Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw) Guest Blogger
You may recall that after the horrible Tucson shooting massacre, I wrote a piece for this blog suggesting that it might be a good time to consider banning deadly weapons and the high-capacity magazines of the type that the alleged killer used on that fateful day. It was a difficult issue, but I thought then and still think now that it is an important issue that needs to be discussed by not only us, but by the American public through their Representatives and Senators in Congress. With that prior posting in mind, I was shocked to read a story earlier this week about the president of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, who blamed the shootings on government policies in a recent speech to the CPAC conference on Thursday, February 10th.
You did read that correctly. The head of one of the biggest lobbying organizations in the country went in front of those “reasonable and moderate” CPAC members and made the claim that it wasn’t guns or ammunition that caused the deaths of 6 people and the wounding of 13 bystanders. “LaPierre said U.S. gun laws provide more protection to killers like the Virginia Tech and Tucson shooters than to the victims of their attacks, and suggested the current environment puts women at risk for rape. He condemned “gun-free zones and anti-self defense laws that protected the safety of no one except the killers and condemned the victims to death without so much as a prayer. “Government policies are getting us killed,” he said. “ CBS News.com
Mr. LaPierre goes on to give the usual response that guns don’t kill people, people do. He even suggested that if people with guns were there they could have prevented some of the death and destruction. I guess he didn’t bother to read that one gentleman who was packing a gun at the event, almost shot one of the people trying to subdue the alleged killer. Doesn’t he know that people can carry a concealed weapon already in Arizona? Where is this “gun-free zone” that he was referring to? It certainly wasn’t in Tucson. I also am confused how the Virginia Tech shooter was aided by the government?
Why is it asking too much to limit even the size of a magazine? Why does the NRA continually blame government policies that weren’t even applicable in the Tucson shootings? Wouldn’t it make sense to at least discuss making it harder for mentally ill people to buy guns legally? Why does anyone listen to the NRA at all? As usual, I have more questions than answers, but I was hoping you would help me!
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
Raff, you are spot-on regarding the NRA. Anyone who really listens to them with a critical mind can easily see this is about fund raising for their favorite right wing causes. They have as much real credibility as the US Chamber of Commerce.
Having said that, there are a couple of myths perpetuated here. First of all, the high-capacity magazine. When thirty rounds are loaded into a magazine for a pistol, it makes the whole pistol unwieldy and hard to handle. It becomes both bulky and heavy. Also, a much more powerful spring has to be at the bottom of the magazine just to push the mass of cartridges upward. The more powerful spring and large number of rounds increases the chance of a jam. Which, I have read, is exactly what happened. Loughner did not completely empty the magazine before it jammed. Any experienced firearms expert will tell you that comes as no surprise. Furthermore, jam or not, it takes more time to extract a large capacity magazine and insert a new one.
IMHO, more people would have been killed had the shooter used normal magazines with the normal number of rounds. Take a look at the following video of how long it takes to change a normal magazine. Obviously, you cannot do this the first time out, but with practice, anyone can do it.
Having thrown up the video of Travis Tomasie reloading a semi-auto pistol, I have to share this one.
Now I will posit that most anyone with reasonably good eye-hand coordination can reload a semi-auto magazine in less than one second. On the other hand, I think I could practice a lifetime and not manage this with a revolver. Not ever. This is Jerry Miculik.
Let’s say you are in a bar or restaurant. Somebody decides to open up and start killing people. Mass confusion follows. Who knows who is the shooter. You see a man firing a gun and so you shoot him.
Turns out he was just an innocent trying to stop the violence, same as you. You didn’t know … you were just a guy shooting at a guy who was firing a gun.
Except … you just killed another innocent.
But who can be sure in such a chaotic environment?
More guns means a safer environment?
Hardly.
More guns, more chaos.
A circular firing squad.
How could you know who to shoot during a split-second decision?
Tell me you would always know the right thing to do in a chaotic situation.
More guns are not the answer.
Mojo,
I agree 100% with your take on the chaos during an attack like that.
OS,
The thing I don’t understand is why even 20 plus bullets in a magazine is necessary for self defense? Also, when someone wants to kill as many people as possible, do they really consider the balance of the gun with a high capacity magazine, especially when they are mentally unstable to begin with? You are spot on about the NRA being in it for the money from corporate sponsors and power.
Thanks, Raff.
That has been a problem of mine on the issue of “more guns” for quite some time.
rafflaw-
“Why is it asking too much to limit even the size of a magazine?”
The only people who will be affected are people who don’t generally commit crime. There are legitimate uses for them, but it’s really the fact that it isn’t even putting a bandaid on a gaping wound, it’s more like waving a wand at a gaping wound. We can’t do as the NRA would and assume what would have happened had he not had the super-sized mags. It might have made matters worse, it might have made them better, but you can’t assume that everything would have been identical except for the change in magazine size.
“Wouldn’t it make sense to at least discuss making it harder for mentally ill people to buy guns legally?”
You bet. But every time I ask people how we can (or should) get around patient/doctor confidentiality or who determines what mental illnesses get you on the blacklist…
“Why does anyone listen to the NRA at all?”
Love or hate them they get results. I’m a pro-gun liberal who despises the NRA. For every positive thing they do for gun rights, they do dozens that reinforce the stereotypes of gun owners. And they are a proxy for the right wing, which is hilarious when you consider how many of the most restrictive gun laws and regulations were put in place by Republicans.
Also, Jerry Miculik isn’t from this planet.
Mojo-
“Let’s say you are in a bar or restaurant.”
We don’t have to do a “let’s say”. We can look at reality. Concealed carry has exploded in the last twenty years. And in each and every state that went to shall issue carry laws the same nonsense about blood running in the streets and people wildly shooting into crowds came up. It hasn’t materialized. Violent crime dropped by more than a third during that period (NOT because of more carry, there’s no evidence for that; if there is a consensus regarding what effect looser/tighter laws have, it’s that neither seem to do much of anything.
“How could you know who to shoot during a split-second decision?”
If I didn’t know who to shoot, I wouldn’t shoot. Nor would just about any permit holder. I wouldn’t even draw.
“More guns are not the answer.”
Depends on the question.
If a gunman got past security and shot a Senator in the U.S. Senate Chambers, Wayne LaPierre’s response would be, “This wouldn’t have happened if every Senator had an AK-47.”
I am a former SWAT officer, NRA member, and I am also currently a licensed and armed executive protection agent and teach the Florida concealed weapons classes.
As far a 30 round magazines – banning them is fine with me because anyone who knows anything about carrying handguns for self defense knows they are unreliable as Otteray Scribe points out in his accurate post.
Trying to ban every other gun is a mistake. 15 – 19 round magazines are necessary for self defense these days as many criminals now work in teams of two or more criminals, and then of course there are street gangs.
Then there is the guy who went on a STABBING rampage in NYC. He killed 3, stabbed a few more people, and then ran an 80 year old over with a car.
People have been killing each other since the dawn of time. It is not the government’s fault, its not the gun’s fault, it is our faulty nature that is to blame.
People will always find a way to kill each other, so law abiding citizens need to be able to defend ourselves and the people we love.
Raff: You ask a couple of questions. First, you inquire about whether a mentally unstable individual might think about the unreliability and unwieldy nature of a pistol loaded with a super high capacity magazine as Loughner did. Well, in his case, obviously not. However, I know a number of mentally ill persons who are, in the vernacular, crazy but not stupid. Some will, others probably not.
As for the number of shots. If you recall, Lee Harvey Oswald got off three shots, which were more than enough to change the course of history. If an assassin wants to inflict maximum damage, they may take a cue from the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and use a bomb, not a gun–refer to the case of Eric Rudolf. And remember, a bomb can be made from stuff you can find in your garage and under the sink. Black powder can be made from items you can find in nature. Hint: the best charcoal for black powder is made from willow.
Take a look at the Second Amendment. Nowhere does it address how much ammunition one should have. And as for the term well-regulated, if we look at the use of the word at the time, it comes from the same etymological roots as meaning to be reliable. A regulator clock is one that is adjusted to tell time reliably. I have an semi-automatic pistol with a seven-round magazine. I can change the magazines for it faster than your eye can follow. Which means that I actually have more reliable firepower at my disposal than Lougner did with his much-touted high capacity magazine.
You may recall a discussion some weeks ago in which a question was raised about civilians owning fighter planes. Yes, they are on the open market and can be purchased. Somewhere around here, I have a picture of me sitting at the controls of a privately owned WW-II era bomber. My point is that all kinds of weapons or potential weapons are available legally. But we do not hear of them being used in massacres.
The United States leads the world’s richest nations in gun deaths — murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns – according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69.
Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.
The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank’s 1994 World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income.
The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, p. 101).
The mortality rate from accidental shootings is 8 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns (Miller, 2001, p. 481).
For kids ages 5 to 14, the mortality rate is 14 times higher in high gun states than low gun states (Miller, 2001, p. 481).
For kids ages 0 to 4, the mortality rate is 17 times higher in high gun states than low gun states (Miller, 2001, p. 481).
For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths (Miller, 2001, p. 483).
For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of dying of an accidental gunshot wound (Wiebe, 2003).
A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense (Kellermann, p. 263).
Most unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home (65 percent), based on data from 16 states. The most common context of the death (30 percent) was playing with the gun (Karch, 2010).
In almost half of unintentional shooting deaths (49 percent), the victim is shot by another person. In virtually all of these cases, the shooter and victim knew each other (Hemenway, p. 1184).
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gvunintentional
WE’RE #1
USA USA USA
Jeff Morelock:
“People have been killing each other since the dawn of time. It is not the government’s fault, its not the gun’s fault, it is our faulty nature that is to blame.
People will always find a way to kill each other, so law abiding citizens need to be able to defend ourselves and the people we love.”
*****************
No one suggests gun control as a panacea to the basic problem of imperfect human nature (not so intelligent design, indeed). The point is that easy access to weapons makes continuous proof of the imperfection more likely. Try killing someone with a knife or your bare hands and you will see the need for more more time, brute strength, and courage, all of which mitigate against the act in question. As you well know from your service to the community, most violent acts are not the random type you imply, but the emotion-laden actions of family or acquaintances premised on irrational reasons borne of rage, greed, or downright orneriness. Gun control works here and that is really all the justification it needs. No one needs a handgun for protection. They are inaccurate, cheap, and require considerable training to use without killing yourself or unintended targets around you. The right to self defense predates written law and I see no constituency for its abolition. The means and methods to self-defense are not absolute (else we would all be entitled to atomic weapons) and reasonable restrictions on these means and methods in service to society as a whole are both prudent and necessary. Even our ancestors in the wild west knew that. Seems we’ve forgotten that historical fact with the considerable help of the gun manufacturers … oops … I mean the NRA. I wonder why? I’m sure its a noble but misguided defense of the Second Amendment. That, of course, or $.
The best way to reduce the homicide rate in the US (and Mexico) is to end the War on Drugs.
The best way to reduce homicides in the US is to stop raising our sons and daughters to be cowboys.
The ridiculously massive number of guns in our culture both predicates and is the result of celebration of violence as a plausible solution to conflict.
I wonder how the Egyptian revolution would have gone down if the NRA had had a hand in it. Change every rock thrown into a bullet.
RE: Mojo, February 12, 2011 at 11:12 pm
More guns are not the answer.
#########################
AND
#########################
RE: Jeff Morelock, February 3, 2011 at 12:27 am
People have been killing each other since the dawn of time. It is not the government’s fault, its not the gun’s fault, it is our faulty nature that is to blame.
People will always find a way to kill each other, so law abiding citizens need to be able to defend ourselves and the people we love.
##########################
In response, I write:
More guns are not the answer.
Fewer guns are not the answer.
Guns, more or less, both or neither, have nothing to do with “the answer” and much to do with “the question.”
*
Allowing that “People have been killing each other since the dawn of time.” is a statement of fact–
It does not necessarily follow that “It is not the government’s fault, its not the gun’s fault, it is our faulty nature that is to blame.” is a scientifically valid noting of directly observable, objective reality.
In my work, science, as process, is the study of “directly observable, objective reality.”
In my work, religion, as process, is the study of everything not “directly observable, objective reality.”
In my work, “directly observable, objective reality” (i.e. process) is not “”directly observed objective reality” (i.e. interpretation).
In my work, “faith” is both a process and an interpretation of what is not directly observable, objective reality.
As Illustration, and as demonstration that faith is inseparable from science, there is that little story of Dr. Louis Slotin, May 21, 1946, and the tail of a tickled dragon.
I re-read the story a few minutes ago on an Internet site:
www(dot)military(dot)com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=cw_nuclear_slotin
From the story, it is clear to me that Dr. Slotin exercised religious faith in not expecting that screwdriver to slip. Why so? Because the screwdriver slipping was not directly observable nor objective reality, before it slipped and Dr. Slotin performed an unintended physics-biophysics experiement, one unwittingly done under the aegis of “blind religious faith.”
In my work, because religion is always about what is not directly observable and of objective reality, every aspect of what is scientifically of religion is ineluctably unwitting.
How better to illustrate this than the “faith based compassionate conservatism of the early reign of Czar, In Liar’s Clothing, Bush II?
Want to read about its faith-based, unwitting intentions? How about, Dave Donaldson & Stanley Carlson-Thies, “A Revolution of Compassion: Faith-Based Groups as Full Partners in Fighting America’s Social Problems,” Baker Books, 2003?
Intended, as read that book of impending tragedy, to resolve issues of the poor, those unwitting initiatives were what I find drove the recent near-total-meltdown of the fiat economy.
Slotin was sincere, yet the screwdriver slipped. Compassionate Conservatives were sincere, yet the fiat economy crashed.
Sincerity is apparently not truthfulness.
While the religious belief, “it is our faulty nature that is to blame” is, in my view a sincere, religious belief, I also find that it has nothing whatsoever to do with directly observable, objective reality.
Furthermore, while the religious belief, “People will always find a way to kill each other, so law abiding citizens need to be able to defend ourselves and the people we love.” is also sincere, I further find that it has nothing whatsoever to do with directly observable, objective reality.
As I observe people continuing to learn what has not before been known or understood, my scientific orientation informs me that the predicament of human violence is about something religious, and I base this observation on the directly observable fact that it appears to me that no one actually appears to understand how to stop the violence well enough to have actually stopped it.
Being a for-real scientist, I work at learning what has not yet been learned, and for solving problems that have not yet been solved. To do that, I need religion to direct me toward problems which may merit their being solved.
Human violence made the top of my list by Christmas, 1939, and has there remained ever since.
Of course, if social conventions drive humanity toward violence, social conventions cannot yet effectively provide the remedy for human violence, or the problem of human violence would have already encountered its remediation.
Mere palliation of symptoms, as I consistently observe, merely generates more symptoms. As I consistently, directly and objectively observe more and more symptoms of human violence, and as palliation is what I directly observe is what causes symptoms to increase, I directly observe that humanity does not yet scientifically understand human violence.
Methinks it be of a process of human brain biophysics.
Methinks it be a practical problem, wisely solved, and in need of an effective, economical, efficient solution.
Methinks engineering be the solving of practical problems, efficiently, effectively, and economically, using scientific principles.
Methinks engineering applied to human brain biophysics is of bioengineering.
My work is bioengineering.
And I directly observe:
I am here, working.
Now.
Now is always changing.
Change happens.
Change is happening.
Now.
J. Brian Harris : Excellent – and precisely.
Whenever I read nonsense like this from Wayne LaPierre I get physically ill. I truly believe that people like Wayne LaPierre will not be happy until this whole country reverts back to the Wild West.
The first thing that came to mind when I started reading this post was the gentleman in Tucson who could very well have shot the gentleman who subdued Loughner. Many thanks for pointing that out, rafflaw. In my mind, that alone pretty much shoots LaPierre’s logic to hell. But, as we well know, facts have little room in NRA propoganda.
The government enables it by passing and signing into law things that only a law abiding citizen will follow any way. The crook is not going to follow any magazine capacity law.
I don’t get why guys like guns anyway…they are NOT attractive….
…and did I mention I yearn for civilization and am seriously thinking of packing my bags for Europe before things here degrade any further….
Wootsy…
I suppose you’ll have to get your head on secure and go forward…then again was 8 heads in a Duffel your favorite movie?
I never saw it.
My head is safer where it is!
I think someone already posted this video here (take a bow) and I saw it on the O’Donnell show, it was a good takedown of Mr. LaPierre.
“After NRA lobbyist Wayne LaPierre attacked MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell at this year’s CPAC, O’Donnell responded in his Rewrite segment and pretty well ripped LaPierre to shreds for his part in contributing to the number of deaths after that tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Tucson, Arizona.”
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/lawrence-odonnells-takes-apart-nra-gun-lob#comment-1775745
Lawrence O’Donnell is a pathetic replacement for Olberman. The man is insufferable.
They should have given the 8pm slot to Maddow.
Jason,
I would like to see you sources for the claim that conceal an carry gun states’ violence has decreased and is violent crime defined as including guns(?), and that most of the gun restrictions were passed by Republicans. Until then, consider me a non-believer. Arizona is a conceal carry state and Mr. Loughner allegedly got off over 20 shots before being subdued by people without guns so I guess he is an exception to your statistics.
OS,
I understand that it is possible some mentally ill people would somehow find illegal weapons or supplies, but I am sure it would be reduced significantly. Would the accused shooter in Tucson, Mr. Loughner gone to that extreme if the extended magazines were not available legally? He bought everything else legally.
Blouise,
great stats!
Bob Esq.
I agree that Rachel Maddow should have gotten the O’mans slot.
Stasmford Liberal, thanks!
Mespo,
amen to your comments about the real intentions of the friendly NRA.
Lotta,
thanks for the link to the O’Donnell show. I, like Bob, Esq. don’t like his show, but he was good in this one.
Woosty,
Great video links! I will never look at an elderly person in a wheelchair the same!
A thousand people die
every day by gunshots,
and three times as many are severely
injured. Spinal cords severed, bones
shattered, families destroyed,
hearts broken. If the death, injury
and disability resulting from small
arms were categorised as a disease,
we would view it as an epidemic. As
a man-made vector of injury, guns
are manifestly bad for human health.
No country is immune.
http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/GlobalCrisis07.pdf
The first issue here is the 2nd amendment, which is settled law. Over 160 million guns by the most conservative estimate I’ve seen are legally owned, and something north of 5 million people have and exercise a right to carry concealed.
Despite someone with an agenda reporting that a civilian with a gun almost shot other people, here’s the original interview with Joe Zamudio, who I wouldn’t mind living next door to me.
My understanding was Loughner got off 19 shots, exactly the same as the gun is designed to hold, had a jam, failed to clear the jam, unloaded the gun and removed the magazine and tried to reload with another high cap magazine which was bulky and was fumbling with it when tackled by bystanders. Zamudio assessed the situation correctly, and helped subdue. Had Loughner still been firing, Zamudio would have taken him under fire to try to stop him.
So despite someone’s effort to spin this as a near-additional-tragedy because someone was carrying, that point is groundless propaganda.
Some people trust in authority and believe that we can make a society safe when all authority rests in the state. The power of the state ultimately rests in deadly force, police (even in the UK) use guns, the military uses guns, deadly force is ultimately the way law is enforced. The 2nd amendment was an amazing purposeful subversion of this situation, not put in the Constitution by ‘the framers’ but put in by popular demand of the states asked to ratify it – whose people had a strong taste of what authority could do, and managed to free themselves from it by use of arms. They specifically did not want all possession of arms to lie with the state, and it’s clear that they thought be governed by their consent means they retained the same option as the state to act with arms.
200 years later, what does that mean? Well, as a lefty that just endured 8 years of watching the Republicans try to subvert the Constitution, I’m in no mood to hand over my weapons, so I’ll suggest something specific. We have a very good system of instant background checks, but crippled by the fact mental health data doesn’t get added to the database, The reasons are twofold – no compelling reason for mental health professionals to report, and law enforcement so reduced in manpower they don’t have resources to do it. Both Loughner and the Virginia Tech shooter would have been stopped had they been included, and we need both a mechanism to do so and law to compel compliance, along with some funding.
Woosty-
My favorite memories of my Grandmother were when she would say, “You boys go out in the back yard and fill this pan with red raspberries and I’ll bake two pies for dessert. Your Dad is going to make ice cream, too.” I don’t recall a submachine gun hanging next to Grandma’s coal stove. Or a pistol in the Pontiac’s glove compartment. I guess I was just lucky.
Mandell,
All I know is what Mr.Zamudio reported to various newspapers and news outlets immediately after the event. If you want to call that goundless propaganda, that is your right. It is also my right to report what he had said earlier and to comment that anything said on Fox News is suspect to me.
As I understand it, the Glock 9mm holds anywhere from 15-17 rounds, not 19, depending on if you are using the Glock competition, compact or full-size model. So the shooter in Tucson actually got 2-4 more shots off that could have killed someone or injured someone than if he had not used the extended magazine. It should also be noted that it was reported that 31 shell casings were found on the scene so your information seems to be incorrect. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41021843/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
“Despite someone with an agenda reporting that a civilian with a gun almost shot other people …”
“So despite someone’s effort to spin this as a near-additional-tragedy because someone was carrying, that point is groundless propaganda.”
And when it does happen, and it will, will it still be groundless propoganda, Mandell? Just because you have no problem with more innocent people being massacred at the OK Corral, I am not. It’s bad enough having one lunatic with a gun, it will be doubly bad when lunatic two starts shooting willy nilly to take out lunatic one – at the expense of those that aren’t gun-toting lunatics and just trying to stay alive through the hailstorm of bullets.
Justifying the actions of one, who you call the good guy, who could very well have killed an innocent man – and others in the vicinity – for the simple fact that the innocent guy was just holding a gun is pure, unadulterated propoganda at best, and disingenuous bullshit at worst.
eniobob,
Amen. Nice link.
The NRA talking points on the Virginia Tech and Tucson shootings, and the recent emailing of a video on the topic of Mexican Border security are at-best factual on only one point, and the rest can be otherwise disregarded as marketing. The “Join the NRA today, and defend your…” is your clue.
Valid: Willful wrongdoers find the gaps, the cracks, the unguarded and strike there, or in those moments: Mumbai, India. Fort Hood, Texas. Airline hijackings on 9-11-01.
Virginia Tech. No, low, or poor security in each instance.
There’s anecdotal evidence that another University shooting was been ended by the presence of armed (and trained) fellow students.
Only by establishing a secured facility, would a completely disarmed population ever be truly safe. I don’t speak of metal detectors at the door, I’m speaking of a fenced, wired, gated, inspected facility. Thing of visiting a Federal medium-security prison. You, your vehicle, and anything you’re carrying is inspected. The TSA, but in a functional, hard-core mode.
Then all we have to do is trust that our guards don’t pull a Major Malik Nadal Hasan, and use their uniform as a means to defeat scrutiny.
Fallacy:
1) More guns would have stopped ANY gunfire. False. Due-diligence on the part of those who knew Laughner was mentally-unstable would have.
2) Civilian held firearms add to the danger. False.
The armed civilian had the presence of mind NOT TO discharge his firearm. Gun present=Shooting deathsis a fallacy. To decry this civilian having a gun as being equally as dangerous as Laughner, is patently wrong. Zero bullets fired.
If you as commenters, do not have the desire or capacity to maintain that sort of self-control, I’d hope that you never choose to purchase or carry a firearm. Training is key, it is the “Well Regulated” as defined in supporting documents of the day.
I’ll extend that to sports cars.
To buy a Porsche, Ferrari, or Corvette, my expectation is a requirement of track training by a well regarded driving school. The transition from econo-boxer mini-van to 600HP sports car isn’t a property right, it isn’t a bragging right of newfound corporate status, it’s a lethal weapon in your hands.
If you’re unwilling to accept the need for training, leave that item at the dealership, or keep it in your collection (garage or gun safe) without fuel (ammunition).
~43North
“Zero bullets fired.”
For now.
43North,
I have no intention of purchasing a gun so your caution is unnecessary. Since I will not be carrying a gun, I do prefe if noone else does to. I can’t require that, but I would feel a lot safer.
Stamford,
Amen.
you’d no doubt feel safer without sports cars, SUVs and large trucks on the roadway. If not, you should, as those are most likely to be involved in a cycle-motor vehicle collision.
Add in the young, and the elderly as demographics, toss in the distracted Mommies with a minivan or SUV of unsecured/whining children, and you’re a target clad in Lycra®.
Is it the vehicle or the operator? Is it the operator without the skill set required to maintain adequate control? That was my point, be proficient or leave it at home.
I’d wager by your serious cycler garb, you’re in far greater danger if a life-altering or life-ending street collision, than a firearms-related incident.
Unless of course, you only cycle in a velodrome.
Stay hydrated.
“Since I will not be carrying a gun, I do prefe if noone else does to.”
Which is where the problem lies. Your fears do not circumscribe my civil right. If you want to address the issue of crazy people in society and their access to all kinds of items, we can talk. If you think your right to live without fear of ever seeing a gun or being in a situation where one might be present, I know of several nice totalitarian states where the only gun display you will see is in the hands of the state, which of course is perfectly safe. Burma and North Korea come to mind.
mespo727272-
“No one needs a handgun for protection.”
Attention everyone who ever defended yourself with a handgun, you actually didn’t need your gun.
“They are inaccurate,”
At any reasonable distance for self defense, they are for the most part extremely accurate. If you want to harp on the fallibility of the humans handling them, that’s cool, but most handguns will put a round within an inch or two of where you wanted it to go (assuming of that you operated it correctly).
“cheap”
Some are, most aren’t. But that’s true of rifles, shotguns, etc. Mine was $625 which is nowhere close to cheap.
“and require considerable training to use without killing yourself or unintended targets around you.”
What? You do know that there are over 200,000,000 guns in the U.S., right? Less than one tenth of one percent of them will ever be used to shoot someone. It does not take considerable training to avoid shooting yourself and innocents, following the “four rules” makes accidents virtually impossible, and they can be learned in five minutes.
“The right to self defense predates written law and I see no constituency for its abolition. The means and methods to self-defense are not absolute (else we would all be entitled to atomic weapons) and reasonable restrictions on these means and methods in service to society as a whole are both prudent and necessary.”
But if you prevent me from using the most effective means of self defense, you are all but telling me I don’t have the right at all. Pepper spray, stun guns, and tasers all have unacceptable shortcomings. Handguns aren’t perfect, but they are the current best option. If a Star Trek phaser is invented, one that knocks someone out in an instant and kills no one, I’ll be happy to switch.
puzzling-
“The best way to reduce the homicide rate in the US (and Mexico) is to end the War on Drugs.”
Amen.
rafflaw-
“Jason,
I would like to see you sources for the claim that conceal an carry gun states’ violence has decreased and is violent crime defined as including guns(?),”
I’m using the FBI Uniform Crime Report. Their definition of violent crime covers murder and non-negligent homicide, forcible rape, and aggravated assault. I picked Texas and Florida as they are the two most populous states to pass shall issue laws, but you would see the same results with pretty much every CC state.
Texas passed shall issue in 1994. At that time, the violent crime rate was 663.9 per 100,000 people. As of the last completed report (2009), it is 490.9.
Florida passed shall issue in 1987. The rate between then and now is 1024.4 and 612.5 respectively.
But that’s all beside the point; it doesn’t prove that CC reduces crime. In many cases, crime was already going down when CC was enacted. But it didn’t turn the country into a blood drenched nightmare either.
“and that most of the gun restrictions were passed by Republicans.”
I said many, not most. Ronald Reagan kicked it off in California with the passage of the Mumford Act in 1967. George H. W. Bush banned the import of so called assault weapons in 1989. In New York, Rudolph Giuliani and George Pataki went after guns big time. Reagan steps in again and signs the legislation that closed the machine gun registry and banned guns in national parks (hilariously enough, Obama signed the bill that lifted it) and he campaigned for the Brady Bill. Nixon hated guns, and George W. Bush would have re-enacted the assault weapon ban if it made it to his desk.
“so I guess he is an exception to your statistics.”
Yep. In the last 20 years, violent crime has dropped 36% nationally.
“I will not be carrying a gun, I do prefe if noone else does to. I can’t require that, but I would feel a lot safer.”
This is the thinking behind a lot of bad laws (think PATRIOT act). Not actually being safer, but *feeling* safer.
“I understand that it is possible some mentally ill people would somehow find illegal weapons or supplies, but I am sure it would be reduced significantly.”
Again I have to ask, how are you going to do it?
“Would the accused shooter in Tucson, Mr. Loughner gone to that extreme if the extended magazines were not available legally? He bought everything else legally.”
He might have gone with a few more normal mags. He might have gone to a “New York reload,” carrying several already loaded guns. He might have used explosives or tried to summon demons, we have no idea what would have happened. All we can say for certain is that things would have gone differently, not better or worse, had he not had high-cap magazines.
Stamford Liberal-
“And when it does happen, and it will,”
Again, why guess what might happen instead of looking at what has happened? Concealed carry has been the law in the majority of the U.S. for quite some time. It’s now shall issue or effectively so in 41 states and Wisconsin may soon switch. Many people have already defended themselves, but that side of the ledger never seems to mean anything.
It looks like the people of Egypt didn’t need guns to get rid of their longtime dictator Mubarak.
Jason:
We’ve debated these issues before with the same authorities and counter-authorities. You have to face the realization that you are advocating an absolute right to carry any type of gun to defend yourself. That would make the Second Amendment the only absolute right in existence in any society. I advocate reasonable restrictions against handgun ownership by the mentally unstable, felons, children, those seeking to establish an arsenal, those who us eguns to harrass or threaten, and by many other persons unqualified to handle the responsibility of owning a deadly weapon. To me, guns enjoy no greater or lesser status than automobiles, which are much more useful in our daily lives, are just as dangerous, and require both registration and training before operation. Guns enjoy no favored status in the Constitution over this means of interstate travel, however, for some reason, the gun crowd sees it as the bulwark against government-borne oppression of the population. Given the disparity between the weaponry available to you, and that available to the government, I’d say that is wishful thinking at best. You might want to dedicate at least some of that passion in service to gun ownership absolutism to something that actually does rein in government over-reaching — adherence to the rule of law. It’s much more effective and doesn’t line the pockets of the gun lobby as they waiving the banner of freedom to garner even more blood money from a somewhat gullible population.
Elaine: It ain’t over yet. Do not count coup until a new and stable government is in place. Only then can the revolution be analyzed.
Otteray Scribe,
I know it’s not over. My point was that hundreds of thousands/millions of Egyptian people didn’t have to use guns or high-power weapons to oust Mubarak.
Jason,
Your FBI stats tell us nothing about gun violence going down because of the concealed weapons and also do not tell us that someone carrying a gun prevented a violent crime as you stated yourself so the stats are meaningless. You mention 2 or 3 Republicans have restricted some guns out of how many laws? I think you are overstating your position by quite alot on that subject. Yes I would prefer that people not be allowed to carry concealed weapons because their are too many crazy people who do not have the training to use them in the situations that the NRA likes to claim that they are needed in. I never claimed that I had the answer to the mentally ill issue, but the NRA does not want any restrictions period. So I guess your approach is the same that we should just keep allowing mentally unstable people to be able to buy deadly firearms? Your statement that my preference to not have people carry concealed weapons is similar to the Patriot Act? Please explain that further. I can’t see any sense in your comment. I would like to further comment that even Justice Scalia has stated that common sense restrictions on guns would be acceptable to the Supreme Court,but I guess you and the NRA disagree with that.
Elaine,
that is a good point about Egypt. Of course, we have to have all types of semi-automatic guns to protect ourselves and to insure we can overthrow a tyrannical government.
Mespo,
Well said! Adherence to the rule of law is something that would protect citizens much more than the 2nd amendment.
mespo727272-
“Jason:
We’ve debated these issues before with the same authorities and counter-authorities. You have to face the realization that you are advocating an absolute right to carry any type of gun to defend yourself.”
No I don’t. And to prove it….
“I advocate reasonable restrictions against handgun ownership by the mentally unstable,”
So do I. I just need to hear the particulars.
“felons,”
I’m fine with that and that’s already the law just about everywhere.
“children,”
Unsupervised carry by children? Of course I’m against that. I’m also in favor of harsher punishment for adults who allow their kids access to their guns resulting in someone being hurt, accidentally or not.
“those seeking to establish an arsenal,”
Are you saying that no one should own more guns than you think necessary? That makes no sense. Who determines the number? What reasoning will set the number? There’s a huge number of collectors with massive collections who have never and never will commit crime with them.
“those who us eguns to harrass or threaten,”
I agree and that’s already the law in most states in one form or another.
I have advocated harsher penalties for illegal gun possession and going after straw purchasers. Not to mention the use of a gun in a crime amplifying the sentence. I don’t know how you could infer from anything I’ve posted that I was a 2nd Amendment absolutist.
Also, if I mistakenly inferred that you are in favor of banning handguns, it came from this: “No one needs a handgun for protection.” My apologies if I misinterpreted that.
Mandel,
I almost forgot to respond to your earlier comment. I am confuses as to when I stated that you can’t have a gun because I don’t like them. I only stated that I prefer not to have one and for other to not have the ability to carry a concealed weapon around me. I did not say that you can’t have a gun or that all guns should be banned, but significant restrictions should be made to make sure we are doing our best to control who is able to buy them and what kinds of guns and ammunition is available.
Elaine M wrote:
“I know it’s not over. My point was that hundreds of thousands/millions of Egyptian people didn’t have to use guns or high-power weapons to oust Mubarak.”
Actually it was the Army, who informed Mubarak: “Time to go…”.
The real test is yet to come: Who will tell the Army the very same thing, and what will be the result?
43North,
It may have been the Army who informed Mubarak that he should go, but why did they suggest that? Because of the hundreds of thousands of people who would not go home until Mubarak left.
You are right that it will be interesting to see if the Army really relinquishes their control to a democratic government.
43north,
I think I failed to respond to one of your comments earlier today.(at 4:01pm) I apologize. I am glad that you like my “cycling garb”. I also do try to stay hydrated and I am more secure with cars and SUV’s because I know that the little bit of mandatory training that drivers must have is more than what it takes to own a gun. I also know that my car offers some limited protection in case of an accident, but it is tough to stop a bullet with my Lycra,no matter how fast I pedal.
rafflaw,
“It may have been the Army who informed Mubarak that he should go, but why did they suggest that? Because of the hundreds of thousands of people who would not go home until Mubarak left.”
You answered 43 north for me. Would the army have ever suggested to Mubarak that he had to go if it hadn’t been for all the demonstrators who demanded that Mubarak must go? I think not.
Elaine,
I knew you could handle it, but I had a couple of issues to discuss with him anyways! I figured everyone else was asleep already!
25 years murder-free
in ‘Gun Town USA’
Crime rate plummeted after law
required firearms for residents
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
Read more: 25 years murder-free in ‘Gun Town USA’ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196#ixzz1DvsWgVEr
My son is the same way, he thinks “less guns = safer”.
Then there are his “what if” arguments…you can justify any argument using these.
He finally said we would agree to disagree…..I told him the problem is that he had never had a situation where he needed a gun, while I have.
And once you DO get in a situation where you NEED one, you are grateful as hell to have it…
So thanks, but no thanks Mr Rafferty
QUOTE “The United States leads the world’s richest nations in gun deaths — murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns.”
Its like comparing surfing accidents in Hawaii to those in Arizona.
So where’s the rest of the countries?
rafflaw:
It’s easy outside of common areas to be gun free in my state, you simply put a sticker on the door to your workplace announcing it’s a gun-free zone, and by law I must respect that. Amazingly, many businesses, the vast majority in fact, do no such thing. Why would you advertise to criminals who possess a gun illegally that you are a gun free zone? Believe it or not, that is the dynamic.
In common areas however as I said, your fears to not circumscribe my civil right.
There are huge amounts of laws relating to firearms, and those laws are sometimes laxly enforced or not enforced at all. There are some areas (Philadelphia comes to mind) where excuses like parking tickets area use to deny carry permits, something I believe is a pretty flimsy excuse for denying a fundamental right. In former times especially in the South, exactly the same tactics were used to deny blacks permits to own arms in the face of KKK attacks.
I advocate treating gun issues with fairness and and reasonable law, understanding it is a fundamental right, contained in the Constitution like freedom of speech. And I see most problems with guns as a law enforcement issue – we need to enforce the laws we already have – straw purchases, the NICS database and the mentally ill, criminal possession of guns – all these are already illegal but either not enforced or broken in some way by failure to report. I’m even open to the idea of opening the NICS database to private sales (currently by law only gun dealers have access, but many dealers will do a good citizen deed and use the database to see if a transfer would be approved if a party requests it). Those private sales, between two private parties living in the same state, are the famous ‘GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE’ which sounds good when Rachel says it, but is just a fiction – there is no gun show loophole, just private owners and they hardly need a gun show to to go through a transaction.
So I’m perfectly willing to talk about gun laws, but abrogating a fundamental civil; right is to me something that only happens in totalitarian states. And BTW, Switzerland just voted, and they’ll keep their fully automatic assault weapons at home, thanks – by a 57% margin.
rafflaw,
I guess we’re both night owls.
Jason:
If the issue is the nature and scope of gun restrictions then we are on the same page. Reasonable people can differ and if I erroneously asserted that you are an absolutist, you have my apologies as well.
Jason:
While I believe in a person’s right to bear arms, I do not believe a private citizens needs an arsenal, nor do they need military-grade weapons. When was the last time a homeowner needed to protect his or her property from a Black-Ops type home invasion with like weapons? None to my knowledge.
Common sense should dictate gun control, not fear, however, if left to the NRA, fear would rule the day. Sorry, that’s not how I want to live my life. If someone breaks into my home, my possessions are not worth my life so they are free to take whatever they want. If I get mugged, take my wallet – there isn’t much in there anyway. If I get raped, while it may take a toll on me physically, it will not destroy my soul or who I am. If I get shot in the process? So be it. Shit happens. I’m going to die at some point anyway and it just means my number was up. But I do know the chances of the perpetrator of a home invasion wounding or killing me with my own weapon are much greater than if I don’t have a gun at all.
I am truly grateful for having the right to bear arms.
If I did not have the right to bear arms, driving my 1998 Chevrolet Metro Sedan would be difficult, it has a manual transmission and I need one arm for shifting while using the other arm for steering.
I knew a man who lost the right to bear arms during World War II.
He kept only the right to bear his left arm.
His right arm was blown away along with his right to bear two arms.
His right to be left without his right arm was his right to be wronged.
And, whenever I go swimming at the Door County YMCA (my wife and I are members), I am grateful for the right to bare arms.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
Fifteen years ago, today, the priest at the cemetery let my wife and me sprinkle holy water on the caskets of our son and his wife, Michael Harris and Shelly Dukes.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
Our son was born on St. Valentine’s Day in 1968 and buried on St. Valentine’s Day in 1996.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
I am now crying.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
My son and his wife lost their right to bared arms.
My son and his wife gained the right to buried arms.
When the man who knows no sorrow hears weeping, he thinks it is a song.
Buddha is Laughing, Happy Valentine’s Day.
Knowing sorrow, I am now weeping.
Buddha is Laughing, Happy Valentine’s Day; for I love you.
Understanding sorrow, I sing the song of sorrowful passion.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
Selah!
As it be, so be it.
It is the Day of the Way.
For no reason other than I happen to think it’s cool:
QUOTE “When was the last time a homeowner needed to protect his or her property from a Black-Ops type home invasion with like weapons? None to my knowledge.”
“When the man who knows no sorrow hears weeping, he thinks it is a song.”
———————
What a beautiful thought.
Joy cannot live without sorrow…I hope you have more Joy than sorrow.
Happy Valentines Day ^..^
Stamford Liberal-
“Jason:
While I believe in a person’s right to bear arms,”
This is sort of like when you are talking to someone and they say, “Look, I’m not a racist, but….” You know that you are about to hear some good ole fashioned racism. You hate guns, you don’t like anyone owning them. At least be honest about what you want. Because everything that follows that line screams, “I don’t believe in a person’s right to bear arms.”
“I do not believe a private citizens needs an arsenal,”
As I said to mespo, who or what determines what an arsenal is? Most criminals don’t collect weapons, and damn near every gun crime is committed with one gun. It’s very very easy for even non-collectors to amass what to you might be an arsenal.
Let’s say I’m into the sport of Three-Gun. As you might guess, that requires I own three guns, a rifle, shotgun, and handgun. If I’m also into hunting, I’m going to need at least one rifle and one shotgun (usually of different types than used in Three gun). If I want to carry concealed, that’s another handgun. If I want to shoot at the range cheaply or work on my form, I might buy a .22 handgun. So without collecting a single weapon, just buying different guns for different purposes, I’ve got seven. And if I’m engaged in those sorts of hobbies, I’m not typically going to shoot people.
“nor do they need military-grade weapons.”
I suspect you don’t know what you mean when you say military-grade. Are you referring to what are commonly called assault weapons? Semi-automatics like the AR and AK platforms that are very popular? If so, they aren’t military grade. They are nothing but semi-automatic rifles that look mean to some people. They aren’t particularly powerful (in most cases they are less powerful than a typical hunting rifle) and their ability to use detachable box magazines is not unique to military weapons.
I also find it funny that anti-gun people will argue both, “The second amendment is about the militia,” and, “People shouldn’t have military weapons.” Regardless of what you think the 2A was about, it’s clear that they wanted regular people to have the same weapons that a soldier would have. And we don’t. Not even close.
“When was the last time a homeowner needed to protect his or her property from a Black-Ops type home invasion with like weapons? None to my knowledge.”
As has already been shown, these incidents do happen, though they are rare. Sort of like mass shootings or crimes where a high capacity magazines had any impact.
“Common sense should dictate gun control, not fear,”
You’re being ironic, right? Fear is behind virtually every gun control proposal in existence. More to the point, *irrational* fear is behind them.
“however, if left to the NRA, fear would rule the day.”
You’re response was addressed to me, so I have to repeat that I carry no water for the NRA. Indeed, they do rely on scare tactics and I hate them for it. They are in that sense the mirror image of the gun control lobby, who also spend much of their time yelling, “BOO.”
“Sorry, that’s not how I want to live my life.”
It’s not how I live mine either.
“If someone breaks into my home, my possessions are not worth my life so they are free to take whatever they want.”
If I *know* that they are their to take my TV, I agree, I will not shoot someone over property. The tricky part is knowing what they are there for. Most often, it will be just stuff, and if I’m awakened in the night by a noise, I will not go on a commando raid through my house. I’ll call the police and park myself at the top of the stairs. But if they come upstairs, I can’t afford to believe that they are there for stuff only. Thankfully, this is very unlikely to ever happen.
“If I get mugged, take my wallet – there isn’t much in there anyway.”
Again, I agree in general. You have to understand something. In most states, a licensed concealed carrier can’t just shoot anyone who scares him. He has to be in reasonable fear for his or another’s life. If I think that handing over my wallet will end the confrontation, I’ll do so. But it doesn’t always end that way. And if someone points a gun at me, they are de facto threatening to shoot me. They should not be surprised if I take that the wrong way.
“If I get raped, while it may take a toll on me physically, it will not destroy my soul or who I am. If I get shot in the process? So be it. Shit happens.”
And here’s where we will have to part ways. I can’t even comprehend this attitude. Let me change your scenario slightly. How about if someone was raping or threatening your spouse or significant other? Your child? You are ok with allowing them to face that trauma or harm rather than shoot the person doing it? “Hey, sorry honey, but I value life too much to shoot the guy who was raping you. Don’t worry, we’ll get you counseling. You know what I always say, ‘Shit happens!’ Hope you understand.”
Mandel,
I believe that the context for the gun free zones came from LaPierre in his lame attempt to blame government policies on the shootings in Tucson. The area where the shootings occured was not a gun free zone and Arizona is a conceal and carry state so the head of the NRA was talking out of his back end.
As to your comment on the so-called gun show loophole, it doesn’t matter what you call it if people can sell guns without proper and necessary checks on the party buying the weapon.
Woosty’s still a Cat 1, February 14, 2011 at 1:04 pm
“When the man who knows no sorrow hears weeping, he thinks it is a song.”
———————
What a beautiful thought.
Joy cannot live without sorrow…I hope you have more Joy than sorrow.
Happy Valentines Day ^..^
################################
That saying is a Yoruba proverb.
My greatest Joy of all is being given to rejoice, without limit, in the gift of life; even in the midst of the greatest of sorrows.
For such is the gift of having accepted trusting existence absolutely without reservation.
As I do, so I say.
Jason:
“This is sort of like when you are talking to someone and they say, “Look, I’m not a racist, but….” You know that you are about to hear some good ole fashioned racism. You hate guns, you don’t like anyone owning them. At least be honest about what you want. Because everything that follows that line screams, “I don’t believe in a person’s right to bear arms.”
I didn’t put words in your mouth, don’t do it to me. If you don’t believe me, that’s your opinion. You’re wrong, but it’s your choice to be wrong just the same.
True, I don’t like guns – even owned one for a while after I got divorced many moons ago, took safety lessons, etc., but found that I just wasn’t comfortable having a gun in the house. But, I do not begrudge anyone else having a gun under their roof. Their home, their choice, not mine.
“As I said to mespo, who or what determines what an arsenal is? Most criminals don’t collect weapons, and damn near every gun crime is committed with one gun. It’s very very easy for even non-collectors to amass what to you might be an arsenal.
Let’s say I’m into the sport of Three-Gun. As you might guess, that requires I own three guns, a rifle, shotgun, and handgun. If I’m also into hunting, I’m going to need at least one rifle and one shotgun (usually of different types than used in Three gun). If I want to carry concealed, that’s another handgun. If I want to shoot at the range cheaply or work on my form, I might buy a .22 handgun. So without collecting a single weapon, just buying different guns for different purposes, I’ve got seven. And if I’m engaged in those sorts of hobbies, I’m not typically going to shoot people.”
Anything more than what is necessary is an arsenal, IMHO. And here all this time I thought the primary reason for gun ownership was protection. Now there’s a gun for every reason, for every season. Three guns is fair as they each provide a distinct “service” for your needs. Seven? A bit extreme in my mind but, that’s just my opinion.
“I suspect you don’t know what you mean when you say military-grade. Are you referring to what are commonly called assault weapons? Semi-automatics like the AR and AK platforms that are very popular? If so, they aren’t military grade. They are nothing but semi-automatic rifles that look mean to some people. They aren’t particularly powerful (in most cases they are less powerful than a typical hunting rifle) and their ability to use detachable box magazines is not unique to military weapons.
I also find it funny that anti-gun people will argue both, “The second amendment is about the militia,” and, “People shouldn’t have military weapons.” Regardless of what you think the 2A was about, it’s clear that they wanted regular people to have the same weapons that a soldier would have. And we don’t. Not even close.”
What is the purpose of having a private citizen have access to these kinds of guns? Is bambi that dangerous that private citizens need AK-47′s? Remind me to make sure I leave treats out for Santa’s reindeer at Christmas, too.
And, please do remember the timeframe of when the 2A was written. We now have LEO’s and a military, unlike during the time when the Constitution was written. Do keep that in mind.
“As has already been shown, these incidents do happen, though they are rare. Sort of like mass shootings or crimes where a high capacity magazines had any impact.”
Rare. Sort of like where a man almost shot an innocent man, without knowing the facts, because all he saw was a gun. So the rare from your point of view trumps the rare from my point of view just … because. Got it.
“You’re being ironic, right? Fear is behind virtually every gun control proposal in existence. More to the point, *irrational* fear is behind them.”
Sadly, I’m not being ironic. And fear isn’t behind every proposal to relax gun control laws? Or does fear only apply to gun control?
“You’re response was addressed to me, so I have to repeat that I carry no water for the NRA. Indeed, they do rely on scare tactics and I hate them for it. They are in that sense the mirror image of the gun control lobby, who also spend much of their time yelling, “BOO.””
I agree to a point – I see the NRA and its supporters screaming, “BOO!” a hell of a lot more than I see the gun control lobby screaming, “BOO!” Obaman’s coming to take your guns, government is looking to strip the 2A, etc., etc., etc.
“If I *know* that they are their to take my TV, I agree, I will not shoot someone over property. The tricky part is knowing what they are there for. Most often, it will be just stuff, and if I’m awakened in the night by a noise, I will not go on a commando raid through my house. I’ll call the police and park myself at the top of the stairs. But if they come upstairs, I can’t afford to believe that they are there for stuff only. Thankfully, this is very unlikely to ever happen.”
Which is why I have 911 on speed dial. That’s what my taxes pay for.
“Again, I agree in general. You have to understand something. In most states, a licensed concealed carrier can’t just shoot anyone who scares him. He has to be in reasonable fear for his or another’s life. If I think that handing over my wallet will end the confrontation, I’ll do so. But it doesn’t always end that way. And if someone points a gun at me, they are de facto threatening to shoot me. They should not be surprised if I take that the wrong way.”
You choose to carry a concealed weapon, I don’t. I’m not looking to take your right away to do so. I have a better chance of being wounded or killed with my own weapon than I am someone elses. This is not a risk I am willing to take.
“And here’s where we will have to part ways. I can’t even comprehend this attitude. Let me change your scenario slightly. How about if someone was raping or threatening your spouse or significant other? Your child? You are ok with allowing them to face that trauma or harm rather than shoot the person doing it? “Hey, sorry honey, but I value life too much to shoot the guy who was raping you. Don’t worry, we’ll get you counseling. You know what I always say, ‘Shit happens!’ Hope you understand.””
You don’t find it ironic that you condemn gun control advocates for instilling fear, then post what you did above?? I’m sorry you cannot comprehend the way I look at this but I don’t form my opinions or way of life to please other people. I form them based on my life experiences. If something bad is going to happen to me, it will and there’s not a damned thing I can do about it – it’s called life. I will not apologize for not having a gun under my roof or on my person in the chance that a fear-driven “might” happen.
I have experienced quite a bit of violence and abuse and have gotten through each and every experience much stronger. Why? Because I have a very good sense of who I am and what I am capable of, virtues I have instilled in my family. Falling victim to fear is not one of them. My family takes the necessary precautionary actions without having guns strapped to our sides, but, should misfortune come our way, I will not be the blase’ person you appear to think I am. I will do my damnedest to support, nurture and do whatever is necessary to see them through whatever may happen.
The biggest mass murderers in history are governments. They are the biggest murderers of unarmed civilians. This is who is to be feared the most.
Lone wackos are pikers in comparison.
The feds have NO authority whatsoever to limit weapons. Though, as a result of my continued education and learning about the subject of the tenth amendment, I do believe the states have the power to make reasonable laws about guns (what kind) and who can own them (not the mentally retarded, etc).
The feds have absolutely no power. None. All they can do is beg the states for whatever laws they would like. And foolish would be the state to give the feds everything they want.
The BATF? Unconstitutional.
Stamford Liberal wrote:
Rare. Sort of like where a man almost shot an innocent man, without knowing the facts, because all he saw was a gun. So the rare from your point of view trumps the rare from my point of view just … because. Got it.
The key word is “almost” which evidently equates to the crime of brandishing, and attempted murder?
We’re knee-jerked into “GUN!!!” and everyone goes into hyper-drive.
New Orleans cops smash a 80-ish year old women into the wall when a gun is shown to them in a position incapable of discharge. On videotape. What did they say prior to doing so?
“M’am, may we have that please?” No. “GUN!!!!” as-if she’s some known gangbanger.
In Tucson, lets say this fellow sees the carnage, and a man with a gun. He bashes the (good guy) over the head with a 30 pound microphone stand, as the phrase: “GUN!!!!” was heard, and he can see the bloodshed. Would you be so incensed?
Accident. Reasonable reaction given the circumstances.
Instead, this fellow you speak-of used a minimal amount of force and made a good (safe) decision.
In hind-sight you call it unwarranted and “ALMOST shooting” an innocent. ONLY due to the presence of his firearm.
If it was a cop who did this, on or off-duty, you’d be citing due diligence. Training. Rules of engagement. So it comes down to the civilian possession of a gun, as the one thing that must END NOW. Got it.
Oh, and the best gun group in America: Gun Owners Of America.
http://gunowners.org/
This production is from a Jewish gun ownership organization it is called No Guns For Jews.
Stamford Liberal-
I think we’ve reached the point where we are dancing in circles. I’ll try to answer anyway.
“I didn’t put words in your mouth, don’t do it to me. If you don’t believe me, that’s your opinion. You’re wrong, but it’s your choice to be wrong just the same.”
Ok, fine. You want to place numerous arbitrary rules and bans in place, but you support the right to bear arms. Is that more accurate?
“But, I do not begrudge anyone else having a gun under their roof. Their home, their choice, not mine.”
Unless it’s a gun that you don’t like, or it’s “too many” guns, or…
“Anything more than what is necessary is an arsenal, IMHO.”
So now you or the government dictates what is “necessary” based on what?
“And here all this time I thought the primary reason for gun ownership was protection.”
For some people it is. For others not. Others see them both ways equally.
“Now there’s a gun for every reason, for every season.”
This has always been the case. Self-defense guns are usually different gun than those used for buffalo hunting or target shooting. It was true 100 years ago and it’s true now.
“Three guns is fair as they each provide a distinct “service” for your needs. Seven? A bit extreme in my mind but, that’s just my opinion.”
You still haven’t explained why three is ok but seven isn’t, nor have you given a rational explanation for why it’s bad for a law abiding citizen to have a lot of guns. Which number makes it bad? If three is ok and seven isn’t, is it four, five, or six that crosses the line? And why?
“What is the purpose of having a private citizen have access to these kinds of guns?”
You’re not paying attention. Do you understand what you are talking about when you say, “these kinds of guns”?
“Is bambi that dangerous that private citizens need AK-47′s?”
This is one of the most tired and ridiculous cliches. As I mentioned, the typical AK clone is LESS powerful than a deer rifle. Aside from that, AR clones are becoming more and more common as hunting rifles because their caliber can be switched easily, they are very accurate, light weight, and have a huge aftermarket.
So called assault weapons like AKs and ARs are used in a tiny fraction of all gun crime. ALL long guns account for only two percent of crime guns.
“Rare. Sort of like where a man almost shot an innocent man, without knowing the facts, because all he saw was a gun.”
This is insane. He didn’t know the facts so HE DIDN’T FREAKING SHOOT. It went the way things are supposed to go! The guy assessed the situation, realized that he couldn’t do anything safely with his gun, and chose not to fire.
And yes, it’s incredibly rare. I’ll make a challenge. You dig up all the news stories of legal concealed carriers shooting someone innocent, I’ll dig up all of the stories of them defending themselves without hurting anyone innocent. You don’t want to put money on this challenge, trust me.
“So the rare from your point of view trumps the rare from my point of view just … because. Got it.”
No, rare compared to people using guns to defend themselves, which you don’t think should count apparently.
“Sadly, I’m not being ironic. And fear isn’t behind every proposal to relax gun control laws? Or does fear only apply to gun control?”
I flat out said that they were the mirror image of each other. Yes, they both use fear.
“I agree to a point – I see the NRA and its supporters screaming, “BOO!” a hell of a lot more than I see the gun control lobby screaming, “BOO!” Obaman’s coming to take your guns, government is looking to strip the 2A, etc., etc., etc.”
And I see the gun control people yelling boo as in, “Oh my god deadly assault weapons think of the children,” and, “Oh my god, high capacity magazines,” and, “Holy crap gun shows, we have to do something!”
In almost every instance, that which they are screaming about has little or nothing to do with violent crime, but does scare the crap out of people who don’t know better (or know that violent crime has plummeted in the last twenty years.
“Which is why I have 911 on speed dial. That’s what my taxes pay for.”
That’s nice, but the police are a reactionary force. The crime is already in progress when you call them. You then have to hope that they get there in time. I don’t pay them tax money on the assumption that they can magically get to my house the instant I call them.
“You choose to carry a concealed weapon, I don’t. I’m not looking to take your right away to do so.”
But most of your posts have been about doing that. You don’t want me to own more weapons than you want, you don’t want me to own scary looking guns because, I’m not sure.
“You don’t find it ironic that you condemn gun control advocates for instilling fear, then post what you did above??”
I put up an obviously unlikely scenario to try to get an answer from you. You are the one who said you weren’t willing to shoot someone to prevent rape. I used an obviously extreme hypothetical in the hope that you would clarify your view.
“I form them based on my life experiences. If something bad is going to happen to me, it will and there’s not a damned thing I can do about it – it’s called life.”
But there is something you can do about it sometimes. Do you have fire extinguishers? Do you use a seat belt? If so, why? House fires happen, car accidents happen, there’s nothing you can do about it, right?
“I have experienced quite a bit of violence and abuse and have gotten through each and every experience much stronger. Why? Because I have a very good sense of who I am and what I am capable of, virtues I have instilled in my family. Falling victim to fear is not one of them.”
Again, do you take ANY precautions in life? I’m reasonably certain that I’ll never fire my gun in anger, quite a bit more certain than that I will never get in a car accident.
“My family takes the necessary precautionary actions”
Why? Life happens, you can’t do anything about it.
“without having guns strapped to our sides, but, should misfortune come our way, I will not be the blase’ person you appear to think I am. I will do my damnedest to support, nurture and do whatever is necessary to see them through whatever may happen.”
But not protect them? So if forced to choose, you’d prefer a loved one be harmed to protect the person harming them?
The “blase’” comment was uncalled for as well. I take the thought of taking life seriously. I know the ramifications, legal, financial, and most importantly, psychological. I do not wish for a chance to use my gun, I do not dream of scenarios where I “get” to blow away the bad guys. I want “peace, love, and understanding” as much as anyone. But I don’t base my actions on what I wish was true, but on what I can best determine is true.
I am thinking of turning in my soldering guns to the police. Yes, it would be possible, though perhaps challenging, to murder someone with a soldering gun.
Oh. Sorry. Forgot the hot melt glue gun.
What about that grease gun?
How do I turn in an imaginary rivet gun?
Guns are not the problem, human violence is the problem?
What causes humans to become violent is the problem.
No unborn fetus has ever committed willful homicide.
The will to homicide is learned, not inborn.
Please shoot that down if you can.
Please do not shoot me with real bullets in your shooting, words alone are all that I find acceptable for such shooting down.
Some day, someone may be stupid enough to really try those supposed teachings of Jesus, to see if they actually work.
To paraphrase a story told of Bill Gates, “Why not try it sometime?”
Never ask an engineer-type-person a question that starts out with, “Why not…”
Lest you may learn something!
Jason:
You can incorrectly read into my posts that I seek to ban guns, that I don’t believe people have the right to have them. Whatever, I’m not going to continue the circle jerk with you as I haven’t the time nor the energy to do so.
Obviously, you think that by not having a gun on my person or in my home it somehow disables me in defending me and my own. So, I see that I must spell it out for you – should anyone ever break into my home I will grab a knife or baseball bat; if on the street and confronted by a criminal who doesn’t just want my wallet, I will use whatever strength and whatever tools I can find, be they keys, the can of mace I carry, or a brick lying on the ground, in order to fight them off.
Just because I choose not to have a gun doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other means of protecting myself or my family. Jesus Christ …
Another presentation by Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership: No Guns For Negros.
http://jpfo.org/
Here is another clip at the JPFO website about the BATF gangsters.
http://www.thegangmovie.com/gang-atf-vidplay.htm
Folks, the only people who want to take your guns away are the ones who want to kill you.
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.-
“Oh. Sorry. Forgot the hot melt glue gun.”
I’m only half kidding when I say I fear hot glue guns more than firearms. I’ve never been hurt using a firearm. On the other hand, I can’t seem to be in the same room as a hot glue gun and not get third degree burns. Screw hot glue guns.
Stamford Liberal-
“You can incorrectly read into my posts that I seek to ban guns,”
So I should interpret your words as saying you are not in favor of banning “military grade” weapons, that you think it’s ok for civilians to own them? You’ve implied otherwise, but I’d be happy to be wrong.
“Obviously, you think that by not having a gun on my person or in my home it somehow disables me in defending me and my own.”
That wasn’t what made me think that, it was these words that made me think that:
“If I get raped, while it may take a toll on me physically, it will not destroy my soul or who I am. If I get shot in the process? So be it. Shit happens.”
I don’t think I’m being unreasonable when I interpret that as, “If I get attacked, so be it,” which in turn seems to mean, “I won’t defend myself.” Call me crazy.
“So, I see that I must spell it out for you – should anyone ever break into my home I will grab a knife or baseball bat;”
Now it’s just a matter of what kind of lethal force we are willing to use. You are willing to smash people with a bat or slice their vital organs until they withdraw or bleed out, while I wish to use a gun, hoping they’ll leave at its sight but willing to punch a nasty hole through them if necessary. See, we’re not so different! High five!
“if on the street and confronted by a criminal who doesn’t just want my wallet, I will use whatever strength and whatever tools I can find, be they keys, the can of mace I carry, or a brick lying on the ground, in order to fight them off.”
Stamford Liberal-approved methods of self defense: bone crushing, brain smashing bat or brick, disemboweling, hemorrhage-inducing blade, mace, and keys. Ok, got it.
As an aside, my 62 year old mother lives alone and is virtually immobile (like it takes minutes to walk thirty feet). Which one of those would you recommend for someone in her situation? I’m thinking bat, brick, keys, and knife probably aren’t practical. So mace?
Yes, I’m being sarcastic.
“Just because I choose not to have a gun doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other means of protecting myself or my family. Jesus Christ …”
No no, I’m glad to hear that you are willing to severely injure or kill someone to protect a loved one. You just want to use a different tool to do it.
What you still haven’t told me:
*Why are three guns ok, but seven not? And what rationale did you use to select the “correct” number?
*What do you mean by “military grade” weapons?
*Why is an AK-47 bad but a pretty, wood-grained hunting rifle good? Especially since most hunting rifles are more powerful than an AK-47?
I’m not asking these questions to be a smart-ass. This type of thinking is behind a lot of gun control ideas, including the high capacity magazine ban.
RE: Jason, February 14, 2011 at 9:15 pm
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.-
“Oh. Sorry. Forgot the hot melt glue gun.”
I’m only half kidding when I say I fear hot glue guns more than firearms.
########################
Because a person tends to be within very close range to a hot melt glue gun, the high temperature ones can be truly dangerous, but not to someone a few blocks away, sitting in a city park, as was one grandfather who got shot dead by a bullet mis-aimed at an inadequate target, in the Chicago area. Guns are not particularly dangerous, and bullets are not dangerous if not overheated and if no one ever uses them.
People are not dangerous unless, as Albert Ellis observed, a belief is activated by an event and the activated belief produces a dangerous act.
So, it is beliefs which are actually dangerous, and nothing else.
Introductory Science 001.
“So, it is beliefs which are actually dangerous, and nothing else.” – Brian Harris
“April the 4th, 1984. To the past, or to the future. To an age when thought is free. From the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man… greetings.” – Winston Smith
mens rea: An element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and willfulness.
actus reus: As an element of criminal responsibility, the wrongful act or omission that comprises the physical components of a crime. Criminal statutes generally require proof of both actus reus and mens rea on the part of a defendant in order to establish criminal liability.
By definition, a dangerous thought is just a thought and is not a malum in se crime without action being taken on that thought.
Once again, you are staggeringly and completely wrong, Brian.
Hey Buddha – I will catch up with you on another thread soon; but first more Kate!
“Ooh, Wayne, are you selling your soul for a cold gun?”
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 14, 2011 at 10:23 pm
“So, it is beliefs which are actually dangerous, and nothing else.” – Brian Harris
################################
I find I may have understood enough about the language of the world of the Adversarial Principle to give a simple, though likely to be misunderstood, account of my research methodology.
Being autistic as I am, and so having no access to a “theory of mind” as commonly defined in autism research, I developed a method of psychoanalysis simply to survive kindergarten.
I let all variables run free save one, the independent variable countertransference; and carefully observe the dependent variable transference; using longitudinal control.
If that not be perfectly clear, a good place to start may be the collected works of Heinz Kohut and the collected works of William Ronald Dodds Fairbairn.
To be a lawyer, a lawyer needs to know how the law works.
To be a bioengineer, a bioengineer needs only to know and understand how the law does not work.
Methinks my task regarding law is vastly the easier of the two.
Methinks your task is one for which you are not properly trained or suited.
To be a lawyer, a lawyer needs to know how the law works AND how it doesn’t work.
Bioengineering is the application of concepts and methods of physics and mathematics to solve problems in life sciences, using engineering’s own analytical and synthetical methodologies.
Your profession has jacksquat to do with the law or legalism. You have, in effect, brought a knife to a particle beam weapon fight. You are no more qualified to critique what doesn’t work in law than I am to critique what is wrong with a potential cure for cancer.
Your task is easier simply because you don’t know what the Hell you are talking about. You have a demonstrably anti-legalist agenda you wish to promote by hiding behind your completely inappropriate and inapplicable education and calling what is actually your faith-based opinion “your work” to give it a clothing of respectability and credibility when it has neither. That, at best, makes you as delusional as a zoologist thinking they can design space stations and, at worst, a complete an utter propaganda troll.
Methinks you are exposed once again.
Wonder if one of them thar hypertheticles would be youseful?
Imagine you are a quadrillionaire and you want a custom Ferrari that can fly at Mach 33 and get 800 miles per gallon of used french-fry oil, and imagine that, for a mere 93 trillion dollars, Ferrari can and will build it. And you buy it and it works better in every way than you had hoped it would.
Driving on a mountain road in the French Alps, a rock crashes down and dings a front wheel. Driving carefully, you get to a service station where the dinged wheel is replaced with the spare. Only the service technician overlooks the final torquing of the lug nuts. Off you go, and one after another, the lug nuts fall off and cascade down the nearby ravines. Finally, the wheel comes loose, just at the beginning of a fenced-in space with a large building inside it.
Being a quadrillionaire, you never needed to get your hands dirty and never did any meaningful physical work. Someone comes from the big building and walks as close as possible inside the fence and asks if he can help, asking also what is the problem.
The quadrillionaire explains that the lug nuts are gone and that there is no way to continue driving. The man inside the fence, noting that every wheel has six lug nuts, suggests taking one lug nut from the front tire still on the car and two from each of the rear tires, so that both front tires can have five of the usual six lug nuts and the rear tires, with their lesser load, can have four each.
The man inside the fence then mentions a service station about ten miles down the mountain.
The quadrillionaire removes the mentioned lug nuts, and, with directions from the man inside the fence, properly sets up the jack and installs the wheel that came loose as suggested.
When the jack and lug wrench have been put back where they belong, the quadrillionaire asks how the man inside the fence knew what he did, and why the fence.
The man inside the fence answered, “I am insane and I am not stupid.”
So, to my pejorative critics, I avow that, within your adversarial world, I am far beyond blatantly, outrageously insane, and infinitely so beyond any possibility of doubt.
Oh. Sorry. I wonder.
Just how stupid am I?
Stupid enough to know and understand better than to ever really live in an adversarial world?
“Stupid enough to know and understand better than to ever really live in an adversarial world?”
The nature of reality – the measurable, verifiable and testable reality – is rife with adversity. From intra- and inter-species competition (as one with biological training, you should know that as a fact already) to conflict for control of resources to the battle of competing ideas, ideals and philosophies. This is hardly a comprehensive list of the adverse situations present in every day existence upon the planet Earth. The world you choose to live in? The one with perfectible people and no need for law and/or adversarial process?
It is pure fantasy, Brian.
I still think you’re a troll using a sympathetic mask, but just in case you aren’t? Your delusion is so severe as to merit regular therapy if not hospitalization. You are not just a memetic danger to society by the antisocial views you espouse, but if you are so removed from reality you don’t realize the adversity inherent in the natural and societal world around you? You are a danger to yourself and possibly others albeit probably indirectly to others.
If you are not a propaganda troll?
You seriously need to seek professional psychological help.
I seriously need to seek professional psychological help?
I did that.
I also sought professional psychiatric help.
Both are well documented in my doctoral dissertation.
That is how I got this way.
Boink!
Can anyone here add something new other than parrot Brady propaganda? For example
“The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.6″
Is the issue gun deaths or murder rates? The above stat is misleading. for MURDER rates, the US is 24th at 5 per 100,000. Brazil is about 20. Mexico also has a higher murder rate. Both have stricter gun control laws. Look up murder rates from objective sources. Brady is as if not more dishonest than the NRA.
Also, why should anyone who knows nothing on a subject tell anyone what they “need”?
Please put on your critical thinking caps.