or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Massacre in Connecticut - Page 4

post #121 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Oh look, a 3 year old dead after discovering a loaded gun today-

 

"A 3-year-old boy is dead after shooting himself in the head early Saturday afternoon, authorities said.

 

The boy was visiting a relative at a home in the 1500 block of Derby Lane, about four miles southeast of Guthrie. He found a loaded handgun in a bedroom, Logan County sheriff's Capt. Richard Stephens said."

http://newsok.com/3-year-old-dies-after-accidental-shooting-near-guthrie/article/3738015

And whose fault is that?

 

The moronic relative, that's who.

 

Guns are just fine, as long as responsible people own them, and not mentally unstable people. There are quite a few mentally unstable people in the US (and elsewhere), and these people should be denied any gun ownership. As long as people are normal, and are not lunatics, like the shooter and his mother in Connecticut, then guns are just fine.

post #122 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Quite likely you could, but you would not be able to make an explosive device with that material.

 

I don't know if that's accurate.  I suspect it's not.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer is (roughly) half ANFO. Fuel oil is the other half.

 

I take it that means one could make it into an explosive?  I had assumed one could, but perhaps I'm wrong.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by groakes View Post

 

 

 

How about something like:

 

 Quote:

State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defence.

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:

  • Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
  • Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
  • Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
  • Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
  • Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibers are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.
  • Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

Certain Antique firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.

All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).

Australia has very tight restrictions on items which are far less controlled in comparable societies such as the UK. Air pistols, elsewhere unrestricted, are as difficult to get as centrefire and rimfire handguns, and low-powered airguns are as difficult as cartridge arms to license. Airsoft guns are banned in all states and non-firing replicas banned in most. Suppressors (or 'silencers') which are legal in the UK and New Zealand, are extremely restricted in Australia to a few government bodies.

 

No, I would not support those restrictions at all.  First, the 2nd Amendment does not require that people provide a reason for wanting to own any gun.   And self-defense is a primary reason someone would want one.  The fact that someone needs to provide a "genuine reason" and "genuine need" in some cases is totally unacceptable...at least for the weapons in question,  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Not necessarily. You are making an assumption here. You may also be assuming that someone using this type of firearm who is untrained holds an equal advantage with someone who has training (which a security guard likely would have.)

 

P.S. The rifle used here was not an "assault rifle." This is a very common mistake. Assault rifles are used by the military and have both fully automatic and burst fire modes. Rifles available to civilians have neither of these.

 

 

 

Perhaps some, but the implication also was that security personnel would not also be equally (or more) trained.

 

 

 

Well since there are no automatic weapons involved here that's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

My understanding is that laws on full auto rifles vary by state.  In fact, I'm positive full auto (AR-15 for example) is legal in PA but not DE.  My friend has one, but can't own a full auto model (or silencer) since he lives in DE.  I believe both are legal in PA.   

 

I think there is probably a case for a nationwide ban on full auto rifles, large magazines, etc.   What are your thoughts?  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Are you actually disagreeing with what I wrote, or just using the question of my experience as a deflection because you don't like the implications of what I was saying? Please don't just project your own ignorance at me.

 

Excuse me?  I'm saying I think you used the phrase "in my experience" to project an air of credibility.  I am saying I don't think you have the experience to make any such statement or judgement.  

 

 

Quote:
I can certainly clarify what I was saying, which is that having observed numerous casual gun owners on their rather occasional visits to firing ranges, I have noticed that, even at close range, with no distractions and at a slow, self-determined fire rate, they are very inaccurate. It takes substantial and regular practice to improve.

 

1.  How do define "numerous?" 

2.  How do you define "casual?"

3.  Other than inaccuracy, what causes you to think these owners are "casual?"  

4.  Most importantly, why do you assume that lack of accuracy will result in additional casualties?  

 

 

Quote:

 

So, it is both what I have seen and what I, in common with many others, think applies to the population of gun owners as a whole

 

Why do you think it applies to "the population of gun owners as whole?"  What evidence do you have beyond your observation?   

 

 

Quote:
Feel free to dispute that conclusion if you disagree.

 

I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote...both for the reasons already stated, and the fact that my own experience is exactly the opposite.  Every gun owner I've known is safe, responsible and trained..at least to some degree.  That being said, I don't necessarily think everyone is that way.  I'm not going to claim that somehow my experience shows that "the population" of gun owners is one way or the other.  

 

 

Quote:
 But you even admitted that you would want training..

 

What do you mean "even me."  Of course I would want training. 

 

 

Quote:
 What do you think that entails?

 

From what I understand...safety protocols, operation and marksmanship.   

 

 

Quote:

 

A quick trip to the range to be shown how to operate the gun, where to find the takedown lever and a quick target session?

 

Again, from what I understand it's considerably more involved than that.  NRA offers dozens of courses with certified instructors, for example.  

 

 

 

Quote:
 Because that's the level of training that many gun owners have.

 

I'm going to ask you to provide some data to support that assertion.  Otherwise, you're just making crap up that fits your pre-determined view of gun owners in general.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #123 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

I'll bet you $1000 I can walk into a Lowes or Home Depot right now and buy 10 large bags.  Then I can go across the street and buy 10 more.  Then, another store and 10 more after that.  

 

I bet you could too, and I'd bet you'd be on secret FBI surveillance cameras too. Then you'd be thoroughly checked out and watched.

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #124 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

No, it's not a straw man, it's a response to your implicit assertion (above) that the solution to these problems does not lie in legislation. And your arguments that the gun laws did not fail in this case actually makes the opposite argument. The laws were not broken, and yet a clearly disturbed individual got hold of three weapons and a large quantity of ammunition. That suggests that the laws are inadequate. That does not mean banning ownership is indicated, but perhaps that laws regarding storage are inadequate, for example.

 

Your argument on the cars issue is specious. The direct mechanism of the crime was not the car he drove in, nor the clothes he wore, nor any other lawful object he possessed other than the weapons. They were the only essential enabling elements.

 

Again the strawman is right htere. No one has said that legislation couldn't be part of the solution. The point is that ADDITIONAL legislation isn't part of the solution because this crime was not caused by an omission related to guns. If one says that means someone doesn't endorse any legislation or present legislation, those are strawmen.

 

You mention storage but there isn't anything that can prevent removal of firearms from storage once you have killed the owner. You can take their keys. You can unlock whatever is necessary. If it is biometric you can simply cut off their finger.

 

The disturbed individual got hold of three weapons by breaking laws not related to gun ownership. He murdered his mom and took her weapons. THe argument about the car is not specious because it is exactly the same. The crime wasn't that a lack of gun laws allowed him to get a gun. He committed the crime of murder and theft. You are arguing that gun laws failed in the face of murder and theft. THAT is the specious argument.

 

OK - before this goes any further would you mind reconciling your statements that legislation can be part of the solution, but that additional legislation cannot be part of the solution? That can only, presumably, imply that you think the existing laws (that vary considerably by State) are just right?

 

I disagree that we can simply rule out modifying gun laws to assist in mitigating these problems. You are making assumptions about storage solutions. If it's a combination lock then killing the owner does not gain access. Yes - you could torture the owner etc., etc., but it is still much harder than just taking unsecured weapons, and since this subject shot his mother with one of her own guns, I suspect they were unsecured.

 

You went ahead and made the same argument again that I was disagreeing with, so clearly I did not have to construct it as a straw man to disagree with it.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Are you actually disagreeing with what I wrote, or just using the question of my experience as a deflection because you don't like the implications of what I was saying? Please don't just project your own ignorance at me.

 

I can certainly clarify what I was saying, which is that having observed numerous casual gun owners on their rather occasional visits to firing ranges, I have noticed that, even at close range, with no distractions and at a slow, self-determined fire rate, they are very inaccurate. It takes substantial and regular practice to improve.

 

So, it is both what I have seen and what I, in common with many others, think applies to the population of gun owners as a whole. Feel free to dispute that conclusion if you disagree. But you even admitted that you would want training. What do you think that entails? A quick trip to the range to be shown how to operate the gun, where to find the takedown lever and a quick target session? Because that's the level of training that many gun owners have.

 

Certainly you are bright enough to understand that personal anecdotes aren't sound reasoning. He's just asking you to share what caused you to make this personal claim.

 

My own shooting experience has been quite the opposite. I've been a great shot my entire life no matter the weapon or amount of experience on it. I've won dozens of ridiculous bets from all manner of people related to my ability to hit targets and make shots. That said I don't own a gun and haven't owned one in my adult life. Most people who don't shoot well seem to not be strong enough to deal with recoil or flinch at the noise.

 

Those two things can be overcome with experience

 

Anecdotes and reasoning are independent, so I have no idea what point you think you are trying to make. And he did not ask me to share anything, he opened with the declaration that he doubted that I have any experience. That was it. Not even a stated disagreement with my observation.

 

I'm pleased to hear that you are a self-proclaimed great shot, and that you have the curious notion that inaccuracy on target is mostly due to recoil or flinching from the noise; that certainly calibrates for me your knowledge of firearms.

post #125 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Finally, some sense from a conservative today-

 

 "And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want."

~ Jo Scarborough

 

Huh. Says who? Jo Scarborough?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #126 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I bet you could too, and I'd bet you'd be on secret FBI surveillance cameras too. Then you'd be thoroughly checked out and watched.

 

Indeed. God love the surveillance state.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #127 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

4.  Most importantly, why do you assume that lack of accuracy will result in additional casualties?  

 

 

Because bullets don't simply evaporate into thin air when you miss.  When surveying my house I quickly realized that my house was mostly indefensible given that to cover the stairwell from most of the viable shooting positions I would be shooting into my daughter's bedroom because of the geometry.  The remaining two positions pretty much left me fully exposed to the floors below.

 

So we have an alarm system.

 

Under stress I couldn't hit an elephant because I don't shoot much and more importantly I don't train under stress.  So the final analysis is that from a family safety perspective I would be safer with more strict gun control laws that are actually enforced vs the current state of affairs.  The bad guys almost always have the initiative in these scenarios so I'd rather face a bad guy wielding a knife than a gun at 3AM.  Also at 3AM I'm more likely to short stroke my shotgun than actually manage to fire a second time...that's assuming I got my act sufficiently together to shoot the first time.  I probably should get a semi (and train) if "home defense" was high on my list of things to do.

 

In a crowded mall situation I'd probably not shoot even if I had a CCW unless my own family was in imminent danger.  That's assuming I wasn't simply standing around shocked like many normal people.

 

I have no clue why otherwise reasonably sane people believe that a gun is some kind of magic wand to make bad guys go away.

post #128 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Because bullets don't simply evaporate into thin air when you miss.  When surveying my house I quickly realized that my house was mostly indefensible given that to cover the stairwell from most of the viable shooting positions I would be shooting into my daughter's bedroom because of the geometry.  The remaining two positions pretty much left me fully exposed to the floors below.

 

Indeed. Wise analysis. Always know what the path of the bullet will be.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

So we have an alarm system.

 

A loud dog is also a decent addition.

 

Part of the strategy is create deterrents and speed bumps to a perpetrator.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

So the final analysis is that from a family safety perspective I would be safer with more strict gun control laws that are actually enforced vs the current state of affairs.  The bad guys almost always have the initiative in these scenarios so I'd rather face a bad guy wielding a knife than a gun at 3AM.

 

You seem to assume that the laws would actually keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

I have no clue why otherwise reasonably sane people believe that a gun is some kind of magic wand to make bad guys go away.

 

I don't think people believe that. But I wonder why otherwise reasonably sane and intelligent people believe that criminals will obey these (gun) laws when they don't obey others.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #129 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Quite likely you could, but you would not be able to make an explosive device with that material.

 

I don't know if that's accurate.  I suspect it's not.  

 

It is accurate for the technical reasons that I explained previously in this thread. I notice that you chose not to address those though, preferring to stick to your tried and tested "you are wrong" approach.

post #130 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Are you actually disagreeing with what I wrote, or just using the question of my experience as a deflection because you don't like the implications of what I was saying? Please don't just project your own ignorance at me.

 

Excuse me?  I'm saying I think you used the phrase "in my experience" to project an air of credibility.  I am saying I don't think you have the experience to make any such statement or judgement.  

 

And remind me why you think that?

 

Quote:
Quote:
I can certainly clarify what I was saying, which is that having observed numerous casual gun owners on their rather occasional visits to firing ranges, I have noticed that, even at close range, with no distractions and at a slow, self-determined fire rate, they are very inaccurate. It takes substantial and regular practice to improve.

 

1.  How do define "numerous?" 

2.  How do you define "casual?"

3.  Other than inaccuracy, what causes you to think these owners are "casual?"  

4.  Most importantly, why do you assume that lack of accuracy will result in additional casualties?  

 

1. I'm guessing you want it quantified, rather than defined. Then, let me guess, you won't believe that and you will want names and SS numbers, maybe signed affidavits, photographic evidence? I'm not playing that game with you.

 

2. Does not spend any significant time practicing any form of shooting.

 

3. Because I know they don't spend time at the range.

 

4. I didn't mention additional casualties, other than themselves.

 

Quote:
Quote:

So, it is both what I have seen and what I, in common with many others, think applies to the population of gun owners as a whole

 

Why do you think it applies to "the population of gun owners as whole?"  What evidence do you have beyond your observation?   

 

Statistical extrapolation.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Feel free to dispute that conclusion if you disagree.

 

I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote...both for the reasons already stated, and the fact that my own experience is exactly the opposite.  Every gun owner I've known is safe, responsible and trained..at least to some degree.  That being said, I don't necessarily think everyone is that way.  I'm not going to claim that somehow my experience shows that "the population" of gun owners is one way or the other.  

 

But you said that you had no experience. Perhaps I misunderstood. You have never fired a gun, barely ever held one, but you feel competent to assess all the gun owners that you know as safe and responsible (neither of which necessarily require shooting ability), and trained? Perhaps we should play your game after all:

 

How many gun owners do you know?

How have you assessed their competency and training?

Please provide evidence of your competency to assess their competency.

Define safe.

Define responsible.

Define trained.

Define "to some degree".

Etc., etc..

 

You see what I did there? You see how pointless this rapidly becomes? You're not really here for a discussion though, are you?

 

Quote:
Quote:
 Because that's the level of training that many gun owners have.

 

I'm going to ask you to provide some data to support that assertion.  Otherwise, you're just making crap up that fits your pre-determined view of gun owners in general. 

 

A false dichotomy and non sequitur in two short sentences. Nice. Somewhat amusing that you picked a subject on which you yourself declared yourself as ignorant. How about you go and look something up for yourself for once? Your constant technique of argument by incessant whining for evidence is juvenile. One defining feature of irretrievable ignorance is the complete inability to realize when one knows nothing about a subject, and when one is unable to discern when someone else does.

post #131 of 1058

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #132 of 1058

 

Did I miss something, or did he fail even to mention which laws he thinks are being broken?

post #133 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

But I wonder why otherwise reasonably sane and intelligent people believe that criminals will obey these (gun) laws when they don't obey others.

 

Unpalatable and far from ideal it may be, but surely the primary purpose of gun legislation is not to constrain criminal behavior, but to require law-abiding citizens and companies to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

post #134 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Did I miss something, or did he fail even to mention which laws he thinks are being broken?

 

Yeah, I didn't hear anything on that either. Sounds like so much bluster to be honest.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #135 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Unpalatable and far from ideal it may be, but surely the primary purpose of gun legislation is not to constrain criminal behavior, but to require law-abiding citizens and companies to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

 

I understand the purpose and the goal. I simply seriously doubt the effectiveness in achieving the goal and fulfilling the purpose.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #136 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Unpalatable and far from ideal it may be, but surely the primary purpose of gun legislation is not to constrain criminal behavior, but to require law-abiding citizens and companies to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

 

I understand the purpose and the goal. I simply seriously doubt the effectiveness in achieving the goal and fulfilling the purpose.

 

Yes - I don't disagree that it is hard to achieve - I was just addressing your question regarding why anyone would expect the criminals to obey the laws, which is kind of an oxymoron. It is a significant distinction to note that the these laws are not targeting the illegal users of the weapons but rather those who either deliberately or unwittingly supply them.

post #137 of 1058

Oh, look what just happened-

 

"A 21-year-old Joliet man accidentally shot and killed himself while trying to demonstrate how the safety mechanism worked on his new handgun, authorities said today.

 

Deon D. Perry was pronounced dead at 5:40 a.m. Saturday at Provena St. Joseph Medical Center.

Joliet Police Cmdr. Al Roechner said today that the mishap occurred around 5 p.m. Friday as Perry was sitting in a vehicle in front of his home with two other people.

The two witnesses said Perry was displaying his recently purchased .25-caliber handgun when "he set the safety, pointed the gun at his face, pulled the trigger and the safety didn't work," Roechner said. Perry was shot in the right side of his face near his nose.

Perry's friends called 911 and were joined by police on their way to the hospital's emergency room."

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #138 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes - I don't disagree that it is hard to achieve - I was just addressing your question regarding why anyone would expect the criminals to obey the laws, which is kind of an oxymoron.

 

I understand. That's the point.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It is a significant distinction to note that the these laws are not targeting the illegal users of the weapons but rather those who either deliberately or unwittingly supply them.

 

It may well be a significant distinction, but it may not be an apt one. Ultimately laws that attempt to reduce or eliminate guns will more likely than not simply disarm innocent law-abiding people who seek only self-defense while not affecting criminal use and possession in any significant way. This make likely actually embolden criminals, particularly violent ones, even more knowing their potential victims are much less likely to armed for defense. In short the desired effect of these laws is likely to end up being more wishful thinking than actual criminal disarmament.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #139 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It is a significant distinction to note that the these laws are not targeting the illegal users of the weapons but rather those who either deliberately or unwittingly supply them.

 

It may well be a significant distinction, but it may not be an apt one. Ultimately laws that attempt to reduce or eliminate guns will more likely than not simply disarm innocent law-abiding people who seek only self-defense while not affecting criminal use and possession in any significant way. This make likely actually embolden criminals, particularly violent ones, even more knowing their potential victims are much less likely to armed for defense. In short the desired effect of these laws is likely to end up being more wishful thinking than actual criminal disarmament.

 

That is the pessimistic view, but could easily end up being correct. I still think that there is no alternative but to attempt to reach an effective compromise.

post #140 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Because bullets don't simply evaporate into thin air when you miss.  When surveying my house I quickly realized that my house was mostly indefensible given that to cover the stairwell from most of the viable shooting positions I would be shooting into my daughter's bedroom because of the geometry.  The remaining two positions pretty much left me fully exposed to the floors below.

 

So we have an alarm system.

 

Under stress I couldn't hit an elephant because I don't shoot much and more importantly I don't train under stress.  So the final analysis is that from a family safety perspective I would be safer with more strict gun control laws that are actually enforced vs the current state of affairs.  The bad guys almost always have the initiative in these scenarios so I'd rather face a bad guy wielding a knife than a gun at 3AM.  Also at 3AM I'm more likely to short stroke my shotgun than actually manage to fire a second time...that's assuming I got my act sufficiently together to shoot the first time.  I probably should get a semi (and train) if "home defense" was high on my list of things to do.

 

In a crowded mall situation I'd probably not shoot even if I had a CCW unless my own family was in imminent danger.  That's assuming I wasn't simply standing around shocked like many normal people.

 

I have no clue why otherwise reasonably sane people believe that a gun is some kind of magic wand to make bad guys go away.

 

I understand your argument about why you wouldn't use a gun in your home.  But that doesn't mean that "casual" gun owners cause more casualties.  As for the last bit, I'll join MJ in stating I don't think people believe that.  That said, it's clear that armed, responsible, trained individuals are better equipped to deal with potential something like, say, a mall shooting.  It's clear that had the principal of Sandy Hook been armed (and trained, of course), she could have stopped the shooter or delayed him enough to allow others to stop him.   It's also clear that criminals are deterred by the expectation they will encounter armed resistance.  Don't you agree?  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It is accurate for the technical reasons that I explained previously in this thread. I notice that you chose not to address those though, preferring to stick to your tried and tested "you are wrong" approach.

 

No, I simply didn't see your "explanation" (it wasn't directed at me).  I went back and found this: 

 

Quote:
 I said he could not make a device, not that he could not make an explosive. Care you suggest how he is going to initiate his ANFO?

 

Quote:

And, FYI, ANFO is around 95% AN, 5% fuel oil. The fertilizer supplies the AN (ammonium nitrate), the fuel oil you add separately.

 

 

Are these the "technical reasons" to which you refer?  If so, I don't see how this supports your point at all.  I was not claiming that I could make a device from the fertilizer alone.  I was responding to Hands' comment (I think he was the one, anyway) that fertilizer is regulated.   In fact, my point was that despite the inherent danger in people being able to buy relatively large quantities of AN fertilizer, there is not any movement to ban it...eh..."control" it.  No background checks.  No waiting period.  No one arguing that you should only be able to but two 40 lb. bags a month.  You don't even need to show a driver's license.   Surely you see my point here?  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

And remind me why you think that?

 

Does it matter?  I simply didn't find your statement credible.  

 

 

 

 

 

1. I'm guessing you want it quantified, rather than defined. Then, let me guess, you won't believe that and you will want names and SS numbers, maybe signed affidavits, photographic evidence? I'm not playing that game with you.

 

 

 

This is an interesting debate tactic you've employed.  From what I can tell, it doesn't have a particular name.  I think I'll call it a "slippery straw man."  That is, you are refusing to answer a simple question by claiming any answer you would give would be unacceptable.  The straw man is wearing a hyperbole hat, too.   I simply would like to know how you define (or quantify, if you prefer) the term "numerous."  I don't need an exact number, just an estimate.  How many of these people have you encountered, approximately?  5? 10? 15?  100?  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
2. Does not spend any significant time practicing any form of shooting.

 

OK.  But are you sure about that?  

 

 

 

Quote:
3. Because I know they don't spend time at the range.

 

No, you don't "know."  You've made that conclusion because you've not seen them there (that is unless you own the range and know the clientele of others).  By the way, I assume you're just using a bit of hyperbole by saying that they don't spend time.  Obviously they spend some time, or you wouldn't know they exist.  Oh, and I hate to do this...but what is "significant?"  I realize that sounds nit picky, but I'm honestly curious.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
4. I didn't mention additional casualties, other than themselves.

 

It's still not supportable to say that without training, an armed person would have more than likely ended up as one of casualties.  Don't get me wrong, it comes off as a reasonable statement and sounds good on the service.  But I don't think it's an assertion that you can really provide any backing for.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Statistical extrapolation.

 

Pardon me, but f***ing bullsh**     

 

 

 

 

Quote:
But you said that you had no experience. Perhaps I misunderstood. You have never fired a gun, barely ever held one,

 

Correct so far. 

 

 

 

Quote:
but you feel competent to assess all the gun owners that you know as safe and responsible (neither of which necessarily require shooting ability), and trained? Perhaps we should play your game after all:

 

Yes.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
How many gun owners do you know?

 

Not many...perhaps half a dozen over the years.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
How have you assessed their competency and training?

 

By talking to them and being told what that training they have.  One was a former special ops candidate with advanced training (left military due to health reasons) He also had completed an advanced bodyguard training program (advanced as in members of the Mossad had trained there).  My sister-in-law and her family are avid shooters (rifle) and a good friend is a lifelong hunter.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Please provide evidence of your competency to assess their competency.

 

I am not qualified to judge their specific skills.  I also don't have any reason to doubt what they say.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Define safe.

Define responsible.

Define trained.

Define "to some degree".

Etc., etc..

 

You see what I did there? You see how pointless this rapidly becomes? You're not really here for a discussion though, are you?

 

You are the one making it into a game.  I asked straightforward questions, ones that you generally dodged.  It is not unreasonable to ask what your specific experience is when you use the phrase "in my experience," especially when you claim your observations apply to the gun owning population in general.  It is not unreasonable to ask approximately how many people you've used as a sample size in your supposed statistical extrapolation.  I

 

 

 

Quote:
A false dichotomy and non sequitur in two short sentences. Nice. 

 

 

 

You are unbelievable.  Look, you posted this:

 

Quote:
Because that's the level of training that many gun owners have.

 

I asked you to provide evidence for that assertion.  Why?  Because that statement is completely unsupported by anything other than your own opinion, which itself is based merely on observation at your local range.  Now to be fair, I could have stated the next part better.  I should have posted:  

 

 

 

Quote:
Otherwise, I'll be forced conclude that you're just making crap up that fits your pre-determined view of gun owners in general. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Somewhat amusing that you picked a subject on which you yourself declared yourself as ignorant.

 

I've done no such thing.  I simply stated I had not fired, been train on or owned a gun.  I am not the one making claims about how well trained the "gun owning population" is.  

 

 

Quote:
How about you go and look something up for yourself for once?

 

I do that all the time.  In this case that would be impossible, because the evidence you're offering is based on your own observations.  You'll notice I have not made a claim as to what the majority of gun owners' training is.  That's because I don't know.  If I was to make such a claim, I would provide evidence for it...probably before being asked (but certainly if asked).  

 

 

Quote:
 Your constant technique of argument by incessant whining for evidence is juvenile. 

 

lol.gif  

 

 

 

Quote:
One defining feature of irretrievable ignorance is the complete inability to realize when one knows nothing about a subject, and when one is unable to discern when someone else does.

 

lol.giflol.giflol.gif  Wow.

 

Let me get this straight:  I am irretrievably ignorant because:  

 

  • I've asked you to clarify what your experience is (other than saying you've seen people at the range, you've not offered anything).  
  • I've asked you to approximate how many people you've observed (casual owners).  
  • I've asked you support your assertion that this sample of people somehow represents "the gun owning population."  
  • I've never fired or owned a gun, a fact I've been completely open about.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #141 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I still think that there is no alternative but to attempt to reach an effective compromise.

 

What do you mean?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #142 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

And whose fault is that?

 

The moronic relative, that's who.

 

Guns are just fine, as long as responsible people own them, and not mentally unstable people. There are quite a few mentally unstable people in the US (and elsewhere), and these people should be denied any gun ownership. As long as people are normal, and are not lunatics, like the shooter and his mother in Connecticut, then guns are just fine.

I didn't read the murdered mother was a "lunatic". Do you think all "Preppers" are lunatics, is that it? Or do you think anyone who has a son who's off the rails is a lunatic?

 

Do you believe guns should be locked up in households so only the appropriate people can access them? 

 

Do you believe that half of the American people should never be allowed to own guns?

 

"About half of Americans will experience some form of mental health problem at some point in their life, a new government report warns, and more must be done to help them.

 

 

Mental health issues run the gamut from depression to post-traumatic stress disorder to suicide, and many of those suffering presently do not get help, experts say.

The new report, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tallied the national burden of mental illness based on country-wide surveys.

There are "unacceptably high levels of mental illness in the United States," said Ileana Arias, principal deputy director of the CDC. "Essentially, about 25 percent of adult Americans reported having a mental illness in the previous year. In addition to the high level, we were surprised by the cost associated with that -- we estimated about $300 billion in 2002."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/mentalhealth/story/2011-09-05/CDC-Half-of-Americans-will-suffer-from-mental-health-woes/50250702/1

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #143 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I didn't read the murdered mother was a "lunatic". Do you think all "Preppers" are lunatics, is that it? Or do you think anyone who has a son who's off the rails is a lunatic?

 

Do you believe guns should be locked up in households so only the appropriate people can access them? 

 

Do you believe that half of the American people should never be allowed to own guns?

 

"About half of Americans will experience some form of mental health problem at some point in their life, a new government report warns, and more must be done to help them.

 

 

Mental health issues run the gamut from depression to post-traumatic stress disorder to suicide, and many of those suffering presently do not get help, experts say.

The new report, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tallied the national burden of mental illness based on country-wide surveys.

There are "unacceptably high levels of mental illness in the United States," said Ileana Arias, principal deputy director of the CDC. "Essentially, about 25 percent of adult Americans reported having a mental illness in the previous year. In addition to the high level, we were surprised by the cost associated with that -- we estimated about $300 billion in 2002."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/mentalhealth/story/2011-09-05/CDC-Half-of-Americans-will-suffer-from-mental-health-woes/50250702/1

 

Let me see if I understand the line of reasoning here.

 

1. The state (which, incidentally, is made up of people) should take away guns from or prevent those with mental illness from having or getting or using guns.

2. We'll let the state (which, incidentally, is made up of people) define who and how many people have "mental illness."

 

Is that about it?

 

Tell me, should we harbor any thoughts that perhaps 50% of the people that comprise the state suffer from mental illness also?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #144 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You seem to assume that the laws would actually keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals.

 

...

 

I don't think people believe that. But I wonder why otherwise reasonably sane and intelligent people believe that criminals will obey these (gun) laws when they don't obey others.

 

i assume that laws, if enforced, to make guns more rare will increase the cost of ownership even for criminals.  

 

I do know that if AR15s, high capacity magazines, etc become outlawed they will instantly jump up in price given that's what happened last time.  

 

Folks might claim that criminals will have them anyway but it moves these items higher up the criminal food chain and it makes it harder for the average nutjob to acquire.  Do you really believe that Adam Lanza would have been able to acquire a Bushmaster and 30 rnd magazines if they were Class III weapons?  Do you think that if handguns were limited to ranges and target shooters as in Australia that Seung-Hui Cho could have amassed 400 ends and 2 semi auto hand guns quite so easily?

 

Or do you believe that the criminals in possession of these guns would have either hung onto them for their own use or sold it at a price far above what Cho or Lanza (or his mom) could have afforded?

 

 

The "if enforced" part is the hard part.  Local laws do nothing useful in as much as you can drive to another state, go to a gun show and get around a local/state law.

 
Personally, I find the Australian laws a tad too extreme but when it comes right down to it I could hunt or shoot trap with single/double shot Category A weapons and if I wanted a pistol for "home defense" I really should be hitting the range often enough to qualify for shooting events now shouldn't I?  Conversely, I have never seen anyone that I didn't already classify as an idiot go hunting with an AR-15 and 30 rnd mags.  Frankly, I respect bow hunting and black powder hunting as more sporting anyway.  The guys and gals I know that do that all seem to bag their limits during bow and black powder season.
 
As far as a "well regulated militia" goes, if the RTBA folks wish to propose a militia system like is Switzerland where US militia volunteers are given basic training, a semi-auto M-4 with biometric lock and ammo only can be sold at ranges and must be used there I'm all for it.  Stop training and you need to return the M-4.
 
Frankly, we're not Swiss so I think that'll work as well as a lead balloon (yes, I saw that Mythbusters episode) but what the hell...it still makes more sense than what we do today.
post #145 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

i assume that laws, if enforced, to make guns more rare will increase the cost of ownership even for criminals.  

 

I do know that if AR15s, high capacity magazines, etc become outlawed they will instantly jump up in price given that's what happened last time.  

 

Folks might claim that criminals will have them anyway but it moves these items higher up the criminal food chain and it makes it harder for the average nutjob to acquire.

 

Why do you assume that?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Do you really believe that Adam Lanza would have been able to acquire a Bushmaster and 30 rnd magazines if they were Class III weapons?

 

I don't know what "Class III weapons" are.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Do you think that if handguns were limited to ranges and target shooters as in Australia that Seung-Hui Cho could have amassed 400 ends and 2 semi auto hand guns quite so easily?

 

I don't know. The real question is not so much the ease but whether they would still be able to a) get them at all regardless of ease, or b) find or fabricate a substitute tool for their destruction.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Or do you believe that the criminals in possession of these guns would have either hung onto them for their own use or sold it at a price far above what Cho or Lanza (or his mom) could have afforded?

 

Or that they would steal them?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #146 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Tell me, should we harbor any thoughts that perhaps 50% of the people that comprise the state suffer from mental illness also?

I've been to rock bottom and back. You've hit the nail on the head. This isn't so much a violence or gun control issue, though that is pertinent.

It is a mental health issue and the epidemic of human suffering in the West (and in fast-paced developing cities in Asia ~ a new rising epidemic along with obesity, diabetes etc.).

How many people are on medication?

How many people are temporarily or permanently disabled due to mental illness?

What now if they cannot get healthcare for this because they cannot afford it?

Not to mention the stress of endless wars, terrorism, fear, violence, poverty (now that the US middle class is destroyed).

After 2012, every individual must question what is our place in life and the path we have before us. Because the ol' rat race has no more future. Endless "economic growth" has no future. Endless debt and money-printing has no future.

Sporadic violence and catastrophes, as horrifying as they are, are but symptoms of a deeper disease.
post #147 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It is accurate for the technical reasons that I explained previously in this thread. I notice that you chose not to address those though, preferring to stick to your tried and tested "you are wrong" approach.

 

No, I simply didn't see your "explanation" (it wasn't directed at me).  I went back and found this: 

 

Quote:
 I said he could not make a device, not that he could not make an explosive. Care you suggest how he is going to initiate his ANFO?

 

Quote:

And, FYI, ANFO is around 95% AN, 5% fuel oil. The fertilizer supplies the AN (ammonium nitrate), the fuel oil you add separately.

 

Are these the "technical reasons" to which you refer?  If so, I don't see how this supports your point at all.  I was not claiming that I could make a device from the fertilizer alone.  I was responding to Hands' comment (I think he was the one, anyway) that fertilizer is regulated.   In fact, my point was that despite the inherent danger in people being able to buy relatively large quantities of AN fertilizer, there is not any movement to ban it...eh..."control" it.  No background checks.  No waiting period.  No one arguing that you should only be able to but two 40 lb. bags a month.  You don't even need to show a driver's license.   Surely you see my point here?  

 

No, I was referring to post # 69, where I wrote:

 

Quote:

Commercial secondary explosives cannot be purchased in the US without an ATF license; military explosives cannot be purchased at all. Both are difficult to obtain illegally since their storage is heavily regulated. Even if they are acquired they are shock insensitive and very difficult to initiate without detonators (a.k.a blasting caps), which are even more tightly controlled.

 

Secondary explosives can also be improvised, but not easily, and tend either to be almost impossible to initiate without detonators and boosters, such as AN-based formulations (the fertilizer kind), which are almost entirely cap-insensitive, or they are very unstable, hazardous to make, and difficult to implement, such as those used, or attempted to be used, by less well equipped terrorist groups in Europe in the past couple of decades. The movie industry is responsible for a quite remarkable level of public misunderstanding of the availability, behavior and utility of explosives.

 

So presenting the incident of a student threatening to blow up his school is misleading, because the chances of him obtaining the resources to carry out the threat are negligible. Explosive regulations, combined with the basic difficulties of using explosives, quite effectively prevent him from using that method. Guns, on the other hand, he can likely acquire and use with relative ease. It takes much less skill to load and shoot a gun than to build a viable IED, even if one had the materials.

 

And it's not that you could not make a device from fertilizer alone, it's that unless you managed to acquire commercial or military detonators and a supply of secondary explosive suitable for use as a booster, you could not make such a device at all. Further, even if you acquired those items, your chances of building a functioning device are small unless you understand how to modify the fertilizer mix.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And remind me why you think that?

 

Quote:

Does it matter?  I simply didn't find your statement credible.  

 

Yes it matters - it's basically an accusation that I was lying about it. So what was not credible - my conclusion or that I made the observation? If you disagreed with my conclusion then it would be perfectly reasonable to state that. Instead, you asserted that I had never even made the observation, which position you obviously have nothing to support.

 

Quote:
This is an interesting debate tactic you've employed.  From what I can tell, it doesn't have a particular name.  I think I'll call it a "slippery straw man."  That is, you are refusing to answer a simple question by claiming any answer you would give would be unacceptable.  The straw man is wearing a hyperbole hat, too.   I simply would like to know how you define (or quantify, if you prefer) the term "numerous."  I don't need an exact number, just an estimate.  How many of these people have you encountered, approximately?  5? 10? 15?  100?  

 

It's a consequence of observing how you respond to answers to your requests for such information. However, as you asked so nicely and seem to be suggesting that you will accept my answer - I have a pretty large pool to draw from in the casual category. I'll be conservative and restrict it to current knowledge, and put it at greater than 30 and less than 50. For perspective, almost everyone I know owns at least one firearm. In the casual category it's mostly semi-automatic pistols, and they either never practice or make very occasional visits to the range (< 1/yr). I have actually observed maybe a quarter of them at the range; for the rest it is their description. But since you have already indicated that you don't believe what I say, why don't you have a word with a local civilian firearms instructor and get a verifiable first-hand perspective on the subject. I will be very surprised if you get a different story.

 

Quote:
Quote:
2. Does not spend any significant time practicing any form of shooting.

 

OK.  But are you sure about that?  

Quote:
3. Because I know they don't spend time at the range.

 

No, you don't "know."  You've made that conclusion because you've not seen them there (that is unless you own the range and know the clientele of others).  By the way, I assume you're just using a bit of hyperbole by saying that they don't spend time.  Obviously they spend some time, or you wouldn't know they exist.  Oh, and I hate to do this...but what is "significant?"  I realize that sounds nit picky, but I'm honestly curious.  

 

Or unless they tell me that they don't practice. So yes - I'm sure about it. The rest is covered above.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Statistical extrapolation.

 

Pardon me, but f***ing bullsh** 

 

You've lost me. Why is that unreasonable?

 

Quote:
You are the one making it into a game.  I asked straightforward questions, ones that you generally dodged.  It is not unreasonable to ask what your specific experience is when you use the phrase "in my experience," especially when you claim your observations apply to the gun owning population in general.  It is not unreasonable to ask approximately how many people you've used as a sample size in your supposed statistical extrapolation.

 

I see - those kind of questions are fine for you to ask, but it's a game when I ask them. And it would not have been unreasonable to ask about my sample size, but you didn't do that. Your one-sentence dismissal in post #45 was: "I somehow doubt you have any experience whatsoever". No question appended.

 

Quote:

You are unbelievable.  Look, you posted this:

 

Quote:
Because that's the level of training that many gun owners have.

 

I asked you to provide evidence for that assertion.  Why?  Because that statement is completely unsupported by anything other than your own opinion, which itself is based merely on observation at your local range.  Now to be fair, I could have stated the next part better.  I should have posted:  

 

Quote:
Otherwise, I'll be forced conclude that you're just making crap up that fits your pre-determined view of gun owners in general. 

 

No, you would not have been forced to conclude anything of the sort. Is the problem here that because I don't resemble the typical unquestioning NRA supporter and that you have probably already labeled me as some kind of liberal moocher type, you are assuming that I must be a gun control apologist who cannot possibly have any actual experience or knowledge of the subject, even though yours is zero? Even now you are making the assumption that my experience is limited to my "local range".

 

Quote:
Quote:
Somewhat amusing that you picked a subject on which you yourself declared yourself as ignorant.

 

I've done no such thing.  I simply stated I had not fired, been train on or owned a gun.  I am not the one making claims about how well trained the "gun owning population" is.  

 

No - you are the one ridiculing my opinion, on the basis, apparently, of zero personal experience and a half dozen friends with guns. If that isn't a position of ignorance then I can't imagine what you think might be.

 

Quote:
Quote:
 Your constant technique of argument by incessant whining for evidence is juvenile. 

 

lol.gif

 

Is that a laughing clown face? It's very apt.

 

If you actually want a discussion, then try to imagine that you are talking to a person rather than an anonymous virtual opponent. You might have noticed that when I disagree with a position, I either ask for clarification, present an alternative hypothesis, or I attempt to refute it with accepted fact, empirical observation and reasoning. I don't accuse the poster of lying, or argue that they are not qualified to make an argument, I don't derail the discussion by constantly demanding proof of opinion and I don't use stupid emoticons to pretend that I find the argument hilarious. You appear to have only two argument techniques: unsupported assertion that your opponent is wrong/ignorant and demanding evidence/proof. You, on the other hand, never seem to provide any actual evidence for anything.

 

In this case, since you doubt my opinion that the majority of the gun-owning population is basically untrained, you could reasonably have said that you don't think that is consistent with your experience, however limited, you could ask what I based my conclusion on, you could find some dissenting opinion or evidence to refute, etc.. Or you could take the approach you did: "I somehow doubt you have any experience whatsoever", and then continue to wonder why the discussion goes south.

post #148 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I still think that there is no alternative but to attempt to reach an effective compromise.

 

What do you mean?

 

Try to craft the regulatory requirements on ownership and storage to maximize their effectiveness at keeping the weapons out of the hands of those who would misuse them while minimizing the impact on law-abiding citizens.

post #149 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Try to craft the regulatory requirements on ownership and storage to maximize their effectiveness at keeping the weapons out of the hands of those who would misuse them while minimizing the impact on law-abiding citizens.

 

Well...that's a mouthful, and a bit abstract. I was hoping for some more specific prescriptions that you think constitute a compromise.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #150 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Try to craft the regulatory requirements on ownership and storage to maximize their effectiveness at keeping the weapons out of the hands of those who would misuse them while minimizing the impact on law-abiding citizens.

 

Well...that's a mouthful, and a bit abstract. I was hoping for some more specific prescriptions that you think constitute a compromise.

 

Yes - I really have no idea how to achieve that, which is not surprising since if it were easy then someone would have already made it happen. I would guess it might have to be a piecemeal approach. For example, in my state, firearms are not registered, may be bought privately with no background check, may be carried hidden, accessible and loaded in vehicles and are not required to be stored locked at home. I have, at times, taken advantage of all those laws, but they really seem unnecessarily lax to me. I would support some changes there.

post #151 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes - I really have no idea how to achieve that, which is not surprising since if it were easy then someone would have already made it happen.

 

Not necessarily.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

For example, in my state, firearms are not registered, may be bought privately with no background check, may be carried hidden, accessible and loaded in vehicles and are not required to be stored locked at home. I have, at times, taken advantage of all those laws, but they really seem unnecessarily lax to me. I would support some changes there.

 

"Unnecessarily lax?" That's interesting. Why do you think that?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #152 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Yes - I really have no idea how to achieve that, which is not surprising since if it were easy then someone would have already made it happen.

 

Not necessarily.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

For example, in my state, firearms are not registered, may be bought privately with no background check, may be carried hidden, accessible and loaded in vehicles and are not required to be stored locked at home. I have, at times, taken advantage of all those laws, but they really seem unnecessarily lax to me. I would support some changes there.

 

"Unnecessarily lax?" That's interesting. Why do you think that?

 

Because tightening those rules would not significantly inconvenience me. Just my opinion, as I stated above.

post #153 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Why do you assume that?

 

 

Because it is a reasonable assumption.  Why do you assume otherwise?  An average criminal can find a fence.  Can you?  A criminal higher up the food chain can find a hit man.  Can you?  If I tried something stupid like that the odds are I'd be one of those folks caught trying to hire a fed posing as a hit man.

 

In the three cases at hand these guys had no previous criminal background, were not mentally balanced and probably had no more skill in acquiring lethal weapons than searching on the internet and walking into a gun shop.  They aren't Tim McVeighs.

 

Quote:

I don't know what "Class III weapons" are.

 

 

Then you are poorly informed regarding the subject and can't even be bothered to google the term.

 

Quote:

I don't know. The real question is not so much the ease but whether they would still be able to a) get them at all regardless of ease, or b) find or fabricate a substitute tool for their destruction.

 

It is ALL about the ease.  Again, there's no indication whatsoever that these three guys were competent at anything other than shooting defenseless people and buying or acquiring easily available guns.  Again, they weren't McVeighs or even Harris and Diebold who shot at cops and made pipe bombs (some of which worked).

 

Also many of the gun related deaths are all about the ease of having a gun and the ease of not having had proper training and the ease of not properly safeguarding it from accidental use.

 

 

Quote:

Or that they would steal them?

 

Steal them from whom?  Gun ranges, criminals and cops?  Good luck with that.  Trying to steal a gun from a criminal probably would turn them into a statistic. 

post #154 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Because it is a reasonable assumption.

 

I disagree.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Why do you assume otherwise?

 

Because someone sufficiently motivated to kill and destroy will find a way. The guns are not the issue here.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Then you are poorly informed regarding the subject and can't even be bothered to google the term.

 

Nice. It won't work. Nice try though. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

It is ALL about the ease.

 

So we disagree.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #155 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


Because someone sufficiently motivated to kill and destroy will find a way. The guns are not the issue here.

So do you really believe that the ease of acquisition and use of the firearms used in these incidents plays no part in their occurrence? That all these disturbed people are that motivated and have the determination, knowledge and planning to find an alternative way to commit mass murder? Because if making it harder to get firearms prevents even some of these incidents then it will have been worthwhile, IMO.
post #156 of 1058

But freedom to own metal machines that greatly accelerate smaller bits of metal, whose intended purpose is to rend and destroy flesh, causing great harm at a distance, is sacred!  These will surely protect us from tyranny, as they will most certainly match up against tanks, planes, and nuclear weapons.  Having to wait slightly longer or to undergo serious psychological evaluations is unacceptable.  We must be able to obtain these instruments of death at a moment's notice, regardless of state of mind!  Every hour that someone is delayed from purchasing a long-distance-human-hole-puncher, baby Jesus cries in the arms of the founding fathers.

 

Just anticipating and preemptively editorializing MJ's response.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #157 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I understand your argument about why you wouldn't use a gun in your home.  But that doesn't mean that "casual" gun owners cause more casualties.  As for the last bit, I'll join MJ in stating I don't think people believe that.  That said, it's clear that armed, responsible, trained individuals are better equipped to deal with potential something like, say, a mall shooting.  

 

Go to your local range.  Talk to folks that have a clue and they will tell you that what normal folks do at the range (shoot at stationary targets in more or less the proper stance and more or less the proper grip) is about as different from combat shooting as your daily commute to work and driving NASCAR.  Stress training isn't all that difficult to acquire but it's a perishable skill and you have to stay proficient.  The guys that take their CCW permits and home defense seriously will go through the hassle and expense of staying proficient.  Training costs vacation time and money.  Ammo costs money.

 

The percentage of gun owners that do this is tiny.

 

As far as casual gun owners not causing more casualties, exactly whom do you believe are responsible for the majority of gun accidents that happen every year?  Heck, we had a VPOTUS pepper a friend in the face.  If they were hunting deer instead of quail the headline would have been "Cheney accidentally kills Whittington in tragic hunting accident".

 

 

Quote:
It's clear that had the principal of Sandy Hook been armed (and trained, of course), she could have stopped the shooter or delayed him enough to allow others to stop him.  

 

Hell no it's not clear because the "trained, of course" is a higher bar than you seem to think.  Your usual gun safety course and plinking at the range qualifies you to safely operate your firearm at a range.  Not shoot at people.  

 

In your hypothetical scenario she would need to rapidly recognize the shooter (in this case not too hard, he's the guy with the rifle shooting at you; other times harder), successfully draw her weapon (which is probably in her purse or desk), shoot and hit a target that is shooting at her (maximum stress).  Possible if you have trained properly.  However, there are LEOs that do not pass their quals on the first try or eck by with barely passing scores...and you think the average principal is going to stay proficient on a weapon that is probably personally distasteful?

 

How many teachers and school administrators do you know have a concealed carry permit?  Do you think that mandatory annual weapon qualification should be part of an educator's job description?  Or perhaps just the cooks?

 

 

Quote:
It's also clear that criminals are deterred by the expectation they will encounter armed resistance.  Don't you agree?

 

It is clear that criminals prefer soft targets over hard ones.  However, that mostly just moves the problem around.  On one hand, that's kinda good enough as long as the victims aren't me or my family.  On the other, that's really short sighted and selfish thinking of which I am equally guilty of.

post #158 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Nice. It won't work. Nice try though. 1rolleyes.gif

 

Have you bothered to look it up yet?  

 

Lemme ask you, if making certain kinds of guns illegal doesn't work then why were these shooters using semi-autos instead of full-autos?  They intend to be criminals yes?  They can simply steal fully automatic weapons or buy them from criminals no?

 

Or wait?  Maybe stealing guns from a class III permit holder is harder than it looks and criminals aren't going to sell you a machine gun?

post #159 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Go to your local range.  Talk to folks that have a clue and they will tell you that what normal folks do at the range (shoot at stationary targets in more or less the proper stance and more or less the proper grip) is about as different from combat shooting as your daily commute to work and driving NASCAR.  Stress training isn't all that difficult to acquire but it's a perishable skill and you have to stay proficient.  The guys that take their CCW permits and home defense seriously will go through the hassle and expense of staying proficient.  Training costs vacation time and money.  Ammo costs money.

 

The percentage of gun owners that do this is tiny.

 

As far as casual gun owners not causing more casualties, exactly whom do you believe are responsible for the majority of gun accidents that happen every year?  Heck, we had a VPOTUS pepper a friend in the face.  If they were hunting deer instead of quail the headline would have been "Cheney accidentally kills Whittington in tragic hunting accident".

 

 

 

Hell no it's not clear because the "trained, of course" is a higher bar than you seem to think.  Your usual gun safety course and plinking at the range qualifies you to safely operate your firearm at a range.  Not shoot at people.  

 

In your hypothetical scenario she would need to rapidly recognize the shooter (in this case not too hard, he's the guy with the rifle shooting at you; other times harder), successfully draw her weapon (which is probably in her purse or desk), shoot and hit a target that is shooting at her (maximum stress).  Possible if you have trained properly.  However, there are LEOs that do not pass their quals on the first try or eck by with barely passing scores...and you think the average principal is going to stay proficient on a weapon that is probably personally distasteful?

 

How many teachers and school administrators do you know have a concealed carry permit?  Do you think that mandatory annual weapon qualification should be part of an educator's job description?  Or perhaps just the cooks?

 

 

Add to that the fact that there could be kids very near the attacker, or there is a possibility that the attacker isn't going to shoot but when a gun is drawn on him he does or does more than he intended.

 

God forbid that the school official hit and kill a child.  A ricochet could also be fatal.  Saw a report years  ago about a kid killed at a gun range by a bullet that bounced into the ceiling and ricocheted off a pipe or something wild like that. Sorry, Tommy, your teacher's shot killed your sister.

 

Teachers have plenty to worry about with their teaching and safety procedures at the school and teaching kids basic daily safety.

 

We do not need any Rambo-wanna-be's trying to save the day.  Personally, I would want one teaching my kids on a daily basis.  And I am a former teacher.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #160 of 1058

People who own guns should be sportsmen and the police department and security guards.You do need a gun to protect yourself the police department is capable of doing this with 911 when you call them.More essential is start to look into what is happening with the mental health clinics who are shutting down due to budget cuts and shortages qualified people to work there to help these mentally ill people.To many mentally ill people are out in the streets today and not getting the proper help they need.This is one aspect where to start.
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut