[kenberg]

Perhaps, like me, you just cannot manage to read one more story focusing on the crazies of the world. I found the story in today's Post, A Journey of Discovery and a Brush with Death, very moving and really, for me, much needed.

http://www.washingto...07-26&bk=A&pg=1

Only a robot could read this story and then repeat the programmed words that we need no revision in our gun laws. The words would not come out of any human throat.

[kenrexford]

I found a debate on TV quite funny and illuminating. The debate was between Dianne Feinstein and some other guy who was a pro-gun person.

The obvious part was that DF was for more gun control and PG for the 2nd Amendment.

The funny part was that each of them was caught with a good question from the other and stumbled wildly in answering it.

The DF question was why you need to be able to hold 100 rounds at one time. DF could not give a compelling reason why you might need to shoot the deer 100 times (I suppose you could be a really bad shot) or why you would need 100 rounds to defend yourself (perhaps an invasion of zombies on bath salts?).

The PG question was whether the Joker might have been shot dead early on if lots of people in the theater had carry-concealed permits and thus were packing. DF said something strange about a shootout and some innocent person accidentally being hit by the CCW permit holder as he was trying to shoot the Joker. Friendly fire?

Anyway, this made me think. Isn't there an obvious middle ground to consider? I mean, how about (1) no assault rifles, (2) no clips with more than 15 rounds, but (3) very liberal CCW permits and (4) encourage people to carry small handguns into public places.

I mean, I am somewhat being silly here (and above), but if no one had assault rifles with 100 rounds, but everyone hand a handgun, the Joker would have shot a smaller number of people before those 100 rounds hit him simultaneously in the form of 100 shots from the crowd.

Fodder for discussion...

[hrothgar]

Few quick comments

First

I've heard a number of "pro gun" spokesmen claiming that the lesson of Aurora is that we'd all be better off if more people in the theater were armed and in a position to return fire. I find this claim completely ludicrous.

The attack took place in a dark theater full of tear gas. Given the all the confusion, I'd expect significant collateral damage.
The attacker was wearing head to toe body armor.

Second

I think that its possible to balance gun control and gun ownership. I have long favored a system in which

1. Licensed gun ranges can own/store most anything. Individuals who want to practice with whatever can wander down to the shooting range and fire away to their heart's content.

2. Individuals can own/store rifles and shotguns with (reasonable) sized magazines. If you want a rifle for hunting fine. If you want a shotgun for home defense, fine. You're welcome to own a pistol, but its going to live down at the gun range.

3. I see absolutely no reason why individuals need to conceal carry pistols.

Please note: I am aware that this regime wouldn't necessarily offer any protection against the tragedy in Aurora.

Third

I was listening to NPR and some spokesman for one of the gun ownership orgs start explaining that he needed a 100 round magazine to defend his wife and family when the rape gangs came to attack his family. I thought he sounded completely delusional.

[kenberg]

I was once a smoker. I look back on that, and I simply cannot explain it.

There are other things of that sort. Women once could not vote? People with black skin had to sit in the back of the bus? Were we nuts?

I think there will come a time when we look back at letting people buy armor piercing weaponry and ask "What were we thinking?"

Once we get our heads out of our butts, I imagine we can resolve the various issues sensibly.

[Phil]

I've come around on this issue. Bowling for Columbine had some compelling statistics, although even if there are some regulatory changes in handgun ownership, it will take generations for middle America to lose their love and fascination with firearms.

[Flem72]

 kenberg, on 2012-July-26, 13:14, said:

Perhaps, like me, you just cannot manage to read one more story focusing on the crazies of the world. I found the story in today's Post, A Journey of Discovery and a Brush with Death, very moving and really, for me, much needed.

http://www.washingto...07-26&bk=A&pg=1

Only a robot could read this story and then repeat the programmed words that we need no revision in our gun laws. The words would not come out of any human throat.

I, Robot. Apparently, head firmly inserted,

Two points always present in gun-control debates really confuse me.

1. http://www.google.co...m8lH2SjyvlYV1iQ

and similar items. "If you can save just one life, isn't it worth it?"

2. I firmly believe that no one needs military grade weapons laying around the house; I firmly believe that outlawing any specific form of weaponry (or anything else, really) only ensures that those who REALLY want to use them will be the only ones to have them. Criminals/black markets; the millions of weapons already out there.

Our Gov. got it right: More restrictive gun control laws wouldn't have stopped this character. The essence of "crazy" is "unpredictable" and "unexpected." Would the mayhem occuring as a result of a frenzied katana attack have been any less horrible? or a series of home made grenades?

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[Cyberyeti]

 Flem72, on 2012-July-26, 14:43, said:

I, Robot. Apparently, head firmly inserted,

Two points always present in gun-control debates really confuse me.

1. http://www.google.co...m8lH2SjyvlYV1iQ

and similar items. "If you can save just one life, isn't it worth it?"

2. I firmly believe that no one needs military grade weapons laying around the house; I firmly believe that outlawing any specific form of weaponry (or anything else, really) only ensures that those who REALLY want to use them will be the only ones to have them. Criminals/black markets; the millions of weapons already out there.

Our Gov. got it right: More restrictive gun control laws wouldn't have stopped this character. The essence of "crazy" is "unpredictable" and "unexpected." Would the mayhem occuring as a result of a frenzied katana attack have been any less horrible? or a series of home made grenades?

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

You miss the point that if you can outlaw them, and people start getting 10 years plus for possession of outlawed weapons, the number seriously reduces. It will never completely disappear.

A katana massacre means you need to get close to people, I may be wrong, but not sure one person's killed a double figure number of people with a blade, it's been done many times with a gun. Outlawing anything that can fire more than 6 times without reloading would help, what legitimate use is there for anything that can ?

[Flem72]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-26, 15:49, said:

You miss the point that if you can outlaw them, and people start getting 10 years plus for possession of outlawed weapons, the number seriously reduces. It will never completely disappear.

A katana massacre means you need to get close to people, I may be wrong, but not sure one person's killed a double figure number of people with a blade, it's been done many times with a gun. Outlawing anything that can fire more than 6 times without reloading would help, what legitimate use is there for anything that can ?

Actually, not missing that point. How does law enforcement discover them before they are used? Would you favor random, warrantless searches?

Of course the firearm is more efficient, and the auto more efficient than the cylinder-reload etc, but are we now arguing quantities? Would 10 or 20 people exsanguinating from a missing limb etc be qualitatively better?

[blackshoe]

This country isn't what it used to be. Perhaps it never was. All I know is that more gun control is not the answer to anything.

[Phil]

If there is a national ban on handguns, there will be a period of time when they are available.

A ban should include a buyback. There will be guns held by the hardcore hunters and thugs, but these will eventually be picked up through (legal) searches of homes / cars, etc..

[kenberg]

I know I prompted this discussion, but I want to intervene a bit. I don't want the article I posted to get lost in the discussion. The story of these two young people, their plans, the people they met, lifted my sense of gloom. These kids met folks who shook their hands, gave them shelter, offered them dinner. People recognize good when they see it.

[kenrexford]

This is the kind of debate I love/hate. Liberals and conservatives argue extreme ends of the spectrum, even though there is nothing particularly liberal or conservative about either extreme. Meanwhile, rational folk in the middle must go into public, afraid of a madman with 1000 rounds to shoot off rapidly, unable to defend ourselves because we cannot have even a dillinger in our pocket or purse, all the while waiting for lunatic fringe folks in DC and the States to find a sane middle ground. Their middle ground, however, is to apparently be able to buy bazookas but not even carry a pocket knife. Typical of a lot of politics, I guess.

[kenberg]

I am not sure if you are including me in this list of extremists. Some of my thoughts:

I don't carry a weapon, nor do I wish to.

I recognize that I live in a safe environment and some do not.

I first fired a gun when I was about 8. I was on a farm with my cousin and he had access to his father's deer rifle.
Damn near disconnected my shoulder from my body.
But I was carrying my own shotgun hunting when I was 12 or so.
I gave up hunting when I was in my 20s, but have no wish to stop anyone else from doing so.

Fundamentally, I think it has to do with a national viewpoint. Even crazies do not exist in a total social vacuum. Normal (meaning not totally crazy) people in this country think, far more often than I wish, of guns when they think of problems. The crazy mind exaggerates this, but it is there to be exaggerated.

I look forward to a time when we think a little differently about how to resolve conflict. I do not think I am completely naive in believing this will come, and maybe not so far off in the future.

[Winstonm]

For years I had no weapon, but when my father passed away there was a shotgun in his house that had been mine so I took it. I view it as home protection. It holds 3 shells of double 0 buckshot. It I need more firepower than that, it wouldn't be home protection but a war.

In many areas of the country, a business license for certain types of business requires a certificate of need - hospice, for example. In these areas, if someone wants to start a new hospice, it is up to that person to show the licensing agents that there is a community need for the service.

Why can't gun ownership be based on the same idea? If you want to own an assault rifle, or multiple pistols it behooves you to validate a need for same.

I think it would be difficult for the average person to show need for anymore than I have - one lone shotgun, in the closet, for home protection.

[nigel_k]

There are plenty of reasons to prefer a handgun to a shotgun for home protection. And obviously the need for protection may still exist when you go out. And if only shotguns were legal it is a simple matter for criminals to hacksaw the end off and stuff the remainder inside a coat. That is exactly what they do here in New Zealand where long guns are common but handguns are difficult to get. So I don't agree with a handgun ban. The effect on criminals is small compared to the reduction in the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves. Even worse in a country where handguns are already common.

I doubt that anyone needs a fully automatic weapon purely for self defense. But the second amendment is based on the premise that ordinary untrained citizens need to be able to participate in national defence if needed, which is not consistent with a ban on assault weapons.

[Cyberyeti]

 Flem72, on 2012-July-26, 16:27, said:

Actually, not missing that point. How does law enforcement discover them before they are used? Would you favor random, warrantless searches?

Of course the firearm is more efficient, and the auto more efficient than the cylinder-reload etc, but are we now arguing quantities? Would 10 or 20 people exsanguinating from a missing limb etc be qualitatively better?

No, but some of the people who hold guns for nefarious purposes will be getting searched for other reasons, if they know that being found with an illegal gun will get them in a heap more trouble than the other more mildly illegal stuff (petty drug dealing for example), they might dump the guns.

You are never going to eliminate the gun rampages, you can however reduce how often and how deadly.

Look at the UK, heavy gun control, how much gun crime do we have ? some gang related stuff in the inner cities, a few armed robberies and the odd wacko shooting rampage, most of the time our police don't need to carry guns. Different culture but it seems to work, the gun murder rates are vastly different to the US.

There are guns in the UK, and you have to apply for a licence to hold them. No handguns, some shotguns/hunting rifles, no automatic weapons. Before you get a licence you have to prove you have secure storage and good mental health. This process takes some time.

[phil_20686]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-27, 03:08, said:

Look at the UK, heavy gun control, how much gun crime do we have ? some gang related stuff in the inner cities, a few armed robberies and the odd wacko shooting rampage, most of the time our police don't need to carry guns. Different culture but it seems to work, the gun murder rates are vastly different to the US.

There are guns in the UK, and you have to apply for a licence to hold them. No handguns, some shotguns/hunting rifles, no automatic weapons. Before you get a licence you have to prove you have secure storage and good mental health. This process takes some time.

The link between gun control and number of deaths has never been very robust. There are countries with high levels of firearm ownership, like finland, which have almost no gun crime. They have only 3 murders per 100,000 people, and only a fraction of those are done with guns. (The usa, the bad states are 100 times that number).

I think a factor that is often overlooked, is that the US has a huge amount of organised crime compared to most other developed nations. Partly this is a left over from prohibition, and partly because your country seems to have a lot less powers to monitor bank accounts. We have reached a stage where large transfers of money by cash or cheque are inherently suspicious.

The second huge problem in the US, is that you have bad inner-city areas that are incredibly deprived, and if you have large number of people coming out of schools with no real prospects, you are going to have a lot more crime.

On Concealed carry, the idea that having a bunch of people with no combat experience pulling out weapons in a cinema filled with tear gas and shooting will save lives is a delusion. I imagine its similar to the delusion that (90% of) drivers have that they are better than average. Or the wide spread belief that being a better driver will help you avoid accidents/that accidents are caused mostly by driver error.

Finally, the main argument against CPW/liberal gun laws, is that `people lose their temper'. A very large number of murders happen from people losing control in the heat of the moment. Losing control with your fists can be bad. Losing control with a gun is much much worse.

[blackshoe]

Long story, but... the last time I was involved in an armed conflict as a private citizen was about thirty years ago. Case of road rage (my opponent's, not mine). He chased after me, I stopped on the street (because I didn't know where the police station was) we got out of our vehicles. He had a baseball bat. I had a 9 mm Beretta in the back of my belt. I talked him out of using the bat. We went our separate ways. The last words I heard from him were "oh, *****" — when I turned around to get back in my car. I guess he saw the gun then. I would not have been happy to shoot him, but I was happy that I could defend myself if I needed to do so. And yes, it would have been better if I could have lost him, or gone to the police department, or found a cop. But none of that was happening. I was on the way to pick up a date, and there was no way in Hell I was pulling up to her place with him still chasing me.

I think people who wish to be armed should be armed — but they should be required to demonstrate that they know what they're doing, and that their first response to a problem is not to grab the gun and start shooting (unless the shooting has already been started by the other guy). I think that any use of a gun should be examined by an objective panel of the user's peers, and if it's found "not kosher", the user should be required to make reparations for any damage caused, and also required to get additional training in when and when not to use a gun.

As for the UK, I lived there three years. Never saw a gun, except at work (on a military base) . I did have a neighbor go out into his back garden one night about ten pm to tell a bunch of rowdy teens to get off his property. They didn't have any guns either, so they beat him to death. As you say, different cultures. What works for you won't necessarily work for us. Also consider this: the last time the UK was in danger as a nation, you had to ask us to provide your Home Guard with guns, because you not only didn't have any, you had no way to quickly make any. We did that. If we go your route, so that we have no guns, and no quick way to make them, the next time you need us to provide you with guns for your Home Guard, you're going to be out of luck.

In general, imo, the answer, whatever the problem, is not more government regulation, more government interference in our lives.

[Phil]

 blackshoe, on 2012-July-27, 07:32, said:

Long story, but... the last time I was involved in an armed conflict as a private citizen was about thirty years ago. Case of road rage (my opponent's, not mine). He chased after me, I stopped on the street (because I didn't know where the police station was) we got out of our vehicles.

You seem a lot smarter than that. But I suppose since you had a handgun, you felt like you could talk to this guy 'rationally'?

[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2012-July-27, 07:32, said:

As for the UK, I lived there three years. Never saw a gun, except at work (on a military base) . I did have a neighbor go out into his back garden one night about ten pm to tell a bunch of rowdy teens to get off his property. They didn't have any guns either, so they beat him to death. As you say, different cultures. What works for you won't necessarily work for us.

This happens about twice a year and is national headline news when it does, there was a case recently in the UK where a student from India was randomly shot in the street, the shooting AND the trial have had really heavy national media coverage. It just doesn't feel like it's that unusual in the states.

As to Finland, I can see why they have serious levels of gun ownership, but what sort of guns ? I'm guessing mainly hunting weapons rather than automatic stuff.