillow?

    my escalation of force continuum was limited to foul words or deadly force, so he walked.

    Pepper spray would have left you with more options.

  233. Don Quijote says

    Didn’t know Christopher was married. Now I do, I’m more concrned that he might shoot his wife by accident.

  234. glodson says

    Christopher:

    I have always verified every target I have ever shot at as well as what was around and behind my target. Every single round.

    None. The closest I’ve ever come was to escort a thief at gunpoint off my property in the middle of the night while I was buck naked. He never threatened me and left empty handed so there was no reason to even put my finger on the trigger. Kinda sucked that he didn’t sit down and wait for the cops like I asked, but my escalation of force continuum was limited to foul words or deadly force, so he walked. I have no regrets about the situation. Oh and the dude was white if that matters to any of you racist-insinuators.

    Your experience at pointing a gun in a situation that could be considered life-threatening is one. One time. He never threatened you. I don’t care about his race, or anything else.

    Look at what you said. You said every single round. Meaning you fired the gun. At a target. Like in target practice. You didn’t fire at a human. You didn’t fire in a combat situation. So you’ve never been in a live-fire situation that required you to check your target in the middle of a heated confrontation. So, yea. That makes your statement that you always verify your targets disingenuous.

  235. Christopher says

    So you were naked with a gun? Where do you keep your gun? Under your pillow?

    Bedstand safe

    Pepper spray would have left you with more options.

    Yeah, I kicked myself over that one. Now I have a pair of shorts with some Fox Labs Mean Green pepper spray in the pocket under the bed.

  236. says

    @Christopher:

    At least you’re keeping your gun in a safe, I’m glad to know you’re not keeping it on top of the dresser with bullets in the drawer like my ex-boyfriend used to have his gun.

    (By the way, a hint for all you gun owners – scaring the fuck out of your girlfriend by having a pistol with an easily reached bullet clip… BAD IDEA)

  237. dianne says

    I’ve never confronted a home invader and hope I never will. However, I know someone who once took out an armed burglar by throwing a frying pan at him, knocking the gun out of his hand, and then holding a knife to his throat until the police arrived. This is not the recommended way to deal with a home invader either, but at least shows more style than simply shooting up the room (which, if she’d tried it, might have killed her husband who had come in late and had been sleeping on the couch.)

  238. Richard Smith says

    .
    @Christopher (#239):

    …invest in:
    1) a security system
    2) a well trained dog
    3) a can of pepper spray

    The only thing I would change is to replace 3 with a gun…

    Quelle surprise!

  239. allegro says

    There’s another point that gun fetishists won’t discuss and that is the consequences for shooting someone, even if it is justified in the mind of the shooter at the time. To illustrate:

    I was date-raped in my home after inviting him inside after an evening out. I had a firearm, a .22 bolt action rifle. Had I been able to get to the rifle (I couldn’t) and had it been loaded (it wasn’t) and shot him, it may have prevented my being raped. What it also would have done would be very likely to have landed me in jail, under arrest for shooting the guy. If he survived, it would have been his word against mine. If he had died, it likely wouldn’t have been any better because in our rape culture, date rapes aren’t “legitimate” rapes, they’re just regrets.

    I did learn a lot from that experience. It was when I started martial arts training (that also turned out to be very fun and great exercise) so that I would never, ever be in that helpless position again. I learned how to REALLY defend myself.

  240. Christopher says

    Your experience at pointing a gun in a situation that could be considered life-threatening is one. One time. He never threatened you. I don’t care about his race, or anything else.

    Look at what you said. You said every single round. Meaning you fired the gun. At a target. Like in target practice. You didn’t fire at a human. You didn’t fire in a combat situation. So you’ve never been in a live-fire situation that required you to check your target in the middle of a heated confrontation. So, yea. That makes your statement that you always verify your targets disingenuous.

    You accused me of not positively identifying a target. I responded that that has never happens and you move the goal posts to “I might not positively identify a target in a hypothesized future situation.”

    I have no supernatural knowledge of my future existence, so I have no idea what might happen, but my training and mindset is such that I instinctively always positively identify my target and am sure I want to shoot before I put my finger on the trigger. In the one confrontation I’ve had I didn’t break discipline, therefore I doubt I will in other future situations. Hopefully I will have no other future situations, but the neocon/neolib caused great depression is taking its toll and people are desperate. I honestly hope that I die an old man without ever having to point a gun at another human again. But I’m not an absolutist pacifist, I believe everyone has the right to self defense and I believe I have the obligation to make use of that right if my life or the life of another is threatened.

  241. says

    @Christopher:

    I believe everyone has the right to self defense and I believe I have the obligation to make use of that right if my life or the life of another is threatened

    I understand, and am sympathetic to, that thought. Self-defense is certainly important and if you feel you need a gun to defend yourself, fine. You still have not adequately explained why you need a gun capable of firing 17 shots before you have to reload when 1 to 2 bullets will do fine. Heck, you just explained a situation where all you needed to do was show you had a gun to get the perp off your property. You didn’t even need a single bullet.

    The whole “I need a gun for self-defense” defense has yet to properly explain the necessity for so many goddamned bullets being required.

  242. Christopher says

    There’s another point that gun fetishists won’t discuss and that is the consequences for shooting someone, even if it is justified in the mind of the shooter at the time. To illustrate:

    I was date-raped in my home after inviting him inside after an evening out. I had a firearm, a .22 bolt action rifle. Had I been able to get to the rifle (I couldn’t) and had it been loaded (it wasn’t) and shot him, it may have prevented my being raped. What it also would have done would be very likely to have landed me in jail, under arrest for shooting the guy. If he survived, it would have been his word against mine. If he had died, it likely wouldn’t have been any better because in our rape culture, date rapes aren’t “legitimate” rapes, they’re just regrets.

    I did learn a lot from that experience. It was when I started martial arts training (that also turned out to be very fun and great exercise) so that I would never, ever be in that helpless position again. I learned how to REALLY defend myself.

    I’m so sorry to hear what happened to you. I fucking hate rapists and others who seek to physically dominate and abuse those they think are weaker.

    If you are trained in martial arts and utilize that training against another the courts treat that as a use of deadly force just the same as using a gun, knife, sharp stick or beer bottle. The court system honestly doesn’t care what kind of deadly force was used in a situation, only that such use was justified.

    And yes, if you do use deadly force against another you can expect to be drug through our wonderful court system for at least a little while. But if you honestly feared for your life, you will eventually be cleared in most jurisdictions. Reality is messy though and all cases must be judged on their individual merits first by the DA then possibly by a jury.

    The legal ramifications are the least of your worries though. Even in a self-defense situation as clean as freshly driven snow, if you kill another human (and aren’t a total psychopath), you will be haunted by the event for the rest of your life.

    Surviving has to be worth more to you than a future of PTSD and possible prison time. But if it is a true self-defense situation you’re pretty much stuck with the PTSD regardless (as you are well aware, again that fucking sucks)

  243. says

    Christopher:
    Again-given the tremendous degree of gun violence in our culture, what is the justification for guns being legal? The reasons specified in the Second Amendment (a well regulated militia) no longer hold, since we have an army.
    Secondly, why should gun ownership be an inalienable right?
    My position is that the United States has a gun problem. A huge one. Too many people are being injured or killed by guns. I have seen insufficient evidence to indicate that the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the costs.
    Please note that I am not referring to police officers or members of the military who-despite the unevidenced bullshit you have thus far put forth-face deadly situations as part of their job, and thus firearm possession is justified.

    Also, the comparisons to vigilante/wanna be Rambo you’ve received stem from these elaborate scenarios you’ve concocted to justify owning a gun. Scenarios you have never been in (as you explained, you have only had to deal with an intruder using your gun once).
    Also, there has been no attempt on your part to address Katherine’s question. You have danced around it, but thus far have not explaimed why you need an AR-15 to deal with a home invasion.
    Related to that question, do you think you are going to be invaded by theives intent on harming you and /or your family? Are these hypothetical theives going to be wearing body armor? How often has such a situation occured and does that justify civilians owning guns when gun violence is such a problem?

    More to the point: do you recognize that this country HAS a problem with gun violence?

  244. Christopher says

    I understand, and am sympathetic to, that thought. Self-defense is certainly important and if you feel you need a gun to defend yourself, fine. You still have not adequately explained why you need a gun capable of firing 17 shots before you have to reload when 1 to 2 bullets will do fine. Heck, you just explained a situation where all you needed to do was show you had a gun to get the perp off your property. You didn’t even need a single bullet.

    Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

  245. allegro says

    If you are trained in martial arts and utilize that training against another the courts treat that as a use of deadly force just the same as using a gun, knife, sharp stick or beer bottle. The court system honestly doesn’t care what kind of deadly force was used in a situation, only that such use was justified.

    I’m well aware of the laws regarding deadly force. But that is entirely missing the point. When trained in personal self-defense one doesn’t need to use deadly force. The only need is to disable or disarm and run like hell. You can never use a gun on another without the high potential for deadly results. This is how and why disagreements turn deadly every single day and the proposals in some states to allow CCW in bars is fucking insane. The attitude that a gun is the only means of self defense, such as you argue, causes thousands of deaths and disabling injuries a year.

  246. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    I got this far and just have to comment on how fucked up this is.
    Comment #90
    indicus

    Wow, you really have a hard time digesting English sentences and the nuances of conversation. The only reason I mentioned ANY of those races was in response to the idiotic claim that the term gang-banger is a racist remark, rather than one directed at ANY street thug. And my clarification indicated that the term refers to ALL individuals, regardless of color, who feel the need to compensate by sticking a gun in their waistband and acting like an ass. To reiterate: gang-banger is NOT a racist term. It does not refer to or exclude any racial group. It refers to everyone who acts like a street thug. Get that through your thick, sanctimonious head. Stop finding offense every time someone sneezes, you victimhood-seeking fuck.

    Sounds like a lot of racist hicks back home in the country but hey, since they aren’t inner city they don’t qualify as “street thugs”. It’s not like there’s any societal racism or classicism issues at fault for the result of ghettos and such. Nope, no sireee, that’s not racist at all! /sarc

    Stupid fucking racist asshat.

  247. Christopher says

    Again-given the tremendous degree of gun violence in our culture, what is the justification for guns being legal?

    Guns are the most effective way for the physically weak to defend themselves against the strong. This is doubly important in a violent culture wouldn’t you agree.

    Secondly, why should gun ownership be an inalienable right?

    Because the weak should be able to offer effective self-defense against the strong.

    My position is that the United States has a gun problem. A huge one. Too many people are being injured or killed by guns. I have seen insufficient evidence to indicate that the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the costs.
    Please note that I am not referring to police officers or members of the military who-despite the unevidenced bullshit you have thus far put forth-face deadly situations as part of their job, and thus firearm possession is justified.

    America has a violence problem and there has been no evidence presented that any sort of gun control (even un-constitutional schemes) will reduce that violence or its deadly effects.

    If you want to reduce the overall violence in our culture, you’d need to ask uncomfortable questions like why are whites and blacks the only ones dying of violent crime (non-white, non-blacks in America have a homicide rate way lower than anywhere in Europe, odd don’t you think?)

    Also, the comparisons to vigilante/wanna be Rambo you’ve received stem from these elaborate scenarios you’ve concocted to justify owning a gun. Scenarios you have never been in (as you explained, you have only had to deal with an intruder using your gun once).
    Also, there has been no attempt on your part to address Katherine’s question. You have danced around it, but thus far have not explaimed why you need an AR-15 to deal with a home invasion.
    Related to that question, do you think you are going to be invaded by theives intent on harming you and /or your family? Are these hypothetical theives going to be wearing body armor? How often has such a situation occured and does that justify civilians owning guns when gun violence is such a problem?

    Home invaders with body armor is exceedingly rare, but it has occurred. Unlike guns, anyone can buy body armor over the internet and have it shipped to their home no questions asked. Armor tends to cost less than guns too.

    Again, plan for the worst, hope for the best.

  248. Christopher says

    If you think the court system will eventually exonerate a woman for using deadly force against a potential rapist, I wonder how much you know about rape culture.

    Cite please.

    Outside of one incident in Yemen I can find no reference to any woman being convicted of murder after asserting a self defense against a rapist. I can find lots and lots of incidents where women did kill people they claimed were rapists and all those have no charges filed and tend to have cops being quoted giving them kudos. There is even an incident in India (which puts our rape culture to shame) where the courts forced her employer to take her off suspension because she said the man she killed was raping her.

  249. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    coment #236
    Christopher

    Well if it twists your knickers that much, I formally retract my “terminal ballistics is a bitch” and replace it with “terminal ballistics is a complex scientific inquiry but the TL;DR is that it is harder than you think to immediately incapacitate someone with a single bullet outside of an assassination”

    Oh, yeah. That’s SO much better and totes not sexist. /sarc

  250. Christopher says

    So you’re a doomsday prepper too?

    Nah, but I have enough supplies to ride out a massive earthquake or other temporary SHFT scenario. If worldwide civilization collapses into some sort of mad max dystopia I’ll make due the best I can I guess, but honestly I think I’d rather die in the initial cataclysm than deal with humans that lack any sort of civilization holding them together.

  251. dianne says

    Because the weak should be able to offer effective self-defense against the strong.

    And how will guns help with this? Perhaps you’re suggesting that guns should be provided as a public service to people who can’t afford to buy their own? That would create interesting social changes, but I don’t think they’d be positive changes, either for society as a whole or for those receiving the free welfare guns.

  252. dianne says

    (non-white, non-blacks in America have a homicide rate way lower than anywhere in Europe, odd don’t you think?)

    Um…huh? Where does this claim come from?

  253. Christopher says

    Oh, yeah. That’s SO much better and totes not sexist. /sarc

    I thought kinckers were short pants worn by boys or the dutch over a century ago.

    The term “Knickerbockers” traces its origin to the Dutch settlers who came to the New World – and especially to what is now New York – in the 1600s. Specifically, it refers to the style of pants the settlers wore…pants that rolled up just below the knee, which became known as “Knickerbockers”, or “knickers”

  254. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    comment #277
    Christopher

    I thought kinckers were short pants worn by boys or the dutch over a century ago.

    And what the definition hasn’t changed since then? Lookie
    knick·ers
    [nik-erz]
    noun ( used with a plural verb )
    1.
    Also, knick·er·bock·ers [nik-er-bok-erz] Show IPA . loose-fitting short trousers gathered in at the knees.
    2.
    Chiefly British .
    a.
    a bloomerslike undergarment worn by women.
    b.
    panties.
    3.
    British Informal. a woman’s or girl’s short-legged underpants.

    Idioms
    4.
    to get one’s knickers in a twist, British Slang. to get flustered or agitated: Don’t get your knickers in a twist every time the telephone rings.
    Origin:
    1880–85; shortened form of knickerbockers, plural of knickerbocker, special use of Knickerbocker

  255. Christopher says

    And how will guns help with this? Perhaps you’re suggesting that guns should be provided as a public service to people who can’t afford to buy their own? That would create interesting social changes, but I don’t think they’d be positive changes, either for society as a whole or for those receiving the free welfare guns.

    I wouldn’t be against such a scheme. Ideally, if I was in charge, we’d scrap our standing army for a swiss style militia system, then everyone who wanted to could be trained and armed through a government subsidy.

  256. What a Maroon, el papa ateo says

    America has a violence problem

    Hmm, let’s see. Data from 2006 UN survey; comparing 36 OECD countries.

    The US has the 4th highest rate of reported rapes; 7th highest rate of robbery; 16th highest rate of assault (below the mean); 13th highest rate of burglary; 10th highest rate of reported vehicle thefts; and the third highest rate of intentional homicide (behind Mexico and Estonia).

    The rates for England and Wales are higher or only slightly lower for all of those categories, except homicide. The rate of homicide in England and Wales is a fifth the rate in the US.

    And this doesn’t take into account suicides and accidental deaths from firearms.

    Homicide aside, is our violence problem really that much different from other wealthy countries?

  257. says

    Christopher:

    Obstacles To Due Process And Fair Trials A review of cases in which courts found an astonishing degree of incompetence with catastrophic consequences for battered women defendants reveals an urgent need for remedial action. Judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and jurors all bring to any trial myths and stereotypes about battered women that are used to exclude individual women from receiving due process and fair trials based on the facts of their cases. For example, prosecutors routinely ignore evidence of abuse, self-defense, or lack of intent when making decisions about whether to bring charges or what charges to bring. At trial, prosecutors try to inflame the jury with myths and propaganda in order to “win” convictions. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys frequently pressure women to plea bargain who were wrongly arrested and charged. And defense counsel are too often unprepared to link abuse to defense theories and present evidence of battering, including its well documented effects on women. Judges are a major obstacle to fair trials for battered women, as Holly Maguigan demonstrated in a 1991 survey of 223 appellate cases of homicide convictions of battered women in California. She found that judges implement their bias through the exclusion of a battered woman’s evidence, denial of self-defense instructions, and/or the repudiation of instructions to the jury on the relevance of that evidence. Their decisions to disregard the failure of law enforcement as well as issues of duress, violence or threat virtually guarantee conviction of battered women defendants. Thus, “any” evidence coming from any source should satisfy the requirement for a full instruction on self-defense, and that includes instructing the jury on the relevance of that evidence. Maguigan’s study showed that jurors only understood the significance of the defendant’s evidence and the social context of a battered woman when a judge spelled it out for them and instructed them to consider those issues.

    Why didn’t she leave? This question attests to the failure of courts and other public institutions to make this legal point widely understood and ignores the large body of evidence showing that women do leave. Further, it denies women’s agency, self-direction, and acts of resistance toward independence and survival. A complex vision of agency needs to be recognized within the law. Battered women’s actions toward self-preservation must be understood within a framework of coercive control that links the deprivation of liberty occurring through a process of ongoing intimidation, isolation and control to the social context of structural inequality, gender subordination and violations of human rights. “Separation assault,” is a very real threat: domestic tyranny becomes potentially lethal in refusing to acknowledge a woman’s independence at any price when she tries to leave. A battered woman’s actions need to be seen as reasonable and rational in light of her experience and within the framework of inequality that shapes these cases.

    Areas of self-defense law that unfairly result in convictions of battered women who kill include 1) the definition and interpretation of imminence; 2) the rule or expectation to retreat; 3) the requirement of proportionality. The concept of the “reasonable person” has historically relied upon a masculine standard without allowing for the full set of circumstances known to a battered woman defendant when determining her fear of imminent harm. It is important to challenge the concept of reasonableness in general in order to ensure that it includes the wealth of women’s (as well as men’s) individual experiences due to continuing public resistance to the idea of a woman’s reasonableness. Imminence is often a judge-made rule of common law that protects the batterer rather than the life of the person who has a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. A woman who has a history of abuse may reasonably perceive danger to her life that may not be immediate but is nonetheless imminent. Despite changes in the law affecting the duty to retreat, judges and juries continue to blame battered women for not leaving rather than holding courts and law enforcement responsible for failure to arrest and prosecute batterers and following jury instructions that consider the full set of circumstances that contribute to the reasonableness of a battered woman’s fear and therefore the necessity for her to act.
    http://www.umich.edu/~clemency/position.html

    There is more material at the link.
    Again, there is no assurance that a woman killing her rapist/attacker in self defense will be exonerated. Oh lookee, rape culture and patriarchy in effect.

  258. Matt Penfold says

    Well if it twists your knickers that much, I formally retract my “terminal ballistics is a bitch” and replace it with “terminal ballistics is a complex scientific inquiry but the TL;DR is that it is harder than you think to immediately incapacitate someone with a single bullet outside of an assassination”

    You have not explained why you used a sexist term in the first place. Why did you ? Are you just not very bright (the most charitable option and well supported by the evidence), a sexist arsehole (seems the most likely) or a misogynist wanker ?

  259. John Morales says

    So, I’ve just put in “accidental shooting” as a search term in Google.

    First hits:

    * Man charged with lying to police after accidental shooting
    Citizens Voice-26 minutes ago

    * Accidental shooting, death in truck crash ‘terrible tragedy’
    The Province-1 hour ago

    * Child hospitalized following accidental shooting
    Uniontown Herald Standard-4 hours ago

    * Accidental shooting injures 12-year-old
    Weatherford Democrat-21/02/2013

    * Accidental Shooting in Spring Creek 2-20-13
    KENV Channel 10-21/02/2013

    * Lehigh mother admits accidental shooting of toddler son
    Pocono Record-20/02/2013

  260. Matt Penfold says

    My definition comes before yours and I’m not brittish.

    Nor are you Dutch, you sexist wanker.

  261. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    comment #280
    Christopher

    My definition comes before yours and I’m not brittish.

    HAHAHA. Yeah, like it’s common knowledge that knickers are what boys wore in dutch over a century ago. Stupid sexist douche.

  262. Matt Penfold says

    I hate the term “accidental shooting”.

    Unless somehow a gun gets loaded by accident, and any safety devices disabled by accident, and the gun pointed at someone by accident, and the trigger pulled by accident then it is either deliberate or the result of negligence.

  263. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    Also, Christopher are you denying that definitions can change? Do you rely on the first/original definition for all words? I bet not.

    Guess what? I’m not British either but I knew the modern definition of knickers.

  264. Matt Penfold says

    The rates for England and Wales are higher or only slightly lower for all of those categories, except homicide. The rate of homicide in England and Wales is a fifth the rate in the US.

    In 2011 the number of murders in England and Wales committed using a gun was 39. Had the rate of murders using firearms been the same as in the US, there would have been over 1700. In fact, that figure of 1700 is more than double the number of murders in England and Wales in 2011 from ALL causes.

    The US is clearly a more violent country, which is an argument for it having even tighter gun control than the UK.

  265. Christopher says

    @Tony

    Interesting, but doesn’t that just mean that we need more court reform so that we a closer to a ideal of justice?

    Plus that link was primarily concerned with domestic violence cases which tend to be far messier in their details than someone defending themselves from immediate rape. If a battered woman blows her husband’s brains out while he is passed out drunk in front of the TV, should it be justifiable homicide? I’m inclined to say no. On the other hand if a battered woman is struck by her significant other and comes back up swinging a frying pan which kills the batterer, I think she should be let off.

    Again, every case is different and the totality of evidence must be weighed by the judge and jury. Ideally justice will be equal for all, but we all know we don’t live in an ideal world. The best we can do is strive to make things more ideal.

  266. Christopher says

    HAHAHA. Yeah, like it’s common knowledge that knickers are what boys wore in dutch over a century ago. Stupid sexist douche.

    Do you really think that a professional all-male basketball team would be named after ladies panties?

  267. Matt Penfold says

    Christopher,

    Why do you keep insisting on digging ? You made some sexist comments, and people pointed this out to you.

    Were you indeed not a sexist person you would then have realised what you have done and apologised. Instead you have been trying to excuse yourself. OF course, given you you homicidal desires, it is hardly a surprise you do not respect women.

  268. What a Maroon, el papa ateo says

    The US is clearly a more violent country, which is an argument for it having even tighter gun control than the UK.

    I’m not sure I agree with this. From the data in the link I provided, measured by assault England/Wales is the third most violent country, and Scotland is the most violent.

    And yet as you point out, the murder rates in the UK are much lower.

    I’m not sure how you can quantify how violent a country is overall, but in terms of most violent crimes, the US is comparable to the other OECD countries.

    It’s only in murders that we’re the outliers (well, and incarceration rates, but that’s another thread).

  269. Matt Penfold says

    I’m not sure I agree with this. From the data in the link I provided, measured by assault England/Wales is the third most violent country, and Scotland is the most violent.

    And yet as you point out, the murder rates in the UK are much lower.

    I’m not sure how you can quantify how violent a country is overall, but in terms of most violent crimes, the US is comparable to the other OECD countries.

    It’s only in murders that we’re the outliers (well, and incarceration rates, but that’s another thread).

    Well I would count murder as rating considerably higher on any scale of measuring violence.

  270. says

    Christopher #213

    The constitutional ban on standing armies was proposed by New Hampshire, Virginia and New York but was not accepted.

    Article 1, Section 8 disagrees with you:

    [Congress shall have to power]To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;.

    Do you actually read anything?

  271. robpowell says

    @Christopher: Having read your last set of posts, you seem to strike me as someone who hasn’t fully considered your position outside of several narrow hypotheticals that you have no practical experience with. You completely reversed your position on pepper spray from 239 to 256, when Dianne called you out on it. You have completely neglected the aspects of home defense common to such situations, and seem to have some sort of security issues. Lets just run this down:

    You dismiss using a shotgun due to the fact that it doesn’t have a fast enough follow-up at FBI-Load strength. It sounds like you’ve never used a shotgun before. You’re also worried about body armor. My advice is that if someone breaks into your home with body armor, you’ve probably got bigger things to worry about. Please cite a case of an armed intruder wearing body armor. You also cite length, but shotgun minimums are only 2″ (~5 cm) more than rifles. You’re still in “imma ninja” mode with your thought process, assuming you’re going to have to pie off corners and sweep your house for tangos. A more realistic approach is that if you’re that concerned about an intruder is to shout and barricade yourself, then point your firearm at the door, letting the unknown person know that you will shoot if he attempts to enter your room. More than likely all you’ll hear is the sound of a burglar bugging out. I’d like to remind you that property theft is NOT a valid reason to injure or incapacitate someone, as you have previously stated

    Your pepper spray comment is completely off the mark. Yes, an indoor spray will result in a bit of backscatter, but your running sinuses are nothing compared to the fact that your potential attacker is now blind and probably ready to leave post haste. It also allows you time to get the fuck away and call the police, although with a proper security system and a dog, this should already be happening.

    Everything you cite seems to fall into “I heard/read this so it must be true.” I think you need to take some better training and self defense courses. You’ve openly stated that you have no live experience with these situations, so I think you should probably consult with some instructors familiar with legal rules and regulations before you go haring off into hypothetical home tactical situations.

    And Pistorious deserves prison time no matter what happened (still).

  272. Christopher says

    Using 2009 data:
    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0006.pdf
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html

    White:
    pop = 244,298,000
    # murder victims = 6,568
    victims/100k = 0.028
    # murderers = 5,286
    murderers/100k = 0.022

    Black:
    pop = 39,641,000
    # murder victims = 5,561
    victims/100k = 0.14
    # murderers = 5,890
    murderers/100k = 0.15

    Not white, not black
    pop = 23,068,000
    # murder victims (not white, not black or unknown) = 512
    victims/100k = 0.000022
    # murderers (known not white, not black) = 245
    murderers/100k = 0.00001

    If you aren’t white or black in America you have little to fear from being murdered and have just as little of a chance of being a murderer. Now go hit the wiki and compare the #/100k stats against aggregated stats from around the world.
    # murderers (unknown race) = 4,339

  273. Christopher says

    [Congress shall have to power]To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;.

    Which is why defense spending authorization bills come up every two years.

  274. robpowell says

    @Matt Penfold 292: While I can appreciate a good evisceration of privilege as much as the next person, I would like to mention that this comes off as a “You are privileged about x, therefore you are wrong on y” statement. I’m fairly certain you don’t intend this and are strictly confronting the language and attitudes behind a few of his statements, content not withstanding, but I simply wanted to clarify. A person can be incredibly bigoted on one subject, and correct still in another. Unlike Christopher, whom I’m sorry to say seems to be coming out the poorer on both ends of this exchange.

  275. Matt Penfold says

    Christopher,

    Please address your sexist attitude, and explain why 1) you used sexist language in the first place and 2) you then tried to pretend you hadn’t and then 3) showed a profound ignorance when continuing to explain your sexism.

  276. Matt Penfold says

    @Matt Penfold 292: While I can appreciate a good evisceration of privilege as much as the next person, I would like to mention that this comes off as a “You are privileged about x, therefore you are wrong on y” statement. I’m fairly certain you don’t intend this and are strictly confronting the language and attitudes behind a few of his statements, content not withstanding, but I simply wanted to clarify. A person can be incredibly bigoted on one subject, and correct still in another. Unlike Christopher, whom I’m sorry to say seems to be coming out the poorer on both ends of this exchange.

    I suspect there is a correlation between gun-fetishism and sexism, and it probably goes back to a core underlying failure of empathy for others. With Christopher owning a gun is all about making him feel important, and his use of sexist language does the same thing.

  277. Christopher says

    You completely reversed your position on pepper spray from 239 to 256, when Dianne called you out on it.

    I still think pepper spray should not be used indoors.

    You forgot about receiver size for shotguns. Unless you’re going old school with a double barrel, a shotgun will normally be quite a bit longer than a rifle, though there are bullpup versions of each that are more or less of equal length, but they are rare and expensive.

    And I have shot a shotgun and I can make follow up shots much quicker with my AR.

    Here are the top hits for “home invasion body armor”:
    http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Glendale-police-investigate-deadly-home-invasion-147513355.html
    http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/10530328/
    http://www.kirotv.com/videos/news/video-man-in-body-armor-arrested-in-home-invasion/vCgRM/
    http://www.rrdailyherald.com/news/intruder-killed-despite-wearing-body-armor/article_83c410b8-2cad-11e1-95f8-0019bb2963f4.html

    And Pistorious deserves prison time no matter what happened (still).

    Yep, all evidence released thus far paints him as an abusive murderer.

  278. What a Maroon, el papa ateo says

    Well I would count murder as rating considerably higher on any scale of measuring violence.

    OK, I’m not going to quibble about which country is more violent. The point I’m trying to make is that by most measures the US is not exceptionally violent. That’s why I underscore assault (which, according to the UN definition, “requires that the offence resulted in serious bodily injury”). Assault is about 3 times more prevalent in England/Wales than in the US, and about 5.6 times more prevalent in Scotland. Clearly, these are violent societies.

    Yet the murder rate in the US is about 5 times higher. Why? If gun ownership was as widespread in the UK as it is in the US, would that still be the case?

    Put another way, what stands out about the US is not so much that it’s exceptionally violent in general, but that it’s exceptionally homicidal in particular. And exceptionally armed.

  279. robpowell says

    @Matt Penfold 303: I think I see what you’re driving at here. My understanding of your line of questioning was incomplete.

    @Christopher 304: Well, I don’t think this is going to get anywhere. You did cite several examples of home intruders wearing body armor, which I will admit to not being aware of. This doesn’t absolve your apparent lack of training in defense.

    On shotguns: I have no idea where the hell you’re coming from here? You seem to be ignoring the fact that the minimum overall length requirement for shotguns and rifles is the same, as well as the fact that if you are being attacked, you should be in a DEFENSIVE position in your room, not sweeping hallways like goddamn Jason Bourne. If you REALLY want to argue the penetration issue, seeing as you don’t seem to care if you blow through walls, then load up 3″ magnum slugs into the shotgun.

    The end result is that you’re operating in a non-tenable situation. If you have all the precautions I’ve outlined, such as a security system, dog, and non-lethal response for persistent idiots, then you can probably wait it out. If 4 people in body armor carrying guns want you dead, there’s a good chance that you won’t survive the encounter.

    And I don’t care if the Pistorious killing was an accident. Someone died and it was his fault. This should involve prison time no matter what, and fuck his athletic status.

  280. What a Maroon, el papa ateo says

    What a Maroon, the site to which I linked @134 lets you do country comparisons.

    That site only compares homicide; I was interested in looking at other crimes as well.

  281. allegro says

    Assault is about 3 times more prevalent in England/Wales than in the US, and about 5.6 times more prevalent in Scotland. Clearly, these are violent societies.

    Yet the murder rate in the US is about 5 times higher. Why? If gun ownership was as widespread in the UK as it is in the US, would that still be the case?

    One could extrapolate from this information that in the UK guys are just beating each other up rather than shooting each other. If they had the same access to guns with as little control over them as the US, I bet those numbers would equal out. Many of the gun deaths and injuries in the US result from disagreements that might otherwise come to blows but not murders.

  282. Christopher says

    If 4 people in body armor carrying guns want you dead, there’s a good chance that you won’t survive the encounter.

    Yet your chances would be better if you were equipped with a semi-auto rifle with a large capacity magazine.

  283. robpowell says

    @Christopher 309: If people want you dead, you’ve got bigger problems than your small arms. You and your family should be in witness protection, investing in bodyguards, or both.
    This also comes down to the fact that these incidents are, as stated before, EXCEEDINGLY RARE. Shy of being a criminal or enemy of a foreign state, these sorts of incidents are like preparing for the zombie apocalypse: Interesting thought exercises with little value to reality. In short, your scenarios reek of hollywood, not what actually happens.

  284. Christopher says

    Crap, I only included males for the black murder victim stats.

    Updated:

    Using 2009 data:
    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0006.pdf
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html

    White:
    pop = 244,298,000
    # murder victims = 6,568
    victims/100k = 0.028
    # murderers = 5,286
    murderers/100k = 0.022

    Black:
    pop = 39,641,000
    # murder victims = 6,556
    victims/100k = 0.165
    # murderers = 5,890
    murderers/100k = 0.15

    Not white, not black
    pop = 23,068,000
    # murder victims (not white, not black or unknown) = 512
    victims/100k = 0.000022
    # murderers (known not white, not black) = 245
    murderers/100k = 0.00001

  285. John Morales says

    Christopher, such a lot of murders in your country!

    You clearly need MOAR guns with which to defend yourselves from murderers; in fact, black people clearly need MOAR MOAR guns than white people.

    (Do I need a snark tag?)

    (I note in passing you’ve ignored the 4,339 murderers of “unknown” race in your above link, representing 27.5% of the total)

  286. Christopher says

    Crap and I also did the rate as #/1k not #/100k. I really should have shoved this into a spreadsheet.

    I should also probably add nationwide totals from the same source
    White:
    pop = 244,298,000
    # murder victims = 6,568
    victims/100k = 2.69
    # murderers = 5,286
    murderers/100k = 2.16

    Black:
    pop = 39,641,000
    # murder victims = 6,556
    victims/100k = 16.5
    # murderers = 5,890
    murderers/100k = 15

    Not white, not black
    pop = 23,068,000
    # murder victims (not white, not black or unknown) = 512
    victims/100k = 2.2
    # murderers (known not white, not black) = 245
    murderers/100k = 1.06

    Nationwide, all races
    pop = 307,007,000
    # murder victims = 13,636
    victims/100k = 4.4
    # murderers = 15,760
    murderers/100k = 5.1

    So it looks like whites and non-white non-blacks are about equal on victim status, but non-white-non-blacks are half as likely to be a murderer as whites. I thought the non-white-non-black rate was less, but I’m pretty sure that these are all finally calculated correctly.

    This map is also pretty interesting, showing the murder rate per 100k by state.
    http://rajsivaraman.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/screen-shot-2012-12-21-at-12-37-50-pm.png?w=584&h=311
    They don’t fuck around on the bayou do they

  287. John Morales says

    Christopher, tell me more about how guns protect people, and how the less regulated they are, the safer the society.

  288. What a Maroon, el papa ateo says

    What a Maroon:

    That site only compares homicide.

    Wrong.

    OK, you’re right, I didn’t poke around enough. But it doesn’t provide the data for the point I was trying to make.

    One could extrapolate from this information that in the UK guys are just beating each other up rather than shooting each other. If they had the same access to guns with as little control over them as the US, I bet those numbers would equal out. Many of the gun deaths and injuries in the US result from disagreements that might otherwise come to blows but not murders.

    This is what I was driving at. But allegro says it much more succinctly.

  289. Menyambal --- son of a son of a bachelor says

    Back for a read through, and even more convinced that Christopher is what I call a “believer”. He’s not working off facts in the first place, he’s just confusing he beliefs with facts, he believes he’s making good arguments, and he believes anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. He believes that this discussion is accomplishing something.

    He’s also very poor at reading, comprehension and logic. He’s paranoid, misunderstands other people, and keeps lumping everyone into little, simple groups. In other words, he’s a religious fundamentalist about guns.

    I’m going to ask everyone to please stop using the term “gun nuts” (unless you are referring to little balls on the guns), and please to use the term “gun worshippers”. (Even though my spell check wants to spell it “worshipers”)

    Thank you.

  290. freetotebag says

    Every time I hear a story about a gun accident (my GF is a ER doc so I hear some dosies), it makes me think about something I read in News of the Weird a few months ago.

    There was a patriotic gentleman, a Real American, doing his weeking gun cleaning routine. While cleaning one of the guns, it discharged and hit him in the arm. He decided it was just a flesh wound so he kept cleaning his guns. A second gun accientally went off and he was hit again. This time it was more serious so he called an ambulence. By the time it got there, he had accidentally shot himself a third time.

    And my fsvorite defender of unbridled gun rights is Linnea C. Holdren. Ms. Holdren’s son was suspended twice for bringing a loaded handgun to school (just to show his friends; he wasn’t shooting up the place). When the police went to her house to offer to give her a free gun-lock, she told them: “I can’t lock up his guns. They belong to him, and he has a right to use them whenever he wants to use them.” The story kept progressing for several months until the point where Ms. Holdren was put under psychiatric observation. If you search for the story, be sure to seach for “Linnea C. Holdren Gun”. If you don’t include the word “gun” you will get some real estate lady.

    Btw, Ms. Holdren was a special education teacher and her son was eleven years old.

  291. Christopher says

    Data is not racist. Interpretations of said data can be. Here is my interpretation, let me know if it is.

    I think Black America is the canary in the coal mine that shows our society’s sickness.

    Fundamental causes of the discrapancy between black murder rates and others:

    1. Poverty. There is a well known connection between poverty and violence worldwide. It is well known that blacks experience poverty at a higher rate than other groups or America as a whole. This isn’t too surprising: despite the horatio alger bullshit we try to sell ourselves, in America, if your parents were dirt poor, it is very for you to not wind up just as poor. Not that many generations ago, most of black america’s ancestors were promised 40ac and a mule but got the tattered clothes on their backs and a kick in the ass. Combine that horrible starting position with the severe racism from banks and government institutions, the grinding poverty that plagues the black community is totally understandable.

    2. High density living. There is a well known correlation between higher population densities and crime/violence. Black Americans are concentrated in higher population centers compared to other groups or Americans at large.

    3. The drug war / police state. When you have the CIA funneling crack to Black American communities, then the local police use that to throw the young men in jail at mind boggling rates. Hell, the LAPD even goes so far as to actively break truces between dueling gangs so as to encourage more violence in Black communities.

    All of these problems can be addressed in a non-racist, colorblind way:

    1. Nationalize the banking industry and kill the fed. Replace it with a public bank modeled on the Bank of North Dakota or the old state run Australian bank. A national bank can target loans towards those projects that build and strengthen communities, from public works projects to private enterprises. It is also very constitutional and can be implemented with a simple majority of the house and senate plus a president that won’t veto it. Much easier than a constitutional amendment. Also use this bank to increase the monetary supply via a national dividend to all citizens. Make the dividend high enough that a person could live comfortably if frugally. That would supply the floor for our society so that even if you were a drunk, derelict, or professional philosopher, you wouldn’t have to commit crimes just to live.
    Next we need to increase upward mobility so that your parents fate does not determine yours. I would suggest free education from birth to death. No resource is more valuable than the human mind and everyone should be supported in expanding their skills at any point in their life.
    Lastly, since one health crisis can and does throw even fairly well off folks into poverty, we need a national health care infrastructure that is freely available to all.

    2. Even though high population densities are correlated with higher violence, there are plenty of counter examples worldwide and within the US. We should study what these good places have in common and where they differ from the bad places. My guess is that it will boil down to people don’t like to live in a shithole. If your urban centers are someplace that anyone could walk into and say, “I wouldn’t mind living here” chances are that the level of violence and other associated problems aren’t there. Therefore it should be a national priority to make all communities pleasant to live in.

    3. Stop the drug war and disband our police state. The illegality of drugs encourages the spread of drug abuse because it is so damn profitable. We shouldn’t have a society where it is possible for a secret spy agency to sling crack on our streets to fund a covert war we didn’t approve. We need court reform to wean ourselves off the prison industrial complex and we need to stop treating drug abuse as a crime and start treating it as a symptom of mental ill-health. Most people become addicted to drugs in an effort to kill demons in their head, if we had a robust, confidential, free mental health system our drug abuse rates would fall to a much more manageable level.

    Cost: all this requires money, but that money is easy to find. Honestly, I bet a properly run national bank would cover most of it, but if that comes short we can easily find the money by hiring forensic accountants to crack down on big time tax cheats. And if that isn’t enough, we can stop paying massive amounts of money to bomb people half a world away, turning their cities into shitholes that they then have to suffer in.

    None of these solutions target the black community specifically, they will help all communities suffering under similar conditions. Thus even the solutions aren’t racist. But the black community will be a good metric to watch to make sure that the reforms are effective.

    That is how you solve the violence problem in America. Banning guns to reduce the American murder rate is stupid because, unless we make fundamental changes to our society, the CIA will just start slinging guns in addition to crack and laugh all the way to the bank and people of color continue to murder each other.

  292. says

    Christopher:
    Your focus on the African American community (not ‘black’) in your efforts to explain the problems in this country is both telling and sickening. You claim your solution does not focus on the African-American community, but you begin by listing various problems in America, and curiosly, the African-American community gets singled out, while no others are.

    So being a paranoid gun nut with delusions of personal awesomeness, you thought you would add a bit of racism to the mix?
    Lovely.
    Just what I wanted to wake up to on a Saturday morning.

    I also love how wafer thin your arguments are. For those of us opposed to gun violence, a decrease in gun related casualties is a good thing. Firearm prohibition or at least stronger, nation wide regulations can help get us there.

    And would you people stop focusing ONLY on gun violence as seen in the movies? You gun nuts always ignore the well documented, and numerous cases of firearms harming their owner during operation or the cases where a home firearm is used-accidentally-against a family member or the cases where concealed guns are brought to bear in an argument. There is also a need to combat the very mentality behind gun ownership. The close association between toxic masculinity and firearm possession needs to be more fully understood. The fetishising of guns needs to be eliminated.
    There is so much more to gun violence than your narrow, paranoid ravings.

  293. lopsided says

    I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often. Every single time some character on TV sticks a gun in his pants, I worry he’ll shoot his dick off. I’m kind of obsessed. I don’t understand how people sleep with guns under their pillows or near their beds either. I’d wake up in the middle of the night half-asleep and blow my partner’s or my own head off.

  294. Ichthyic says

    Here is my interpretation, let me know if it is.

    I think Black America is the canary in the coal mine that shows our society’s sickness.

    O.o

    what a fucking tosser.

  295. thumper1990 says

    @Christopher

    My definition comes before yours and I’m not brittish.

    Nor can you spell. The word knickers most likely does come from a contraction of the word knickerbockers which were indeed short trousers of dutch origin, but the etymological root of a word does not detract from the modern definition, nor does your supposed adherence to an archaic definition detract from your sexist remarks. Knickers are ladies underwear. You know that, so stop being disingenuous and just own up to the fact that you were sexist, and then replied to citicism of your sexism with more sexism. A simple apology and admission of thoughtlessness would have got you off the hook in the first place, whereas your defensiveness has simply ensured that you are more firmly ensnared by said dastardly crotchet.

    Now let’s see if anyone can spot the irony.

  296. thumper1990 says

    @Ichthyic

    My thoughts exactly. It’s made kind of worse by the fact there are some quite good ideas mixed in amongst the racist tropes and cop-bashing.

  297. thumper1990 says

    @Christopher #271

    Guns are the most effective way for the physically weak to defend themselves against the strong. This is doubly important in a violent culture wouldn’t you agree

    Sorry mate, but I agree with Allegro; martial arts are a far better and non-lethal option. Speed and knowing where to hit is far, far more important in a fight than strength is. Some big goon repeatedly slugging you in the head is undoubtedly painful, but not half as painful as someone half your size putting a swift palm-strike into your nose. Indeed, taking down someone double your size is really easy if you know what you are doing.

  298. freetotebag says

    @thumper1990

    I support many gun-control measures (and I can’t deny that many times a gun is the lazy man’s alternative to having skills) but I would like to play devil’s advocate here:

    “taking down someone double your size is really easy if you know what you are doing”

    That’s is true, unless you are elderly, infirm, physically handicaped or twenty feet away from a bad guy with a gun (among many other scenarios).

    In many (probably most) instances, being trained in self-defense is a better option than a gun. However, it’s just not a sufficent argument in any gun debate as many are physically unable to have that option.

  299. thumper1990 says

    @freetotebag

    Good point, well made. I assumed a defendant in good physical health, which of course is not always the case. Thanks for raising that. I guess someone with a physical disability or otherwise physically infirm would have a good reason to buy a gun, but I’m afraid I don’t agree with your scenario about a “bad guy” being 20 feet away with a gun. You’re doing what Christopher is doing; assuming criminals commonly have guns, and asuming you will somehow be able to draw your weapon and shoot your attacker before they shoot you when they already have their weapon pointed at you. The former seems unrealistic and the latter even more so. However I can certainly see an argument for the elderly and physically disabled to own a firearm, and I want to make clear that I never advocated banning firearms for self defence. I merely stated that martial arts are a better option. I will now revise that to “Martial arts are a better, non-lethal option providing you are physically healthy”, in light of your points.

    You don’t even need to be that fit. After all, my Tae Kwon Do instructor was a balding overweight man in his late fifties, and he could side-kick me clear across the room :)

  300. freetotebag says

    @thumper1990

    “and asuming you will somehow be able to draw your weapon and shoot your attacker before they shoot you when they already have their weapon pointed at you”

    Lol, I’ll concede that one. I guess that really isn’t too much different than “If we just give the assistant principal a side-arm, he’ll take down the guy with an AR-15. And if the maniac is wearing body-armor, we’ll just tell Mr. Harris (the VP) to shoot him bewteen the eyes!”

    (whenever I hear LaPierre and Co. describe a situation like that, I always wonder if they are imagining a Matrix-like scenario or something more in the vein of High Noon)

    And I’d like to reiterate that I am a big supporter of learning some degree of weaponless self-defense. In college, my GF (who can fit herself in the dryer and close the door) took the women’s self-defense class. I was pretty amazed at how much she learned in a short time (I think it was one or two days). Thinking about it always reminds me of that story of Jackie Kennedy busting out the Judo on that paparzzi guy. (just to be clear, my point was that even a small/unintimidating person can be a force with which to be reckoned)

    A lot of people just aren’t aware that you don’t need to spend years of training to be able to defend yourself in many situations.

    However, I am still reluctant to consider it a good argument to use in a gun-debate as it isn’t an alternative that is possible for everyone.

  301. aluchko says

    There’s apparently a pink pistol movement for homosexuals to protect themselves by carrying guns and I suspect this is where the pink gun came from.

    The cynic in me says that wingnuts will just joke about how gays shouldn’t carry guns.