5,002 Forum Posts by "TheMason"
Here is an excellent example of why we cannot trust the politicians advocating for gun control. They do not understand what they are legislating!
Barrel shrouds are nothing more than detachable fore stocks. They do not add anything to how fast a bullet travels, how hard it hits, or how it behaves once it hits something. It adds nothing to the 'lethality' of the firearm.
The astute may realize that some barrel shrouds come with weaver bases to attach things like laser sights and flashlights to that increases some functionality such as accuracy. However, these are not necessary to attache these things to a rifle. Ergo, it does not do anything for the rifle that a conventional wood stock cannot do.
Like the idiots in NY who rushed through gun control without thinking it through...and leaving out an exemption for law enforcement.
These people are just motivated by well-intentioned fear and informed by ignorant assumptions.
At 1/23/13 09:42 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Ok, how about we approach this from a non Democrat vs Republican view? Could we all agree that a direct popular vote for the nations highest office would be preferable to an electoral college?
Nope. Quite simply, we need to have some wisdom temper the passions of the electorate. After all, the presidency is not the nation's highest office. It is our only national office. But the Judicial and Legislative branches are co-equal.
I remember when Joe Wilson called Obama a liar. I had a buddy of min in the Air Guard relate it to our command structure. Our DO (basically second in command) cannot call our commanding officer a liar...since our commander (who held the same rank) outranked the DO due to position. If anything, under the Constitution the presidency would be subservient to congress since the Founders invested more power in the legislature. So if our electorate does not understand how our government works...how can they make the best choice for high office?
I've always been a fan of the EC. Back in the day it was meant to both temper the passions of the people with wisdom and solve the problem of how someone living in upstate Maine could know the candidates enough to make an informed decision. The latter was in the age of wagons and about 50-60 years before the electrical telegraph.
I would argue that not much has changed. On the first reason; we are still a population that is ruled by our passions. We are better educated now (since WWII human knowledge has doubled from what it was from the first human to pre-WWII). But at the same time we are de-emphasizing social studies as we over-emphasize math and science as we push our kids to pursue subjects only with the goal of pursuing lucrative careers. Money over being good citizens. Therefore, on both sides of the ideological spectrum...we have people who do not think too deeply about issues nor do they research what elected officals and other opinion-makers/leaders tell them. We are becoming a nation of Sheople.
As for the second part...I'm not sure that we are anymore informed than we were back in the 1790s. We may actually be less informed. People on the Left listen to MSNBC and Sirius Left talk shows. People on the Right listen to Fox and their group of talk radio hosts. And more and more...people are becoming insular and insulated in their news. They do not consider the points of either side. Worse yet...those who cannot be bothered with paying attention to politics and their civic duty make decisions based upon sound bites.
So I wonder if we need to reform the EC. What about assigning one elector to each congressional district? As for the 100 EVs distributed for Senators...perhaps let each state decide how to approtion these. A few thoughts:
Based on vote:
* If for some reaason no one would win 50% of the vote...the top two leaders would get one elector each.
* If a candidate gets at least 45% of the vote...they get an EC. In the case that only one candidate gets 45% of the vote...then the next highest candidate gets an EV.
* If a candidate gets at least 55%...they are awarded both EVs.
Based on demographics:
* Divide states along rural and urban voters. Urban dwellers get one EV and Rural dwellers get one EV.
At 1/24/13 12:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Let's say I'm Missouri, the Show Me State.
Show me something more than just your assertion.
I'm lovin' it!
At 1/23/13 09:24 PM, Warforger wrote: California actually used to be a Republican stronghold. Nixon was from there and Reagan was governor there, it also voted Republican for President in every election from 1952 ending in 1992 (with the exception of 1964, where everyone but Racist whites and Arizona voted Democrat). They've mostly turned Liberal because of all the immigrants that came in when their economy boomed due to the Silicon Valley and because the moderates left the Republicans when all this Evangelical crap overtook the GOP. This hasn't happened in Southern California which remains a bastion of Conservatism, and the Eastern half is also pretty Conservative but less populated. So it's in South California so it's not too surprising. It would be really surprising if it were San Fransisco or Oakland though.
I read somewhere recently that Nixon referred to guns as an 'abomination' and if he could've he would've ban/confiscated all of them. Reagan also lent his support to the Brady Bill and 1994 AWB under Clinton. That's the thing with gun control...I think it is much more of a bipartisan issue (or maybe geographic issue) than down party lines. After all, most urban dwellers think it is a good idea since there is none to little gun culture there. On the other hand those of us toothless hillbillies in the sticks superstitiously and irrationally cling to them.
As for the Evangelical wing taking over...I'm not sure that is completely true. I live in Missouri where we have a very strong Baptist/Evangelical community concentrated in our Southern part. And yet when I go to the annual Republican state convention...their hospitality rooms are the least full and most avoided. Yes they are a vocal and sizable part of the party...but I think their control is vastly overstated.
At 1/23/13 07:50 PM, RacistBassist wrote: I like how it says they LOOK like they belong on a battlefield without clarifying that that's as far as it goes towards being a battlefield weapon.
They were purchased for cops and cops have access to the selective fire/military version. So they may actually be assalt rifles. :)
At 1/23/13 04:58 AM, Feoric wrote:
At 1/22/13 01:24 PM, TheMason wrote:Yet he still managed to kill 14 people at the school and injured 32 people. It's worth mentioning that the good samaritan who helped the three officers take him down accidentally shot his rifle which blew their cover, and one officer immediately shot all 6 bullets from his revolver at Whitman from a distance of 50 feet, and they all missed. This is why having teachers with guns is such a monumentally stupid idea. Nobody has perfect accuracy, especially under pressure in tense situations. The more bullets you have flying around, the more accidents there can be.
I'll address the 'Teachers to Troops' idea later and elsewhere.
There was more than one good Samaritan. Many responded and their combined fire pinned Whitman down for others to enter the tower and take out the threat.
In order to address the issue of mass shooters, you want to investigate things that you say correlate, like lyme disease and lead concentrations. Have you looked into Internet Explorer?
Please don't hurt yourself patting your own back for your wit (sure wouldn't be for your wisdom :P )!
LYME DISEASE
Heard about this on the Ed Schultz show on Sirius Left. A MD called in talking about Lyme rage...a psychosis associated with Lyme disease. Something pathological makes sense.
LEAD POISONING
can cause psychosis. Concentrations of lead pollution correlate to violent geographic areas. Heard about this from the bastion of NRA propaganda called the Huffington Post. :)
But hey... if you've got no point try misdirection disguised as wit! ;)
At 1/22/13 11:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/22/13 08:31 PM, TheMason wrote: Besides...it's a shitty gun. Perhaps we should ban it from the military too and buy AK-47s!Ah yes, cause it's in the military's best interest for their guns to jam constantly for no good reason...
I own an AK-47, literally put thousands of rounds through it with no jams. I've also fired M-16s in the USAF... experienced many jams with less rounds. Comes down to the room in thereceiver. AKs have a lot of room for dirt and debris to exit the receiver when the bolt Carrier moves. AR-15...not so much. Plus the gas system on the AR-15 is very sensitive to ammo discrepancies.
The M-16 is a piece of crap.
At 1/22/13 08:38 PM, Warforger wrote:
Right, that doesn't mean had they brought their guns to the theater no one would have died.
Just FYI... Holmes picked the theater because it was a 'gun free' zone.
At 1/22/13 07:58 PM, RacistBassist wrote:At 1/20/13 09:46 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: well technically a M16A3, M4A1 (which is a cousin of the AR)My cousin who looks like me knowing Jiu Jitsu does not mean I can all of a sudden do Jiu Jitsu
Mason's Fun and Useless Fact of the Day
'AR-15' is the ArmaLite name for the rifle, including the military's selective fire rifle. M-16x and M-4 are just the military's nomenclature for them. So technically all 'black rifles' made by Colt (who bought the rights to the gun from ArmaLite) whether military or not...are AR-15s.
As for your point RB...the only thing that the civilian AR-15 lacks that the military version has is a degraded suppressive fire capability. So it's like imagine Jiu Jitsu has two different black belts and one can only do 98% of the other one. It would be like your cousing who looks like you has the higher belt...and you have the lower one.
:)
Besides...it's a shitty gun. Perhaps we should ban it from the military too and buy AK-47s!
At 1/22/13 06:05 PM, CacheHelper wrote:At 1/21/13 09:53 PM, RacistBassist wrote: We don't hear about the mass shootings that get stopped early because there isn't a high enough kill count because they get taken down before it gets to that point.By people with handguns. ...
Did you know that the body count is higher in mass shootings involving handguns over shootings involving assault rifles? Consider:
1997: N. Hollywood Shoot-Out: Two gunmen with illegally modified military-style guns fired over 3,000 rounds. 17 people were hit. The only deaths: the two gunmen.
2007: VT Massacre: Cho fired about 100 rounds with a 9mm and a .22 handgun. The result was 33 dead (including Cho) and 17 injured by gunfire (a total of 23 injuries occured).
Then look at Aurora: Holmes fired his AR-15 until the 100rd drum failed...not even getting off 30 rounds. He then switched to his shotgun and handguns. While the details have not been released, I would hazard to make the informed guess that most people hit as well as killed or suffered the most serious wounds were hit by the shotgun and handguns.
Nobody is asking for that. Have you even read the proposed amendments to Gun Control? We're asking that all gun sales come with background checks, we're asking that we close the loopholes that allow people to bypass these background checks. We're asking for a national database of potential threats to make background checks more effeciant nation wide. We're asking for increased punishments for those people who willingly, and knowingly, go out of their way to purchase guns for people who wouldn't pass the background checks. We're asking for more research on what might drive a person to shoot up a public building and more funding to help the mentally sick get the help they need. We're asking that someone be put back in charge of the ATF and that the ATF has all the access it needs to propertly do it's job to monitor gun sales to potentially dangerous people.
* For the most part I think there is room on background checks.
* A new head at BATF: doesn't help but doesn't hurt.
* Totally agree that we need to revamp our mental health system.
* There is a HUGE body of peer-reviewed, academic research by PhDs and researchers. It all points to further gun control will not save lives. It is time to focus our efforts at the causes of gun violence: education, economic opportunity as well as raising up what has become a permanent second class of urban poor minorities.
These last two issues are the heart of this debate.... but it goes way beyond "that gun looks scary". It's more like "that gun is unneccessary". Now, unless you can explain to me why the previous assault riffle ban shouldn't be reinstated or why you need a hundred bullets loaded into your weapon at a time, we're done here. All other arguments (such as ... "you might try to take my handguns later") are just distractions from the current issue.
* That your side thinks this is the "heart of this debate" speaks to just how little your side understands the issue. Study after study and FBI crime statistics year after year show: Handguns are used in crime 75-87% of the time. Shotguns are used 15-18% of the time. ALL rifles: 2-5%. Assault rifles in particular: most years it is less than 1%!
* There is more of a legitimate case for a handgun ban than an assault rifle ban. Of ALL types of guns handguns are the only ones specifically designed to kill human beings. Assault rifles on the other hand, in accordance with international law may not make death inevitable.
* The previous AWB did not effect crime rates. After all, when in 1993 they were used in less than 1% of crime...why would it? All it did was divert resources from the true root causes of crime.
Uses for assault rifles:
* You can hunt with an AK-47. The intermediate powered bullet has less effective range (ie: how far it travels and how far it travels with the ability to hurt/kill) than a traditional hunting round. However, you cannot hunt with a military round...it has to be a hunting round (aka: ballistic tip) because the Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) round used by the military does not kill quickly meaning the animal can run and die a slow miserable bleed-out death (human,s who have the ability to reach a hospital, has about a 95% survival rate for GSWs) or survive thereby suffering needlessly. Many states do not allow the .223 round for hunting anything larger than a coyote because of its lack of killing power...even non-FMJ ammo.
* HOME-defense: I wouldn't use an AR-15 because of its weakness as a round. But I would use an AK-47 loaded with hunting ammo. See, I do not want to go out and confront a home intruder. Instead I prefer to lock myself in my bedroom and, if necessary, shoot through the door. In this case, I would like to have 30 rounds in my mag.
* Varmits: I know cattlemen who use these to shoot things like coyotes that harass/kill their livestock. The AR-15 or Mini-14 are perfectly good rounds for these small animals. The high capacity mag enables killing many animals that may be running down your cattle.
In the end...assault 'weapons' are targeted because gun control opinion makers can manipulate the ignorance and fear of people who do not know much about guns to get these banned. They look scary...which makes them low-hanging fruit for gun-control-nuts. But in the end...they have little reason to be banned.
Now...why don't you show me exactly how these firearms are the 'killing machines' people like the President and Senators Fienstein and Schumer are portraying them? Also, as I have seen you yourself post elsewhere, where is the proof that there is some sort of epidemic of assault rifle fueled gun violence occuring.
At 1/21/13 05:25 AM, Feoric wrote: That depends on how you define "mass shooting" (wikipedia tells me 4 during the 60s) but there were absolutely shootings in schools in the 60s, for example. The most famous one was the University of Texas massacre, which left 14 people dead. It's interesting to note how many of these perpetrators committed suicide, and how many of then surrendered or were subdued. It tells me that not everybody who does this kind of stuff goes into doing it with the same mind set.
I would like to point out a few things:
1) The UT-Austin shooting involved civilians coming with their own firearms and aiding an overwhelmed police force in stopping the shooter.
2) Over the past 20 years these kind of mass shooters have quadrupled. This includes the 10 year period that an AWB was in effect. Some of the things they correlate to are: lyme disease, lead concentrations in paint and the atmosphere from leaded gasoline (before you point out that leaded gasoline went bye-bye circa late 1980s...know that lead levels are not effeciently processed by the body and therefore can remain in one's system for decades), and the school reforms of Clinton, Bush, and now Obama. :)
At 1/19/13 01:55 PM, Fim wrote: Yep, I think owning semi-autos should have tighter restrictions than less powerful weapons. I think a similar scheme to what they have in New Zealand where they grade weapons on a scale of severity would be ideal.
In terms of power, I thought I'd provide you with a picture. From left to right according to category:
Pistol Rounds
9mm (common police and military pistol round)
.45 ACP (1911 series pistols)
.38 (used recently in Georgia)
.44 Rem Mag (pistol round useful for deer hunting)
Assault Rifle Rounds
7.62x39 (AK-47)
.223 or 5.56mm (M-16, NATO assault rifles...note the .22LR shell in front of it; the bullet of the M-16 is only .003 of an inch larger.)
Hunting Rifle Round
.270 winchester
Now which bullet is the high power one? The one used for deer hunting (.270) or one of the assault rifle rounds?
Also, which ones will kill you faster? If you look at the shape of the bullet (projectile) of the assault rifle rounds they are pointed (even though the AK round is a hollow point). This means that, especially with the AR-15/M-16 round, the bullet is cased in a metal shell that makes expansion/deformation less likely. This means that since the bullet is traveling at a high velocity...it is going to over penetrate and not cause much damage.
But look at the pistol rounds. They have three things going for them: weight, shape and slow speed. These three things combined mean three things for the person hit with them:
A) A slower, heavier round will transfer more energy to the victim causing more bludgeoning damage.
B) The shape will slow the bullet's momentum meaning it is more likely to stay inside the body...and more likely to tumble tearing up internal organs.
C) The above factors give hollow points (HP) and jacketed hollow points (JHP) more of a chance to expand creating more bludgeoning damage and adding (in the case of JHP) shredding damage.
Finally, hunting ammo has the same effect of the pistol ammo...only effective at a longer range. The make-up of a soft-core round (pictured) or a HP or JHP will allow it to transfer more energy to a body and have a greater chance of expansion. Now, they do make hunting ammo for the AR-15 and the AK-47. However, in the case of the AR-15 many states make it illegal to hunt with this round because of how ineffective it is at killing. The AK deer round is a great hunting round for short ranges and wooded areas. It actually makes hunting safer because it will travel less distance if you miss. However, the rounds are scarce and expensive at $1/rd (at least) compared to the $0.27 I paid for the round pictured.
Now do you still think assault rifles are extraordinarily lethal killing machines that Obama claimed?
C)
At 1/21/13 10:03 AM, Fim wrote: The deal on the table is - compulsory background checks (good), better leadership in the TA&F department so they can prosecute illegal firearms dealers (good), and an assault weapons ban (good, and also implemented by republicans like Reagan and Bush, and supported by 70% of the NRA).
Why are you exaggerating the extent of what they are doing? These terms are reasonable and have no bearing on your right to protect yourself.
FIrst of all, I think we need to strengthen our background checks. I would also like to see more states implement laws like Missouri in which only in-state residents or a boardering state can purchase in Mo. May cut down on some of the straw-man sales flowing into NYC.
I'm not sure that just a leadership change at the BATF (not TA&F) will do much. But hey...it won't do much harm over the status quo.
As for the assault rifle ban...it is just public policy masturbation. The 1994 AWB was shown to be highly ineffective. I mean what do they think? Banning a firearm that is, statistically speaking, NOT used in crime...nor is it particularlly lethal and military rounds tend to do the least amount of damage to a body...what do you expect? That's like putting a tenth of a liter of petrol in your car and expecting to tour Europe! It won't get you far.
All the AWB will do is siphon resources away from programs that could make a dent in crime by improving education and economic opportunity in gang ridden urban areas.
At 1/19/13 01:55 PM, Fim wrote: Sorry but that's you're opinion. If you're going to make claims like that, then back them up with real evidence.
As I said, Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. If you are in a sticky situation with a criminal (which is still a very unlikely scenario) you don't play rambo, you give them what they want, and then you claim everything you lose back on your insurance. And you entrust the police to deal with them effectively. Getting involved yourself is needlessly dangerous.
How about this:
* The Branas study has some flawed methodology in that it only deals with shootings. The vast majority of defensive gun use never involves a single shot fired. I for one have had to use a firearm twice in self-defense. The first time, the cops refused to come because they were busy. It wasn't until my ex-wife called back saying the guy was still there doing crazy shit to get into the house...and that I was armed that the police came. Had I not been armed...the cops would not have come until the guy was inside my home with myself and my ex-wife who was four months pregnant at the time. The next time the person was actually in the house and fled when they realized I was armed.
By not taking defensive uses of guns into the picture where shots are not fired (>95% of civilian firearm usage) and focusing on 1% of defensive uses of guns Branas is not following good social science methodological practices. By excluding these uses of guns he grossly overinflates his numbers. And he's flat out wrong.
* RAMBO: I totally agree that you do not play Rambo. In the cases where I have used a gun in self-defense they were home invasion scenarios. I retreated to the bedroom, locked the door and called 911. In this way I was in control of the sitiuation since I could take cover. I knew where the intruder was coming from and therefore covered the door ready to fire if he decided to break in. However, he did not know where in the room I or my wife was...or what cover we had. Therefore, if he intended harm...I could quickly take him out of the picture.
Secondly, if he only intended to take my TV or rob me (and not do me physical harm)...I had the chance to warn him that I had a gun. If it is only a robbery in 99% of cases he will flee the house. See, I do not want to shoot anyone...it would be a horrible burden for the rest of my life. And I don't want that. Furthermore, this is what most self-defense experts (and the NRA) teach people to do.
Now if I was out and about on the street it would depend on the situation. When you get your concealed carry permit you are taught not to draw if the bad guy has already drawn on you. If they have a knife or are attacking you melee and are within 21 feet of you...do not draw. In those cases you do not have the time to get off a shot before you are shot, stabbed, or bludgeoned and your gun taken away from you. In those cases it is best to comply.
* Overall, numerous studies by criminologists such as Dr. Gary Kleck, have shown that guns do defuse these situations. Furthermore, many of these studies like Branas' have been shown to be methodologically lacking. For example, they also tend to include suicides which have been shown that those deaths would occur with or without a gun because the gun is not the root cause of the death and substitution effects come into play.
====
In the end, yes it is my opinion. But it is an opinion formed by formal training in social science methodology. Experience with guns. And having spent the majority of my adult life immersed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
At 1/19/13 01:55 PM, Fim wrote:At 1/18/13 10:41 PM, TheMason wrote:That's almost like saying because I've never been to Palestine or Jerusalem I can't have an opinion on the middle east, as
long as I understand the facts my opinion is as valid as yours, and I have actually shot a rifle and a pistol before although that was a few years ago.
Actually, it is nothing like that. My point is: do you really understand the facts?
Also, shooting a firearm once or twice gives you more basis than the person who has never fired a gun...it does not mean that you understand the facts. Also, please know that while I may be blunt...I do not mean to be rude. I am merely pointing out that just by following the news and having an idea of what guns are (formed through media and pop culture) may not be the most firm foundation upon which to form an opinion. After all, my ex-wife is a Doctor and I've removed my own stitches before...that does not mean my opinion on medicine is as valid as hers.
So the question is, in order to understand the facts do you know:
* Where on the spectrum of power as it relates to velocity and foot pounds on target...an 'assault rifle' falls on the spectrum relative to pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles? (This means what rounds, and what guns are designed to shoot those rounds, cause 'maximum damage'?)
* Which firearms are used in crime...and which are not?
* The trend of crime, especially gun crime, in the US...is it going up or is it going down?
* What do the academic journals say about the causes of all crime...including gun crime?
* What do the academic journals say about the causes of mass shooters/killers?
I can only assume that my point regarding New Zealand and their gun control scheme is pretty water tight because nobody here has even tried to rebuttle it.
Not water tight at all.
* Assault rifles are not used in crime because they are not effective for criminal purposes. Furthermore, they are not the lethal killing machines you see in the media.
* Comparing the crime rates between countries is problematic. The root causes of gun crime is NOT guns nor their availability. Root causes are economic in nature (access to education, economic opportunity for all demographics, presence/non-presence of ethnic minorities treated as permanent second class citizens). These problems are unique to each country and is what explains differences in crime rates...not guns.
* The geography is different. NZ is an island whereas the US shares a long and very porous border with a country riddled with criminal cartels that make billions if not trillions off of smuggling drugs and people into the US. They would make even more money smuggling illegal firearms into the US to fill demand of gangs.
The New Zealand law wouldn't effect US crime rates at all.
For example...why have different classifications for different guns? And if you're going to...would military style semi-autos be the ones you want to be the most or least restrictive on?Yep, I think owning semi-autos should have tighter restrictions than less powerful weapons. I think a similar scheme to what they have in New Zealand where they grade weapons on a scale of severity would be ideal.
Then semi-auto 'assault rifles' would be the least restrictive.
1) They are not 'powerful weapons'. By definition an assault rifle shoots a round that is intermediate between a pistol and a hunting rifle. Furthermore, military ammo is far less destructive to flesh than hunting ammo, self-defense ammo for pistols, and most shotgun ammo.
2) Higher rates of fire means far, far less accuracy since muzzle rise and recoil makes you shoot into the ceiling.
3) Assault rifles are heavier and more cumbersome than pistols and sawed-off shotguns. That is why pistols are used in 75-85% of gun crime and shotguns in 12-18%. ALL rifles make up the remaining 2-5%, with assault rifles used (most years) <1% of the time. They cannot be concealed. Their length makes them unwieldy in any situation inside a building. They are much heavier. And they tend to leave behind witnesses because they are not all that good at killing. A jacketed hollow point that weighs as much as a pistol bullet going at subsonic speeds (or buckshot and/or a slug in the case of shotguns) is far, far, far more likely to kill than even a hollow point fired from an AR-15.
====
In the end, your suggestions seem to fit within those commonly found by people who are largely ignorant of the realities of what guns are, what they are capable of, how they are used in crime, and what the real causes of crime are.
I do not think what you suggest is unreasonable. In fact they are logical. However, once you understand things such as ballistics and trends in crime this reason, rationality, and logic begins to dissapate as you move from ignorance to knowledge. And you see that these suggestions are impractical and counter-productive in that they divert resources away from addressing real problems...that will save lives.
At 1/20/13 08:49 PM, Warforger wrote:
You said he wasn't considering the public interests at heart, it's quite clear the majority of people want more gun control. Now whether or not that's a good policy is one thing, but its' quite clear he has the public's interests in his proposals.
The founding fathers set-up our government with the idea of balancing the power of five different parts of a political society: the three branches of the federal government, the states, and the people en masse. They understood that people's passions can be inflamed and therefore the passions of the masses must be tempered with wisdom.
This is why we have a republic instead of a democracy.
What does this have to do with guns? One of the paradoxes of a free society is sometimes the people don't get what they want...but get what they need.
Furthermore, if Obama had any sort of nuance understanding of this issue he could lead the country away from vengance rituals (ie: calls for death penalties if the perp survives or calls for gun control if he dies)...instead of further inflaming ignorant, fear-based public passions in order to satisfy one of the bases of his party.
To be fair though you did go back a bit of time, Pre-Civil war? Try Grover Cleveland (3rd party again) and FDR. But like I said that's largely meaningless because well for one 2008 was special, the Republicans were just so unpopular that a bus driver probably could have beat them. Bush had lower approval ratings than Nixon and that wasn't because of a scandal he was just an unpopular President, Nixon just got caught doing what Kennedy started and everyone caught him going to unprecedented corruption.
* I ignored FDR's third and fourth terms since he is the only president to serve more than two terms.
* Cleveland served two terms...but these were nonconsecutive. He is also the only president to serve two terms nonconsecutively therefore he is a special case like FDR so I treated him as two-one term presidents.
And your reason concerning 2008 does not hold water. In 1980 Carter was unpopular; the economy was crashing and there was a major foreign relations crisis going on with Iran. Carter was deemed to be very inept. So by your logic, Reagan would've decreased in popularity...where in face he had a +8 increase in the popular vote.
Also, this is a trend that is actually very steady. In order to find the next president who won with a shrinking popular vote you have to go back to 1832 with the election of Jackson (I made a mistake attributing the 1840 win to Van Buren). You go back this far and the average spread between first and second term popular vote is +4.8%.
A more valid criticism would be that we've had increased sufferage since then. Adjusting for this according to increases in voting rights:
The black vote: +4.5
The women vote: +5.4
Civil rights: +6.5
18 yo vote: +6.5
Now looking at the modern/post-WWII political landscape this number is +5.8. So this trend is rather stead for such major upheavals as expanding suffrage, civil rights movements, wars popular and unpopular. Furthermore, this is rooted in something solid: election results. Public opinion polls change. At the outset of Vietnam public support was rather pretty high, then with perceived defeat as well as civil unrest at home it became our most unpopular war and doomed the Johnson administration. Public opinion shifted so much that at the end, when we actually began winning our victories (such as the failed Tet Offensive) were viewed as losses.
So no...public opinion polls are a very shakey foundation to build any argument on! But something like election results are a very solid indicator! :)
Probably downhill from here on out, happened to Eisenhower, Reagan, Johnson and most importantly Clinton.
Happens to all second term presidents. Plus he has (or has had since re-election) the following issues to deal with:
* Fiscal cliff
* Gun control/mass killings
* Immigration
* Debt ceiling
* Budget
* Promised spending cuts
* Implementation of ACA/Obamacare
He has a ton of governing to do, and I wonder just how much political capital he has. Doubtful he has enough to get his way on all of these issues. Especially considering his signature domestic policy issue is going into effect.
At 1/20/13 09:29 AM, Zanroth wrote:At 11/19/07 10:51 AM, TheMason wrote: Yes, but I don't usually like getting into the US vs rest of the world arguments...That's a rather silly way to go about debating...
From what I gather, you're against banning guns, so you're basically throwing away great arguments that actually support your case.
The reason I'm not a fan of those arguments is that there are significant differences between countries. See the real causal factors of gun crime tend to be things like ethnolinguistic fractionalization (ie: how divided a country is along ethnic and linguistic lines), economic factors, and education. When you plug the data into something like SPSS (Statistical Program for the Social Sciences) the relationship between guns and gun crime is shown to be spurious.
Now in the case of school shootings, there are some interesting things that are revealed through comparative study. For example, mass killings in Germany have not stopped even with stricter gun control. Killers have just switched to other means. In Germany it is a positive since they have substituted edged weapons for firearms.
Unfortunately, in the US we have seen these people use explosives and chemical weapons. So moving away from guns in the us will most likely result in an even higher body count.
At 1/20/13 03:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Face it, the Republicans couldn't take candy from a baby, and that is the textbook definition of a crushing defeat.
But I'm not convinced that it is because of the genius of the Obama campaign. What if Romney had been able to counter the Bain ads that Obama was putting out early on...instead of fending off the "Not-the-Romney-candidate-of-the-week" that was put up by the religious right?
At 1/20/13 04:26 PM, Warforger wrote:At 1/20/13 12:34 PM, TheMason wrote: But on this topic, he's a public policy moron. He is going after an agenda, and does not have the best interest of people in mind.Doesn't sound like he's the public policy moron here.
There's a difference between being a political genius and a public policy moron. The polling indicates that so far he is winning the debate.
However, in that his public policy will not be effective nor does he show any nuance or insight into this issue. Ergo, he is pursuing a public policy that has been shown to be a failure...in trying to save one life he'll more than likely (if he gets what he wants) end up costing many more than one person their life.
Percentage wise, this does not account for people who don't vote or voting reforms getting rid of fraud etc. Popular vote is a tricky thing, but since 1968 more and more people just simply don't care about government since they feel like they can't do anything so naturally there's less participation and it generally overstates how popular politicians were. The problem here is that you're also including people like Woodrow Wilson or Nixon or Clinton who got a smaller percentage of the vote due to 3rd parties. While you're right his margin of victory was lower than in 2008, in 2012 his margin of victory is still greater than both 2000 and 2004's elections along with most of the elections Post-Civil War up until McKinley. Obama is more popular than Baby Bush was in 2000 or 2004 as well as Wilson in 1912 and 1916, so comparing him to them is a bit off.
Not really. There are problems with looking at popularity polls too. He is perceived as just winning his first post-election fight (Americans love a winner), just got re-inaugurated, and there are a few minor crisies going on. Thus there is a rally-around-the-flag effect going on right now. Let's see where he is in 2-3 years.
:)
At 1/19/13 12:47 PM, MOSFET wrote: This ad is a misdirection on the issues of gun violence. It doesn't address the public health and safety concerns with gun violence, all it does is make people envious and want to buy a gun for themselves. And since there is a proven correlation between gun ownership and homicides, all it does is increase the level of violence and increase public health risk.
While there is a correlation between gun availability, upon further study time and time again the relationship is proved to be spurious. There is no causal relationship between legal gun ownership and gun crime.
Therefore, the level of violence and public health concerns are not addressed by gun control.
All gun control policy is is public policy masturbation.
There are a number of ways people misuse guns. Good intentioned people who use it to intimidate others if say an argument isn't going their way. What about those Lazy Louies who are negligent with their guns. There are some real bad teachers out there, would you like them to have a gun at their disposal as well?
The problem is we've had concealed carry for 30 years...and in universities. And those things you fear are not observed. Therefore, your argument is irrational in that it is based on emotion rather than facts.
People aren't really split into good guys and bad guys. Seung-Hui Cho and James Holmes weren't bad people before they went on their rampages after legally purchasing their weapons. The young man that killed those kids at Sandy Hook may have been mentally disturbed but he didn't show any indication of what he might do before he took his mom's legally owned guns. What about those Postal workers in the 80s/90s? How do you arm the good guys without arming the bad guys or the good guys that will go bad?
While I do rhetorically refer to these guys as 'bad guys', we do have some common ground here.
I see these shooters as people who are sick and/or victims of something. I understand that this is not a gun or crime issue, but a psychological and sociological issue. Furthermore, in the case of mass killings, there are ways to know that someone is at risk.
To begin with, these individuals tend to be joiners who have been unable to join a desired social group. (Contrary to the popular assumption they are lone wolves.)
They also display a significant degree of narcissism. Given that an increasing number of college freshmen are indicating as narcissists on surveys...this may not be something unique or inherient to this subset of individuals but something generational.
They eventually embrace the image of the loner (as well as the loner group identity), and eventualy seek infamy.
Therefore they opt for a ritual of suicide in which they will join the pantheon of 'lone wolves' who struck back at the society that denied them emotional and social acceptance.
These rituals are meant to be public events in which their victims will become unwilling participants in a ritual that will evelate man to God, and God to man. However, since they are public events...these people will seek to advertise it and document their struggle.
So what is the answer?
We need to start with mental health and strengthening background checks. In the case of Cho at VT and Holmes in Colorado there were signs. Unfortunately, in the case of both HIPPA regulations kept them from being prevented from acquiring guns. Therefore, I think we should expand background checks to include mental health. However, we must be reasonable with this. Someone suffering depression because they are going through a divorce should not have his/her civil rights revokes just because of this diagnosis. However, if there are indications of psycho/sociopathy perhaps the courts could temporarily restrict the person's access to existing firearms (put them in trusteeship) and buying new ones. Then when he is cleared medically...their rights are automatically reinstated.
We also need to look into whether or not non-felony domestic violence convictions should result in a permanent or temporary loss of this civil right.
At 1/19/13 12:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/19/13 09:26 AM, TheMason wrote: So in the end...is Obama uninformed or just a liar?Actually Obama's a political genius.
But on this topic, he's a public policy moron. He is going after an agenda, and does not have the best interest of people in mind.
The nature of his election victory was a crushing defeat for the Republicans, ...
Obama's re-election is only a crushing defeat for the Republicans because they have weak leadership. Obama comes into his second term with less of a mandate than any other president since pre-Civil War. That's how far you have to go back to find a president who won re-election by a popular vote less than they won in the first election.
At 1/19/13 03:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
There is nothing stating that the right is restricted by the size of the weapon, nor that anything but the simplest Arm is all that is allowed. The lack of any clarification language creates the ambiguity. (Trust me, I have actaully had to argue such empty texts before, and it really fucking sucks when the drafters leave such things out, as textually anything could be the right answer.
I see your point, however I do not think it is as ambiguous as many people on the gun control side make it out to be. I think there is more clarity than is presented in popular media.
So the militia language isn't throw away language?
The militia language is commonly misinterpreted and misrepresented by gun control politicians and advocates to make the argument that the amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms to the militia...which today they claim is the National Guard.
All the militia language is a preamble which establishes their purpose in making it an individual right. Therefore, it does establish what purpose they had in mind for an armed citizenry. Was it hunting, self-defense, or national defense?
Thus the lawful purpose behind the second amendment is military in nature...since it's the only purpose mentioned. It speaks directly to the type of individual arm that is being protected. So it is important in this regard. However, contextually and grammatically it does not effect to whom the right belong to. It is not a militia right...it is an individual right.
:)
Doesn't matter. A gun is meant to harm living flesh in EVERY USAGE. It takes a qualification of that to turn a negative thing into a good thing. (i.e. hunting, or self defense)
A car is meant to transport. It takes a qualification of that to turn it into a bad thing.
But this is a difference on paper, not in fact. The reality is more harm is done by cars than by guns...and to more innocents. Furthermore, guns are a consumer that is a civil right wheras the ability to drive and own a car is a priviledge and not as much of a necessity as a gun.
* Quality is more important than quantity when discussing what disqualifies someone from owning/using something. Are the conditions that disqualify someone from owning a gun reasonable? Are they effective?No. They're horribly insufficient.
There is no excuse for a person convicted of DV to EVER be able to hold a gun again.
Hey...I think that there is some room for strengthening how firearms are acquired. On the other hand, there is no argument thus far presented to push for the bans on 'assault weapons' and high-cap mags.
That was not the point. And yes, a 10 shot AR-15 pales in comparison to an M1A1. That doesn;t mean the M1A1 is the guaranteed victor, but that is beside the point.
The point is that the existence of 3 measily rounds per clip when going up against a fully mobilized military with weapons that far outclass any civilian rifle make little difference. A 10 shot rifle and a 7 shot rifle are about equal in effectiveness against a fully armed military unit. The lack of difference is the point, not the comparison between civilian weapons and military weapons.
Think of it like going into a sword fight with a 2 inch switchblade versus a 2 inch stilleto. The difference in blade timing does little to even the odds.
This argument is invalid based upon that you seem not to understand what is currently permissible by your next statement...
Most allowable clips are 10 rounds, not thirty. The loss is only of 3 rounds per clip.
No...30 round magazines (the term 'clip' is erroneous) as well as 75 rd & 100 rd mags are allowable/legal. So yeah...we are talking a loss of 20+ rounds per mag.
Also, the M1 clad as an M1 versus the M1 clad as a M-16 fires exactly the same (not to mention the M1 look is just plain better). The look of an assault rifle doesn't magically make the gun fire harder, as you have pointed numerous times yourself.
Huh? An M1 is a battle rifle; which means it fires a high-powered round. Most are actually bolt action (although the M1 is semi-auto) with fixed mags less than 10 rounds. So there are no M1s clad as M-16s.
As for how it is clad...my AK-47 is a post-ban model. It lacks a bayonet lug and pistol grip...but it maintains the ability to accept a high-cap mag. I don't want to loose that feature just because people who do not understand it...and thus fear it (along with all guns)...weild power emotionally and irrationally.
So why is there even a need for ivilians to have such weaponry, or cheap knockoffs of such weaponry? If they'll end up getting it anyway.
The main reason it creates a natural reserve force that is shown to be effective both in 1776 and in 2012 against much more conventionally powerful militaries.
I've never ben a fan of the "because it exists it's Constitutional" argument. It;s nothing more than a cop out for judges too weak to actually take a stand.
Hey...it's a natural extension of Scalia's opinion that in order to be regulated a firearm must be either uncommon or unusual.
10,000 incidents of fatal shooting by civilians is a pretty stong indication that civilians can't properly handle the responsibility. Intentional or accidental has no bearing on this. Misuse is misuse whether intentional or accidental.
Accidents:
All unintentional injury deaths
âEU¢Number of deaths: 120,859
âEU¢Deaths per 100,000 population: 39.1
âEU¢Cause of death rank: 5
Unintentional fall deaths
âEU¢Number of deaths: 26,009
âEU¢Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
âEU¢Number of deaths: 33,687
âEU¢Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9
Unintentional poisoning deaths
âEU¢Number of deaths: 33,041
âEU¢Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7
Firearms deaths (accidental)
* Number of deaths: 606
* Deaths pers 100,000 population: 0.2
What are the other types of firearms deaths?
Homicide: Having watched this and posted rates for the past (almost) 10 yrs on NG these rates fluctuate between 13K and 18K a year. Right now we are at an all time low...around 13K.
Suicide: Again...I've watched this too. The rate fluctuates less than homicide and is a little higher at 15K-18K.
Now the things with these:
* The people who are killed in homicide tend to not: own the gun legally and they tend to be criminals regardless of possession of a firearm.
* Substitution effects come into play with suicides. The availability of guns does not impact suicide rates...they will find other ways to kill themselves.
So in summation...
* Your stat of 10K is wrong...it actually underrepresents the amount of firearms deaths.
* It does not accurately represent the nature of firearms deaths.
The reality is:
* In the vast majority of cases of misuse, it is intentional misuse. This cannot be so casually dismissed. A gun is an inert object...it does not just up and decide to turn on its owner and go off on their own accord. There has to be deliberative, and thoughtful action.
* In half the cases of intentional misuse...the gun is (in a statistically significant number of cases) is acquired illegally. Therefore your point fails.
* In the other half, the presence of the gun has nothing to do with causing the death. The death will occur irregardless...and probably with more suffering.
* The number of accidental deaths is trivial.
Your point is emotionally charged here...as well as factually untrue.
:)
I think it is faux, manufactured outrage. The ad did not go after Obama's kids, nor did it threaten him. It was like any other political ad...designed to deliver an emotional message. And it comes from both sides.
I haven't read every post here yet, so someone may have beat me to it. But this gun control group selectively edits out that the S&W his grandfather used...was used to stop lynchings! Then they interpose clips of news reports and kids to elicit an emotional response.
The difference is Obama and these guys are dipping their shirts in the blood of these kids...to advance agendas and laws that will not effect school shootings or save lives. Obama's use of kids and these groups using those pictures in their ads is disgusting.
What I would like to see is an ad that presents the facts that contradict Obama's polished and reasonable sounding speech. For example:
* There is a wide body of scientific research that shows that gun control would not effect gun crime, that the causal factors of gun crime (along with all crime) are not related to the availability of guns.
* There is a wide body of scientific research into the last AWB that proves that it did not work and had no appreciable or statistically significant effect on gun crime. In fact I've seen some studies that suggest that there is a stronger relationship between school reforms that started under Clinton and continued under Bush the Younger than there is gun availability...specifically assault rifle availability.
* Where the last two points are routed in the social (or soft) sciences and exist in peer-reviewed academic journals and books...the next is routed in a hard science: physics. Obama made the claim that military style weapons were designed to deliver 'maximum damage'. This is factually untrue...this is not a matter of opinion that is changed by any emotional argument. The reality is standard military ammo is pretty much the least lethal and does the least damage to flesh. Even if you use hollow points or soft lead core bullets (rounds commonly used for hunting and self-defense) the .223 round (used in AR-15/M-16s) is moving too fast for these rounds to be effective. If you look at mass shootings, the ones with the higher body count don't use military style assault rifles.
* With the Aurora shooting he focused on the 100rd drum mag for allowing him to hit 70 people. And yet the drum failed (as they are prone to do) after only 30 rds causing him to switch to more deadly firearms: his shotgun and pistols. High capacity magazines actually encourages the type of behavior you want in a mass shooter...spray and pray...which means less people get hit. (Don't get me wrong...no one wants a mass shooting to occur. But if one happens, don't you want it to do the least harm?)
So in the end...is Obama uninformed or just a liar?
At 1/18/13 09:56 AM, Fim wrote: ... You aren't doing yourself a favour by risking getting into a confrontation because if you carry a gun you are more likely to get killed yourself.
Just caught this...
Actually you are wrong on this account. We've had concealed carry in this country for almost 30 years now. We have a corresponding reduction in crime. We also have less injuries when a civilian uses a firearm than when cops use theirs. And we don't see any phenomenon/trend that indicates that you are more likely to get hurt/killed by carrying your firearm.
There is this one statistic that get bandied about that you are 48x more likely to get shot/injured/killed (depends on the source citing the source) if you own a gun. But this doesn't, as my Statistics for the Social Sciences (who was the Poli Sci department chair...since we were PhD students) says, pass the giggle test. Of course participating in an activity is going to increase your chances of getting injured by either the activity itself or its related equipment. I do not skydive so someone who does has an exponentially more chance of being injured by a parachute than I do. I drive and own two cars...ergo I am significantly/exponentially more at risk at getting injured by a car than someone who is Amish and shuns cars.
It is a meaningless statistic...that is outweighed by all the other trends and observed phenomenon related to gun safety and gun violence.
At 1/18/13 09:56 AM, Fim wrote: I am from the UK, and so I've been brought up in a society that is unshakably anti-gun. I think guns are dangerous murder weapons, but I understand in America it seems like you have some morbid fascination with them, and that's fine. Even if I get exasperated every time I see a news story about gun crime, or a school shooting in the US, I just shake my head and dismiss it as a natural up shot of the situation you have put yourself in over there.
Do you think that it is possible that since you are from the UK and therefore not brought up in an enviroment where guns are a norm...you lack some insight into the topic?
For example, I had to replace my mailbox and I decided to replace it with a wood post instead of this ancient steel/iron/kryptonite post that was ugly and cemented into the ground with about 3 bags of concrete weighing 80 lbs (36 kg) each. So my buddy brought his acetylene torch over to cut it, and offered to teach me to use it. At first I was frightened of it. I had no knowledge of how to operate it...only that it was very dangerous and people who used it professionally had to go through a lot of training to use them properly.
But then I used it and while I still respect the acetylene torch and the pain it can inflict...I do not fear it.
Now I know you're probably going to say something about how the purpose of the acetylene torch is beneficial and the gun is destructive. I get it, I've heard it before...and I acknowledge it.
But without an understanding of what guns are outside of what you see in TV and the movies, and what they are capable of doing...don't you think that maybe you might be making some assumptions that are going to lead you to erroneous conclusions? For example...why have different classifications for different guns? And if you're going to...would military style semi-autos be the ones you want to be the most or least restrictive on?
At 1/17/13 11:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm going off of Scalia's contrived rule. I'm saying what should be the rule based on the rights of Americans to live safely balanced against the plain text of the Amendment.
And yet there is no demonstrated trend where allowing assault weapons tips the balance towards endangering the rights of Americans to live safely.
This is where your argument (or at least the argument of gun control advocates) fail.
I apologize, I used the wrong term (they have specific terms of art in the legal sense). I meant ambiguous. The legal term of art for ambiguos means that it written in such a manner that two people can honestly read into it it two different meanings. You read "bear Arms" as to read "bear as many of any type of arms" and I read "the right to posses arms" in its strictest sense meaning the right to bear a firearm.
No...I understand what you are saying. Switching one word for another doesn't negate what I said. The second amendment is written clearly within the context of the 18th century when it was written. Therefore, it's meaning is still discernable...and clear.
Where the ambiguity comes in is when people with agendas attempt to dismiss original intent as a way of sidestepping the civil right that the second amendment established. I do not doubt that you are a honest, intelligent and reasonable individual. And I know we disagree here.
The lawful need here is the core of the second amendment: National Defense. The second amendment guarantees the right for the citizenry to keep firearms that are common to the military in order to provide for the security of a free state. I will get into the feasibility of this in a moment in answer to something you write later on.You get into the feasibility but missed the point I was getting at.
No, I think I do get the point that you were getting at. The problem is what I see as a lawful need (National Defense) that is the prime and core spirit of the second amendment is present in military style semi-auto rifles.
But all cars have a primary usage that is positive whereas guns do not. Guns primary usage is to cause harm to flesh. Whereas a car has to be used improperly to be dangerous, a gun has to be used properly to not be dangerous. (sounds the same but to use a gun properly requires affirmative effort, wheras using a car improperly requires affirmative effort, and not the other way around for both.)
A few things here:
* Driving is a priviledge...not a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right.
* The primary usage of a gun is positive. No commercial gun manufacturer makes a gun with the intention to market it to criminals. Instead they are marketed as tool for self-defense and hunting...and even patriotism. While it accomplishes this task through harming flesh as you point out...the purpose for which it is intended to harm that flesh must be considered.
Even then, even if you're right. We already have MASSIVE systems in place to register automobiles and their drivers, and one has to pass a test to drive one of these, unlike guns where all one has to do is go to a gun show and put down cash. There are lots of conditions that would disqualify someone from using a car, not nearly as many for using a gun which has little other use than to harm.
* A vehicle is exponentially more complex to operate than a vehicle.
* A vehicle has significant more potential to do significant more harm than a gun.
* Because of the complexity of driving a vehicle there should be more conditions that disqualify someone from driving than from operating a less complex machine such as a gun.
* Quality is more important than quantity when discussing what disqualifies someone from owning/using something. Are the conditions that disqualify someone from owning a gun reasonable? Are they effective?
You completely miss the point here. The point isn't that single shot rifles can't do the job. The point ins't that small clips can't do the job. The point is that the difference between currently legal weaponry and that which would still be legal (clips smaller by a whopping 3 rounds, and the same exact weapons but clad like a hunter's weapon) provide no real difference for national defense than the other. They both pale heavily in the face of the weapons they would go up against.
No...no I got your point. And I negated it.
The fact is they would NOT pale in the face of the weapons they would go up against.
Your examples show that it;s the people behind the guns, not the extra 3 bullets or the 100% functionless (by several admissions here) military chic cladding, that make the defense.
Here we're going to get into some minutae.
* The things that makes FMJ ammo horrible for killing...actually make it good for shooting down aircraft. In Iraq a raid of AH-64 Apache gunship helicopters was forced back due to damage taken from AK-47 fire. Two aircraft had to crashland and many others were grounded for several days and weeks for battledamage. The extra twenty bullets that a 30 round mag affords in this case would make a difference. In Vietnam attack aircraft like the A-4 and A-6 attack jets and AH-1 gunship helicopters were succeptable to small arms fire.
* In urban environments, mounted attacks are not practicle. Thus, you need soldiers to go house-to-house dismounted. So much of the armor advantage is lost.
* The only military functionality that is lost in the semi-auto clones is the ability to provide suppressive fire...a function that is actually designed not to kill but to intimidate. It is also a huge waste of ammo and not much used.
The advantage that the people would have over a tyrannical government...is the ability to have firearms.If this is your argument,why are you comfortable with people not having M-60s or rocket launchers or tacticals driving down the streets? Those are definitely weapons common to the military.
First of all, it is a point I made that you did not address: in the even that the government would attempt to go tyrannical the military would fracture and those weapons would fall into either the hands of states succeeding from the Union, active duty military leaving and taking those weapons with them, or the national guard armories that store those weapons being overrun.
Secondly, they are not all that common. When Scalia talks about unusual and uncommon he is speaking of what is unusual and uncommon for individuals. Those are special weapons for special circumstances and not common or usually toted by most soldiers.
True, but the thing is once you delve into the math about guns, violence, and injury...the public time and time again have proven that they are capable of handleing the responsiblity.10,000 annual gun deaths seems to indicate otherwise.
Not at all.
Accidental gun deaths: Barely register as their own category. More people of all ages die from walking and falling accidents than from firearm accidents.
Suicide gun deaths: Our suicide rate is flat, furthermore the only categories that show any moderate effect of gun availability is males living in a home with a loaded firearm and old people. Even then, the difference barely registers as having any sort of statistical significance. In short, waving a magic wand and removing all guns from the equation will have no to very little effect. The people who kill themselves with guns will still kill themselves...probably much more inhumanely and with much more suffering.
Homicide gun deaths: The vast majority of these are used with guns gained either illegally or by criminals against other criminals. There will always be a demand for these guns as long as we have a demand for narcotics...and as long as both of these demands exists there will be sophisticated and established smuggling routes to get them into the hands of murderers.
So no...emotional lawyering aside...the math does not support the gun control argument.
At 1/17/13 08:44 PM, Feoric wrote:At 1/17/13 08:38 PM, TheMason wrote: Can you establish evidence that we need to ban/restrict high-capacity magazines?No, of course not. If anything, the evidence shows that banning them does effectively nothing. I just think the reasons why they shouldn't be banned are bogus; I think hicap mags are more for hobbyists than anything else. And that's fine! Just say so.
I was talking to a friend of mine who is a cattleman and he reminded me of something the other day...a gun like a Mini-14 or AR-15 is useful as a 'varmit gun'. It's small, weak .223 round is quite effective for coyotes and the high cap mag is also useful for ridding one's ranch of animals that pose a threat to livestock.
It's not about hunting...but protecting the food supply/investment.
At 1/17/13 07:04 PM, Feoric wrote: How is this evidence of a lawful need for a high round magazine? Do you think the founders honestly had any idea high round magazines would even exist?
Can you establish evidence that we need to ban/restrict high-capacity magazines?
(BTW: thank you for not using the terms 'clips', 'assault clips', 'assault magazines', and/or 'magazine-clips'. People who use those terms only betray a higher than normal degree of ignorance of firearms!) :)
At 1/17/13 05:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/17/13 01:21 PM, TheMason wrote: How is an AWB not an infringement? An infringement is defined as being a violation, breach, or encroachment on a right. A ban on 'military style' guns encroaches my right to go to the store and buy one.Better argument, but still, hardly convincing.
No...it establishes that an AWB is an infringement. You have not established that it is NOT. The most you have done is establish that it is not a TOTAL infringement that takes away the right COMPLETELY.
Furthermore, you still have not really established how or why such an infringement is necessary, or that the guns fall into an unusual or uncommon category per Justic Scalia's majority opinion in Heller vs. DC.
... So let's go with lawful need. That is a very good place to draw the line between what should be allowed and what should be an overstepping of a very vague Amendment. So let;s take a peek, now should we.
But the question is: does banning them serve the public good? Is there a compelling reason to ban them? Is there something unusual and uncommon about them that makes them fall into the category of being too much for civilians to own?
First of all...the idea that the amendment is vague is a modern contrivance created by people with an agenda. If you have an understanding of history, the Constitution, and the political thought of the Founders...it is not vague at all.
- Rifles meant to look like military rifles: the lawful need is not clear at all. The mere want is not a lawful need.
- high capacity magazines: No reasonable self defense or hunting scenario nessecitates the quick firing of more than 7 roundsin such a short period.
The lawful need here is the core of the second amendment: National Defense. The second amendment guarantees the right for the citizenry to keep firearms that are common to the military in order to provide for the security of a free state. I will get into the feasibility of this in a moment in answer to something you write later on.
- Forward grip: I am inclined to believe that there is no reasonable scenario where a vertical forward grip is needed for hunting or self defense.
A forward grip allows for greater shooting stability and control of the firearm. Yes it does help control high rates of fire...but it also increases accuracy in hunting and self-defense. It is reasonable.
In other words: all lawful needs for firearms remain even after the proprosed restrictions.
I'm going to assume for a moment that you are right about that military clones have no lawful purpose...
You still have not established a justification for why should be banned. Sports cars, SUVs and trucks with engines bigger than V-6s serve no lawful purpose for people who are not police, farmers, or tradesmen. But people who use them irresponsibly kill more people than guns per year. Then they cause pollution and secondary & tertiary public health effects. There are far more plausible reasons to ban certain types of vehicles than Assault Rifles.
I would also say, in response to the anti-tyrrany point, that the difference between 7 rounds and 10 rounds, or a rifle that looks like an M1 and one that looks like and M-16, makes little to no difference in fighting a mobilized military force, so that argument holds very little water.
Actually, speaking as a veteran...it carries a helluva lot of water. In Afghanistan the Mujahideen were able to hold off a much stronger army than ours (the USSR) with WWII era bolt action rifles. In Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan our forces faced serious challenges from an irregular force that was pathetically equipped compared to ours.
In Iraq the US military, it is worth mentioning, had the advantage of the terrain. The desert terrain allows us to employ our technological advantage to max effect.
We don't have this in the US, our mountainous and rugged terrain would impede armor and mobile infantry as well as our airpower. Furthermore, the military would fracture with enough equipment falling into 'rebel' hands to put them on par with government forces.
The advantage that the people would have over a tyrannical government...is the ability to have firearms. Including firearms that are common to the military.
This is not comparable to the freedom of speech either. The freedom of speech exists on the presumption that all speech has a use and that the speech must be exraordinary to be restricted. The presumption here is that all guns are dangerous and there must be a specific lawful need to subject the entirety of the nation to that danger. Even then, speech is restricted all the time, and it's much more protectable than guns are.
True, but the thing is once you delve into the math about guns, violence, and injury...the public time and time again have proven that they are capable of handleing the responsiblity.
Where as our journalists have shown that maybe they are not capable of responsibly handling their first amendment rights.
:)
At 1/17/13 09:59 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Revolvers and bolt actions are Arms, are they not? So as long as you have access to them your right to bear Arms is not infringed.
How is an AWB not an infringement? An infringement is defined as being a violation, breach, or encroachment on a right. A ban on 'military style' guns encroaches my right to go to the store and buy one. So while I can have some firearms...my ability to own some is taken away.
Now, I can agree that there are reasonable limits to this right. I do not need a tank or machine gun. There is a degree of martial power that is too much for a civilian to own.
But the question is: does banning them serve the public good? Is there a compelling reason to ban them? Is there something unusual and uncommon about them that makes them fall into the category of being too much for civilians to own?
At this point, no one from the President of the United States, to gun control advocates, to people on this BBS...has been able to establish this justification.
Show me the ballistics and the crime trends that show that these are the extraordinary 'killing machines' they are made out to be by yellow journalists and politicians.
Show me the science...not 'common sense' rhetoric based on ignorance.
