But there are plenty of compromises possible regarding background checks, licensing, and registration that would help reduce the supply available to criminals while not really hampering the law-abiding.
Now if we could only get Congress to pass bills like these instead of goofy AWB shit.
But there are plenty of compromises possible regarding background checks, licensing, and registration that would help reduce the supply available to criminals while not really hampering the law-abiding.
Now if we could only get Congress to pass bills like these instead of goofy AWB shit.
Have the main gunshow loop holes been closed yet? Like in Virginia where you could go to a show and purchase a handgun without any background check etc. ?
Thanatos: there is really no way to know for sure. I acknowledge that you'd never admit that, but I could be wrong and civilian gun ownership would be useless against a committed American tyrant and most of the military. History (oh hey, our own) has shown that it has worked before, but mass destruction could change things.
Yes, if only we had a modern example of an armed society ruled over by a heartless tyrant, so we could see how effective an armed civilian populace is against a modern military.
And yes, the argument is dumb and I don't go around thinking it. It's kind of like libertarians that want to privatize roads. Who cares?
But ElJeffe flamebaited me with the new thread (after declaring that I'd be happy to go peacefully) and I took the bait. So here we are. Everyone's the same as 3 months ago in the Ron Paul threads, ElJeffe's a crybaby because I'm too clever, and I need to go home and take a break from D&D.
I don't think anyone here has ever even thought the word "clever" in relation to you.
Thanatos on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
Thanatos: there is really no way to know for sure. I acknowledge that you'd never admit that, but I could be wrong and civilian gun ownership would be useless against a committed American tyrant and most of the military. History (oh hey, our own) has shown that it has worked before, but mass destruction could change things.
Yes, if only we had a modern example of an armed society ruled over by a heartless tyrant, so we could see how effective an armed civilian populace is against a modern military.
And yes, the argument is dumb and I don't go around thinking it. It's kind of like libertarians that want to privatize roads. Who cares?
But ElJeffe flamebaited me with the new thread (after declaring that I'd be happy to go peacefully) and I took the bait. So here we are. Everyone's the same as 3 months ago in the Ron Paul threads, ElJeffe's a crybaby because I'm too clever, and I need to go home and take a break from D&D.
I don't think anyone here has ever even thought the word "clever" in relation to you.
Au contraire.
I thought it was very clever of him to get banned so quickly.
But there are plenty of compromises possible regarding background checks, licensing, and registration that would help reduce the supply available to criminals while not really hampering the law-abiding.
Now if we could only get Congress to pass bills like these instead of goofy AWB shit.
Have the main gunshow loop holes been closed yet? Like in Virginia where you could go to a show and purchase a handgun without any background check etc. ?
I don't really support registration, because there are too many realistic ways it could be used against people.
I do support licensing, as long as it's a general license to own and operate firearms (a'la a driver's license) and not a license to own and operate a specific firearm. And as long as the requirements aren't too onerous.
I do support federal bans on full-autos (which we currently have) and high-capacity magazines (which we don't).
I do think the gun show loophole should be closed. All firearms transfers (except those involving immediate family members and spouses) need to go through a licensed dealer at a physical storefront and have a background check done. Dealer licenses need to work like alcohol licenses - they only apply to a single address. You move your store, you need to get a new license.
The national instant background check system (NICS) needs some serious reform. Start by making it more reliable - I only have anecdotal evidence on this, but I have heard from some dealers that it is often down. Make an effort to include more info from state and local governments, not just federal. (NICS database records on state-issued restraining orders and convictions are apparently inconsistent.)
Any other law I'd have to address on a case-by-case basis.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Okay, salvaging this thread from the prior douchebaggery...
If normal sized magazines are really that dangerous (and I'm not convinced they are), make them title 2/NFA items instead of banning them outright. I agree with everything else you said, though forcing all private transactions through a dealer would be very hard to enforce.
And remove suppressors from the NFA list while you're at it.
Okay, salvaging this thread from the prior douchebaggery...
If normal sized magazines are really that dangerous (and I'm not convinced they are), make them title 2/NFA items instead of banning them outright. I agree with everything else you said, though forcing all private transactions through a dealer would be very hard to enforce.
And remove suppressors from the NFA list while you're at it.
Okay, fair enough.
My reasoning for limiting magazine capacity sizes is this: in the rare occasions that there have been Columbine-style massacres, the attacker has often been subdued by their would-be victims or police when they stopped to reload. (Colin Ferguson is an example that comes immediately to mind and I'm sure I could think of some others.) Reducing the number of rounds available to a mass murdering psycho would reduce the death toll in such situations. And I don't think that limiting magazine capacity would affect hobbyists, hunters, or people who need a weapon for self-defense much... because in a self-defense situation, if it takes you more than 10-15 rounds to drop your adversary, you're either going to get your own ass shot, or you're going to hit an innocent bystander.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Wasn't that the same thing politicians said when they banned high-cap mags? Seems a bit difficult to quantify.
Well, it is difficult to quantify. Ultimately, it won't save that many lives, because those kinds of massacres happen so infrequently that crafting a law around them is like passing a law banning spontaneous combustion. And in those cases people would get shot anyway just 10-15 people instead of 30-40. We've saved 20 lives every three or four years! Whoo!
However, if somebody tacked it on to another bill as an amendment to please the anti-gun lobby, I wouldn't cry any tears over it, because I haven't heard of a legitimate argument for keeping high-capacity magazines legal.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
True enough. But it really comes down to it being more bullshit feel-good vote-getting legislation than something that actually makes a difference. Better, more thorough background checks, better reporting of psychological problems, and a firearms educational course? Those things could've made a difference in certain cases. I'd be all for those.
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Than, you don't make any sense on this Iraq issue. You dismiss the ability of insurgencies through history to fight off superpowers with small arms by saying those powers weren't truly tyrannical, your example being Saddam Hussein, your evidence that he's "truly tyrannical" being that he oppressed people . . . what you're basically saying seems to be "A real tyrant would just take your guns away so what's the point of having a law against such tyranny" your alternate thrust seeming to be "Here is this one example where a populace failed to arm itself ergo it is impossible"
which is at LEAST as facile as the very true "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns"
Than, you don't make any sense on this Iraq issue. You dismiss the ability of insurgencies through history to fight off superpowers with small arms by saying those powers weren't truly tyrannical, your example being Saddam Hussein, your evidence that he's "truly tyrannical" being that he oppressed people . . . what you're basically saying seems to be "A real tyrant would just take your guns away so what's the point of having a law against such tyranny" your alternate thrust seeming to be "Here is this one example where a populace failed to arm itself ergo it is impossible"
which is at LEAST as facile as the very true "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns"
Wait, who's saying the Iraqi's failed to arm themselves? They were armed to the teeth. It didn't matter, though, because a civilian uprising against a military that is fully supportive of the despot is pretty much shit out of luck. The 2nd amendment is not protecting us from a tyrant nor will it prevent one from coming to power.
That is not an argument for stripping it from the constitution or even for considering it as a group right granted to state militia. It is an argument against the moronic claims of some gun nuts. Chiefly the ones who support the erosion of civil liberties and deride the ACLU, ironically.
Wasn't that the same thing politicians said when they banned high-cap mags? Seems a bit difficult to quantify.
Well, it is difficult to quantify. Ultimately, it won't save that many lives, because those kinds of massacres happen so infrequently that crafting a law around them is like passing a law banning spontaneous combustion. And in those cases people would get shot anyway just 10-15 people instead of 30-40. We've saved 20 lives every three or four years! Whoo!
However, if somebody tacked it on to another bill as an amendment to please the anti-gun lobby, I wouldn't cry any tears over it, because I haven't heard of a legitimate argument for keeping high-capacity magazines legal.
Well, there are but the situations in which a person would have a legitimate need for them for self defense are about as rare as mass shootings. Though to me at least at that point I still use individual rights as the tiebreaker.
Discouraging ownership is the only way to reduce the supply available to criminals. Most guns used by criminals in this country were, at one point, legally purchased, and have since been stolen. Since there's not a whole lot the government can do to prevent gun thefts, the obvious thing to do is to reduce the number of firearms legally purchased.
No, you can reduce the supply somewhat without actually discouraging ownership. For instance, registration requirements combined with reporting requirements for theft (with actual criminal penalties for non-compliance) would keep a lot of guns from "falling of trucks" or even from "getting stolen," if you know what I mean. And I don't think that asking private citizens to actually keep track of their deadly weapons is too onerous a request.
Also, forcing citizens to secure their weapons wouldn't be a horrible idea. There's really no reason a household needs to have more than one or two weapons outside of a wall-or-floor-mounted safe. Though here you get into greater expense, and the level of restriction is a little more extreme.
Basically you can make guns marginally harder to steal/get ahold of without discouraging people from owning them for self-defense. You just encourage more responsible ownership.
You can also pass other laws discouraging the use of guns in the commission of a crime. From what I understand, though, those laws already exist (in the form of extended sentences) in most states and are just never use...instead offenders are allowed to plead away that time. Or something.
That is not an argument for stripping it from the constitution or even for considering it as a group right granted to state militia. It is an argument against the moronic claims of some gun nuts. Chiefly the ones who support the erosion of civil liberties and deride the ACLU, ironically.
True. And in many cases, I think "gun nuts" are their own worst enemy...they portray themselves as the exact people you don't want to have guns, outside of actual criminals. However, not all supporters of gun rights fall into your "gun nut" category. I participate on a firearms forum, and we actually have a handful of members that truly support other rights besides the ol' wang-enhancers. But yes, they seem to be a minority.
I think largely because the average "progressive" probably grew up in an area where firearms ownership/use is uncommon, so it's easier to see them as a tool of evil. Also, I think the other problem is that the Republicans/Democrats have turned this into a wedge issue...Democrats support gun control, Republicans don't, and if the people you're voting for talk about gun control enough and you're on the fence you're likely to start agreeing.
But it's also possible I'm talking entirely out of my ass, here.
That is not an argument for stripping it from the constitution or even for considering it as a group right granted to state militia. It is an argument against the moronic claims of some gun nuts. Chiefly the ones who support the erosion of civil liberties and deride the ACLU, ironically.
True. And in many cases, I think "gun nuts" are their own worst enemy...they portray themselves as the exact people you don't want to have guns, outside of actual criminals. However, not all supporters of gun rights fall into your "gun nut" category. I participate on a firearms forum, and we actually have a handful of members that truly support other rights besides the ol' wang-enhancers. But yes, they seem to be a minority.
I think largely because the average "progressive" probably grew up in an area where firearms ownership/use is uncommon, so it's easier to see them as a tool of evil. Also, I think the other problem is that the Republicans/Democrats have turned this into a wedge issue...Democrats support gun control, Republicans don't, and if the people you're voting for talk about gun control enough and you're on the fence you're likely to start agreeing.
But it's also possible I'm talking entirely out of my ass, here.
It's becoming less a party issue with the midterms, and that's likely to continue. The problem is mostly an urban-suburban/rural divide. There's nothing around me that you can shoot aside from squirrels, snakes, and people. And that last one tends to be frowned upon. Compare that to out in rural locales where you're more likely to see a deer than a starbucks, and the attitudes are likely different. In the city it's MAD, in the country it's a sport/excuse to go out drinking for a weekend.
It's becoming less a party issue with the midterms, and that's likely to continue. The problem is mostly an urban-suburban/rural divide. There's nothing around me that you can shoot aside from squirrels, snakes, and people. And that last one tends to be frowned upon. Compare that to out in rural locales where you're more likely to see a deer than a starbucks, and the attitudes are likely different. In the city it's MAD, in the country it's a sport/excuse to go out drinking for a weekend.
Well, and this is where you get into things like ElJeffe's talking about banning more "powerful" handguns. You have little need for large-caliber handguns in the city, but honestly out where we are if you're up hiking they're the most effective and sensible weapon to carry in case you run into large animals that want to eat you.
Of course, a rifle/shotgun would probably be more effective, but is more unwieldy. But there are plenty of absurdly large handguns (generally revolvers) that are more than appropriate for defense from wildlife. But they'd also be seen as "OMG HUGE MUST BAN" in a city.
I mean, I live out where seeing elk in your backyard isn't unheard of, and where bears wander into town from time to time. Out hiking? Who knows what the fuck you'll run into. My mom has had grizzlies chillin' in her back yard before.
Well you people should stop having picnics in your yards then. Or at least advance beyond the basket mode of food conveyance.
I wonder what the largest caliber is that would be stopped by (2) 5/8" thick sheets of gypsum board. +/- some batt insulation. Does anything that wouldn't fully penetrate a party wall from a relatively close distance have any stopping power?
Well you people should stop having picnics in your yards then. Or at least advance beyond the basket mode of food conveyance.
Well, my point is that some of us live and play where the wild things are. And actually, out there people are pretty religious about such thing (keeping trash locked up, that kind of thing)...but when you're actually in the forest there's only so much you can do.
I wonder what the largest caliber is that would be stopped by (2) 5/8" thick sheets of gypsum board. +/- some batt insulation. Does anything that wouldn't fully penetrate a party wall from a relatively close distance have any stopping power?
Not really. There's a Box of Truth site that's pretty good for seeing non-scientific tests of such thing. If I remember correctly, your best bet for a round that might actually stop a person but is least dangerous to people on the other side of walls I think it was a shotgun with buckshot.
However, in general your best bet is knowing what is behind every wall in the direction you're shooting, avoid (if possible) shooting through walls that are likely to have people behind them, and hit your target. You don't really want to spray 15 rounds hoping a few hit. You want to fire a controlled pair or two that actually go into the person you're aiming at.
I'll be back later. I'm off to watch Indiana Jones go kick some communist ass!
I don't really follow this issue closely, so I'll just spout some generalities:
There are two main classes of gun, here, and they have totally different purposes. First, we have handguns, used expressly for self-defense and fun. There is obviously a problem with handguns being used in crimes. I don't object to laws regulating handguns in such a way that it doesn't impede the legitimate uses, while making them less dangerous when used illegally. Things like banning excessively powerful guns strikes me as reasonable, for example. What's the absolute strongest weapon you reasonably need to enjoy target practice and defend yourself? Ban anything more powerful. Things like armor-piercing rounds fall into this category, too, unless your house is frequently broken into by Robocop.
On the other side, we have rifles and shotguns, used for hunting and (I guess) target practice. Here it's a little trickier, because it seems the same thing that makes a weapon ideal for hunting - quick firing, good scope, long range, etc - makes it ideal for, say, shooting presidents from the book depository. This would require a massive cost-benefit analysis, and if it looks like we could, say, save 500 people a year by making it 5% more difficult to shoot a deer on the run, it strikes me as worth it. This is a very gray-scale debate, but you get the idea.
Anyway, those are the sort of regulations on the actual weapons that I support. I won't get into regulations on gun sales.
I tend to agree with your general sense of what is reasonable. The interesting thing about the second amendment though is it does not protect a right to hunt or a right to sport shoot. It pretty strongly implies that use in combat is the purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected.
Wasn't that the same thing politicians said when they banned high-cap mags? Seems a bit difficult to quantify.
Well, it is difficult to quantify. Ultimately, it won't save that many lives, because those kinds of massacres happen so infrequently that crafting a law around them is like passing a law banning spontaneous combustion. And in those cases people would get shot anyway just 10-15 people instead of 30-40. We've saved 20 lives every three or four years! Whoo!
However, if somebody tacked it on to another bill as an amendment to please the anti-gun lobby, I wouldn't cry any tears over it, because I haven't heard of a legitimate argument for keeping high-capacity magazines legal.
Well, there are but the situations in which a person would have a legitimate need for them for self defense are about as rare as mass shootings. Though to me at least at that point I still use individual rights as the tiebreaker.
Discouraging ownership is the only way to reduce the supply available to criminals. Most guns used by criminals in this country were, at one point, legally purchased, and have since been stolen. Since there's not a whole lot the government can do to prevent gun thefts, the obvious thing to do is to reduce the number of firearms legally purchased.
No, you can reduce the supply somewhat without actually discouraging ownership. For instance, registration requirements combined with reporting requirements for theft (with actual criminal penalties for non-compliance) would keep a lot of guns from "falling of trucks" or even from "getting stolen," if you know what I mean.
If by "getting stolen" you mean "illegally sold", I don't think that helps at all. The owner just illegally sells his gun and then reports it as stolen. The only people this might touch are people who repeatedly buy guns and then sell them illegally, and I'm sure those people will figure out a way around it.
Also, forcing citizens to secure their weapons wouldn't be a horrible idea. There's really no reason a household needs to have more than one or two weapons outside of a wall-or-floor-mounted safe. Though here you get into greater expense, and the level of restriction is a little more extreme.
I agree, but I would expand this to all firearms in the household, period. Self-defense shootings in the home are fleetingly rare, to the point that the utility lost from forcing people to lock up all their guns is negligible compared to the improvement in the firearm thefts.
Basically you can make guns marginally harder to steal/get ahold of without discouraging people from owning them for self-defense. You just encourage more responsible ownership.
Frankly, owning a gun for self-defense is itself irresponsible ownership. Statistically speaking, a gun owner is more likely to hurt himself or his family or friends with a gun than he is a burglar. The benefits just aren't worth the risks, even discounting the chance of it being stolen and used in a later crime.
You can also pass other laws discouraging the use of guns in the commission of a crime. From what I understand, though, those laws already exist (in the form of extended sentences) in most states and are just never use...instead offenders are allowed to plead away that time. Or something.
This won't help, either. No criminal is going to choose to use a knife in a crime, rather than a gun, which is vastly more effective, on the basis of the fact that he might spend a couple extra years in prison if he gets caught. If a firearm significantly increases your chance of success in a crime over the alternatives - and it does - it will get used regardless of whatever bonus time you add onto somebody's prison sentence.
I don't really follow this issue closely, so I'll just spout some generalities:
There are two main classes of gun, here, and they have totally different purposes. First, we have handguns, used expressly for self-defense and fun. There is obviously a problem with handguns being used in crimes. I don't object to laws regulating handguns in such a way that it doesn't impede the legitimate uses, while making them less dangerous when used illegally. Things like banning excessively powerful guns strikes me as reasonable, for example. What's the absolute strongest weapon you reasonably need to enjoy target practice and defend yourself? Ban anything more powerful. Things like armor-piercing rounds fall into this category, too, unless your house is frequently broken into by Robocop.
On the other side, we have rifles and shotguns, used for hunting and (I guess) target practice. Here it's a little trickier, because it seems the same thing that makes a weapon ideal for hunting - quick firing, good scope, long range, etc - makes it ideal for, say, shooting presidents from the book depository. This would require a massive cost-benefit analysis, and if it looks like we could, say, save 500 people a year by making it 5% more difficult to shoot a deer on the run, it strikes me as worth it. This is a very gray-scale debate, but you get the idea.
Anyway, those are the sort of regulations on the actual weapons that I support. I won't get into regulations on gun sales.
I tend to agree with your general sense of what is reasonable. The interesting thing about the second amendment though is it does not protect a right to hunt or a right to sport shoot. It pretty strongly implies that use in combat is the purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected.
SCOTUS has changed its view and recognizes an individual's right to keep and bear arms, rather than the collective right of a state militia. Which is for the best really. It seems the more likely intent, doesn't really change anything tangibly, and is more aligned with the public's view.
I don't really follow this issue closely, so I'll just spout some generalities:
There are two main classes of gun, here, and they have totally different purposes. First, we have handguns, used expressly for self-defense and fun. There is obviously a problem with handguns being used in crimes. I don't object to laws regulating handguns in such a way that it doesn't impede the legitimate uses, while making them less dangerous when used illegally. Things like banning excessively powerful guns strikes me as reasonable, for example. What's the absolute strongest weapon you reasonably need to enjoy target practice and defend yourself? Ban anything more powerful. Things like armor-piercing rounds fall into this category, too, unless your house is frequently broken into by Robocop.
On the other side, we have rifles and shotguns, used for hunting and (I guess) target practice. Here it's a little trickier, because it seems the same thing that makes a weapon ideal for hunting - quick firing, good scope, long range, etc - makes it ideal for, say, shooting presidents from the book depository. This would require a massive cost-benefit analysis, and if it looks like we could, say, save 500 people a year by making it 5% more difficult to shoot a deer on the run, it strikes me as worth it. This is a very gray-scale debate, but you get the idea.
Anyway, those are the sort of regulations on the actual weapons that I support. I won't get into regulations on gun sales.
I tend to agree with your general sense of what is reasonable. The interesting thing about the second amendment though is it does not protect a right to hunt or a right to sport shoot. It pretty strongly implies that use in combat is the purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected.
SCOTUS has changed its view and recognizes an individual's right to keep and bear arms, rather than the collective right of a state militia. Which is for the best really. It seems the more likely intent, doesn't really change anything tangibly, and is more aligned with the public's view.
This isn't true. The case hasn't been decided yet. At the moment, the state militia interpretation governs. When the DC handgun ban case comes down (probably next month), that might (probably will) change, but until then, the individual right interpretation is not law.
Frankly, owning a gun for self-defense is itself irresponsible ownership. Statistically speaking, a gun owner is more likely to hurt himself or his family or friends with a gun than he is a burglar. The benefits just aren't worth the risks, even discounting the chance of it being stolen and used in a later crime.
Yes, I'm aware of the SCOTUS interpretation. I was really just speaking more to the nature of the original text, as oppossed to what the law actually is.
Frankly, owning a gun for self-defense is itself irresponsible ownership. Statistically speaking, a gun owner is more likely to hurt himself or his family or friends with a gun than he is a burglar. The benefits just aren't worth the risks, even discounting the chance of it being stolen and used in a later crime.
Wouldn't training solve this problem?
I suppose that's conceivably possible, but I haven't seen any studies showing that training reduces the incidence of accidental shootings below the incidence of self-defense shootings. The numbers I've seen suggest that a massive improvement in safety would be necessary to bring those rates close together.
I don't really follow this issue closely, so I'll just spout some generalities:
There are two main classes of gun, here, and they have totally different purposes. First, we have handguns, used expressly for self-defense and fun. There is obviously a problem with handguns being used in crimes. I don't object to laws regulating handguns in such a way that it doesn't impede the legitimate uses, while making them less dangerous when used illegally. Things like banning excessively powerful guns strikes me as reasonable, for example. What's the absolute strongest weapon you reasonably need to enjoy target practice and defend yourself? Ban anything more powerful. Things like armor-piercing rounds fall into this category, too, unless your house is frequently broken into by Robocop.
On the other side, we have rifles and shotguns, used for hunting and (I guess) target practice. Here it's a little trickier, because it seems the same thing that makes a weapon ideal for hunting - quick firing, good scope, long range, etc - makes it ideal for, say, shooting presidents from the book depository. This would require a massive cost-benefit analysis, and if it looks like we could, say, save 500 people a year by making it 5% more difficult to shoot a deer on the run, it strikes me as worth it. This is a very gray-scale debate, but you get the idea.
Anyway, those are the sort of regulations on the actual weapons that I support. I won't get into regulations on gun sales.
I tend to agree with your general sense of what is reasonable. The interesting thing about the second amendment though is it does not protect a right to hunt or a right to sport shoot. It pretty strongly implies that use in combat is the purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected.
SCOTUS has changed its view and recognizes an individual's right to keep and bear arms, rather than the collective right of a state militia. Which is for the best really. It seems the more likely intent, doesn't really change anything tangibly, and is more aligned with the public's view.
This isn't true. The case hasn't been decided yet. At the moment, the state militia interpretation governs. When the DC handgun ban case comes down (probably next month), that might (probably will) change, but until then, the individual right interpretation is not law.
6 of the 9 have explicitly endorsed the notion of an individual right in the case during the oral arguments, questioning merely the level to which the state can regulate that individual right. Technically, yes, they haven't put pen to paper on the ruling opinion, but that aspect has been expressed.
I don't really follow this issue closely, so I'll just spout some generalities:
There are two main classes of gun, here, and they have totally different purposes. First, we have handguns, used expressly for self-defense and fun. There is obviously a problem with handguns being used in crimes. I don't object to laws regulating handguns in such a way that it doesn't impede the legitimate uses, while making them less dangerous when used illegally. Things like banning excessively powerful guns strikes me as reasonable, for example. What's the absolute strongest weapon you reasonably need to enjoy target practice and defend yourself? Ban anything more powerful. Things like armor-piercing rounds fall into this category, too, unless your house is frequently broken into by Robocop.
On the other side, we have rifles and shotguns, used for hunting and (I guess) target practice. Here it's a little trickier, because it seems the same thing that makes a weapon ideal for hunting - quick firing, good scope, long range, etc - makes it ideal for, say, shooting presidents from the book depository. This would require a massive cost-benefit analysis, and if it looks like we could, say, save 500 people a year by making it 5% more difficult to shoot a deer on the run, it strikes me as worth it. This is a very gray-scale debate, but you get the idea.
Anyway, those are the sort of regulations on the actual weapons that I support. I won't get into regulations on gun sales.
I tend to agree with your general sense of what is reasonable. The interesting thing about the second amendment though is it does not protect a right to hunt or a right to sport shoot. It pretty strongly implies that use in combat is the purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected.
SCOTUS has changed its view and recognizes an individual's right to keep and bear arms, rather than the collective right of a state militia. Which is for the best really. It seems the more likely intent, doesn't really change anything tangibly, and is more aligned with the public's view.
This isn't true. The case hasn't been decided yet. At the moment, the state militia interpretation governs. When the DC handgun ban case comes down (probably next month), that might (probably will) change, but until then, the individual right interpretation is not law.
6 of the 9 have explicitly endorsed the notion of an individual right in the case during the oral arguments, questioning merely the level to which the state can regulate that individual right. Technically, yes, they haven't put pen to paper on the ruling opinion, but that aspect has been expressed.
Frankly, owning a gun for self-defense is itself irresponsible ownership. Statistically speaking, a gun owner is more likely to hurt himself or his family or friends with a gun than he is a burglar. The benefits just aren't worth the risks, even discounting the chance of it being stolen and used in a later crime.
I would love to see the peer reviewed study that reached that conclusion.
You are, of course, basing your post on actual research and not something that you read in a shoddily typed pamphlet?
Tostitos on
The internet gives me a native +2 bonus in Craft (Disturbing Mental Image).
These guys say it was 5-2-2 (as best they can tell), 5 for individual right, 2 (Stevens and Souter) for right of militia, and 2 uncommitted.
That said, Justice Kennedy could end up anywhere, to be perfectly honest. While it's likely that he'll vote with the conservatives and we'll see some kind of pro-gun ruling, he could quite easily end up writing a 5-4 liberal decision. He's done it before.
Frankly, owning a gun for self-defense is itself irresponsible ownership. Statistically speaking, a gun owner is more likely to hurt himself or his family or friends with a gun than he is a burglar. The benefits just aren't worth the risks, even discounting the chance of it being stolen and used in a later crime.
What about all of the times that a gun is used for self-defense but is never fired? Those are supposedly the vast majority of self-defense uses.
In fact:
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Source here. I can't vouch for it's accuracy, but it seems reasonable that most uses wouldn't involve even firing the weapon.
ask_lesko on
Get free money from the government to open up a coffee shop!
Frankly, owning a gun for self-defense is itself irresponsible ownership. Statistically speaking, a gun owner is more likely to hurt himself or his family or friends with a gun than he is a burglar. The benefits just aren't worth the risks, even discounting the chance of it being stolen and used in a later crime.
I would love to see the peer reviewed study that reached that conclusion.
You are, of course, basing your post on actual research and not something that you read in a shoddily typed pamphlet?
What about my point above, that most defensive uses don't involve firing the weapon much less in a death?
ask_lesko on
Get free money from the government to open up a coffee shop!
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Can someone please explain to me, without just going "It's stupid" or "it didn't work in Iraq" why the premise that an armed populace is harder to oppress than a disarmed one is incorrect?
Can someone please explain to me, without just going "It's stupid" or "it didn't work in Iraq" why the premise that an armed populace is harder to oppress than a disarmed one is incorrect?
Its not incorrect, its just that A. you aren't going to make THAT much difference without heavy weapons or explosives, and B. Most of the people lobbying for gun rights would probably be on the side of the oppressive government.
Posts
Now if we could only get Congress to pass bills like these instead of goofy AWB shit.
Have the main gunshow loop holes been closed yet? Like in Virginia where you could go to a show and purchase a handgun without any background check etc. ?
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
I don't think anyone here has ever even thought the word "clever" in relation to you.
Au contraire.
I thought it was very clever of him to get banned so quickly.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
I don't really support registration, because there are too many realistic ways it could be used against people.
I do support licensing, as long as it's a general license to own and operate firearms (a'la a driver's license) and not a license to own and operate a specific firearm. And as long as the requirements aren't too onerous.
I do support federal bans on full-autos (which we currently have) and high-capacity magazines (which we don't).
I do think the gun show loophole should be closed. All firearms transfers (except those involving immediate family members and spouses) need to go through a licensed dealer at a physical storefront and have a background check done. Dealer licenses need to work like alcohol licenses - they only apply to a single address. You move your store, you need to get a new license.
The national instant background check system (NICS) needs some serious reform. Start by making it more reliable - I only have anecdotal evidence on this, but I have heard from some dealers that it is often down. Make an effort to include more info from state and local governments, not just federal. (NICS database records on state-issued restraining orders and convictions are apparently inconsistent.)
Any other law I'd have to address on a case-by-case basis.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And tyrants. With the occasional criminal who invades your home or attacks you.
Margaret Thatcher
If normal sized magazines are really that dangerous (and I'm not convinced they are), make them title 2/NFA items instead of banning them outright. I agree with everything else you said, though forcing all private transactions through a dealer would be very hard to enforce.
Okay, fair enough.
My reasoning for limiting magazine capacity sizes is this: in the rare occasions that there have been Columbine-style massacres, the attacker has often been subdued by their would-be victims or police when they stopped to reload. (Colin Ferguson is an example that comes immediately to mind and I'm sure I could think of some others.) Reducing the number of rounds available to a mass murdering psycho would reduce the death toll in such situations. And I don't think that limiting magazine capacity would affect hobbyists, hunters, or people who need a weapon for self-defense much... because in a self-defense situation, if it takes you more than 10-15 rounds to drop your adversary, you're either going to get your own ass shot, or you're going to hit an innocent bystander.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Well, it is difficult to quantify. Ultimately, it won't save that many lives, because those kinds of massacres happen so infrequently that crafting a law around them is like passing a law banning spontaneous combustion. And in those cases people would get shot anyway just 10-15 people instead of 30-40. We've saved 20 lives every three or four years! Whoo!
However, if somebody tacked it on to another bill as an amendment to please the anti-gun lobby, I wouldn't cry any tears over it, because I haven't heard of a legitimate argument for keeping high-capacity magazines legal.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
which is at LEAST as facile as the very true "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns"
I host a podcast about movies.
Wait, who's saying the Iraqi's failed to arm themselves? They were armed to the teeth. It didn't matter, though, because a civilian uprising against a military that is fully supportive of the despot is pretty much shit out of luck. The 2nd amendment is not protecting us from a tyrant nor will it prevent one from coming to power.
That is not an argument for stripping it from the constitution or even for considering it as a group right granted to state militia. It is an argument against the moronic claims of some gun nuts. Chiefly the ones who support the erosion of civil liberties and deride the ACLU, ironically.
Well, there are but the situations in which a person would have a legitimate need for them for self defense are about as rare as mass shootings. Though to me at least at that point I still use individual rights as the tiebreaker.
No, you can reduce the supply somewhat without actually discouraging ownership. For instance, registration requirements combined with reporting requirements for theft (with actual criminal penalties for non-compliance) would keep a lot of guns from "falling of trucks" or even from "getting stolen," if you know what I mean. And I don't think that asking private citizens to actually keep track of their deadly weapons is too onerous a request.
Also, forcing citizens to secure their weapons wouldn't be a horrible idea. There's really no reason a household needs to have more than one or two weapons outside of a wall-or-floor-mounted safe. Though here you get into greater expense, and the level of restriction is a little more extreme.
Basically you can make guns marginally harder to steal/get ahold of without discouraging people from owning them for self-defense. You just encourage more responsible ownership.
You can also pass other laws discouraging the use of guns in the commission of a crime. From what I understand, though, those laws already exist (in the form of extended sentences) in most states and are just never use...instead offenders are allowed to plead away that time. Or something.
True. And in many cases, I think "gun nuts" are their own worst enemy...they portray themselves as the exact people you don't want to have guns, outside of actual criminals. However, not all supporters of gun rights fall into your "gun nut" category. I participate on a firearms forum, and we actually have a handful of members that truly support other rights besides the ol' wang-enhancers. But yes, they seem to be a minority.
I think largely because the average "progressive" probably grew up in an area where firearms ownership/use is uncommon, so it's easier to see them as a tool of evil. Also, I think the other problem is that the Republicans/Democrats have turned this into a wedge issue...Democrats support gun control, Republicans don't, and if the people you're voting for talk about gun control enough and you're on the fence you're likely to start agreeing.
But it's also possible I'm talking entirely out of my ass, here.
It's becoming less a party issue with the midterms, and that's likely to continue. The problem is mostly an urban-suburban/rural divide. There's nothing around me that you can shoot aside from squirrels, snakes, and people. And that last one tends to be frowned upon. Compare that to out in rural locales where you're more likely to see a deer than a starbucks, and the attitudes are likely different. In the city it's MAD, in the country it's a sport/excuse to go out drinking for a weekend.
Well, and this is where you get into things like ElJeffe's talking about banning more "powerful" handguns. You have little need for large-caliber handguns in the city, but honestly out where we are if you're up hiking they're the most effective and sensible weapon to carry in case you run into large animals that want to eat you.
Of course, a rifle/shotgun would probably be more effective, but is more unwieldy. But there are plenty of absurdly large handguns (generally revolvers) that are more than appropriate for defense from wildlife. But they'd also be seen as "OMG HUGE MUST BAN" in a city.
I mean, I live out where seeing elk in your backyard isn't unheard of, and where bears wander into town from time to time. Out hiking? Who knows what the fuck you'll run into. My mom has had grizzlies chillin' in her back yard before.
I wonder what the largest caliber is that would be stopped by (2) 5/8" thick sheets of gypsum board. +/- some batt insulation. Does anything that wouldn't fully penetrate a party wall from a relatively close distance have any stopping power?
Well, my point is that some of us live and play where the wild things are. And actually, out there people are pretty religious about such thing (keeping trash locked up, that kind of thing)...but when you're actually in the forest there's only so much you can do.
Not really. There's a Box of Truth site that's pretty good for seeing non-scientific tests of such thing. If I remember correctly, your best bet for a round that might actually stop a person but is least dangerous to people on the other side of walls I think it was a shotgun with buckshot.
However, in general your best bet is knowing what is behind every wall in the direction you're shooting, avoid (if possible) shooting through walls that are likely to have people behind them, and hit your target. You don't really want to spray 15 rounds hoping a few hit. You want to fire a controlled pair or two that actually go into the person you're aiming at.
I tend to agree with your general sense of what is reasonable. The interesting thing about the second amendment though is it does not protect a right to hunt or a right to sport shoot. It pretty strongly implies that use in combat is the purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected.
If by "getting stolen" you mean "illegally sold", I don't think that helps at all. The owner just illegally sells his gun and then reports it as stolen. The only people this might touch are people who repeatedly buy guns and then sell them illegally, and I'm sure those people will figure out a way around it.
I agree, but I would expand this to all firearms in the household, period. Self-defense shootings in the home are fleetingly rare, to the point that the utility lost from forcing people to lock up all their guns is negligible compared to the improvement in the firearm thefts.
Frankly, owning a gun for self-defense is itself irresponsible ownership. Statistically speaking, a gun owner is more likely to hurt himself or his family or friends with a gun than he is a burglar. The benefits just aren't worth the risks, even discounting the chance of it being stolen and used in a later crime.
This won't help, either. No criminal is going to choose to use a knife in a crime, rather than a gun, which is vastly more effective, on the basis of the fact that he might spend a couple extra years in prison if he gets caught. If a firearm significantly increases your chance of success in a crime over the alternatives - and it does - it will get used regardless of whatever bonus time you add onto somebody's prison sentence.
SCOTUS has changed its view and recognizes an individual's right to keep and bear arms, rather than the collective right of a state militia. Which is for the best really. It seems the more likely intent, doesn't really change anything tangibly, and is more aligned with the public's view.
This isn't true. The case hasn't been decided yet. At the moment, the state militia interpretation governs. When the DC handgun ban case comes down (probably next month), that might (probably will) change, but until then, the individual right interpretation is not law.
Wouldn't training solve this problem?
I suppose that's conceivably possible, but I haven't seen any studies showing that training reduces the incidence of accidental shootings below the incidence of self-defense shootings. The numbers I've seen suggest that a massive improvement in safety would be necessary to bring those rates close together.
6 of the 9 have explicitly endorsed the notion of an individual right in the case during the oral arguments, questioning merely the level to which the state can regulate that individual right. Technically, yes, they haven't put pen to paper on the ruling opinion, but that aspect has been expressed.
Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and ?
I would love to see the peer reviewed study that reached that conclusion.
You are, of course, basing your post on actual research and not something that you read in a shoddily typed pamphlet?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p25s07-usju.html
These guys say it was 5-2-2 (as best they can tell), 5 for individual right, 2 (Stevens and Souter) for right of militia, and 2 uncommitted.
That said, Justice Kennedy could end up anywhere, to be perfectly honest. While it's likely that he'll vote with the conservatives and we'll see some kind of pro-gun ruling, he could quite easily end up writing a 5-4 liberal decision. He's done it before.
What about all of the times that a gun is used for self-defense but is never fired? Those are supposedly the vast majority of self-defense uses.
In fact:
Source here. I can't vouch for it's accuracy, but it seems reasonable that most uses wouldn't involve even firing the weapon.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/24/1557
An oldie, but a goodie.
Also, this isn't a tricky thing to figure out.
Consider http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
That's a list of mortality rates by cause in 2005, nationally. Scroll down to "firearm deaths." It's on page 78.
There are five categories: Unintentional, Suicide, Homicide, Undetermined, and Legal Intervention.
The number of "Unintentional" deaths more than doubles the rate of "Legal Intervention"
Most years are similar.
I host a podcast about movies.
Its not incorrect, its just that A. you aren't going to make THAT much difference without heavy weapons or explosives, and B. Most of the people lobbying for gun rights would probably be on the side of the oppressive government.