PDA

View Full Version : The US 2nd Amendment.....



Pages : [1] 2 3

duckmcf
September 23rd, 2015, 09:16 PM
:argue:

Hi Gang,
I think it's time for a referendum to either endorse or repeal the 2nd amendment to the US constitution.

Now before either side of this flames me to ash, I'm not on either side here.
I'm simply saying that it's well past time to put this question to the people and settle it once and for all.

Cheers,
Noel aka DuckMcF

stonerman33
September 24th, 2015, 12:04 AM
Interesting first post.

The 2nd protects all the rest.

duckmcf
September 24th, 2015, 03:53 AM
Yes, I joined a couple of years ago, but I normally hang out on fountain pen network.
I didn't realize it was first post until you mentioned it.

Anyway, how does the 2nd amendment protect the rest?
I would've thought that the 1st amendment provides more protection than the 2nd, in a modern context.


Interesting first post.

The 2nd protects all the rest.

FredRydr
September 24th, 2015, 04:53 PM
I think it's time for a referendum to either endorse or repeal the 2nd amendment to the US constitution. Now before either side of this flames me to ash, I'm not on either side here. I'm simply saying that it's well past time to put this question to the people and settle it once and for all.


Now wait a minute. You have only two posts total, both in this thread alone, and in a fountain pen forum that serves an international body of pen collectors, many (if not most) of whom are not even bound by American law, and suddenly you find it's "well past time" for international fountain pen collectors to vote on American constitutional law "to settle it once and for all"? Wow! Are you planning on forwarding the result to the US Congress to have them draft legislation, pointing out the finality of the "once and for all" weight carried by a Pen Geek vote?

I am just amazed where some people think they're coming from.

Fred

pengeezer
September 24th, 2015, 05:35 PM
I think I have the right to bear arms every time I'm outside working.....:)


John

duckmcf
September 24th, 2015, 08:59 PM
I think it's time for a referendum to either endorse or repeal the 2nd amendment to the US constitution. Now before either side of this flames me to ash, I'm not on either side here. I'm simply saying that it's well past time to put this question to the people and settle it once and for all.


Now wait a minute. You have only two posts total, both in this thread alone, and in a fountain pen forum that serves an international body of pen collectors, many (if not most) of whom are not even bound by American law, and suddenly you find it's "well past time" for international fountain pen collectors to vote on American constitutional law "to settle it once and for all"? Wow! Are you planning on forwarding the result to the US Congress to have them draft legislation, pointing out the finality of the "once and for all" weight carried by a Pen Geek vote?

I am just amazed where some people think they're coming from.

Fred

OK, so it's full-contact in here. Good to know.

A few points:

Yes, this turned out to be my first post and I apologise for that. I really thought that I'd posted here before but the number doesn't lie. Had I realised, I wouldn't have started this topic as I agree that it's really uncalled for to start a topic like this from someone with zero standing in the forum. For what ever it's worth I'm been into fountain pens ever since I tried to fix my father Parker 51 in the mid 70's. It was an epic fail, but I was recently able to buy a NOS exact version of the pen I destroyed (P51, aerometric, navy grey, B nib). That said, this off topic forum is titled, "Politics, Religion, and Society". I took that at face value as it's not a common feature of web forums such as this and so I gave the wheel a spin.

My well-past-time reference was not aimed at this forum, but rather at the US government. Of course I don't expect these posts to be passed on to the US Congress to have them draft legislation. My point was to try and get an understanding of what people in the US think of this idea.

Every time there's a mass shooting in the US, one side wrings their collective hands and complains that meaningful gun control is impossible to implement. Meanwhile the other side says, Yes, that's right the 2nd amendment protects us from gun control". So what's wrong with putting it to the people to decide?

Finally, here's where I'm coming from; Australia. I and a good number of my friends were right into sports shooting until our government more or less stopped it in the wake of the Port Aurthur shooting in the mid 90's. At the time I was really torn as I really enjoyed target shooting, but I knew a couple of people that were shot at Port Aurthur and that really changed my view.

I was just saying and asking (in a clumsily worded kind of way), why not put this question to the people in US and have them vote on endorsing or repealing the 2nd amendment in a referendum. That would put an end to the gun control issue one way or the other, wouldn't it?

Noel

HughC
September 25th, 2015, 07:22 AM
Noel has a point. In 17 something the "right to bear arms" had a different meaning to what's available now. Not too many ( or any ? ) mass murders with a muzzle loading long gun !! Allowing "fruit cakes" access to SLRs and armour piercing ammo without any checks is stupid. Has gun control worked in Australia? Of course not...there's a massive pool of weapons out "there"...mainly in criminal hands. Still at least some control does reduce the one off mental breakdown issues. What should come first, personal rights or community rights ?

stonerman33
September 25th, 2015, 11:29 PM
The 2nd amendment was originally in place for the people to rise up against a tyrannical government, and as the governments firearms have evolved, so have "the people's."

It's already against the law to murder someone. It's against the law to shoot up a school. It's against the law to shoot pigeons off your neighbors roof in the city limits. The laws are only useful if they are enforced and enforced consistently. Only the law abiding will bother to abide by the law, so you're "infringing" on the good people by enacting more stringent gun control laws. The bad guy who wants a gun is going to find one illegally, but we knew that would happen as the bad guy doesn't care about the law.

Violent crime rates have DECREASED fairly dramatically since the mid 80s as concealed carry laws were enacted across the nation, despite what some anti-gun groups claim. Read the statistics for yourself, they are in black and white from the FBI.

I grew up in a pretty safe small town in Wisconsin, the son of a career cop. Guns and hunting have always been part of my life, and remains a hobby I share with both of my parents. We also take our safety seriously. My dad has put a lot of the previously mentioned "bad guys" behind bars in his 30+ years wearing a badge. Some of them hold grudges.

If anything is at fault in our system, it's the failure of individual states to submit mental health records to the background check system. It's hard to keep the guns away from the crazies of the state isn't submitting those records to the database.

In the end, the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and I refuse to hide behind a garbage can waiting for him to show up.

duckmcf
September 26th, 2015, 12:59 AM
Yes, I understand.
I get both sides of this, I really do.

There's the,
"What should come first, personal rights or community rights ?", that HughC nicely summarized.

Verses the,
'if guns are banned only the criminals will have them' /
"the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", that stonerman33 also nicely put forward.

What I'm saying is that this is a never ending rhetorical argument that blows up every 6 weeks or so when there's yet another mass shooting that, I think, can be solved by a country wide referendum.

Basically, let democracy work it out in a no holes barred, 2 go in, 1 comes out fight for gun freedom or gun control.

Power to the people; right on.

Cheers,
Noel

pengeezer
September 26th, 2015, 04:25 PM
Yes, I understand.
I get both sides of this, I really do.

There's the,
"What should come first, personal rights or community rights ?", that HughC nicely summarized.

Verses the,
'if guns are banned only the criminals will have them' /
"the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", that stonerman33 also nicely put forward.

What I'm saying is that this is a never ending rhetorical argument that blows up every 6 weeks or so when there's yet another mass shooting that, I think, can be solved by a country wide referendum.

Basically, let democracy work it out in a no holes barred, 2 go in, 1 comes out fight for gun freedom or gun control.

Power to the people; right on.

Cheers,
Noel



Wish I could agree with you Noel,but the fact is that even if it were to be put to a national vote and it
were enacted,there would still be those that were so angry that they couldn't own guns anymore
that if they didn't go and get a gun illegally,they would still find a way to permanently harm some-
one in their release of anger. There are a number of reasons why gun control doesn't work:


1) As Hugh pointed out,times back when the 2nd Amendment was first created are totally diff-
erent than they are today. Guns were necessary for protection in a wilderness called Amer-
ica. Neither was there any desire for warfare having just come out of the Revoluntionary
War.

2) If I wanted to kill someone,there are many other ways to do it--a gun just makes doing the
job quicker.

3) Those with authority calling for gun control are usually on the other side of protection(pol-
ticians,gov't officials,corporate heads,those with some sort of local authority) and expect
that protection to be there when they're threatened. John Q. Public? He's on his own.

4) The guns that would be taken away would be those that belong to John Q. Public. In effect,
no one would have a right to defend themselves in a fair manner.It's about who's doing
the control.

It's nice to think that we could all get along without having to arm ourselves,but there are
those(in every country) that think they have the right to take from others as they please
whenever they feel like it. As another member rightly pointed out,criminals don't get their
guns in a legal manner.


John

dneal
September 26th, 2015, 05:03 PM
Yes, I understand.
I get both sides of this, I really do.

There's the,
"What should come first, personal rights or community rights ?", that HughC nicely summarized.

Verses the,
'if guns are banned only the criminals will have them' /
"the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", that stonerman33 also nicely put forward.

What I'm saying is that this is a never ending rhetorical argument that blows up every 6 weeks or so when there's yet another mass shooting that, I think, can be solved by a country wide referendum.

Basically, let democracy work it out in a no holes barred, 2 go in, 1 comes out fight for gun freedom or gun control.

Power to the people; right on.

Cheers,
Noel

We don't do "country-wide referendums". Either you aren't American or (if you are) you didn't pay attention in civics.

- When the Clinton administration enacted the "assault weapon" ban, the country threw out the majority party that enacted it.
- When the issue reached the Supreme Court (several times), the intent of the wording was made perfectly clear.
- The overwhelming majority of States have loosened restrictions on public possession (usually concealed).

The American people have worked it out, many times. A vocal minority keeps bringing it back up as if the discussion hasn't taken place yet. That's simply not true. They just don't like the result.

dneal
September 26th, 2015, 05:10 PM
Yes, I joined a couple of years ago, but I normally hang out on fountain pen network.
I didn't realize it was first post until you mentioned it.

Anyway, how does the 2nd amendment protect the rest?
I would've thought that the 1st amendment provides more protection than the 2nd, in a modern context.


Interesting first post.

The 2nd protects all the rest.

Your "modern context" ignores the reality of the State of Nature defined by Hobbes in Leviathan

If I have a gun and you don't, I can take away your free speech but you can't take away mine.

It's as simple as that.

duckmcf
September 26th, 2015, 06:23 PM
Ok, so to summarise, can't win, don't try.

As a non-American I didn't realize that the US doesn't have country wide referenda. So I guess to get any constitutional admendments through you'd have to wrangle all of the 50 states. Now it all makes sense why it's impossible to change direction on gun control.

I wonder how this will unfold over the next couple of hundred years as weapons become ever more sophisticated?

I'll end all this with a quote Arnie in The Terminator film, "Plasma rifle in the 40 Watt range".

Cheers
Noel

dneal
September 26th, 2015, 07:27 PM
Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution describes the procedures to amend the Constitution. Congress can propose amendments (passed by a 2/3rds majority in each house), or 2/3rds of the States can call a convention for proposing amendments (this latter method has never happened). Any proposed amendment then has to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States.

Currently there is a growing movement for the States to call a convention, to propose amendments reducing the power of the Federal government. The argument is that the Federal government has overstepped the limitations imposed upon it by the 10th amendment. The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government many powers, and the majority of Federal laws are justified under an interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution; via the Supreme Court Case Wickard v. Filburn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn).

The type of weapon doesn't really matter. Rwandans didn't need guns to kill many hundreds of thousands. What has been statistically shown to be the case is that firearms reduce crimes, and the number of crimes prevented by the presence of a firearm outnumbers deaths at an exponential rate.

Although you claim otherwise, you seem to be advocating the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

HughC
September 27th, 2015, 05:38 AM
If I read the US stats correctly the majority of gun related deaths are suicides and hand guns the favoured weapon in all instances. Mass shootings are percentage wise very small, again hand guns feature prominently. There are also stats that break down down race , gender, socio economic background etc. On a cursory take mental illness , people with a violent past and substance abuse seem to feature highly ( hardly surprising...). All of which are issues that can (possibly) be addressed with earlier intervention to reduce the risks. It would appear reducing gun access to certain people and addressing the underlying problems would reap benefits.

Pommel
September 27th, 2015, 09:22 AM
Can I go on an English language forum without being bothered with the American politics on firearms please? I think this is the third time I stumble across this topic this month. I'm even being spammed on it on mailing lists.

This is an international community (just like most other English language boards I frequent), and wouldn't it be a great idea to keep weapons and politics discussions on American boards instead?

My apologies for the rant, but this is getting very frustrating for us non-Americans. I have no idea what's going on in the USA, or in what way they threaten to limit your rights. But that's national politics, in my opinion, and on a topic that Americans probably have a different viewpoint on than the rest of the world anyway.

Thank you!

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

dneal
September 27th, 2015, 09:58 AM
The title of the thread was perfectly clear, and it's in the Politics, Religion and Society sub-forum. You didn't have to click on it or read it, so any "bother" you experienced is of your own making.

Complaining about political topics in a political forum is like going into a church and being bothered by all the religion.

Pommel
September 27th, 2015, 10:54 AM
Yes, you are right, and I should apologise, I guess. It's just that Tapatalk presented it as the first unread post to me ... unfortunately you cannot filter out subforums.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

duckmcf
September 27th, 2015, 05:06 PM
Although you claim otherwise, you seem to be advocating the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Hi dneal,
Yes, I think you're probably right.

If the government loosened our gun laws over here, I'd probably get back into target / yippee shooting as there really isn't anything like a centre-fire repeating riffle for dusting off the cobwebs. However, if they had a popular vote on going back to the guns laws we had before the Port Aurthur shooting, I'd have to vote, "No".

In the late 80's and early 90's we had quite a few mass shootings at regular intervals. Since the ban on any type of self loading rifle (including .22 semis like the Ruger 1022 if you can believe that) and the heavily restricted and monitored availability of hand guns, mass shootings have all but stopped.

Thinking it through that probably wouldn't be the same if the US adopted Australian style laws as gun culture in the US is far more widespread and mainstream there than it is here, but I guess what I'm asking is, isn't it worth a try just to see what happens?

Cheers
Noel

dneal
September 27th, 2015, 08:57 PM
No, it isn't worth a try to see what happens.

Gary Kleck (a self avowed "tree-hugging, Obama voting liberal") is the criminology professor who estimated U.S. defensive gun uses at 2.5M. His critics claim that number is grossly overestimated, and that it should be only around 800K. Even if we disregarded Kleck's work (and if you read his paper and methodology, his estimates are probably low) and go with the naysayers 800K number, would we be better off letting those crimes (that were prevented) happen?

John Lott was a University of Chicago professor who compiled crime statistics for every county in the United States, and found that more guns do indeed make for less crime. He continues to update his data, and as more states have passed concealed carry laws, crime has fallen. Those who do not choose to carry a weapon still benefit from those who choose to, because would-be criminals can't tell the difference. The places with the highest violent crime rates are urban areas with strict gun control (Chicago, Washington D.C., Baltimore, etc...).

Neither of those academic papers, submitted for peer review, have been refuted. There have been a few pseudo-refutations published (and perpetuated) by the anti-gun side, and they get cited a lot as all-encompassing invalidations of Kleck's and Lott's work; but if you do the homework and look at it objectively you'll find that those refutations don't hold water.

Mass shootings in the U.S. are tragic, but statistically insignificant (as an aside, they almost always happen in gun-free zones. Coincidence?). Should we ban commercial flights because some crash or are hijacked? We would never have another Malaysia 370, Pan Am 103 or 9/11 incident if we stopped flying aircraft.

In the case of your country - mass shootings have stopped, but what has happened with other violent crime? Have home break-ins increased (particularly those occurring when the occupant is home)? Have criminals simply resorted to other weapons?

dneal
September 27th, 2015, 09:11 PM
If I read the US stats correctly the majority of gun related deaths are suicides and hand guns the favoured weapon in all instances. Mass shootings are percentage wise very small, again hand guns feature prominently. There are also stats that break down down race , gender, socio economic background etc. On a cursory take mental illness , people with a violent past and substance abuse seem to feature highly ( hardly surprising...). All of which are issues that can (possibly) be addressed with earlier intervention to reduce the risks. It would appear reducing gun access to certain people and addressing the underlying problems would reap benefits.

I would like to see a study involving the effects of the "treatment" of ADHD and young men shooting up schools (and a movie theater).

I grew up in rural Missouri. We went to school with rifles and/or shotguns prominently displayed in the gun racks of our pick-up trucks, as we were off hunting before and/or after the school day. We didn't have any mass shootings for some reason.

ADHD's popularity as a (mis)diagnosis rose to prominence in the U.S. in the late-80's. Strangely, this malady seems to affect young men in the U.S. much more than anywhere else in the world. We have experimented with Ritalin, Adderol and a whole host of pharmaceuticals on 2 generations of children.

My son was "diagnosed" with ADHD when he was 6. The "diagnosis" was made by his 1st grade teacher. She was 25, had no children of her own, and clearly didn't understand what happens to 6 year old boys when you only give them one 15 minute recess after lunch. I told her as much, and my son (now 20) remains fine and ADHD-free.

HughC
September 28th, 2015, 05:34 AM
With all due respect raw statistics only tell part of the story. Places with high crime rates generally have several predetermining factors that may include racial mix, gang culture, substance abuse etc. Without including such factors raw data has little meaning in a broader sense. Gun related homicides in Australia is less than 0.15/100,000 compared to the US rate ~3.5/100,000 ....you have a lot greater chance of dying from a bullet in the US than Australia....Australia has much stricter gun laws than the US. As to your questions the answer is in most cases a decline, sexual victimisation remains steady and from '96 to '12 the homicide victimisation rate never exceeded 2/100,000 ( Australian Institute of Criminology).

Yet a comparison isn't that valid as hand gun usage ( the main weapon of choice in the US) in Australia is, and was, minimal. In fact gun ownership was never that high anyway. Twisting stats to suit a view point is all too common which makes finding the "true" ( if there is such that can be claimed as reliable with all factors taken into account) results much harder. Determining whether gun control made any difference in Australia is difficult.

dneal
September 28th, 2015, 06:13 AM
I do agree that comparisons can't be made between dissimilar countries and cultures. I do not agree with the implication that raw statistics have been twisted in the case of John Lott's work. I suggest reading the work (which is horribly dry and academic), examining the controls and testing used, and then reaching a conclusion.

HughC
September 28th, 2015, 04:26 PM
While I didn't specifically mention Lott he has plenty of critics, engages in somewhat suspect methods of self promotion ( using himself as Mary Rosh to praise himself) and is clearly biased. Still skewing stats isn't confined to one side of the debate.

As to the validity of his work , plenty don't agree . See this (http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/) .

Like you I grew up in a rural environment with little issues regarding guns, statistically not surprising due to population size.

dneal
September 28th, 2015, 05:35 PM
There are a lot of articles like that one, discounting his work through personal attacks. His bias is for the strength of his work and conclusion, if anything, and his data is readily available. Where are the academic arguments disproving the validity? God knows I've searched for them. President Obama ordered the CDC to conduct a study on gun violence, and in 2013 the gun control lobby waited with bated breath for the results.

That 2013 report supported Lott's argument.

I am persuaded by facts and reason, not vitriol. I think there's a reason Lott's critics ignore the former and focus on the latter.

duckmcf
September 28th, 2015, 08:13 PM
Hi dneal & HughC,
It strikes me that the difference between the US and the Australian approaches can be laid out using set theory.

Consider the following population sets:

1. People with guns.
1a. Bad guys with guns
1b. Good guys with guns.

2a. People hell bent on mass shootings
2b. People not wanting to shoot people
2c. People who will to stop people who are hell bent on mass shootings.

So, mass shootings occur at the intersection of sets 1a. & 2a. Think theaters and schools.
Mass shootings are started and then stopped at the intersection of sets 1a, 2a, 1b & 2c. Think the Texas Mohammad cartoon contest. Nobody Messes with Texas. ;-)

Here in Australia the government reduced the size of set 1 to a level to make it statistically very small in order to solve the mass shooting problem.

In the US it's very unlikely to be able to significantly reduce the size of set 1a and so the US leverages the sizes of sets 1b & 2c to deter those in sets 1a & 2a, with varying degrees of success.

I hope that makes some sort of sense, .... and yes, I'm an engineer......

Cheers
Noel

dneal
September 28th, 2015, 08:34 PM
That's the gist of it, although I think you are focusing on mass shootings too much. Other types of property crime are far more common, and the threat of an armed 'victim' scares the bejusus out of bad guys.

duckmcf
September 28th, 2015, 09:34 PM
That's the gist of it, although I think you are focusing on mass shootings too much. Other types of property crime are far more common, and the threat of an armed 'victim' scares the bejusus out of bad guys.

Yes, you're quite right. I imagine that home invasions would be far more common that mass shootings.
It makes more sense to me now.

I guess the bottom line is that the Gun-Genie is out of the bottle in the US.
Even if the 2nd Amendment was repealed there's just no way criminals would give up their guns.
Therefore Australian style gun laws that work here just wouldn't work in the US.

Cheers & thanks
Noel

HughC
September 29th, 2015, 05:27 AM
Lott is not a creditable source by virtue of using himself as "Mary Rosh" to spruik himself, poor form. The apparent loss of 2000 interviews to support his 98% argument in "More guns, Less Crime" likewise raises doubt. I don't know if Lott is right or wrong but it's clear he's made some bad choices that do tend to discredit him and ,as such, I tend to place little trust in people who engage in deceptive practices to support their argument. I note both sides are "at fault" in this issue.

Gun control laws naturally affect the law abiding people to a greater extent than the criminal element. Suicide rates at present in the US are around 12.2/100,000 and over 50% gun related ie ~6.5/100,000 or ~ twice the homicide rate. So two thirds of gun related deaths are not crime related. I would have thought it should feature prominently in any gun debate. Is the issue skewed in that outlook?

Suicides rates in Australia are around 11/100,000 with hanging being the preferred choice. Does this indicate suicide will occur regardless of available methods and their ease?

Statistically a low gun culture like Australia has less gun related deaths than the US. Why?

Plenty to toss but it would seem addressing suicide related issues would reap significant benefits.

pengeezer
September 29th, 2015, 11:04 AM
Lott is not a creditable source by virtue of using himself as "Mary Rosh" to spruik himself, poor form. The apparent loss of 2000 interviews to support his 98% argument in "More guns, Less Crime" likewise raises doubt. I don't know if Lott is right or wrong but it's clear he's made some bad choices that do tend to discredit him and ,as such, I tend to place little trust in people who engage in deceptive practices to support their argument. I note both sides are "at fault" in this issue.

Gun control laws naturally affect the law abiding people to a greater extent than the criminal element. Suicide rates at present in the US are around 12.2/100,000 and over 50% gun related ie ~6.5/100,000 or ~ twice the homicide rate. So two thirds of gun related deaths are not crime related. I would have thought it should feature prominently in any gun debate. Is the issue skewed in that outlook?

Suicides rates in Australia are around 11/100,000 with hanging being the preferred choice. Does this indicate suicide will occur regardless of available methods and their ease?

Statistically a low gun culture like Australia has less gun related deaths than the US. Why?

Plenty to toss but it would seem addressing suicide related issues would reap significant benefits.



Think maybe it might have something to do with power and the accessibility to that power(i.e.,guns)? Some of us here in the US think
that having a gun equates to power(a temporary & quick form,anyway). Plus,our elected officials here can be very
lax on enforcing laws in place already and would much rather let the lawyers handle that kind of problem....wouldn't
want to mess up our incumbency,would we?

My point is: Our laws in the US should be enforced harder than they are. As long as they're not,criminals will do what
they can to gain an upper hand.


John

david i
October 1st, 2015, 04:21 PM
It's well past time to have banana chocolate pudding.

The world would be a better place with more banana chocolate pudding...

-d

dneal
October 1st, 2015, 08:59 PM
Lott is not a creditable source...

His compiled data, methodology and conclusions are or aren't valid, independent of his behavior. Perhaps you should also apply a similar level of scrutiny to the gossip-mongers, assign possible or probable motive, and then assess their credibility. You seem to have accepted the prosecution's argument in toto, without cross-examining them or hearing the defense. I suspect you haven't read "More Guns, Less Crime" and are basing your assertions from sites you found after a Google search.

There are plenty of anti-gun sites that offer selective and unfair criticisms of Lott, plenty of pro-gun sites that vehemently defend him, and a very few objective pieces regarding the issue. The 1997 surveys (along with a large amount of other data) were lost in a hard-drive crash, which is corroborated by many (quite distinguished) individuals. Bizarre accusations have arisen nonetheless.

I don't condone the Mary Rosh incident (although I can sympathize, given the years of attacks and misrepresentations by various publications he has endured and tried to correct). I also don't condone whatever is going on with his eyebrows. Frankly, they freak me out.

HughC
October 1st, 2015, 09:33 PM
Lott is not a creditable source...

His compiled data, methodology and conclusions are or aren't valid, independent of his behavior. Perhaps you should also apply a similar level of scrutiny to the gossip-mongers, assign possible or probable motive, and then assess their credibility. You seem to have accepted the prosecution's argument in toto, without cross-examining them or hearing the defense. I suspect you haven't read "More Guns, Less Crime" and are basing your assertions from sites you found after a Google search.

There are plenty of anti-gun sites that offer selective and unfair criticisms of Lott, plenty of pro-gun sites that vehemently defend him, and a very few objective pieces regarding the issue. The 1997 surveys (along with a large amount of other data) were lost in a hard-drive crash, which is corroborated by many (quite distinguished) individuals. Bizarre accusations have arisen nonetheless.

I don't condone the Mary Rosh incident (although I can sympathize, given the years of attacks and misrepresentations by various publications he has endured and tried to correct). I also don't condone whatever is going on with his eyebrows. Frankly, they freak me out.

I did say "I note both sides are "at fault" in this issue." I think this covers any issue of bias you seem to to think I display. As far as Lott goes his behaviour reflects poorly on him, compromising oneself to promote your view, getting caught and then expecting your credibility not to be compromised is wrong.

Perhaps more to the point is looking for solutions to gun related deaths, today's latest tragedy just a reminder of an ongoing and very damaging trend. As I said earlier there needs to be more discussion on personal rights v community rights. It's abundantly clear there is a percentage of people who should not have access to guns.

HughC
October 1st, 2015, 09:37 PM
The world would be a better place with more banana chocolate pudding...

-d

Isn't that promoting obesity ? Or does more banana chocolate pudding have health benefits....:argue:

Regards
Hugh

Dreck
October 2nd, 2015, 02:47 PM
I think that only the police and military should be allowed to own guns--because it worked so very well in Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge, in Russia with Stalin, and in Germany with Hitler.

It's been a long time since I've stumbled across such a dismally stupid thread (yes, yes, I know-nobody forced me to read this. I was actually looking for something else and stumbled upon it. Like a train wreck, I was unable to look away from the slow-motion horror). I'm grateful to those who were able to interject some amount of common sense into something that began with the descendant of felons trying to dictate an untenable national policy for a country whose domestic policies are none of his concern.

Far more people are killed with cars than with firearms, yet there is no nationally-mandated public transportation and ban on personal vehicles. The figures for drunk-driving deaths are staggering, yet we don't ban all alcohol (Prohibition caused crime to skyrocket, btw). Firearms are kind of like genitalia; some people will always use theirs in an evil or irresponsible manner, but that doesn't mean we should all become eunuchs.

dneal
October 2nd, 2015, 08:24 PM
If banning guns works, how does a 15 year old obtain a gun and shoot a police employee in front of a police station in a country where guns are supposed to be banned?

Thoughts and prayers to those families affected.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3258253/Gunman-police-headquarters-shooting-15-year-old-radicalised-youth.html

Empty_of_Clouds
October 2nd, 2015, 08:25 PM
This...


It's been a long time since I've stumbled across such a dismally stupid thread

... was so ironically followed by this:


Firearms are kind of like genitalia; some people will always use theirs in an evil or irresponsible manner, but that doesn't mean we should all become eunuchs.


In case you hadn't noticed - and perhaps you really hadn't - genitalia are an intrinsic part of the wetware, guns are an external add-on. :p




I think that only the police and military should be allowed to own guns--because it worked so very well in Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge, in Russia with Stalin, and in Germany with Hitler.

This kind of deliberate bias doesn't help either. So, add UK, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Iceland - to pick just a handful where strict regulation and limited access DOES work.



Far more people are killed with cars than with firearms, yet there is no nationally-mandated public transportation and ban on personal vehicles.

This is unfortunate. Although there are a plethora of rules and regulations about who drives and how, many people still get killed on the road. Perhaps the sheer utility of the motor vehicle is considered more important than a few lives here and there (I don't agree with this, just putting it there for thought). There are always risks involved in anything we do. How well, how much, and how easy it is to manage or minimise those risks is a recurring question, often without a clear answer


In my non-US opinion it is gun mentality that requires attention and not the guns themselves. The way the US pro-gun lobby portray their country is of a people who consider the gun as the only sure fire way to keep the peace. The simple fact that there are more than one other country that manage to be relatively or more peaceful without the need for an armed populace is ample proof that this particular part of the argument is dangerously flawed.

For clarification, as an ex-armed forces person my opinion is not based on a sense of the unfamiliar when it comes to weapons.


As for alcohol, well, if it were invented today it wouldn't get past FDA regulations. Therefore I must conclude that people who know this and still drink are willfully careless of themselves and others. Those who don't know are just ignorant (in the knowledge sense).

Trying to alter behaviours and beliefs - no matter how self-destructive or irrational - is a thankless and very difficult task.

Empty_of_Clouds
October 2nd, 2015, 08:26 PM
If banning guns works, how does a 15 year old obtain a gun and shoot a police employee in front of a police station in a country where guns are supposed to be banned?

Thoughts and prayers to those families affected.


Very sad day.

However, dragging outliers into the argument does not strengthen it, even though it is a very common internet tactic.

dneal
October 2nd, 2015, 09:03 PM
If banning guns works, how does a 15 year old obtain a gun and shoot a police employee in front of a police station in a country where guns are supposed to be banned?

Thoughts and prayers to those families affected.


Very sad day.

However, dragging outliers into the argument does not strengthen it, even though it is a very common internet tactic.

I'm happy to see that statement. Do you consider yesterday's shooting in Portland an outlier as well?

More to the point though, the assertion of the liberal media and anti-gun coalition (not to mention the OP) is that banning guns is a way to prevent the very thing that just happened. That's the argument that's not strengthened.

Dismissing it as a "common internet tactic" is disingenuous.

HughC
October 2nd, 2015, 10:57 PM
If banning guns works, how does a 15 year old obtain a gun and shoot a police employee in front of a police station in a country where guns are supposed to be banned?

Thoughts and prayers to those families affected.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3258253/Gunman-police-headquarters-shooting-15-year-old-radicalised-youth.html

Guns are not banned, there's a licensing and firearms registration system in place. Anyone with a legitimate reason can obtain a firearm legally ( and that includes sporting shooters), as a grazier (or rancher in the US) I have access to most categories and own the guns my business requires. Naturally there's a criminal element and guns can be obtained illegally. Many firearms where never licensed or declared in the first place, especially the high powered SLR types, and remain in play as well the buyback was used by many to get rid of worthless or non required guns. SLRs available to those with a genuine need, ie pest animal control such as wild dogs, pigs etc.

HughC
October 2nd, 2015, 11:15 PM
Worth a read (http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/president-obama-was-wrong-australia-is-not-like-the-us-20151002-gjztja.html)

Empty_of_Clouds
October 3rd, 2015, 01:13 AM
Hmm, wrote a longer post but got bumped from the system and lost it.

It's easy to focus on the gun, when really we should be focused on the hand that holds it.


My apologies to dneal for posting something that was poorly written and not in line with current wisdom.

Edit: Hugh, very good link. Tend to agree with it.

dneal
October 3rd, 2015, 08:55 AM
Worth a read (http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/president-obama-was-wrong-australia-is-not-like-the-us-20151002-gjztja.html)

"...chained to an anachronism in the U.S. Constitution by a lickspittle American Congress", aside from being hyperbolic nonsense, demonstrates the ignorance of the presenter with regard to how our Constitution works and how it can be changed. As for the rest? A diatribe amounting to a juvenile "America sucks, and we are sooooo much better". Of particular irony is the assertion of Americas' history of "raping and pillaging". Remind me, which continent originated as a prison for rapers and pillagers?

Anyway... We can have a contest of links to selective facts drowned in hyperbole, and I can offer this article (http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/the-australian-gun-ban-conceit/) as a counterpoint. But that goes on ad infinitum and neither view is changed.

dneal
October 3rd, 2015, 08:58 AM
Hmm, wrote a longer post but got bumped from the system and lost it.

It's easy to focus on the gun, when really we should be focused on the hand that holds it.


My apologies to dneal for posting something that was poorly written and not in line with current wisdom.

Edit: Hugh, very good link. Tend to agree with it.

Thank you, and I admit that I am a little worn out from the near inescapable, 24/7 rhetoric (from the left and right) regarding this issue in the news.

I agree wholeheartedly that the focus should be on "the hand that holds it".

david i
October 3rd, 2015, 03:33 PM
Ban cars. Save lives. Eat banana chocolate pudding.

-d

duckmcf
October 3rd, 2015, 06:45 PM
Worth a read (http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/president-obama-was-wrong-australia-is-not-like-the-us-20151002-gjztja.html)

"...Remind me, which continent originated as a prison for rapers and pillagers?
While not wanting to comment on that SMH link in any way, and as a FYI, the convicted "rapers and pillagers", were usually hanged by the neck until they were dead. Those sent to the prison cololnies were usually the poor and down trodden exiled for stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving families or for other petty crimes. Not a happy period in British history.

There was one amusing case of Francis Greenway, an architect who was sentenced to Australia for forgery. He was put to work designing some of Australia's earliest buildings. He was eventually honored in the 60's by being put on one side of our first $10 note. Comedy gold!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Greenway

dneal
October 3rd, 2015, 06:58 PM
Don't take that part of my post too seriously. It's in the context of my complaint about the video in Hugh's link. Were I serious, I would have used the correct form of "rapists". ;)

duckmcf
October 3rd, 2015, 07:02 PM
Don't take that part of my post too seriously. It's in the context of my complaint about the video in Hugh's link. Were I serious, I would have used the correct form of "rapists". ;)

I thought that it was a bit of e-flourish, but I love that story of Francis Greenway so much I take every chance I get to mention it. ;-)

Cheers
Noel

HughC
October 3rd, 2015, 08:31 PM
"...chained to an anachronism in the U.S. Constitution by a lickspittle American Congress", aside from being hyperbolic nonsense, demonstrates the ignorance of the presenter with regard to how our Constitution works and how it can be changed. As for the rest? A diatribe amounting to a juvenile "America sucks, and we are sooooo much better".

It just an opinion, I'm not a fan of the writer and it's fairly confrontational.


Remind me....

Hardly furthers the discussion and "second hand" as well.



I agree wholeheartedly that the focus should be on "the hand that holds it".


Finally some progress !! In the broader picture of US foreign policy it's both the holder and the weapon , examples such as the Cuban missile crisis, nuclear proliferation etc. A policy that is far from the "more guns, less crime" style of arguing. I doubt few disagree when it comes to nuclear weapons less is better and who has them relevant. The US population seems happy to accept that other countries should be subject to weapons control for various reasons.

This conflicts with a lot of peoples views in relation to domestic guns in the US. In context of the discussion it's worth noting this difference as it does show how weapons control can be seen in different situations especially when it's to do with "others".

Of course the "hand that holds" is the central issue, a point I've made repeatedly that some people shouldn't have access to guns. Now you've identified the problem what do you suggest to address it ? Is there a validity in the community rights v personal rights in this issue ? Is it possible to reduce gun related deaths without increased gun control? Could large gains be made with minimal impact on responsible gun owners ? Suicide is a leading cause of gun related deaths in the US, I noted earlier in Australia hanging is the leading cause which indicates that the action is not dependent on a means so discount any benefit in this area only noting that a gun is easier and quicker.

The gun debate shouldn't be political, shouldn't be solely anti or pro based but look to finding pathways to better outcomes.

mhosea
October 3rd, 2015, 09:17 PM
FWIW, I happen to live in a state where I have to apply for a license to own a gun. The process involves a required state-approved training course, a background check, references, and requires the personal approval of the local police chief. Of course, this is Massachusetts, the reviled place where citizens were required to have health insurance (or pay a penalty on their state income taxes) for years before "Obamacare". I've never quite worked out how it can be that one has the right to bear arms, i.e. a civil right, and yet in order to do so, one must be subjected to a more selective process than what is required to get a drivers license, which is famously a privilege rather than a right. In some municipalities, you must even prove your proficiency in a manner analogous to a driving test. There's also a decent chunk of change involved. I don't really like it, but if any of this is constitutional (and it might be one of those things like a "use tax" for items purchased out-of-state where you'd think it wasn't only to find that it actually has been affirmed by the courts), then this might be the way of things someday.

dneal
October 3rd, 2015, 10:51 PM
It just an opinion, I'm not a fan of the writer and it's fairly confrontational.


Remind me....

Hardly furthers the discussion and "second hand" as well.



I agree wholeheartedly that the focus should be on "the hand that holds it".


Finally some progress !! In the broader picture of US foreign policy it's both the holder and the weapon , examples such as the Cuban missile crisis, nuclear proliferation etc. A policy that is far from the "more guns, less crime" style of arguing. I doubt few disagree when it comes to nuclear weapons less is better and who has them relevant. The US population seems happy to accept that other countries should be subject to weapons control for various reasons.

This conflicts with a lot of peoples views in relation to domestic guns in the US. In context of the discussion it's worth noting this difference as it does show how weapons control can be seen in different situations especially when it's to do with "others".

Of course the "hand that holds" is the central issue, a point I've made repeatedly that some people shouldn't have access to guns. Now you've identified the problem what do you suggest to address it ? Is there a validity in the community rights v personal rights in this issue ? Is it possible to reduce gun related deaths without increased gun control? Could large gains be made with minimal impact on responsible gun owners ? Suicide is a leading cause of gun related deaths in the US, I noted earlier in Australia hanging is the leading cause which indicates that the action is not dependent on a means so discount any benefit in this area only noting that a gun is easier and quicker.

The gun debate shouldn't be political, shouldn't be solely anti or pro based but look to finding pathways to better outcomes.

I find the implication that I've stumbled upon "the problem" extremely condescending. I've already said that I believe the increase in random violence by youth is due to 30 years of drugging them (and I think there are other factors that I won't go into now).

The U.S. doesn't arbitrarily decide which country should have what type of weapon. There are international treaties. The U.S. does act in its national interest, as does every other country. None of that has any bearing on the issue of gun control.

I accept reality and not an imaginary utopia that can be created if there were just a few more laws and regulations. I accept that there are disturbed and/or evil people in the world. I am not naive enough to believe that we can legislate risk and danger away. Drunk drivers, pedophiles, murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, and even "mass shooters"... only become those things after the fact. Laws making robbery illegal does not prevent robbers from robbing. It's illegal to go into a school or movie theater and start shooting people, yet the law didn't prevent it from happening. Laws function retroactively, just like the police come after the fact.

To address prevention - As described, I do not believe laws will prevent gun crime or other crime when an individual is determined to commit a crime. I believe the facts confirm that a liberal gun policy, including concealed carry, prevents all sorts of crime to include mass shootings. Most of this is dependent on culture. Germans are extremely rule oriented, have high gun restrictions, and see minor gun and violent crime. The U.K. is highly restrictive, and although they experience lower gun crime they have extremely high rates of violent crime. Switzerland is very liberal in their gun laws, and have relatively low rates of gun crime or other violent crime. The U.S. culture is vastly different today than it was 30 or 40 years ago (and U.S. culture varies widely across the country). The majority of the nation has little to no gun crime, and it is concentrated in metropolitan areas and along the border with Mexico.

To address "community and personal rights" - The "community" of the United States values individual rights and liberty above all else. Individual rights are indeed at the heart of the American "community"; and that idea is espoused throughout our history, from the Declaration of Independence, throughout the Federalist Papers, and doctrinalized in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is in fact so important that oaths of office from the President to the newest lieutenant specifically state that they will protect the Constitution (not the nation). The founders also recognized that threats to the Constitution (and nation) wouldn't necessarily be external. A U.S. officer's oath specifically mentions protecting the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The importance of that protection is codified in the 2nd Amendment with the individual's right to keep and bear arms. The American community has rejected the idea of tampering with that amendment.

I prefer to be able to manage my own defense rather than depend on or wait for others. Were you to find yourself in a situation with an armed person intending to do you harm, would you prefer to be armed or would you prefer to wait for another armed person to arrive in an effort to stop the assailant? Would you die happy that your being disarmed contributed to the "community rights"?

Empty_of_Clouds
October 4th, 2015, 02:59 AM
Perhaps - and I am going way out on a very thin limb here - the constitution is flawed? Not very helpful, I know, but there it is.

Besides which, I thought that the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment concerned the forming of a militia.

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/
noun
noun: militia; plural noun: militias

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.


Here we go:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This statement says nothing about individuals using their weapons for personal self-defense.

I just think that the way it is currently interpreted in the US is very interesting, that's all. Particularly as I think the amendment is written in plain language, and must conclude that alternative interpretations are entirely agenda driven and have nothing to do with the intent of the Amendment itself.

I am not an American. There is much, heaps really, that I don't understand about this issue.

dneal
October 4th, 2015, 08:39 AM
The Constitution is not chiseled in stone, and as noted a few pages back has methods for amending it. I would think that is far from "flawed".

The first 10 amendments (also called the "Bill of Rights") are a list of the rights of the people considered so vital that they must be specifically enumerated. The 2nd Amendment (settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision) is not about militias, but about the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed.

The problem is when you take the (admittedly poorly worded) amendment out of context and apply superfluous interpretations to it.

The militia means able-bodied people. If you look at State constitutions and the dates they were drafted, you'll find a more thorough description of militias. The organized militia is what we would now think of as the National Guard, and the unorganized militia is the rest of the able bodied population. Both are addressed. "Well regulated" means well outfitted or well equipped, and not highly controlled. The reason the State Constitutions are more thorough is because they were intended to be the primary government, with the federal government only responsible for a few specific tasks (and given only a few specific powers).

I can't write a dissertation on the U.S. Constitution or U.S. History in a pen forum, nor clarify every point that might be raised. If you have these sort of questions, I recommend you begin with the background reading (even if it's starting with Wikipedia pages) on the topics: "U.S. Constitution", "Bill of Rights", "Federalist Papers"

pengeezer
October 4th, 2015, 08:52 AM
It just an opinion, I'm not a fan of the writer and it's fairly confrontational.


Remind me....

Hardly furthers the discussion and "second hand" as well.



I agree wholeheartedly that the focus should be on "the hand that holds it".


Finally some progress !! In the broader picture of US foreign policy it's both the holder and the weapon , examples such as the Cuban missile crisis, nuclear proliferation etc. A policy that is far from the "more guns, less crime" style of arguing. I doubt few disagree when it comes to nuclear weapons less is better and who has them relevant. The US population seems happy to accept that other countries should be subject to weapons control for various reasons.

This conflicts with a lot of peoples views in relation to domestic guns in the US. In context of the discussion it's worth noting this difference as it does show how weapons control can be seen in different situations especially when it's to do with "others".

Of course the "hand that holds" is the central issue, a point I've made repeatedly that some people shouldn't have access to guns. Now you've identified the problem what do you suggest to address it ? Is there a validity in the community rights v personal rights in this issue ? Is it possible to reduce gun related deaths without increased gun control? Could large gains be made with minimal impact on responsible gun owners ? Suicide is a leading cause of gun related deaths in the US, I noted earlier in Australia hanging is the leading cause which indicates that the action is not dependent on a means so discount any benefit in this area only noting that a gun is easier and quicker.

The gun debate shouldn't be political, shouldn't be solely anti or pro based but look to finding pathways to better outcomes.

I find the implication that I've stumbled upon "the problem" extremely condescending. I've already said that I believe the increase in random violence by youth is due to 30 years of drugging them (and I think there are other factors that I won't go into now).

The U.S. doesn't arbitrarily decide which country should have what type of weapon. There are international treaties. The U.S. does act in its national interest, as does every other country. None of that has any bearing on the issue of gun control.

I accept reality and not an imaginary utopia that can be created if there were just a few more laws and regulations. I accept that there are disturbed and/or evil people in the world. I am not naive enough to believe that we can legislate risk and danger away. Drunk drivers, pedophiles, murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, and even "mass shooters"... only become those things after the fact. Laws making robbery illegal does not prevent robbers from robbing. It's illegal to go into a school or movie theater and start shooting people, yet the law didn't prevent it from happening. Laws function retroactively, just like the police come after the fact.

To address prevention - As described, I do not believe laws will prevent gun crime or other crime when an individual is determined to commit a crime. I believe the facts confirm that a liberal gun policy, including concealed carry, prevents all sorts of crime to include mass shootings. Most of this is dependent on culture. Germans are extremely rule oriented, have high gun restrictions, and see minor gun and violent crime. The U.K. is highly restrictive, and although they experience lower gun crime they have extremely high rates of violent crime. Switzerland is very liberal in their gun laws, and have relatively low rates of gun crime or other violent crime. The U.S. culture is vastly different today than it was 30 or 40 years ago (and U.S. culture varies widely across the country). The majority of the nation has little to no gun crime, and it is concentrated in metropolitan areas and along the border with Mexico.

To address "community and personal rights" - The "community" of the United States values individual rights and liberty above all else. Individual rights are indeed at the heart of the American "community"; and that idea is espoused throughout our history, from the Declaration of Independence, throughout the Federalist Papers, and doctrinalized in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is in fact so important that oaths of office from the President to the newest lieutenant specifically state that they will protect the Constitution (not the nation). The founders also recognized that threats to the Constitution (and nation) wouldn't necessarily be external. A U.S. officer's oath specifically mentions protecting the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The importance of that protection is codified in the 2nd Amendment with the individual's right to keep and bear arms. The American community has rejected the idea of tampering with that amendment.

I prefer to be able to manage my own defense rather than depend on or wait for others. Were you to find yourself in a situation with an armed person intending to do you harm, would you prefer to be armed or would you prefer to wait for another armed person to arrive in an effort to stop the assailant? Would you die happy that your being disarmed contributed to the "community rights"?



This is not to put down any other comments by anyone else(including myself),but I don't think
it could have been said in a better way.


John

HughC
October 4th, 2015, 09:03 PM
I find the implication that I've stumbled upon "the problem" extremely condescending. I've already said that I believe the increase in random violence by youth is due to 30 years of drugging them (and I think there are other factors that I won't go into now).


Not at all condescending, I thought the discussion may be about to advance. I was wrong. The fact the US has become less violent over the past 30 yrs (Kieran Healy data (http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/)) does contrast with around half the deadliest mass shooting occurred in the last 10 yrs.



I accept reality and not an imaginary utopia that can be created if there were just a few more laws and regulations. I accept that there are disturbed and/or evil people in the world. I am not naive enough to believe that we can legislate risk and danger away. Drunk drivers, pedophiles, murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, and even "mass shooters"... only become those things after the fact. Laws making robbery illegal does not prevent robbers from robbing. It's illegal to go into a school or movie theater and start shooting people, yet the law didn't prevent it from happening. Laws function retroactively, just like the police come after the fact.

Simply because you cannot predict where or who will commit a crime doesn't negate working on ways to prevent crime.



To address prevention - As described, I do not believe laws will prevent gun crime or other crime when an individual is determined to commit a crime. I believe the facts confirm that a liberal gun policy, including concealed carry, prevents all sorts of crime to include mass shootings. Most of this is dependent on culture. Germans are extremely rule oriented, have high gun restrictions, and see minor gun and violent crime. The U.K. is highly restrictive, and although they experience lower gun crime they have extremely high rates of violent crime. Switzerland is very liberal in their gun laws, and have relatively low rates of gun crime or other violent crime. The U.S. culture is vastly different today than it was 30 or 40 years ago (and U.S. culture varies widely across the country). The majority of the nation has little to no gun crime, and it is concentrated in metropolitan areas and along the border with Mexico.

Research by Richard Florida ( summary here (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/)) indicate that gun laws do work to reduce deaths. Nor is Switzerland "very liberal in their gun laws" as you state.



To address "community and personal rights" - The "community" of the United States values individual rights and liberty above all else. Individual rights are indeed at the heart of the American "community"; and that idea is espoused throughout our history, from the Declaration of Independence, throughout the Federalist Papers, and doctrinalized in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is in fact so important that oaths of office from the President to the newest lieutenant specifically state that they will protect the Constitution (not the nation). The founders also recognized that threats to the Constitution (and nation) wouldn't necessarily be external. A U.S. officer's oath specifically mentions protecting the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The importance of that protection is codified in the 2nd Amendment with the individual's right to keep and bear arms. The American community has rejected the idea of tampering with that amendment.

You state your position well.



I prefer to be able to manage my own defense rather than depend on or wait for others. Were you to find yourself in a situation with an armed person intending to do you harm, would you prefer to be armed or would you prefer to wait for another armed person to arrive in an effort to stop the assailant? Would you die happy that your being disarmed contributed to the "community rights"?

You have to know before hand you're in danger, pulling the gun when the other person already has a loaded weapon may just mean you get shot. Then there are the inherit dangers of having a gun "at the ready" just in case...we've all heard the cases where it goes terribly wrong. Clearly there are times when it may be to advantage, times when it may not. Still looking for methods to reduce the number of people who shouldn't have guns may eventually reduce the number of armed situations. Statistically only a 1/3 rd of US households have guns and there is broad support for gun policies that restrict guns (Pew Research Center). I think you will see gradual changes in gun laws across the US that will be positive but not impact on most gun owners to much.

dneal
October 4th, 2015, 09:26 PM
You won't see any significant changes. Democratic voters generally support the 2nd amendment, which is why congressional democrats won't touch the issue. Mayor Bloomberg spent millions on a media campaign and achieved nothing. Only the most liberal democrats in safe districts advocate more restrictive laws, because their constituents won't throw them out. Even Bernie Sanders punted when asked (www.youtube.com/watch?v=LADBmYlqHv0)

Read this (http://reason.com/archives/2015/10/04/ending-gun-violence-common-sense-versus)
and this (http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/04/the-new-york-times-explains-why-neither)

--edit--

I forgot to add that you avoided the questions I posed.

HughC
October 4th, 2015, 10:19 PM
Many states already have some controls in place, as Mike has pointed out. Which questions are those? You asked one in your last post that was irrelevant ( your being disarmed...) as I'm a gun owner. We've already accepted that mass killings make up a small percentage and it's common sense that if there are less guns in a violent conflict there will be less deaths, being stabed is less deadly overall than being shot for instance. Clearly finding methods that may reduce gun deaths is advatageous to all. If it's some commonly used drugs as you suggest then it needs examining, if you're correct then better regulation of those drugs may yield positive results. Accepting there's a problem is a start.

dneal
October 5th, 2015, 05:39 PM
Honestly, I don't know what you're on about with comments like "I thought the discussion may be about to advance. I was wrong." Does the discussion only advance when I concede your view? You won't convince me by posting articles in the Atlantic, any more than I'll convince you by posting articles from an NRA website. The Atlantic are liberals with an anti-gun viewpoint. The NRA are (generally) conservatives with (obviously) a pro-gun viewpoint. You can find nonsense arguments like that of the "gun show loophole" (and in fact there isn't one), or those that decry the evil NRA and how it has a stranglehold on the Congress (when in fact the NRA derives its money and power from its members - a correlation that perhaps should be examined by the decriers).

If the discussion hasn't advanced to your satisfaction, perhaps it is a reflection of the persuasiveness of your argument. I do not accept your premise "that if there are less guns in a violent conflict there will be less deaths". Rwandans did just fine without them, and the counterclaim that more guns = less violence still carries much validity (our personal opinions of John Lott notwithstanding). Again, the Center for Disease Control (an organization that was presupposed to support the liberal viewpoint) concluded that more gun control like the "assault weapons" ban does little to nothing to curb gun violence.

"Clearly finding methods that may reduce gun deaths is advatageous to all" certainly appeals to emotion, but it falls apart if examined critically. Is it only deaths by gun we are concerned with? What about death by drunk driver? If those gun deaths are suicide, then it's not really important. People will still manage to kill themselves, as you already acknowledge. If they are deaths due to armed citizens stopping criminals, I'm ok with those and don't necessarily want to see them reduced unless it's due to a decrease in criminal activity (which is in fact what we see as private ownership and concealed carry rates rise). Gun deaths resulting from violent criminal activity will not be affected by passing laws criminalizing gun possession or ownership. Deaths from negligent handling of firearms can be reduced by reinstating gun safety training in schools, and promoting the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" and other safety programs, although those deaths are statistically insignificant.

Regarding your "many states have some gun controls in place..." All States have some gun controls in place, and there are Federal gun control laws. The overwhelming majority of States have implemented concealed carry laws and relaxed the carrying of firearms, again strangely correlating with Lott's thesis and data.

Lastly, about the questions you avoided - you know exactly which ones I was talking about, and we both know why you still avoid answering them. It's because your argument falls apart, or you must admit either hypocrisy or foolishness.

HughC
October 5th, 2015, 07:35 PM
If you read what I've written you'll see I've offered no ( or few) opinion either way on gun control, simply examining the issue. You put your view, I've offered others views to provide material to discuss. The whole base of what I've been doing is to examine the issue to further my understanding of how people see it. As you are a pro gun person ( and that's not a problem to me) I've offered others counter viewpoints, the majority of those views are others rather than mine. What it has shown is the commitment people with your views have to their cause, and those with opposing views as well.

Points of note: 1. The "more guns less crime" argument seems to have been successful in general though the data I found didn't support it. 2. On data and "facts" the plethora of such does make finding the most credible difficult, and inclusions and exclusions don't help. 3. There seems many "experts" with opposing views. 4. The pro gun lobby doesn't appear to accept there's a problem with the number of gun deaths in the US. I note a rate of 10.3/100000 in 2011 (Center for Disease Control) is high by OECD standards. 5. 20% of people own 65% of the guns (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/) and ~1/3 of households have guns (Pew Research Center)

The one issue I've found difficult to understand is that there seems little interest from the pro gun lobby to look at gun deaths with a view to reducing them, I did put the question "Could large gains be made with minimal impact on responsible gun owners ?".

Now I offer my opinion :
1. Guns are deeply entrenched in US society and will remain a feature into the foreseeable future.
2. Reducing gun related deaths will be a long term project if so desired. The sheer volume of guns in the US (270 million in civilian hands (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-9.pdf) ensures this.
3. Sensible gun laws that aim to make it more difficult for the "wrong" people will help in the longer term. There is no "quick fix".
4. Reduce access to certain guns, like assault style, for which there is no reasonable purpose is well worth looking at. An SLR is a very dangerous weapon, I sat on the board of an authority that was the consenting agency for licenses that covered this type of weapon for pest animal control and one applicant brought the point home, a former SAS soldier mentioned in his application "if I come across 8 or 9 pigs I'll get one, maybe two with a lever action, I'll get all with an SLR".
5. In reality there appears little to suggest that there is any overwhelming public support or political support for gun control.
6. I am skeptical that continually increasing the number of guns will have the desired result in the long term mainly because it's not addressing the underlying causes. On that time will tell.

Personally I found this discussion raised more questions than answers.

Point me to the questions I'm apparently avoiding and I'll answer them if possible.

dneal
October 5th, 2015, 08:07 PM
1 and 2. I agree

3. I think we already have sensible gun laws. Enforcement of existing laws is the problem. I think the article I linked about the difficulty of identifying the "wrong" people (before they become the wrong people) is particularly insightful and I hadn't given much thought to the points (and concerns) raised.

4. I think the "assault weapon" issue is a non-issue, and a prejudice held by the ignorant. They are just cosmetic differences, with the only exception being single magazine capacity. Some states have limited magazine capacity laws (New York, for example), and California requires that AR15 style rifles have a fixed magazine of 5 rounds. The problem is that only law abiding citizens will abide by the law, and criminals will continue to violate the law. This puts the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage. It may sound strange to hear that would be a problem, but remember that we have a large and porous border with Mexico. Cartels have recently taken to abducting people for ransom, and there are numerous cases of assaults on homes near the border. In the context of a "mass shooting", a shotgun would be much more dangerous than a rifle or handgun, and there are no separate magazines that need exchanged. You can keep a semiautomatic or pump action shotgun "topped off" as you use it. As an aside - In the southern U.S., feral pigs are highly problematic. Large capacity magazines help, but your SAS friend will discover that the majority of pigs bolt at the first report they hear. He would get a few more, but never all of them (this is first hand experience... ;) ).

5. I agree, and made this point several times. It is a very vocal minority and the media who keep raising the issue.

6. Long term, I think you may have a point; and I agree that it's not addressing the underlying causes. I don't have a great deal of confidence that we'll address the underlying causes anytime soon though. The topic has become too politicized and each side is firmly entrenched with no inclination to give any ground (I think illustrated well by Bernie Sander's remarks in the link above).

jar
October 5th, 2015, 08:49 PM
There is a procedure to amend the Constitution in the US and a simple referendum simply won't cut it.


The actual wording of Article V is: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

But that is just the first and easiest step. Once to get the Federal Legislature to agree on an Amendment and then get two-thirds of the State Legislatures to ratify the Amendment (or go the route of calling a Constitutional Convention which has so far not been done since the current US Constitution was first ratified) there is the issue of enforcing whatever was decided.

Implementation would also need to comply with the 4th Amendment which says:


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seize.

One thing we really need to consider is where to place our efforts; would it be more efficient to address those issues that might lead to violence like education, health care, income inequality, mental health services and other areas that seem to get addressed in most First Nation societies but totally neglected in the US.

Empty_of_Clouds
October 5th, 2015, 10:57 PM
This - NEWS ARTICLE (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/29732720/police-investigate-shooting-threat-against-otago-university/) - arrived in our email inboxes this afternoon. As you can imagine, a lot of people are somewhat concerned, me included.

HughC
October 6th, 2015, 03:32 AM
This - NEWS ARTICLE (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/29732720/police-investigate-shooting-threat-against-otago-university/) - arrived in our email inboxes this afternoon. As you can imagine, a lot of people are somewhat concerned, me included.

At least with prior warning the chances of there being an incident are unlikely.

Regards
Hugh

HughC
October 6th, 2015, 04:17 AM
One thing we really need to consider is where to place our efforts; would it be more efficient to address those issues that might lead to violence like education, health care, income inequality, mental health services and other areas that seem to get addressed in most First Nation societies but totally neglected in the US.

I have no doubt trying to identify the "problems" and best methods to address them would give long term benefits. Dneal earlier raised medical issues as possibly being a contributing factor, at the moment lead is being looked at as a possible cause for violence (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline) and I found the article linked to very interesting ( it seems to fall into the reputable category) and pretty scary as well. Could it really be such a massive problem?

The lead theory is also interesting in that it may be a possible contributor to the results that Lott sees just with a different conclusion ( well it has to be aired...). Mass shootings seems to defy the trend and be increasing in the US, if lead was a contributor to these then the opposite should occur in general so it appears other factors at play ( ??? ).

TheInkluminati
October 7th, 2015, 12:15 AM
I like how the Australians are trying to tell us what to do.

The British tried to tell us what to do.

We shot them.

HughC
October 7th, 2015, 03:38 AM
I like how the Australians are trying to tell us what to do.

The British tried to tell us what to do.

We shot them.

Great to see some really constructive input ....from someone who clearly can't read or comprehend...Jar is American...agreeing with him is clearly agreeing with an American....Dneal is American....quoting him is quoting an American....Mother Jones is...amazingly...American !! ..................???...............

HughC
October 7th, 2015, 04:26 AM
.....did I mention the statistics are...American...

david i
October 7th, 2015, 07:49 AM
I want banana chocolate pudding.

-d

jar
October 7th, 2015, 09:55 AM
I like how the Australians are trying to tell us what to do.

The British tried to tell us what to do.

We shot them.

Great to see some really constructive input ....from someone who clearly can't read or comprehend...Jar is American...agreeing with him is clearly agreeing with an American....Dneal is American....quoting him is quoting an American....Mother Jones is...amazingly...American !! ..................???...............

Well, whether Texas and other territories that the US took by conquest like Florida and Hawaii and California and Arizona and New Mexico really are or should remain as conquered territories is certainly subject to question. :argue:

pengeezer
October 7th, 2015, 10:00 AM
There are three abilities that have to be in place for gun control to work: Omniscience,Omnipotence and Omnipresence.


John

Empty_of_Clouds
October 7th, 2015, 03:52 PM
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant . . . Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.


Word from JS Mills, emphasis mine.



Well, we had an interesting Wednesday. University almost deserted because someone made an online claim to carry out a gun attack on that day. Message was on 4Chan apparently. Police and high-tec crime unit are following it up. Police presence still visible today (thursday). There was also a bomb threat and evacuation at another university here, and a further shooting threat at a third university. Not fun.

duckmcf
October 7th, 2015, 05:06 PM
To take this off on a tangent for a minute, I heard on BBC World the other day that twice as many people die each year from car exhaust emissions than die in car crashes. Further, my understanding is that more people die in car crashes each year than die in mass shootings. Finally, a good number of mass shootings are perpetrated by an offender with a mental illness.

For the sake of the argument, let's say it would cost $50b for the government to buy-back whatever classes of guns are deemed to be unacceptable. E.g. Centre-fire SLR’s and hand guns.

Now, if the aim is to save lives I think it’s fair to say that $50b would have a greater affect if it was spent between mental health services and creating/enforcing better regulation of the auto industry (and I’m sure a bunch of other issues, e.g. obesity, cancer research, heart disease, etc).

So, if all of that is even remotely correct, why are the media and parts of the government continually banging on about gun control when there are much bigger problems to solve?

My only conclusions are that it gives:
- the media plenty of fodder to sell advertising into,
- a way to distract the population for a government mired in problems, and
- a point of (artificial) difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Basically, it’s all a scam.

Now for some banana chocolate pudding.
In your face obesity!

Cheers
Noel

Ray-VIgo
October 20th, 2015, 08:31 AM
History has a funny way of making the seemingly simple become very complex.

The Second Amendment is very "radical" by today's standards in its original intent and drafting, if you consider the context of its times. The purpose was to protect the States and the American populace at large not from criminals, but from the then-new United States Government. At the time, one of the hallmarks of "British Tyranny" in the period leading up to 1776 was the affinity for the British government and its troops to seize stores of arms, powder and shot from the colonials. They actually performed several such seizures prior to the fateful April morning at Lexington.

In the course of ratifying the Constitution, many critics charged that the new government would become like the British government in its measures, eventually seizing arms, powder and shot using a standing army to subjugate the states and the populace at large. The Second Amendment was a way of assuaging critics and winning over the more moderate "anti-Federalist" vote (in fact the Bill of Rights in full was a post-convention means of assuaging this segment). These critics wanted some way of protecting the States and the people at large from the sorts of things the British had practiced before the Revolution. However, the Second Amendment solely bound the U.S. Government. It had no effect on the power of a state government. We see this in many state constitutions that have their own "Right to Bear Arms" provisions. We do see some discussion of a general right to keep and bear arms in the Federalist Papers, and Madison appeals to that right as the final defense of the people against the Federal Government's potential tyranny in the pre-Revolution British mold. The fact that the framers of the Amendment wanted to phrase this in an affirmative light, then somewhat explains the peculiar wording of the amendment. One would not put notions of potential "tyranny" into the new constitution for the very same government (incendiary and self-destructive in any constitution), so they instead chose to emphasize the positive value of the militia (which comprised both state forces and local minute/militia companies in the period).

This has all become quite clouded over the course of our history through changes in both situation and interpretation of the Constitution. Many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights were gradually "incorporated", that is to say, made binding on the states. This was not the case at the time of the Second Amendment. Only recently did the Supreme Court decide it generally applied to both the federal enclave in D.C. and the states overall. But then many state constitutions protected the ownership of arms prior to that, because "incorporation" was not envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. There was almost always a right to keep and bear arms at the state level, at least in most places, but it was the federal-level right that became the new thing in recent years.

RNHC
October 21st, 2015, 09:45 AM
I agree with the above post. The context of the Second Amendment was more about States granted the ability (i.e., armed militia) to protect themselves against Federal government's potential tyranny. Of course, the States sovereign rights got thoroughly subordinated to Federal mandates after the Civil War, rendering the context of the Second Amendment moot.

That being said, being of libertarian bent, I am generally against any laws that limit or deprive any individual of their rights. In my opinion, the fundamental source of the tragic mass shootings (that brings about these heated discussions on gun control) is not guns or even people with guns. To put it flippantly, it's crazy people with guns. The mental illness issue is the elephant in the room that no one is willing to talk about. Every single one of these tragic mass shootings have been committed by mentally ill people.

Taking guns away will not eliminate mass "violence" issue. I may will be accused of cherry picking but let's look at China with its gun laws - that is, no guns are allowed, period. So instead of mass shooting like in America, China has mass stabbings where mentally ill people go around indiscriminately stabbing innocent people including children with knives.

The real issue is mental illness. No one including gun owners will disagree that mentally ill person should be allowed or have access to firearms. Unfortunately, such common sense laws are being blocked by NRA as infringement on our Second Amendment rights. It's unfortunate that so many of gun owners fail to see that NRA is nothing more than lobbyist for the firearms industry and do not have the best interest of gun owners in its mercenary heart.

RNHC
October 21st, 2015, 09:51 AM
@jar

Hey, jar, did you hear? Tactile Turn makes fountain pens now. I guess that makes it a real pen company just like Karas Kustom in your mind, huh? :bounce:

Empty_of_Clouds
October 21st, 2015, 01:20 PM
The mental illness issue is the elephant in the room that no one is willing to talk about. Every single one of these tragic mass shootings have been committed by mentally ill people.

True that. Unfortunately, mental illness is also one of the most under-reported conditions. You cannot treat someone for mental illness if the condition goes unrecognised, undiagnosed or unreported. I suppose that in considering risk factors that lend themselves to change, the idea of removing the guns may be seen as the easiest and most cost effective to implement, comparatively speaking of course.

jar
October 22nd, 2015, 08:23 AM
@jar

Hey, jar, did you hear? Tactile Turn makes fountain pens now. I guess that makes it a real pen company just like Karas Kustom in your mind, huh? :bounce:

Just like Karas Custom. Sure.

But I never said they were not, only that they did not offer real pens but only ballpoints and rollerballs.

RNHC
October 23rd, 2015, 08:59 AM
You cannot treat someone for mental illness if the condition goes unrecognised, undiagnosed or unreported. I suppose that in considering risk factors that lend themselves to change, the idea of removing the guns may be seen as the easiest and most cost effective to implement, comparatively speaking of course.

I hear you. I don't know why the liberals think that removing guns is the easiest and the most cost effective solution. The gun culture is a tradition that is entrenched in large parts of USA. And I don't know why the conservatives are so opposed to common sense gun control measures (or so NRA would make us believe). Speaking from experience, it is too darn easy to get a gun. Getting a driver's license was far more difficult.

jar
October 23rd, 2015, 09:28 AM
You cannot treat someone for mental illness if the condition goes unrecognised, undiagnosed or unreported. I suppose that in considering risk factors that lend themselves to change, the idea of removing the guns may be seen as the easiest and most cost effective to implement, comparatively speaking of course.

I hear you. I don't know why the liberals think that removing guns is the easiest and the most cost effective solution. The gun culture is a tradition that is entrenched in large parts of USA. And I don't know why the conservatives are so opposed to common sense gun control measures (or so NRA would make us believe). Speaking from experience, it is too darn easy to get a gun. Getting a driver's license was far more difficult.

One problem is that today there is simply no way to do a real background check to determine if someone should be sold a firearm. We simply have no real method in the US of checking someones identity or history and until we develop a national registry we cannot have a method to check up on such things.

We cannot even check to see if someone really is a citizen in many cases.

So the first step needs to be some form of universal registry, a definitive and difficult to fake id card and that id card must be tied to every facet of a persons live, health care, education, criminal record, psychological profiles, known addresses ...

Then that id must be tied to individual firearms as well.

That would do little for any guns currently held by individuals but could be functional on all new acquisitions.

A hefty fine for use of an unregistered firearm will help move those currently unregistered into the registry.

Such a registry would have value beyond just firearms by directing attention to individuals who need help.

But there is so much more needed particularly in the US.

We need to move away from the idea that health care should be a for-profit endeavor. The same thing for education. We need to explore how a supposedly civilized nation can still have a society where parents can beat kids to death in the name of religion; deny vaccination in the name of parental rights, why there is road rage, why there are still people who consider their religion to be the ONLY RIGHT religion.

Gun violence is simply a symptom not the problem.

VertOlive
May 2nd, 2016, 12:03 AM
Gentlemen,

On an admittedly personal note:

Most home invaders are male and the average male has 75-100 pounds on me and 17-23% more muscle fibers per ounce of muscle. That makes his uninvited presence in my home a lethal threat to me even if he is unarmed.

But he may not want to hurt me. He may want to hurt my beautiful 9 yr old boy. Or a predator who now legally has access to the womens' restroom may come at us there. In these scenarios I will be on my own and I will do whatever it takes to protect that child and myself. In my case that includes a legally held and frequently drilled S&W. 9mm.

As far as the case of militias go, let's talk about the little pockets of islamicized areas pitting the face of the country. We may be grateful for those militias if things go the way they are in Europe. No one likes a warrior until the enemy is at the gates.

So many are squeamish about firearms. Of course I don't advocate their possession by the mentally ill but until we can effectively screen for those people, I don't want to give up my ability to protect myself because someone didn't get his head meds that day, swiped his brother's rifle and went looking for trouble.

What do y'all unarmed folks do in those scenarios above? How do you protect your women and your children?

And yes, my Daddy's from Texas.

jar
May 2nd, 2016, 09:54 AM
Gentlemen,

On an admittedly personal note:

Most home invaders are male and the average male has 75-100 pounds on me and 17-23% more muscle fibers per ounce of muscle. That makes his uninvited presence in my home a lethal threat to me even if he is unarmed.

But he may not want to hurt me. He may want to hurt my beautiful 9 yr old boy. Or a predator who now legally has access to the womens' restroom may come at us there. In these scenarios I will be on my own and I will do whatever it takes to protect that child and myself. In my case that includes a legally held and frequently drilled S&W. 9mm.

As far as the case of militias go, let's talk about the little pockets of islamicized areas pitting the face of the country. We may be grateful for those militias if things go the way they are in Europe. No one likes a warrior until the enemy is at the gates.

So many are squeamish about firearms. Of course I don't advocate their possession by the mentally ill but until we can effectively screen for those people, I don't want to give up my ability to protect myself because someone didn't get their head meds that day, swiped his brother's rifle and went looking for trouble.

What do y'all unarmed folks do in those scenarios above? How do you protect your women and your children?

And yes, my Daddy's from Texas.

The issue is to try to find balanced laws and to try to address the real problem that seems to be that many Americans are simply not civilized.

IMHO several steps really are needed. First would be an actual database of citizens; who really is here legally. The database should also contain a DNA sample from the individual.

Second is to stop using absurd and false arguments like "Or a predator who now legally has access to the womens' restroom may come at us there." No laws have been passed in the US to allow a predator any new rights.

Next we need to integrate medical records as well as criminal records in the names database.

Then the sanctions for using a weapon in any crime need to be increased. I would also like to see the even bigger issue of traffic deaths addressed by first allowing an immediate stop and vehicle confiscated if someone is seen driving while using a cell phone or speeding or reckless driving. Just pull the car over, issue a ticket and put locks on the wheels until the car can be towed to the pound.

Waiting periods for pre-purchase checks need to be increased to allow accurate database searches with a requirement of at least two searches that find the individuals records and separated by at least a week.

Training in proficiency should be required with annual certification.

Medical professionals should have a means of immediately flagging an individual to require in depth investigation before a purchase or license renewal.

I would also like to see concealed carry outlawed. Let everyone know who is armed at all times.

stonerman33
May 2nd, 2016, 11:30 AM
Gentlemen,

On an admittedly personal note:

Most home invaders are male and the average male has 75-100 pounds on me and 17-23% more muscle fibers per ounce of muscle. That makes his uninvited presence in my home a lethal threat to me even if he is unarmed.

But he may not want to hurt me. He may want to hurt my beautiful 9 yr old boy. Or a predator who now legally has access to the womens' restroom may come at us there. In these scenarios I will be on my own and I will do whatever it takes to protect that child and myself. In my case that includes a legally held and frequently drilled S&W. 9mm.

As far as the case of militias go, let's talk about the little pockets of islamicized areas pitting the face of the country. We may be grateful for those militias if things go the way they are in Europe. No one likes a warrior until the enemy is at the gates.

So many are squeamish about firearms. Of course I don't advocate their possession by the mentally ill but until we can effectively screen for those people, I don't want to give up my ability to protect myself because someone didn't get their head meds that day, swiped his brother's rifle and went looking for trouble.

What do y'all unarmed folks do in those scenarios above? How do you protect your women and your children?

And yes, my Daddy's from Texas.

The issue is to try to find balanced laws and to try to address the real problem that seems to be that many Americans are simply not civilized.

IMHO several steps really are needed. First would be an actual database of citizens; who really is here legally. The database should also contain a DNA sample from the individual.

Second is to stop using absurd and false arguments like "Or a predator who now legally has access to the womens' restroom may come at us there." No laws have been passed in the US to allow a predator any new rights.

Next we need to integrate medical records as well as criminal records in the names database.

Then the sanctions for using a weapon in any crime need to be increased. I would also like to see the even bigger issue of traffic deaths addressed by first allowing an immediate stop and vehicle confiscated if someone is seen driving while using a cell phone or speeding or reckless driving. Just pull the car over, issue a ticket and put locks on the wheels until the car can be towed to the pound.

Waiting periods for pre-purchase checks need to be increased to allow accurate database searches with a requirement of at least two searches that find the individuals records and separated by at least a week.

Training in proficiency should be required with annual certification.

Medical professionals should have a means of immediately flagging an individual to require in depth investigation before a purchase or license renewal.

I would also like to see concealed carry outlawed. Let everyone know who is armed at all times.

I'm not so certain I'd want to live in your version of America.

VertOlive
May 2nd, 2016, 02:59 PM
---"Second is to stop using absurd and false arguments like "Or a predator who now legally has access to the womens' restroom may come at us there." No laws have been passed in the US to allow a predator any new rights."---

Now that men who feel like a woman that day can share the bathroom with us, it is hardly absurd. The bathroom laws make it possible for him/her to enter without anyone questioning it, they don't legalize predation, they enable it. It's not the lame trans guy I'm worried about, it's the predator who will use the unquestioned access for no good.

My version of America comes from 27 years' work with the local Medical Examiner. Maybe others dwell in Disneyland or have the benefit of those extra 75 pounds. I'm grateful to have means to defend myself and I'm satisfied to have no one know I'm carrying.

jar
May 2nd, 2016, 07:20 PM
---"Second is to stop using absurd and false arguments like "Or a predator who now legally has access to the womens' restroom may come at us there." No laws have been passed in the US to allow a predator any new rights."---

Now that men who feel like a woman that day can share the bathroom with us, it is hardly absurd. The bathroom laws make it possible for him/her to enter without anyone questioning it, they don't legalize predation, they enable it. It's not the lame trans guy I'm worried about, it's the predator who will use the unquestioned access for no good.

My version of America comes from 27 years' work with the local Medical Examiner. Maybe others dwell in Disneyland or have the benefit of those extra 75 pounds. I'm grateful to have means to defend myself and I'm satisfied to have no one know I'm carrying.

Predators have always had the ability to dress as a woman and enter women's bathrooms.

Empty_of_Clouds
May 2nd, 2016, 07:48 PM
As naive as this may sound, I have to ask: what is it about American society and its values that leads to incidences that appear to require a firearm to address, and which makes it different to (say) New Zealand or Australia?

heymatthew
May 3rd, 2016, 11:39 AM
The 2nd amendment was originally in place for the people to rise up against a tyrannical government, and as the governments firearms have evolved, so have "the people's."

It's already against the law to murder someone. It's against the law to shoot up a school. It's against the law to shoot pigeons off your neighbors roof in the city limits. The laws are only useful if they are enforced and enforced consistently. Only the law abiding will bother to abide by the law, so you're "infringing" on the good people by enacting more stringent gun control laws. The bad guy who wants a gun is going to find one illegally, but we knew that would happen as the bad guy doesn't care about the law.

Violent crime rates have DECREASED fairly dramatically since the mid 80s as concealed carry laws were enacted across the nation, despite what some anti-gun groups claim. Read the statistics for yourself, they are in black and white from the FBI.

I grew up in a pretty safe small town in Wisconsin, the son of a career cop. Guns and hunting have always been part of my life, and remains a hobby I share with both of my parents. We also take our safety seriously. My dad has put a lot of the previously mentioned "bad guys" behind bars in his 30+ years wearing a badge. Some of them hold grudges.

If anything is at fault in our system, it's the failure of individual states to submit mental health records to the background check system. It's hard to keep the guns away from the crazies of the state isn't submitting those records to the database.

In the end, the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and I refuse to hide behind a garbage can waiting for him to show up.

THIS. ALL DAY LONG. THIS.

Thank God someone has some common sense in regards to gun laws. I don't even need to read the rest.

Terie_Benjamin
May 3rd, 2016, 12:07 PM
As naive as this may sound, I have to ask: what is it about American society and its values that leads to incidences that appear to require a firearm to address, and which makes it different to (say) New Zealand or Australia?
It's my right to bear arms. I learned to shoot when I was 6 yrs old. I will defend myself and family. You break into my home god help you. I will shoot without hesitation. God bless America and our rights. I'm actually going for my ccl very soon. http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160503/be5d47203415a28f30ef6d5388d31894.jpg
And yes that's me and a lapua sniper

Empty_of_Clouds
May 3rd, 2016, 01:05 PM
Obviously you didn't understand my question, or didn't want to.

Terie_Benjamin
May 3rd, 2016, 01:24 PM
Obviously you didn't understand my question, or didn't want to.
Why don't you ask the criminals? Maybe they could tell you why they feel the need to rob, beat up, and or kill people

Empty_of_Clouds
May 3rd, 2016, 02:42 PM
I wasn't asking why criminals do what they do, I am asking about the kind of situations in which a regular US person feels a gun is the solution. I want to know the statistics that show the levels of those situations by country. I haven't been able to dig up a definition of such situations nor the statistics.

The thing is, there are many countries in the world where public gun ownership is not permitted except under very strict controls. In those countries I daresay they have the same types of incidence for which you feel a gun is the only answer. However, in those countries there is generally no public demand for self-arming. So I wonder if the overall level of that TYPE of crime is different across nations on a per population level.


VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: I understand this is a potentially emotive issue, and that some people think that even being asked a question about it means that their rights are being impugned and thus get unnecessarily dramatic about it. I am ex-mil so it's not like I am unfamiliar with these tools.

VertOlive
May 3rd, 2016, 05:42 PM
---"Second is to stop using absurd and false arguments like "Or a predator who now legally has access to the womens' restroom may come at us there." No laws have been passed in the US to allow a predator any new rights."---

Now that men who feel like a woman that day can share the bathroom with us, it is hardly absurd. The bathroom laws make it possible for him/her to enter without anyone questioning it, they don't legalize predation, they enable it. It's not the lame trans guy I'm worried about, it's the predator who will use the unquestioned access for no good.

My version of America comes from 27 years' work with the local Medical Examiner. Maybe others dwell in Disneyland or have the benefit of those extra 75 pounds. I'm grateful to have means to defend myself and I'm satisfied to have no one know I'm carrying.

Predators have always had the ability to dress as a woman and enter women's bathrooms.

This will bring more out of the woodwork and now they don't have to dress as a woman. Doubt the gents have to worry much about women crashing the men's room.

EoC: Those statistics would be interesting indeed. For me they would be academic. There is no home on my cul de sac that has not been broken into (except mine, pure luck) in the past five years, there was an armed standoff with the police on the street behind us this spring, and an armed assailant who had shot a young man in front of our rectory caught by the police outside our parish chapel the same week. And ours is a solidly middle class neighborhood. I'm not naive enough to think my 9mm is the sole solution, but it's an option I intend to keep on my person at all times.

jar
May 3rd, 2016, 08:05 PM
---"Second is to stop using absurd and false arguments like "Or a predator who now legally has access to the womens' restroom may come at us there." No laws have been passed in the US to allow a predator any new rights."---

Now that men who feel like a woman that day can share the bathroom with us, it is hardly absurd. The bathroom laws make it possible for him/her to enter without anyone questioning it, they don't legalize predation, they enable it. It's not the lame trans guy I'm worried about, it's the predator who will use the unquestioned access for no good.

My version of America comes from 27 years' work with the local Medical Examiner. Maybe others dwell in Disneyland or have the benefit of those extra 75 pounds. I'm grateful to have means to defend myself and I'm satisfied to have no one know I'm carrying.

Predators have always had the ability to dress as a woman and enter women's bathrooms.

This will bring more out of the woodwork and now they don't have to dress as a woman. Doubt the gents have to worry much about women crashing the men's room.

EoC: Those statistics would be interesting indeed. For me they would be academic. There is no home on my cul de sac that has not been broken into (except mine, pure luck) in the past five years, there was an armed standoff with the police on the street behind us this spring, and an armed assailant who had shot a young man in front of our rectory caught by the police outside our parish chapel the same week. And ours is a solidly middle class neighborhood. I'm not naive enough to think my 9mm is the sole solution, but it's an option I intend to keep on my person at all times.

Nonsense. Someone who looks like a man in a woman's restroom will still raise eyes and likely result in at least intervention.

And until there is some evidence your fears are not simply fantasy there is no reason to worry about any changes in restroom policy unless of course you really enjoy worrying.

Look, I'm a strong supporter of gun rights but I am also not so foolish as to believe we do not need to address the issue.

And I will match my arsenal against your arsenal anyday.

Quantum Sailor
May 4th, 2016, 02:08 AM
As naive as this may sound, I have to ask: what is it about American society and its values that leads to incidences that appear to require a firearm to address, and which makes it different to (say) New Zealand or Australia?

I actually had a few responses typed out and deleted all of them. I settled on stating that the topic is completely toxic in the U.S. and I don't think you'll find one answer to that question. Gun ownership here is pretty much a religion. The beliefs are just as deep rooted usually.

As for your second statement I don't think you'll find concrete statistics here. There's a very vested interest on both sides to keep the statistics as skewed as possible, even government statistics are skewed in some studies.

Empty_of_Clouds
May 4th, 2016, 04:37 AM
You're probably right, on all counts. It would have been nice to be able to discuss the issue as paper problem.

jar
May 4th, 2016, 07:28 AM
You're probably right, on all counts. It would have been nice to be able to discuss the issue as paper problem.

Discussions like that can continue with the hope that others reading the discussions may learn stuff. But I'm not sure there is an answer to the specific question you asked that has much real validity or use. In the US firearms are pervasive and relatively easy to get. But the US is not as violent as it seems. Compared to the area just south of the Rio Grande, where I live in Texas is considerably less violent than the northern border of Mexico.

The question is "What has changed in the last quarter century to create a situation where guns are a problem?"

When I was younger guns in the US were ubiquitous. Most every house even in town I went to had a gun rack with a couple shotguns and several rifles, ammo on the shelf, often a hand gun just sitting out in the open and in the country the varment gun standing by the back door. Pickups all had a gun rack in the rear window usually with a Winchester 30-30 or a Browning Sweet Sixteen in residence and the truck doors would be unlocked and if summer, windows rolled down. Guns in a pickup would of course be loaded; pretty useless if empty.

But from an early age kids were taught that those guns were NOT toys and that you simply did not touch them and if one was found where it should not be to tell an adult. But kids, elementary school level kids also likely had a pocket knife with them at all times, boys and girls, and they were used during class to sharpen pencils and at recess to play mumbley-peg or whittle. That culture of taught behavior is significant.

Yet I don't remember many instances of guns stolen or fights ending up in shootings.

Guns were used by criminals in robberies, it was true, but even there shootings were the exception.

So what has changed?

Second, what are the issues faced in the US.

First is the matter of that 2nd. Amendment. It's vague and open to interpretation but it is there.

Second is the simply matter that there is a stockpile of a hundreds of years of gun accumulation. There are just a bunch of guns out there in the wild.

Third is the fact that the gun itself is not the problem but rather the person who might be using the gun. In the US we have almost no legal or social controls over people. We don't even have a list of who is a US Citizen.

We passed a few laws that were supposed to help regulate who bought a gun and they did help a little, but not much. We simply do not have the information needed to even try to determine if an individual is qualified to own or use a gun.

So there are a bunch of facets that do need discussing but there is also a lot of ignorance about the subject out there as well as just plain propaganda. The discussion will be difficult and nothing will happen quickly or without pain but fortunately the issue really is not as big or important as the media frenzy seems to indicate.

In the US you need to fear our drivers, our pedestrians, our sue crazy public, the errors made by our medical profession, the quality of our air and water, the infrastructure you drive on and rely on far more than guns.

VertOlive
May 4th, 2016, 02:12 PM
"Nonsense. Someone who looks like a man in a woman's restroom will still raise eyes and likely result in at least intervention."

--That's right, they'll raise my eyes and I will be ready. Certainly store management cannot intervene if they have a policy of "anything goes restrooms".

"And until there is some evidence your fears are not simply fantasy..."

--Did you miss the concrete description of what I have done for a living and the conditions in my neighborhood?

"And I will match my arsenal against your arsenal anyday."

--Well heck, lets get out to the gun range and have some fun, my friend! :rolleyes:

jar
May 4th, 2016, 05:50 PM
"Nonsense. Someone who looks like a man in a woman's restroom will still raise eyes and likely result in at least intervention."

--That's right, they'll raise my eyes and I will be ready. Certainly store management cannot intervene if they have a policy of "anything goes restrooms".

"And until there is some evidence your fears are not simply fantasy..."

--Did you miss the concrete description of what I have done for a living and the conditions in my neighborhood?

"And I will match my arsenal against your arsenal anyday."

--Well heck, lets get out to the gun range and have some fun, my friend! :rolleyes:

Yes I do miss any concrete evidence based on what you have done for a living and the conditions in your neighborhood. In fact I can see absolutely no connection between this topic and those assertions. I certainly see no relationship between your assertions and recent laws concerning restrooms and certainly no support that "anything goes restrooms" exist anywhere other than some folks imagination.

Anytime we are in the same area a range day would be fun. I was exercising my S&W Model 3 Improved 38S&W just the other day. Still find it a near perfect design.

bluesea
May 5th, 2016, 09:35 AM
http://i.imgur.com/r5xTHuI.png (http://imgur.com/r5xTHuI)

bluesea
May 5th, 2016, 09:52 AM
My version of America comes from 27 years' work with the local Medical Examiner. Maybe others dwell in Disneyland or have the benefit of those extra 75 pounds. I'm grateful to have means to defend myself and I'm satisfied to have no one know I'm carrying.


The knowledge gleaned there and in Emergency Rooms is not reflected by statistics or the news.

duckmcf
May 6th, 2016, 12:16 AM
Hi Gang,
Here in Oz, we had a series of mass shootings up until a big one in '96 when our government shut down the gun party with a massive buy-back scheme of semi automatic rifles and shot guns. The general population (including me) was all for it and the lawful shooters couldn't stop it because there is nothing in our constitution that they could use to prevent it. Since then, touch wood, there hasn't been another mass shooting in Australia. There's been plenty of individual underworld and other single person shootings, but no AR-15 style shootings with dozens shot.

As an outsider I originally kicked this thread off to try get an understanding of the mentality behind gun ownership in the US and if there's any merit in your government re-examining the 2nd amendment to either endorse it or repeal it. As we've gone down this long and winding thread, it's become clear that there's just no point discussing it. It's like arguing religion or politics; no one wins. All that said there are a few points that really kill this whole debate stone dead:

A gun buy-back wont work in the US because:

- There are just too many unregistered guns in circulation in the US. Some guns are owned by criminals, some by law abiding citizens. If the general population thinks that the crims are hanging on to their guns, they wont give theirs back either. It's the, if-we-give-our-guns-back-only-the-criminals-will-have-them defence, which is hard to argue with.

- It'd be just too damn expensive. I'm assuming that the US government couldn't seize currently legal property without compensation and I would also guess that the budget for any significant buy-back proposal would be so large as to be not reasonably viable. Especially given that those dollars would probably be better spent in other areas and potentially deliver a greater number of lives saved (if lives saved is the actual goal of gun-control; I sometime wonder if that's the true agenda).

- The gun culture in the US seams to be so pervasive that you can't imagine it not being there. That may or may not be a bad thing, but I think we can all agree it to be true.

- It may just not be the right thing to do, the unintended consequences may be worse than the cure.


Anyway, this topic causes more angst than it solves and so I really do apologise for starting it last year.

Cheers
Noel
- Aussie non-gun owner who is still free to use the horn in his car when someone cuts him off in traffic. ;-)

bluesea
May 6th, 2016, 01:20 PM
Hi Gang,
...

Cheers
Noel
- Aussie non-gun owner who is still free to use the horn in his car when someone cuts him off in traffic. ;-)


Thats another good thread you can start. :O) How a built in auto safety device, the purpose of which is to *prevent" an impending accident, is now almost universally used to express irritation and rage.

VertOlive
May 6th, 2016, 05:00 PM
My version of America comes from 27 years' work with the local Medical Examiner. Maybe others dwell in Disneyland or have the benefit of those extra 75 pounds. I'm grateful to have means to defend myself and I'm satisfied to have no one know I'm carrying.


The knowledge gleaned there and in Emergency Rooms is not reflected by statistics or the news.

I did not claim it is. Statistically those hundreds of deaths are dwarfed by the population of this city. But I don't want me or my son to be one of them. That is "my version of America". So I will continue to carry and hope we can find a way to keep the headcases out of the gun safe.

VertOlive
May 6th, 2016, 05:13 PM
"Nonsense. Someone who looks like a man in a woman's restroom will still raise eyes and likely result in at least intervention."

--That's right, they'll raise my eyes and I will be ready. Certainly store management cannot intervene if they have a policy of "anything goes restrooms".

"And until there is some evidence your fears are not simply fantasy..."

--Did you miss the concrete description of what I have done for a living and the conditions in my neighborhood?

"And I will match my arsenal against your arsenal anyday."

--Well heck, lets get out to the gun range and have some fun, my friend! :rolleyes:

Yes I do miss any concrete evidence based on what you have done for a living and the conditions in your neighborhood. In fact I can see absolutely no connection between this topic and those assertions. I certainly see no relationship between your assertions and recent laws concerning restrooms and certainly no support that "anything goes restrooms" exist anywhere other than some folks imagination.

Anytime we are in the same area a range day would be fun. I was exercising my S&W Model 3 Improved 38S&W just the other day. Still find it a near perfect design.

Then you missed the point of my original post which was to describe the reason I'm glad I am able to own and carry a firearm. Perhaps you don't see a threat where I do see one. We can ascribe that to differences in sex, culture, experience, or level of informedness.

Not sure why you made the arsenal comment, it did not seem germaine to these points.

jar
May 6th, 2016, 05:47 PM
Then you missed the point of my original post which was to describe the reason I'm glad I am able to own and carry a firearm. Perhaps you don't see a threat where I do see one. We can ascribe that to differences in sex, culture, experience, or level of informedness.

Not sure why you made the arsenal comment, it did not seem germaine to these points.

I have no problem with you carrying a handgun.

BUT that is you.

What is needed is general reform of the gun situation in the US. We need a national discussion on what changes can and should be made and unfortunately citing your need as an example or my need as an example does noting to move the discussion forward.

We need to put aside your perceived fears, real or unreal, put aside my fears, real or unreal and instead talk about what is needed to change the climate in the US.

I outlined a few steps I think are needed and others would be to not just decriminalize drugs but to remove the profit motive and open access to what are now illicit drugs.

With that we need to improve the health care and mental support systems in the US as well as easy inexpensive access to those services.

But the big thing is to start discussing actual steps and then implement those steps in the US.

bluesea
May 6th, 2016, 05:56 PM
My version of America comes from 27 years' work with the local Medical Examiner. Maybe others dwell in Disneyland or have the benefit of those extra 75 pounds. I'm grateful to have means to defend myself and I'm satisfied to have no one know I'm carrying.


The knowledge gleaned there and in Emergency Rooms is not reflected by statistics or the news.

I did not claim it is. Statistically those hundreds of deaths are dwarfed by the population of this city. But I don't want me or my son to be one of them. That is "my version of America". So I will continue to carry and hope we can find a way to keep the headcases out of the gun safe.


Im actually agreeing with what you just said, but didn't express myself well enough.

Crazyorange
May 7th, 2016, 04:45 PM
[\QUOTE]

I have no problem with you carrying a handgun.

BUT that is you.

What is needed is general reform of the gun situation in the US. We need a national discussion on what changes can and should be made and unfortunately citing your need as an example or my need as an example does noting to move the discussion forward.

We need to put aside your perceived fears, real or unreal, put aside my fears, real or unreal and instead talk about what is needed to change the climate in the US.

I outlined a few steps I think are needed and others would be to not just decriminalize drugs but to remove the profit motive and open access to what are now illicit drugs.

With that we need to improve the health care and mental support systems in the US as well as easy inexpensive access to those services.

But the big thing is to start discussing actual steps and then implement those steps in the US.[/QUOTE]

Don't flame roast me, because I'm no expert on guns.

I live about 30 minutes away from the sandy hook school. Children and adults were mowed down by a wealth young man who had access to machine type guns.

He had mental illness and his mother never locked up the guns.

A couple of months ago, someone brought a gun to the sandy school and the trauma was churned up for so many. More guns don't solve problems nor make some feel safe.

Two years ago, a young boy (around 13yr) killed himself with gun that belong to his dad. This happened in my town, a middle class town. When the police investigated the shooting, they found illegal guns (belonging the father) and none of the guns were locked up.

His dad is in jail for having illegal guns and allowing access to guns to his son.

I think a dialogue needs to be had. Because what's going on in this country screams "not working". It's only a matter of time before the next mass shooting. They are becoming more frequent.

Do I think guns are the whole problem. Nope. Mass shootings didn't happen when I was a kid but guns were around. Something has happened to us, as a society/country. We do need to start talking about the topic and all the facets that play into it.

dneal
May 7th, 2016, 05:50 PM
As naive as this may sound, I have to ask: what is it about American society and its values that leads to incidences that appear to require a firearm to address, and which makes it different to (say) New Zealand or Australia?

Recognition that Hobbes' State of Nature is always lurking, and a sense of self reliance; to name two.

jar
May 7th, 2016, 06:30 PM
I have no problem with you carrying a handgun.

BUT that is you.

What is needed is general reform of the gun situation in the US. We need a national discussion on what changes can and should be made and unfortunately citing your need as an example or my need as an example does noting to move the discussion forward.

We need to put aside your perceived fears, real or unreal, put aside my fears, real or unreal and instead talk about what is needed to change the climate in the US.

I outlined a few steps I think are needed and others would be to not just decriminalize drugs but to remove the profit motive and open access to what are now illicit drugs.

With that we need to improve the health care and mental support systems in the US as well as easy inexpensive access to those services.

But the big thing is to start discussing actual steps and then implement those steps in the US.

Don't flame roast me, because I'm no expert on guns.

I live about 30 minutes away from the sandy hook school. Children and adults were mowed down by a wealth young man who had access to machine type guns.

He had mental illness and his mother never locked up the guns.

A couple of months ago, someone brought a gun to the sandy school and the trauma was churned up for so many. More guns don't solve problems nor make some feel safe.

Two years ago, a young boy (around 13yr) killed himself with gun that belong to his dad. This happened in my town, a middle class town. When the police investigated the shooting, they found illegal guns (belonging the father) and none of the guns were locked up.

His dad is in jail for having illegal guns and allowing access to guns to his son.

I think a dialogue needs to be had. Because what's going on in this country screams "not working". It's only a matter of time before the next mass shooting. They are becoming more frequent.

Do I think guns are the whole problem. Nope. Mass shootings didn't happen when I was a kid but guns were around. Something has happened to us, as a society/country. We do need to start talking about the topic and all the facets that play into it.

The only thing I'd quibble over is the comment about "machine type guns". That is technically incorrect and a matter often misrepresented.

It's like the nonsense phrase "assault weapon"; almost always used incorrectly.

But the pattern you express has one common feature and that in the cases you mention weapons were used in a manner already contrary to current laws.

The question is "what other steps can be taken to see that guns are used lawfully?"

How do we change the current culture?

I really think a big part is that as a nation we seem to have adopted a mentality of we don't have to follow the rules, obey the speed limit, not use a phone while driving, make turns properly, cross in the cross walk, show basic courtesy in social interactions ...

We have also created a society most of the world would find bizarre, a society where people can be bankrupted by health care bills as an example.

The discuss does need to take place and not simply exchange rants but deal with specific measures that can be undertaken.

dneal
May 7th, 2016, 06:35 PM
What is needed is general reform of the gun situation in the US. We need a national discussion on what changes can and should be made and unfortunately citing your need as an example or my need as an example does noting to move the discussion forward.

We need to put aside your perceived fears, real or unreal, put aside my fears, real or unreal and instead talk about what is needed to change the climate in the US.

You begin with a vague assertion that needs justification, particularly if you indeed mean to put aside your fears. What specific problem are you attempting to solve with your proposed solutions?

Terie_Benjamin
May 7th, 2016, 06:41 PM
The gun problem, I should say illegal gun will never go away. There are many guns that are not registered (became back in the day you didn't have to) and then you have the criminals with ill intent. Just like drugs unfortunately it will never go away

jar
May 7th, 2016, 07:32 PM
What is needed is general reform of the gun situation in the US. We need a national discussion on what changes can and should be made and unfortunately citing your need as an example or my need as an example does noting to move the discussion forward.

We need to put aside your perceived fears, real or unreal, put aside my fears, real or unreal and instead talk about what is needed to change the climate in the US.

You begin with a vague assertion that needs justification, particularly if you indeed mean to put aside your fears. What specific problem are you attempting to solve with your proposed solutions?

I'm not sure I have any fears, at least fears relating to guns, but in the US there does seem to be a feeling there are too many gun related deaths. The fears in the post you are quoting were not my fears but rather those of another poster who was expressing her personal need to carry a gun.

There can be many such stories, I even have a few of my own, but anyone's personal fears should not be relevant to a discussion of the general situation in the US.

dneal
May 7th, 2016, 08:13 PM
What is needed is general reform of the gun situation in the US. We need a national discussion on what changes can and should be made and unfortunately citing your need as an example or my need as an example does noting to move the discussion forward.

We need to put aside your perceived fears, real or unreal, put aside my fears, real or unreal and instead talk about what is needed to change the climate in the US.

You begin with a vague assertion that needs justification, particularly if you indeed mean to put aside your fears. What specific problem are you attempting to solve with your proposed solutions?

I'm not sure I have any fears, at least fears relating to guns, but in the US there does seem to be a feeling there are too many gun related deaths. The fears in the post you are quoting were not my fears but rather those of another poster who was expressing her personal need to carry a gun.

There can be many such stories, I even have a few of my own, but anyone's personal fears should not be relevant to a discussion of the general situation in the US.

My favorite Twain quote (paraphrased) is: "People do a whole lot of feeling, and mistake it for thinking". The tendency to irrational emotion seems more pervasive in today's political topics.

When you simply look at the factual data, and exclude suicides*; "gun deaths" are statistically insignificant. There are many, many more common causes of death we could be addressing, if simply reducing deaths were the real priority.

I am still not clear on the validity of your premise that "What is needed is general reform of the gun situation in the US". I don't understand what the "gun situation" is that needs reforming.


* I exclude suicides simply because guns are a convenient method. Japan, for example, has a higher rate of suicide than the U.S.; and they don't use guns to do it. If suicide is an issue, that is what needs addressed rather than rolling up the means into a different "problem".

jar
May 7th, 2016, 08:41 PM
What is needed is general reform of the gun situation in the US. We need a national discussion on what changes can and should be made and unfortunately citing your need as an example or my need as an example does noting to move the discussion forward.

We need to put aside your perceived fears, real or unreal, put aside my fears, real or unreal and instead talk about what is needed to change the climate in the US.

You begin with a vague assertion that needs justification, particularly if you indeed mean to put aside your fears. What specific problem are you attempting to solve with your proposed solutions?

I'm not sure I have any fears, at least fears relating to guns, but in the US there does seem to be a feeling there are too many gun related deaths. The fears in the post you are quoting were not my fears but rather those of another poster who was expressing her personal need to carry a gun.

There can be many such stories, I even have a few of my own, but anyone's personal fears should not be relevant to a discussion of the general situation in the US.

My favorite Twain quote (paraphrased) is: "People do a whole lot of feeling, and mistake it for thinking". The tendency to irrational emotion seems more pervasive in today's political topics.

When you simply look at the factual data, and exclude suicides*; "gun deaths" are statistically insignificant. There are many, many more common causes of death we could be addressing, if simply reducing deaths were the real priority.

I am still not clear on the validity of your premise that "What is needed is general reform of the gun situation in the US". I don't understand what the "gun situation" is that needs reforming.


* I exclude suicides simply because guns are a convenient method. Japan, for example, has a higher rate of suicide than the U.S.; and they don't use guns to do it. If suicide is an issue, that is what needs addressed rather than rolling up the means into a different "problem".

As I have said I have no fears of gun violence and of course agree that in the US from MY perspective guns are not a threat.

However that is not the only possible position.

If you listen to politicians, listen to news stories, read threads like this there is a significant movement in the US that there is an issue involving gun violence.

There may well be other even more important issues to address but they are irrelevant within the context of this topic.

The question is how should the US address the issue of gun ownership and gun violence in the US. It does not matter whether it is a major problem or not. The topic is still the same. The discussion must still be the same.

dneal
May 7th, 2016, 09:01 PM
As I have said I have no fears of gun violence and of course agree that in the US from MY perspective guns are not a threat.

However that is not the only possible position.

If you listen to politicians, listen to news stories, read threads like this there is a significant movement in the US that there is an issue involving gun violence.

There may well be other even more important issues to address but they are irrelevant within the context of this topic.

The question is how should the US address the issue of gun ownership and gun violence in the US. It does not matter whether it is a major problem or not. The topic is still the same. The discussion must still be the same.

Ok. Here's how it should be addressed: The US should rescind all National Firearm Acts enacted since 1934, or they should be found unconstitutional. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Those that don't like it can work to amend the constitution instead of "interpreting" their way around the parts they don't like.

A vocal minority is not a significant movement. They have media support and it gets a lot of hyperbolic attention. In spite of that, right to carry laws have been expanding. Perhaps that's the significant movement.

Lady Onogaro
May 7th, 2016, 10:29 PM
The whole thread makes me very sad. It's really challenging for me, especially when people I really like say things that stereotype people or sound homophobic. This group has always been such a home to me, and now I feel like such an outsider.

Clearly my heart is too faint for this discussion.

Empty_of_Clouds
May 7th, 2016, 10:44 PM
As naive as this may sound, I have to ask: what is it about American society and its values that leads to incidences that appear to require a firearm to address, and which makes it different to (say) New Zealand or Australia?

Recognition that Hobbes' State of Nature is always lurking, and a sense of self reliance; to name two.

The use of Hobbes here suggests that US society is devolving, yes?


Just reading through the posts that came after this gave me pause for thought. Yes, deaths from firearm use/misuse pales in comparison to deaths from a great deal of other causes. However, at the academic level there is a categorical difference between a death caused by a tool whose only function is to kill, and a death that is caused by non-intentionally lethal vehicle. This is of course cold comfort to those who are killed.

There are times when I get the distinct feeling that a sizeable chunk of the population - here, there, everywhere - want to live their lives as unhealthily and irresponsibly as possible.


So, in terms of overall poor health outcomes, yes gun deaths are relatively minor in number, but as with a great many other types of death they are potentially reducible.

dneal
May 8th, 2016, 06:16 AM
As naive as this may sound, I have to ask: what is it about American society and its values that leads to incidences that appear to require a firearm to address, and which makes it different to (say) New Zealand or Australia?

Recognition that Hobbes' State of Nature is always lurking, and a sense of self reliance; to name two.


The use of Hobbes here suggests that US society is devolving, yes?

Not at all. It recognizes that humans have always been capable of vile deeds, and pretending otherwise is irrational.


Just reading through the posts that came after this gave me pause for thought. Yes, deaths from firearm use/misuse pales in comparison to deaths from a great deal of other causes. However, at the academic level there is a categorical difference between a death caused by a tool whose only function is to kill, and a death that is caused by non-intentionally lethal vehicle. This is of course cold comfort to those who are killed.

This is a pseudo-argument. What's the significance of the categorical difference? I disagree with your premise that the only function of a gun is to kill, and challenge you to offer proof of the premise.

If you do the homework and look at the empirical evidence, you will discover that crime rates in the US have plummeted and continue to do so.

But let's assume the validity of your assertion for a moment. The only function of a bow would also be to kill, so let's ban those as well and ignore the statistical insignificance of deaths by bow. Swords? Yes, let's include those too. The absurdity of your argument should be apparent by now. You aren't concerned with saving the maximum amount of lives, but of eliminating things you find distasteful.


There are times when I get the distinct feeling that a sizeable chunk of the population - here, there, everywhere - want to live their lives as unhealthily and irresponsibly as possible.

Perhaps, but who are you to judge? Your opinion, as stated, does nothing to strengthen the validity of your argument.


So, in terms of overall poor health outcomes, yes gun deaths are relatively minor in number, but as with a great many other types of death they are potentially reducible.

More pseudo-argument. You only focus on deaths that result from guns. Balance that with deaths and other violent crimes prevented by guns. Gary Kleck estimated there are 2M defensive gun uses per year. Critics say his data is flawed, and the number is really 800K. So lets use that number. Lets also use the 30K number for gun deaths that includes suicides. Now pick one. 30K deaths from guns, or 800K violent crimes prevented by guns?

Crazyorange
May 8th, 2016, 06:41 AM
How do you measure 800k crimes prevented by guns? What are the guidelines used to measure that? What is Gary kleck's position on gun control? Where the 800k involving police?

jar
May 8th, 2016, 06:41 AM
As I have said I have no fears of gun violence and of course agree that in the US from MY perspective guns are not a threat.

However that is not the only possible position.

If you listen to politicians, listen to news stories, read threads like this there is a significant movement in the US that there is an issue involving gun violence.

There may well be other even more important issues to address but they are irrelevant within the context of this topic.

The question is how should the US address the issue of gun ownership and gun violence in the US. It does not matter whether it is a major problem or not. The topic is still the same. The discussion must still be the same.

Ok. Here's how it should be addressed: The US should rescind all National Firearm Acts enacted since 1934, or they should be found unconstitutional. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Those that don't like it can work to amend the constitution instead of "interpreting" their way around the parts they don't like.

A vocal minority is not a significant movement. They have media support and it gets a lot of hyperbolic attention. In spite of that, right to carry laws have been expanding. Perhaps that's the significant movement.

Except nothing in your post addresses the issue or question.

How would rescinding exiting lows decrease the number of gun related deaths in the US?

dneal
May 8th, 2016, 07:07 AM
As I have said I have no fears of gun violence and of course agree that in the US from MY perspective guns are not a threat.

However that is not the only possible position.

If you listen to politicians, listen to news stories, read threads like this there is a significant movement in the US that there is an issue involving gun violence.

There may well be other even more important issues to address but they are irrelevant within the context of this topic.

The question is how should the US address the issue of gun ownership and gun violence in the US. It does not matter whether it is a major problem or not. The topic is still the same. The discussion must still be the same.

Ok. Here's how it should be addressed: The US should rescind all National Firearm Acts enacted since 1934, or they should be found unconstitutional. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Those that don't like it can work to amend the constitution instead of "interpreting" their way around the parts they don't like.

A vocal minority is not a significant movement. They have media support and it gets a lot of hyperbolic attention. In spite of that, right to carry laws have been expanding. Perhaps that's the significant movement.

Except nothing in your post addresses the issue or question.

How would rescinding exiting lows decrease the number of gun related deaths in the US?

You still haven't defined the issue or question you're asking. Saying "in the context of this thread" (which is broad) doesn't help. Although I'm sure you clearly know what you have in mind, you haven't communicated it well. I was illustrating that with my earlier answer. If I interpret the problem differently, I can come to a completely different solution.

Which gun deaths, for example, are you wanting to reduce? Suicides? School shootings? Gang violence? I don't think there is one practical, overarching solution to those different problems. Lumping them together is not helpful in identifying the root cause, which is necessary to devising a solution.

dneal
May 8th, 2016, 07:26 AM
How do you measure 800k crimes prevented by guns? What are the guidelines used to measure that? What is Gary kleck's position on gun control? Where the 800k involving police?

Here is the original Kleck/Gertz paper (http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc). Note that I'm intentionally posting it and not various opinion sites advocating or interpreting it. Please do me the same courtesy by not linking opinion sites decrying it.

The paper is where the 2M figure is calculated. The 800K number comes from critics of Kleck's statistics (although I can't find the link at the moment). The point of mentioning 800K is that even if you take the numbers most strongly advocated by proponents of gun control, which maximize deaths and minimize defensive uses; the numbers are still hard to defend.

You can watch Gary Kleck describe his position in this clip:

https://youtu.be/ntIr0Q3MBOA?t=40m

jar
May 8th, 2016, 07:29 AM
Which gun deaths, for example, are you wanting to reduce? Suicides? School shootings? Gang violence? I don't think there is one practical, overarching solution to those different problems. Lumping them together is not helpful in identifying the root cause, which is necessary to devising a solution.

All of those gun deaths.

Of course there is no one solution which is why a discussion is needed instead of bumper stickers.

The US today is pretty sick society compared to much of the rest of the world, even places like Cuba.

So let's see if we can address at least a small part of the issues.

dneal
May 8th, 2016, 07:32 AM
Which gun deaths, for example, are you wanting to reduce? Suicides? School shootings? Gang violence? I don't think there is one practical, overarching solution to those different problems. Lumping them together is not helpful in identifying the root cause, which is necessary to devising a solution.

All of those gun deaths.

Of course there is no one solution which is why a discussion is needed instead of bumper stickers.

The US today is pretty sick society compared to much of the rest of the world, even places like Cuba.

So let's see if we can address at least a small part of the issues.

Again, which small part do you want to address first?

jar
May 8th, 2016, 08:40 AM
Which gun deaths, for example, are you wanting to reduce? Suicides? School shootings? Gang violence? I don't think there is one practical, overarching solution to those different problems. Lumping them together is not helpful in identifying the root cause, which is necessary to devising a solution.

All of those gun deaths.

Of course there is no one solution which is why a discussion is needed instead of bumper stickers.

The US today is pretty sick society compared to much of the rest of the world, even places like Cuba.

So let's see if we can address at least a small part of the issues.

Again, which small part do you want to address first?

Let's address the question of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

dneal
May 8th, 2016, 09:31 AM
Let's address the question of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

I think it's a noble sentiment, and it sounds great in theory. It's very difficult, if not impossible in practice. During a normal purchase, an ATF Form 4473 (https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download) is completed. Question 11.f. asks:

"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.)"

The first problem is one of lying. It's committing perjury, but that comes after the fact and doesn't prevent a weapon from falling in the hands of the "mentally ill". One would hope that court actions are entered into the NICS database, but that's not always the case.

Next comes the problem of defining "mentally ill", and establishing the threshold for denial of a purchase. Expectations of privacy, doctor patient privilege, and privacy laws themselves bear on the problem. The DSM IV is a horrible document, vaguely listing essentially anything as a "disorder". The recently released DSM V is better, but far from perfect. When people fear being entered into some database, they don't seek treatment and the problem is exacerbated. Some of this was addressed in the instructions for question 11.f., (you can see those further in the linked document) and I'm sure you can see problems that might arise.

The problem of incompetent bureaucracies is relevant too. The FBI admitted fault and "lapses in the system" in allowing a "proceed" response to Dylann Roof's purchase, which resulted in the Charleston Church shooting.

I would frame your question as one of keeping the mentally ill from harming others, instead of keeping guns out of their hands. Curiously, these mentally ill individuals - like James Holmes and the Aurora theater incident - choose "gun free" zones as their targets (and I don't think James Holmes was ever identified as "mentally ill"). Eliminate gun free zones and allow individuals to defend themselves. As John Lott points out in his yet to be legitimately refuted "More Guns, Less Crime", crime and casualties both decrease with an increase in liberal gun laws. Mass shootings don't happen in police stations or gun shops. Perhaps there is a correlation...

jar
May 8th, 2016, 09:36 AM
Let's address the question of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

I think it's a noble sentiment, and it sounds great in theory. It's very difficult, if not impossible in practice. During a normal purchase, an ATF Form 4473 (https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download) is completed. Question 11.f. asks:

"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.)"

The first problem is one of lying. It's committing perjury, but that comes after the fact and doesn't prevent a weapon from falling in the hands of the "mentally ill". One would hope that court actions are entered into the NICS database, but that's not always the case.

Next comes the problem of defining "mentally ill", and establishing the threshold for denial of a purchase. Expectations of privacy, doctor patient privilege, and privacy laws themselves bear on the problem. The DSM IV is a horrible document, vaguely listing essentially anything as a "disorder". The recently released DSM V is better, but far from perfect. When people fear being entered into some database, they don't seek treatment and the problem is exacerbated. Some of this was addressed in the instructions for question 11.f., (you can see those further in the linked document) and I'm sure you can see problems that might arise.

The problem of incompetent bureaucracies is relevant too. The FBI admitted fault and "lapses in the system" in allowing a "proceed" response to Dylann Roof's purchase, which resulted in the Charleston Church shooting.

I would frame your question as one of keeping the mentally ill from harming others, instead of keeping guns out of their hands. Curiously, these mentally ill individuals - like James Holmes and the Aurora theater incident - choose "gun free" zones as their targets. Eliminate gun free zones and allow individuals to defend themselves. As John Lott points out in his yet to be legitimately refuted "More Guns, Less Crime", crime and casualties both decrease with an increase in liberal gun laws. Mass shootings don't happen in police stations or gun shops. Perhaps there is a correlation...

Yawn.

Sorry but that is still just bumper sticker propaganda instead of discussion.

Yes the problems you list exist and so how can we address them?

A system that checks a database that does not contain the valid information won't really do much.

So how do we improve the process?

Crazyorange
May 8th, 2016, 09:52 AM
Jar
I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks carrying a gun everywhere will stop everything. My gun is bigger than your gun so I'm safe. [emoji849]

Just from my limited experience, mental illness played a part in. What about making a law that all guns are locked up? At least the young boy who shot himself as would have been "safer"? Or have a class on metal illness as part of the license to own a gun? Hell, I take a drivers safety class every three years. Maybe it would create awareness?

dneal
May 8th, 2016, 10:42 AM
Let's address the question of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

I think it's a noble sentiment, and it sounds great in theory. It's very difficult, if not impossible in practice. During a normal purchase, an ATF Form 4473 (https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download) is completed. Question 11.f. asks:

"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.)"

The first problem is one of lying. It's committing perjury, but that comes after the fact and doesn't prevent a weapon from falling in the hands of the "mentally ill". One would hope that court actions are entered into the NICS database, but that's not always the case.

Next comes the problem of defining "mentally ill", and establishing the threshold for denial of a purchase. Expectations of privacy, doctor patient privilege, and privacy laws themselves bear on the problem. The DSM IV is a horrible document, vaguely listing essentially anything as a "disorder". The recently released DSM V is better, but far from perfect. When people fear being entered into some database, they don't seek treatment and the problem is exacerbated. Some of this was addressed in the instructions for question 11.f., (you can see those further in the linked document) and I'm sure you can see problems that might arise.

The problem of incompetent bureaucracies is relevant too. The FBI admitted fault and "lapses in the system" in allowing a "proceed" response to Dylann Roof's purchase, which resulted in the Charleston Church shooting.

I would frame your question as one of keeping the mentally ill from harming others, instead of keeping guns out of their hands. Curiously, these mentally ill individuals - like James Holmes and the Aurora theater incident - choose "gun free" zones as their targets. Eliminate gun free zones and allow individuals to defend themselves. As John Lott points out in his yet to be legitimately refuted "More Guns, Less Crime", crime and casualties both decrease with an increase in liberal gun laws. Mass shootings don't happen in police stations or gun shops. Perhaps there is a correlation...

Yawn.

Sorry but that is still just bumper sticker propaganda instead of discussion.

Yes the problems you list exist and so how can we address them?

A system that checks a database that does not contain the valid information won't really do much.

So how do we improve the process?

You ask for a discussion. I offer my thoughts and you respond with *yawn* and glib, banal reiteration. It's rejoined with "my gun is bigger that your gun comments", which I'm sure is satisfying - but devoid of reason or logic.

I live in the real world, not some utopian idealistic world of benevolent totalitarianism.

Should you actually desire a conversation, I'll stop by. Enjoy your mental masturbation in the mean time.

jar
May 8th, 2016, 12:06 PM
You ask for a discussion. I offer my thoughts and you respond with *yawn* and glib, banal reiteration. It's rejoined with "my gun is bigger that your gun comments", which I'm sure is satisfying - but devoid of reason or logic.

I live in the real world, not some utopian idealistic world of benevolent totalitarianism.

Should you actually desire a conversation, I'll stop by. Enjoy your mental masturbation in the mean time.

That's fine but of course still does not address the issue.

Fear of being in some database is no reason not to be listed in some database.

So the question remains, how do we improve the system that might identify a person with mental conditions that should preclude them buying or owning a firearm?

jar
May 8th, 2016, 12:11 PM
Jar
I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks carrying a gun everywhere will stop everything. My gun is bigger than your gun so I'm safe. [emoji849]

Just from my limited experience, mental illness played a part in. What about making a law that all guns are locked up? At least the young boy who shot himself as would have been "safer"? Or have a class on metal illness as part of the license to own a gun? Hell, I take a drivers safety class every three years. Maybe it would create awareness?

In most of the US drivers tests are not required but that is yet another issue.

And a law requiring guns to be locked up would be a great start but is really pretty much unenforceable.

How about a law that holds the gun owner responsible financially for any costs incurred by the misuse of that gun regardless of who uses it? That way if someone steals a gun and injures another person with it the original gun owner would be held responsible for costs.

Would that encourage folk to be more careful when it comes to limiting access to their guns?

Empty_of_Clouds
May 8th, 2016, 12:57 PM
Removed.

dneal
May 8th, 2016, 01:22 PM
What we could really use is a law of unintended consequences that we could hold up and point out to well-meaning morons who continually degrade our society with ideas that usually begin with "we ought to..." or "there should be a law...".

Crazyorange
May 8th, 2016, 03:33 PM
[\QUOTE]

In most of the US drivers tests are not required but that is yet another issue.

And a law requiring guns to be locked up would be a great start but is really pretty much unenforceable.

How about a law that holds the gun owner responsible financially for any costs incurred by the misuse of that gun regardless of who uses it? That way if someone steals a gun and injures another person with it the original gun owner would be held responsible for costs.

Would that encourage folk to be more careful when it comes to limiting access to their guns?[/QUOTE]

It funny.....I watch dateline every Saturday nite. This past show discussed a young man "accidentally" shooting is wife through the back of the head. He was mucking around with the gun in his house and it went off. He wanted to be acquitted of the killing. Due to his case, he was found guilty.

It started me thinking of this thread. When is an accident an accident - especially when metal illness doesn't play a factor? Are poor gun habits/lack of respect make you guilty of murder?

Would a fine or even jail time encourage people to have good gun habits?

jar
May 8th, 2016, 06:13 PM
It funny.....I watch dateline every Saturday nite. This past show discussed a young man "accidentally" shooting is wife through the back of the head. He was mucking around with the gun in his house and it went off. He wanted to be acquitted of the killing. Due to his case, he was found guilty.

It started me thinking of this thread. When is an accident an accident - especially when metal illness doesn't play a factor? Are poor gun habits/lack of respect make you guilty of murder?

Would a fine or even jail time encourage people to have good gun habits?

I think that is a great point.

If you have a pool in your yard and do not make provisions (even the most minor provisions) to limit access and kids get in and drown the pool owner can be held responsible.

Guns are not things to muck around with or use as a prop in a selfie and I see no way what you describe or the mother supposedly getting shot in the back by her two year old could be considered as accidents.

I'm not sure jail time really serves much purpose beyond isolating someone from the general public but money often does seem to have influence.

FredRydr
May 11th, 2016, 03:51 PM
Just look to the 21st amendment for inspiration.

Fred

duckmcf
May 11th, 2016, 10:16 PM
Just look to the 21st amendment for inspiration.

Fred
I'll drink to that!

Noel - My mind's untidy, but my whisky's neat

jar
May 14th, 2016, 07:46 AM
Another Amendment is certainly an option but that still doesn't really address the issue. First there is the question of wording the new amendment so that it will get passed. There are two possible routes, the first is that an amendment gets proposed in House and Senate and passed in both and then ratified by votes in at least three quarters of the states.

That is the safer route.

The other route is for two thirds of the states to petition to call for a new Constitutional Convention. The danger there is that opens up the possibility of a whole new Constitution and the scrapping of all of the existing Constitution.

In either case thirty seven states would have to ratify the amendment or new Constitution.

The biggest hurdle though is still defining wording in an amendment that would pass and still do anything significant.

dneal
May 14th, 2016, 09:22 AM
The issue remains that you fail to define the problem correctly, because you avoid trying to define it specifically. Also, your reasoning is tainted with an embedded premise which you are using to try to force a certain conclusion. Your quickness to dismiss facts and arguments that divert you from reaching your conclusion is troubling, and one wonders if you're being intentionally disingenuous or if you are unaware of your bias.

You think a problem is keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, but that's not the problem. The problem is preventing them from causing harm. A disturbed person can cause great harm with a kitchen knife, but they can also slice tomatoes for their sandwich with it. You reasoning would prevent them from owning or possessing knives altogether. I suspect I will see "but a knife is not a gun" as a counter argument, but that dismisses rather than considers the point - which has so far been the method of your posts.

Furthermore, you are faced with the challenge of determining or defining "mental illness", and the severity of a particular condition. An individual with no identified condition may become depressed. That depression may be inconsequential, or it may progress to the point that leads said individual to actions that harm themselves or others. How, in your idealistic world, do we determine the difference beforehand?

Feel free to answer with another "*yawn*, that doesn't address the question"; but at least be honest and admit to yourself that it's simply not the answer you were hoping for, and that you're not truly interested in a discussion other than one that accepts your unsubstantiated premises.

jar
May 14th, 2016, 10:15 AM
The issue remains that you fail to define the problem correctly, because you avoid trying to define it specifically. Also, your reasoning is tainted with an embedded premise which you are using to try to force a certain conclusion. Your quickness to dismiss facts and arguments that divert you from reaching your conclusion is troubling, and one wonders if you're being intentionally disingenuous or if you are unaware of your bias.

You think a problem is keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, but that's not the problem. The problem is preventing them from causing harm. A disturbed person can cause great harm with a kitchen knife, but they can also slice tomatoes for their sandwich with it. You reasoning would prevent them from owning or possessing knives altogether. I suspect I will see "but a knife is not a gun" as a counter argument, but that dismisses rather than considers the point - which has so far been the method of your posts.

Furthermore, you are faced with the challenge of determining or defining "mental illness", and the severity of a particular condition. An individual with no identified condition may become depressed. That depression may be inconsequential, or it may progress to the point that leads said individual to actions that harm themselves or others. How, in your idealistic world, do we determine the difference beforehand?

Feel free to answer with another "*yawn*, that doesn't address the question"; but at least be honest and admit to yourself that it's simply not the answer you were hoping for, and that you're not truly interested in a discussion other than one that accepts your unsubstantiated premises.


I have no expectation or desire an idealistic world so please stop misrepresenting my position.

The fact that you cannot predict every outcome before the fact has nothing to do with trying to predict outcomes when conditions are known.

The steps have also been outlined. First create a database of everyone who is in the US legally. Next require notification to that database by mental health professional when someone is determined to be a threat for misuse of firearms. Make it mandatory that a person be in the database to receive services and if not in the database that that identification is added and cross referenced for possible aliases. In those cases require some positive identification added such as DNA samples.

Make purchase or ownership of a firearm requisite on affirmative response from the database, this individual is listed and there are no listed restrictions on purchase or ownership.

And yes, guns and knives are too different subjects and a law that places controls on gun ownership does not place restrictions on knife ownership.

Remember, you are the one who selected mental health as the first issue to address.

dneal
May 14th, 2016, 11:18 AM
I have no expectation or desire an idealistic world so please stop misrepresenting my position.

Oh, I'm not misrepresenting your position. I've asked multiple times for you to clarify it, to no avail.


The fact that you cannot predict every outcome before the fact has nothing to do with trying to predict outcomes when conditions are known.

Considering potential, possible and likely outcomes are very important - hence my "unintended consequences" post.


The steps have also been outlined. First create a database of everyone who is in the US legally. Next require notification to that database by mental health professional when someone is determined to be a threat for misuse of firearms. Make it mandatory that a person be in the database to receive services and if not in the database that that identification is added and cross referenced for possible aliases. In those cases require some positive identification added such as DNA samples.

I don't know why you choose to ignore what I post. You skip over the enormous difficulties of identifying or qualifying people, let alone predicting future behavior. You ignore the right to privacy implications. You ignore presumption of innocence principles. Glossing over the difficulties and objections that will arise from your approach is idealistic


Make purchase or ownership of a firearm requisite on affirmative response from the database, this individual is listed and there are no listed restrictions on purchase or ownership.

The post that earned a *yawn* previously addressed this, and the flaws in the current system that is intended to satisfy this. However, instead of a database of known ill persons, you suggest a database of every person with an affirmation of no known mental risk. Do you truly think the government is capable of managing that? Furthermore, your idea only applies to new purchases, not the hundreds of millions of firearms already in existence. Your idea does not account for the purchase by a person who is fine today, but at risk 10 years after the purchase. For someone who has no expectation of an idealistic world, your recommendations indicate otherwise.


And yes, guns and knives are too different subjects and a law that places controls on gun ownership does not place restrictions on knife ownership.

Thank you for illustrating my point that you ignore the real issue. Why do you want to keep guns out of the hands of disturbed individuals? When you answer that question, you will see the relevance of knives and other potential weapons.


Remember, you are the one who selected mental health as the first issue to address.

No, in post #123 I asked "Again, which small part do you want to address first?"

In the following post (#124) you said "Let's address the question of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill."

jar
May 14th, 2016, 12:39 PM
Oh, I'm not misrepresenting your position. I've asked multiple times for you to clarify it, to no avail.


The fact that you cannot predict every outcome before the fact has nothing to do with trying to predict outcomes when conditions are known.

Considering potential, possible and likely outcomes are very important - hence my "unintended consequences" post.


The steps have also been outlined. First create a database of everyone who is in the US legally. Next require notification to that database by mental health professional when someone is determined to be a threat for misuse of firearms. Make it mandatory that a person be in the database to receive services and if not in the database that that identification is added and cross referenced for possible aliases. In those cases require some positive identification added such as DNA samples.

I don't know why you choose to ignore what I post. You skip over the enormous difficulties of identifying or qualifying people, let alone predicting future behavior. You ignore the right to privacy implications. You ignore presumption of innocence principles. Glossing over the difficulties and objections that will arise from your approach is idealistic


Make purchase or ownership of a firearm requisite on affirmative response from the database, this individual is listed and there are no listed restrictions on purchase or ownership.

The post that earned a *yawn* previously addressed this, and the flaws in the current system that is intended to satisfy this. However, instead of a database of known ill persons, you suggest a database of every person with an affirmation of no known mental risk. Do you truly think the government is capable of managing that? Furthermore, your idea only applies to new purchases, not the hundreds of millions of firearms already in existence. Your idea does not account for the purchase by a person who is fine today, but at risk 10 years after the purchase. For someone who has no expectation of an idealistic world, your recommendations indicate otherwise.


And yes, guns and knives are too different subjects and a law that places controls on gun ownership does not place restrictions on knife ownership.

Thank you for illustrating my point that you ignore the real issue. Why do you want to keep guns out of the hands of disturbed individuals? When you answer that question, you will see the relevance of knives and other potential weapons.


Remember, you are the one who selected mental health as the first issue to address.

No, in post #123 I asked "Again, which small part do you want to address first?"

In the following post (#124) you said "Let's address the question of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill."

Knives and other weapons are not guns. Is that so hard to understand? This topic is about the US 2nd. Amendment and guns. Knives and other weapons are NOT mentioned in the US 2nd Amendment and so irrelevant to this topic. It really is that simple.

Yes, I suggested of building a database of all people in the US with identifying material like a DNA sample and additional information such as (in this case) mental helath determinations that would preclude purchase or ownership of guns.

Do I think the Government is capable of managing that? Of course. And all the available evidence is that Governments including even the US Government are capable of managing that. In fact there currently is a database of all people serving and having served in the military first created back in 1991.

Also, I skip questions of innocence and guilt since neither would be involved in any determination of whether or not someone should be eligible to buy or own a gun. Guilt and innocence are not the same as competent and permissible.

dneal
May 14th, 2016, 01:26 PM
Knives and other weapons are not guns. Is that so hard to understand? This topic is about the US 2nd. Amendment and guns. Knives and other weapons are NOT mentioned in the US 2nd Amendment and so irrelevant to this topic. It really is that simple.

Why persist with this sophistry? You know well the point I have illustrated, but choose to dismiss it as irrelevant. Your premise is that we need to keep guns out of the hands of certain people. Specifically, the mentally ill. So answer the simple question of: why?


Yes, I suggested of building a database of all people in the US with identifying material like a DNA sample and additional information such as (in this case) mental helath determinations that would preclude purchase or ownership of guns.

Do I think the Government is capable of managing that? Of course. And all the available evidence is that Governments including even the US Government are capable of managing that. In fact there currently is a database of all people serving and having served in the military first created back in 1991.

A database of prohibited persons already exists. Information is added to it regularly. It is imperfect.


Also, I skip questions of innocence and guilt since neither would be involved in any determination of whether or not someone should be eligible to buy or own a gun. Guilt and innocence are not the same as competent and permissible.

More avoidance of the point... do you wish to have a discussion, or are you just trying to "win" an argument?

Try this on for size. This topic is about the 2nd Amendment, which the right to bear arms, and whether or not there should be a referendum to repeal it. Databases are irrelevant. It is really that simple.

That kind of stifles discussion, don't you think?

Terie_Benjamin
May 14th, 2016, 01:34 PM
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160514/447ca99fc6ac0f5303831514a44ef7e5.jpg

jar
May 14th, 2016, 01:59 PM
Your premise is that we need to keep guns out of the hands of certain people. Specifically, the mentally ill that a metal health professional consider a risk to the general public. So answer the simple question of: why?


As a method of determining if someone is an unreasonable risk to others. But I think there should be other restrictions as well. Some that have been mentioned are annual re-certification of competency, knowledge of the laws and proper use and minimal skill levels itself.


Sorry but once again, skipping guilt or innocence is irrelevant since that has never even come up in relation to owning or buying a gun. No avoidance there.


A database of prohibited persons already exists. Information is added to it regularly. It is imperfect.

Yup and so let's see about improving that database.


Try this on for size. This topic is about the 2nd Amendment, which the right to bear arms, and whether or not there should be a referendum to repeal it. Databases are irrelevant. It is really that simple.

That kind of stifles discussion, don't you think?

Yes, that would certain stop the discussion of a database but again would do nothing to address the concerns people have expressed.

dneal
May 14th, 2016, 02:24 PM
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160514/447ca99fc6ac0f5303831514a44ef7e5.jpg

jar isn't dead. It is just taking an unexpected bit of effort to lead him to the water.

;)

dneal
May 14th, 2016, 02:31 PM
As a method of determining if someone is an unreasonable risk to others. But I think there should be other restrictions as well. Some that have been mentioned are annual re-certification of competency, knowledge of the laws and proper use and minimal skill levels itself.

You want to keep guns out of the hands of certain people as a method of determining if someone is an unreasonable risk to others? It appears you mis-read the question, again.

jar
May 14th, 2016, 03:15 PM
As a method of determining if someone is an unreasonable risk to others. But I think there should be other restrictions as well. Some that have been mentioned are annual re-certification of competency, knowledge of the laws and proper use and minimal skill levels itself.

You want to keep guns out of the hands of certain people as a method of determining if someone is an unreasonable risk to others? It appears you mis-read the question, again.

No, that is not what I said. I think it might be advisable of restricting those people who a mental health professional have determined might be a risk to themselves or the general public by requiring mental health professionals to enter such information into a national database. But to make the database effective it also needs to have everyone in it along with positive identification in the form of DNA samples to cross check against aliases.

dneal
May 14th, 2016, 03:44 PM
Ok, I'm going to stop playing your games. I think you're well aware of the flaws in your reasoning as I point them out, which is why you are being obtuse and avoiding them.

First, there is no "gun" problem. If you want to assert that there is, I'm happy to consider your argument. You haven't made one and that's your embedded premise. I don't accept it. Convince me. Doctors, through negligence, kill exponentially more people than guns do, so "the gun problem" is not about innocent people dying. It's about getting rid of something you don't like. Have the balls to just say it, instead of creating smug pseudo-intellectual sideshows.

Second, there is no "crazy people getting their hands on guns" problem. This is because there is no gun problem, but also because crazy people can be dangerous in any number of ways. Even if you could nod your head like Barbara Eden and make all the guns go away, you would still have crazy people. They can still be dangerous. That's the point of the kitchen knife that you ignore and dismiss as irrelevant.

Third, your database idea is ridiculous. The American people will not accept a national, DNA database with all their medical and/or mental health provider data in it. It would be found unconstitutional for a myriad of reasons. The 4th and 5th amendments come foremost to mind. That is where prior incrimination principle comes into play, although you try to dismiss it. It is a logical consequence of your proposal, if you would think about consequences instead of (again) dismissing the problems with your argument.

As an aside, the dismissal of VertOlive's argument is disappointing. No reasoning, just waving it away. The fact remains that some people are bigger and stronger than other people. Some of those bigger and stronger people (who might be crazy too, by the way), are malicious and do or intend to do harm to others. Guns negate that. It's a fact, and there are plenty of links throughout the thread to back it up, should you trouble yourself to learn. Although it wasn't you specifically, the "disappointment with homophobes" is disappointing as well. No discussion, no rationale, just "shaming" in lieu of; as if it's the equivalent of cogent thought.

There are lots of problems in today's society, and guns can exacerbate them. Guns can also neutralize them. Let's look at something different than the mentally ill. How about gang violence? Gang violence is not about guns. It's about gang culture. They used to use chains, clubs, and knives. Pointing to guns and saying "that's the problem" is asinine, yet a shallow thinking, self-righteous vocal minority still do it.

jar
May 14th, 2016, 06:03 PM
There are lots of problems in today's society, and guns can exacerbate them. Guns can also neutralize them. Let's look at something different than the mentally ill. How about gang violence? Gang violence is not about guns. It's about gang culture. They used to use chains, clubs, and knives. Pointing to guns and saying "that's the problem" is asinine, yet a shallow thinking, self-righteous vocal minority still do it.

And I have not said that gang violence is about guns.

Gang violence does need to be addressed and that is a great subject, so start a thread on it. However the top of this thread is "The US 2nd Amendment..... " and the Op contained "Hi Gang,
I think it's time for a referendum to either endorse or repeal the 2nd amendment to the US constitution.

Now before either side of this flames me to ash, I'm not on either side here.
I'm simply saying that it's well past time to put this question to the people and settle it once and for all.

Cheers,
Noel aka DuckMcF".

Now a referendum cannot have any effect on the 2nd Amendment, a different process is needed for that and I have asked how a proposed amendment that might pass the house and senate might be worded. Your simple declaration that there is no problem is of course refuted by the simple fact that the OP started the thread.

So is there an amendment that you can imagine might be passed by Congress and stand up to ratification?

bluesea
May 15th, 2016, 01:14 PM
There are lots of problems in today's society, and guns can exacerbate them. Guns can also neutralize them...


Let's look at something different than the mentally ill. How about gang violence? Gang violence is not about guns. It's about gang culture. They used to use chains, clubs, and knives. Pointing to guns and saying "that's the problem" is asinine, yet a shallow thinking, self-righteous vocal minority still do it.


Well put.

Its less asinine and more the manner of how our government operates, in which superficial political solutions are created to address fundamental issues.

Dragonmaster Lou
May 16th, 2016, 09:59 AM
The way I see it, the problem is that there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who own guns who, for various reasons, frankly should not own them. Even Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court in recent history, has stated that the second amendment was never meant to allow the mentally insane or violent criminals to own guns while writing an opinion on a Second Amendment case a few years ago.

Frankly, I think anyone who wants to own a gun should be required to under go some sort of training and licensing, to make sure they are competent to own a gun as well as use and care for it responsibly. An appropriate criminal violation or diagnosis of dangerous mental health conditions would result in suspension of that license. This shouldn't be considered that onerous as most of the responsible gun owners I know already participate in some sort of training (or have appropriate military and/or law enforcement training). If nothing else, the effort to go through such training would probably discourage those who are too stupid (but otherwise have no other "red flags" on their backgrounds) to responsibly own and use a gun from wanting to jump through the hoops to purchase one, or at the very least show that they are indeed too stupid to own one and would thereby never pass the training course.

dneal
May 16th, 2016, 03:25 PM
The way I see it, the problem is that there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who own guns who, for various reasons, frankly should not own them. Even Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court in recent history, has stated that the second amendment was never meant to allow the mentally insane or violent criminals to own guns while writing an opinion on a Second Amendment case a few years ago.

Frankly, I think anyone who wants to own a gun should be required to under go some sort of training and licensing, to make sure they are competent to own a gun as well as use and care for it responsibly. An appropriate criminal violation or diagnosis of dangerous mental health conditions would result in suspension of that license. This shouldn't be considered that onerous as most of the responsible gun owners I know already participate in some sort of training (or have appropriate military and/or law enforcement training). If nothing else, the effort to go through such training would probably discourage those who are too stupid (but otherwise have no other "red flags" on their backgrounds) to responsibly own and use a gun from wanting to jump through the hoops to purchase one, or at the very least show that they are indeed too stupid to own one and would thereby never pass the training course.

Interesting. What other rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution should we place prerequisites on, before allowing individuals to exercise them?

Dragonmaster Lou
May 17th, 2016, 10:06 AM
The way I see it, the problem is that there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who own guns who, for various reasons, frankly should not own them. Even Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court in recent history, has stated that the second amendment was never meant to allow the mentally insane or violent criminals to own guns while writing an opinion on a Second Amendment case a few years ago.

Frankly, I think anyone who wants to own a gun should be required to under go some sort of training and licensing, to make sure they are competent to own a gun as well as use and care for it responsibly. An appropriate criminal violation or diagnosis of dangerous mental health conditions would result in suspension of that license. This shouldn't be considered that onerous as most of the responsible gun owners I know already participate in some sort of training (or have appropriate military and/or law enforcement training). If nothing else, the effort to go through such training would probably discourage those who are too stupid (but otherwise have no other "red flags" on their backgrounds) to responsibly own and use a gun from wanting to jump through the hoops to purchase one, or at the very least show that they are indeed too stupid to own one and would thereby never pass the training course.

Interesting. What other rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution should we place prerequisites on, before allowing individuals to exercise them?

We already have pre-requisites for one right specifically enumerated in the Constitution: the right to vote (see the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments for where the right to vote is enumerated as a Constitutional right). At the very least, one must be at least 18 years old to vote. Also, some sort of registration is allowed for voting, so long as the registration itself doesn't violate the rules set forth in those aforementioned amendments (i.e. no sex or race based discrimination, no poll tax, and so on). In addition, some states already rescind the right to vote to anyone convicted of a felony (although, admittedly, I'm not sure what the Constitutional status of this disqualification is offhand as I'm not sure if it has ever been challenged in court).

So if we can require registration in order to exercise your right to vote, and deny the right to vote to anyone convicted of a felony, why can't similar rules (with a requirement for training in order to be registered as a legal gun owner) be applied to gun ownership?

dneal
May 17th, 2016, 06:36 PM
The way I see it, the problem is that there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who own guns who, for various reasons, frankly should not own them. Even Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court in recent history, has stated that the second amendment was never meant to allow the mentally insane or violent criminals to own guns while writing an opinion on a Second Amendment case a few years ago.

Frankly, I think anyone who wants to own a gun should be required to under go some sort of training and licensing, to make sure they are competent to own a gun as well as use and care for it responsibly. An appropriate criminal violation or diagnosis of dangerous mental health conditions would result in suspension of that license. This shouldn't be considered that onerous as most of the responsible gun owners I know already participate in some sort of training (or have appropriate military and/or law enforcement training). If nothing else, the effort to go through such training would probably discourage those who are too stupid (but otherwise have no other "red flags" on their backgrounds) to responsibly own and use a gun from wanting to jump through the hoops to purchase one, or at the very least show that they are indeed too stupid to own one and would thereby never pass the training course.

Interesting. What other rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution should we place prerequisites on, before allowing individuals to exercise them?

We already have pre-requisites for one right specifically enumerated in the Constitution: the right to vote (see the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments for where the right to vote is enumerated as a Constitutional right). At the very least, one must be at least 18 years old to vote. Also, some sort of registration is allowed for voting, so long as the registration itself doesn't violate the rules set forth in those aforementioned amendments (i.e. no sex or race based discrimination, no poll tax, and so on). In addition, some states already rescind the right to vote to anyone convicted of a felony (although, admittedly, I'm not sure what the Constitutional status of this disqualification is offhand as I'm not sure if it has ever been challenged in court).

So if we can require registration in order to exercise your right to vote, and deny the right to vote to anyone convicted of a felony, why can't similar rules (with a requirement for training in order to be registered as a legal gun owner) be applied to gun ownership?

The right to vote is not in the same category as the right to free speech (or bear arms). The first 3 amendments are considered "Safeguards to Liberty". The right to vote isn't.

Ignoring that, for your argument to be analogous you would need to add more criteria than simple registration to vote. Is the requirement to complete a 4473 and get a background check to purchase a firearm not more onerous than registration to vote? Should we have training or education before we allow someone to vote? Fees? perhaps limit it to landowners (oh wait, that last part was eventually rejected...).

BTW, you have to be 18 to purchase rifles and shotguns, and 21 to purchase a handgun. Felons cannot possess firearms. Most of your similar rules are already in place.

VertOlive
May 18th, 2016, 12:03 AM
As an aside, the dismissal of VertOlive's argument is disappointing. No reasoning, just waving it away. The fact remains that some people are bigger and stronger than other people. Some of those bigger and stronger people (who might be crazy too, by the way), are malicious and do or intend to do harm to others. Guns negate that. It's a fact, and there are plenty of links throughout the thread to back it up, should you trouble yourself to learn. Although it wasn't you specifically, the "disappointment with homophobes" is disappointing as well. No discussion, no rationale, just "shaming" in lieu of; as if it's the equivalent of cogent thought.


This sort of whimsical and discursive thought pattern so vexes me, I had to go decline some Latin nouns to restore my sanity. But I digress.

Dneal is correct, it is not a gun problem. It is a problem of culture. We are in steep decline and hold few common values. I'll step outside the coloring book lines to say this. For decades we've acclimated to the mining and sapping of violence undermining our culture. We've normalized the abortion of our offspring and marginalized our elderly, veterans, what have you, until we have men breaking down with a gun in their hands and a government who wants us to run to it for safety. That leaves the rest of us needing at least a symbol of security to hold on to.

So let the 2nd amendment stand as is.

pengeezer
May 18th, 2016, 05:10 AM
As an aside, the dismissal of VertOlive's argument is disappointing. No reasoning, just waving it away. The fact remains that some people are bigger and stronger than other people. Some of those bigger and stronger people (who might be crazy too, by the way), are malicious and do or intend to do harm to others. Guns negate that. It's a fact, and there are plenty of links throughout the thread to back it up, should you trouble yourself to learn. Although it wasn't you specifically, the "disappointment with homophobes" is disappointing as well. No discussion, no rationale, just "shaming" in lieu of; as if it's the equivalent of cogent thought.


This sort of whimsical and discursive thought pattern so vexes me, I had to go decline some Latin nouns to restore my sanity. But I digress.

Dneal is correct, it is not a gun problem. It is a problem of culture. We are in steep decline and hold few common values. I'll step outside the coloring book lines to say this. For decades we've acclimated to the mining and sapping of violence undermining our culture. We've normalized the abortion of our offspring and marginalized our elderly, veterans, what have you, until we have men breaking down with a gun in their hands and a government who wants us to run to it for safety. That leaves the rest of us needing at least a symbol of security to hold on to.

So let the 2nd amendment stand as is.


+1. VertOlive is correct;the problem has nothing to do with guns--it has everything to do with culture. Requiring education
on gun ownership or rewriting/replacing the 2nd Amendment doesn't keep those who want to commit an act of
violence from doing so--they're going to be violent regardless of any registration whatsoever. BTW,they don't
need a gun to be violent,either--they can find a myriad of ways to do that. We have allowed our culture to
disintegrate and we're reaping the benefits.




John

Dragonmaster Lou
May 18th, 2016, 08:33 AM
The right to vote is not in the same category as the right to free speech (or bear arms). The first 3 amendments are considered "Safeguards to Liberty". The right to vote isn't.

Can you cite a source (Supreme Court precedent, writing by Founding Fathers, etc.) making this claim that the first 3 amendments are "Safeguard to Liberty," as you so claim? Because, frankly, I think at the very least the 4th and 5th amendments are also important safeguards to liberty. Oh, and no where in the Constitution does it state that any amendment is inherently more valuable than any other amendment, with the exception of amendments that explicitly override prior amendments/clauses.

Going back to the first amendment, by your argument, I should be allowed to perform human sacrifices so long as I make a claim that my religion requires it. Of course, last I checked, human sacrifices were illegal...


Ignoring that, for your argument to be analogous you would need to add more criteria than simple registration to vote. Is the requirement to complete a 4473 and get a background check to purchase a firearm not more onerous than registration to vote? Should we have training or education before we allow someone to vote? Fees? perhaps limit it to landowners (oh wait, that last part was eventually rejected...).

What is a 4473? Is that the standard firearms background check? Fees are already illegal (see "poll taxes").


BTW, you have to be 18 to purchase rifles and shotguns, and 21 to purchase a handgun. Felons cannot possess firearms. Most of your similar rules are already in place.

True, but given how one doesn't need to show proof that one is not a felon for a large subset of legal firearms purchases (from individual sellers, gun shows, online want-ads, etc.), that isn't much of a deterrent. At the very least, the loopholes should be closed so that anyone selling a gun needs to see evidence of the purchaser not being a felon, etc., otherwise they could also be held liable for any crimes committed with said gun. Of course, this won't stop the issue of illegal sales off the back of a truck in a sketchy neighborhood, but said sketchy truck isn't exactly easy to find via a Google search.


This sort of whimsical and discursive thought pattern so vexes me, I had to go decline some Latin nouns to restore my sanity. But I digress.

Dneal is correct, it is not a gun problem. It is a problem of culture. We are in steep decline and hold few common values. I'll step outside the coloring book lines to say this. For decades we've acclimated to the mining and sapping of violence undermining our culture. We've normalized the abortion of our offspring and marginalized our elderly, veterans, what have you, until we have men breaking down with a gun in their hands and a government who wants us to run to it for safety. That leaves the rest of us needing at least a symbol of security to hold on to.

So let the 2nd amendment stand as is.

Again, I'm not proposing banning guns from those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Guns are, regrettably, dangerous in the wrong hands. While people are capable of doing harm with other tools, guns are arguably the most effective tool for doing harm unto others (this is not to say they don't have other uses. I mean, kitchen knives can be used to stab people or to cut up vegetables, for example). I'm only in favor of actions that would limit accessibility of guns to those who are most likely to do harm to others.


+1. VertOlive is correct;the problem has nothing to do with guns--it has everything to do with culture. Requiring education on gun ownership or rewriting/replacing the 2nd Amendment doesn't keep those who want to commit an act of
violence from doing so--they're going to be violent regardless of any registration whatsoever. BTW,they don't need a gun to be violent,either--they can find a myriad of ways to do that. We have allowed our culture to disintegrate and we're reaping the benefits.

Hey, I'm not in favor of rewriting/replacing the 2nd Amendment. I think that there are things that are allowed under the terms of the 2nd amendment that would limit accessibility of guns to those who are most likely to use them to cause harm to others. Of course, reasonable people may disagree. For example, I think the whole "well-regulated militia" clause of the 2nd amendment does allow for some training requirement, given how "well-regulated" means "well-trained" in 18th century language. I believe most gun owners at the time were at least expected, if not required, to participate in town security patrols of some sort given how there wasn't much of the way of government-operated law enforcement (not that I'm arguing that we don't need guns due to the existence of law enforcement). These patrols presumably had at least some sort of semi-regular training, I'd imagine. I also doubt that any of the Founding Fathers though it would be a good idea to let a bunch of yahoos run around brandishing guns irresponsibly. Of course, I'm willing to concede that the Founding Fathers didn't think that there'd be as many yahoos (as opposed to responsible owners) running around with guns as there often seems to be nowadays.

Heck, I don't even consider the kinds of limits I'm proposing to be a major personal political issue. Frankly, I think there are more vexing problems that probably should be addressed first.

As far as being a cultural problem, first, see what I said above about guns being more effective than most other tools that can be applied to performing violence. About the only tool I can think of that would approximate the effectiveness of a gun (whether it's more or less effective is, admittedly, something that is legitimately debatable) would be some sort of motor vehicle, and we have tighter restrictions on acquiring those than we do on guns at present.

Also, if we look at overall statistics with respect to our culture, the overall numbers of violent crimes have gone down over the past 50 years or so. Right now, the main issue is that it appears that the number of "mass violent" crimes (AKA nutjob goes on a shooting spree) has gone up. Most of these "mass violent" crimes seem to be a case of the mentally unstable getting a hold of firearms. Now, with respect to the argument that we're more violent than we used to be... hmm... I'm not quite so sure about that. We no longer have duels to the death (which, admittedly, were limited to one-on-one engagements instead of mass sprees). Lynchings are frowned upon. Violent vigilantism is no longer as common as it was in the 19th century. And as a counter-point, there has been an American fascination with violent, ghastly murder crimes and details in popular culture since at least the 18th century. Back then it was books, newspapers, and the like as opposed to modern day movies, TV shows, and video games, but that fascination has always been there.

dneal
May 18th, 2016, 04:34 PM
Can you cite a source (Supreme Court precedent, writing by Founding Fathers, etc.) making this claim that the first 3 amendments are "Safeguard to Liberty," as you so claim? Because, frankly, I think at the very least the 4th and 5th amendments are also important safeguards to liberty. Oh, and no where in the Constitution does it state that any amendment is inherently more valuable than any other amendment, with the exception of amendments that explicitly override prior amendments/clauses.

I'm on crappy hotel wireless right now, so I'll see what I can do next week. It's vogue to group the amendments as safeguards to liberty, justice (i.e.: the 4th and 5th you mention), and civil rights. I don't necessarily agree with those categorizations, but the do make some sense. The "where in the Constitution does it say..." bit is a red herring. The constitution doesn't specifically say that over-ridden amendments are inherently less valuable. I think there is merit to the notion that the first 10 - the bill of rights - were what the founders considered the most vital.


Going back to the first amendment, by your argument, I should be allowed to perform human sacrifices so long as I make a claim that my religion requires it. Of course, last I checked, human sacrifices were illegal...

No, that's not my argument and I don't believe you can point out where I made it. I simply asked if you thought there should be prerequisites to exercising other fundamental rights (and I apologize, because I had the first 10 in mind). Read the first amendment again though, it says "Congress shall make no law..." not "the individual right to practice their religion however they see fit shall not be infringed".


What is a 4473? Is that the standard firearms background check? Fees are already illegal (see "poll taxes").

Yes, that is what a 4473 is. Poll taxes being illegal is my point (and I'd have to search, but I think the SC found them unconstitutional too).


True, but given how one doesn't need to show proof that one is not a felon for a large subset of legal firearms purchases (from individual sellers, gun shows, online want-ads, etc.), that isn't much of a deterrent. At the very least, the loopholes should be closed so that anyone selling a gun needs to see evidence of the purchaser not being a felon, etc., otherwise they could also be held liable for any crimes committed with said gun. Of course, this won't stop the issue of illegal sales off the back of a truck in a sketchy neighborhood, but said sketchy truck isn't exactly easy to find via a Google search.

Purchases from a firearms dealer require a background check before transfer. It doesn't matter if the sale was initiated online, at a gun-show, or online ad. There is no loophole.


Again, I'm not proposing banning guns from those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Guns are, regrettably, dangerous in the wrong hands. While people are capable of doing harm with other tools, guns are arguably the most effective tool for doing harm unto others (this is not to say they don't have other uses. I mean, kitchen knives can be used to stab people or to cut up vegetables, for example). I'm only in favor of actions that would limit accessibility of guns to those who are most likely to do harm to others.

The problem is that argument only "briefs well". Putting it into practice is not practical. Otherwise legal person who legally purchased a firearm has a fit of rage... how do you prevent that. Otherwise legal person who bought gun suffers from mental condition 10 years later and goes on a shooting spree... how do you prevent that?

As I said before, even if you could magically prevent them from having guns, there are still lots of ways they can cause mass casualties. Home-made bombs (largest school massacre in history was via explosives, btw), vehicle (think about a crazy person near a festival, parade, school zone in the morning or afternoon...) etc.

Guns are sensational, but statistically insignificant. They also prevent and/or stop crazy people.

Dragonmaster Lou
May 19th, 2016, 12:13 PM
They also prevent and/or stop crazy people.
Perhaps, but only with proper training. Otherwise the gun user, no matter what their intentions may be, is just as likely to inadvertently hit innocents as the bad guy/s. That's also ignoring gun users who, frankly, are way too trigger happy and may escalate to gun usage when the situation doesn't call for it (although this case is probably more an example of criminal excessive use of force as opposed to simply not being a good shot in a stressful situation).

Dragonmaster Lou
May 19th, 2016, 12:31 PM
I'm on crappy hotel wireless right now, so I'll see what I can do next week. It's vogue to group the amendments as safeguards to liberty, justice (i.e.: the 4th and 5th you mention), and civil rights. I don't necessarily agree with those categorizations, but the do make some sense. The "where in the Constitution does it say..." bit is a red herring. The constitution doesn't specifically say that over-ridden amendments are inherently less valuable. I think there is merit to the notion that the first 10 - the bill of rights - were what the founders considered the most vital.

Well, my language probably wasn't clear... but by "less valuable," I should've meant "no longer applicable, as they have been overridden." For example, the amendment establishing prohibition is no longer applicable (and arguably no longer valuable as it cannot be enforced) as it was later repealed by another amendment.

I'd also argue that amendments that protect one's voting rights are just as important as any amendments that protect one's other civil rights.


Poll taxes being illegal is my point (and I'd have to search, but I think the SC found them unconstitutional too).
Actually, they were explicitly banned by the 24th amendment.


Purchases from a firearms dealer require a background check before transfer. It doesn't matter if the sale was initiated online, at a gun-show, or online ad. There is no loophole.
That only applies to licensed (presumably professional) firearms dealers. If I, as J-random Individual, just take out a want-ad on craigslist to sell a gun I had in my possession and I am not an actual dealer, I don't need to make any background checks.



Again, I'm not proposing banning guns from those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Guns are, regrettably, dangerous in the wrong hands. While people are capable of doing harm with other tools, guns are arguably the most effective tool for doing harm unto others (this is not to say they don't have other uses. I mean, kitchen knives can be used to stab people or to cut up vegetables, for example). I'm only in favor of actions that would limit accessibility of guns to those who are most likely to do harm to others.

The problem is that argument only "briefs well". Putting it into practice is not practical. Otherwise legal person who legally purchased a firearm has a fit of rage... how do you prevent that. Otherwise legal person who bought gun suffers from mental condition 10 years later and goes on a shooting spree... how do you prevent that?

Well, the devil is in the details, I give you that. Fit of rage problems, well, that always has been and always will be a problem so long as firearms are legal (and again, I'm not advocating for banning). Dangerously mentally ill people may have to be required to turn over any firearms in their possession (perhaps to some sort of "escrow" or trusted associate of the mentally ill person or something so that they can be returned to him if he recovers or his next of kin if he doesn't -- I'm not into absolute confiscation), but I admit that could be difficult to enforce as well. Really, stronger enforcement/regulations probably would only block new purchases to mentally ill, felons, etc., but I agree that dealing with previously owned weapons could be a difficult, if not impossible, issue to address.


As I said before, even if you could magically prevent them from having guns, there are still lots of ways they can cause mass casualties. Home-made bombs (largest school massacre in history was via explosives, btw), vehicle (think about a crazy person near a festival, parade, school zone in the morning or afternoon...) etc.

Guns are sensational, but statistically insignificant. They also prevent and/or stop crazy people.

Well, I did mention that one of the only common tools with legitimate uses that could rival a gun for efficiency in causing murder and mayhem is a motor vehicle, so I see your point (although there are stricter motor vehicle controls than gun controls, but let's skip discussion of that aspect as it would probably just rehash prior arguments on both sides). Home-made bombs, well, they are outright illegal and have no legitimate uses, so that's a separate issue as well, but I agree to your point as to how much damage they can do.

As far as guns stopping and/or preventing crazy people, that may be the case, but only with proper training. Without proper training, the good guy with a gun is just as likely to inadvertently hit innocents as the bad guy they are trying to target. A lot of people without prior experience and/or training have no idea how difficult it is to accurately use firearms in a stressful situation such as trying to target a dangerous individual in a crowd of innocents. There's also the problem of overly trigger-happy gun users who may escalate situations to the use of deadly force when it's not necessary, but this is more akin to a scenario of criminal excessive use of force instead of simply being a bad shot when stressed.

VertOlive
May 19th, 2016, 09:10 PM
"Perhaps, but only with proper training. Otherwise the gun user, no matter what their intentions may be, is just as likely to inadvertently hit innocents as the bad guy/s. That's also ignoring gun users who, frankly, are way too trigger happy and may escalate to gun usage when the situation doesn't call for it (although this case is probably more an example of criminal excessive use of force as opposed to simply not being a good shot in a stressful situation)."

Yes you said that. Those of us who are licensed to carry our firearms take regular training seriously and it becomes a pastime. We shoot stationary targets. We seek out activities in which we must move and shoot. Then we take more training. The longer we do it, the more cautious we are, having blown it many times in practice. We lock the guns up when we get home. There will be criminals and crazies. Most people meet their end in the middle of the bell curve by illness or traffic fatality rather than on the outliers of taking a stray round at the all night drive through...my point being that there is little you can do to insulate from random chance and you will never extract every unregistered gun from every unsavory owner.

Which is why the rest of us who want them must be allowed to have them.

dneal
May 20th, 2016, 04:34 AM
As far as guns stopping and/or preventing crazy people, that may be the case, but only with proper training. Without proper training, the good guy with a gun is just as likely to inadvertently hit innocents as the bad guy they are trying to target. A lot of people without prior experience and/or training have no idea how difficult it is to accurately use firearms in a stressful situation such as trying to target a dangerous individual in a crowd of innocents. There's also the problem of overly trigger-happy gun users who may escalate situations to the use of deadly force when it's not necessary, but this is more akin to a scenario of criminal excessive use of force instead of simply being a bad shot when stressed.

It seems there isn't a great deal of debate with the other items addressed, so I'll skip them; but I'll confess to clearly having a brain-cramp on the 24th amendment bit...

Anyway, I do have concerns with people owning guns that have no idea about basic safety or use; or who have "something to prove" / the stereotypical small genitalia joke, etc...

At first glance, thinking about these sorts of individuals leads me to support the notion of mandatory training. But, there are many anecdotal cases of "trained" individuals using guns improperly - whether it's the YouTube video of the "tactical" guy inadvertently shooting himself in the leg as he's "practicing" some sort of quick-draw technique, the overzealous policeman with "guns blazing", etc... Statistically, how often does this happen? I don't think any studies have been conducted, but I don't think it's particularly common, and even less so for bystanders to be affected. What does seem to be the case (based on Gary Kleck's research) is that the simple introduction of a gun into a scenario de-escalates the situation with no shots being fired. In cases of defensive gun use where shots are fired, bystanders don't seem to be injured (and again, I don't think the research has been done but am thinking about why we never hear about it...).

The flip side is perhaps the stereotypical "drive-by", where many rounds are fired at a person/car/house and bystanders are injured or killed. Again, I doubt it's a statistically significant cause of death or injury, and it's isolated to certain metropolitan areas. Those types of individuals are not obtaining guns legally, and they're not concerned with safety; so it is doubtful that any law is going to reduce those types of instances.

Training is required for concealed carry, but it is basic legal considerations and a proficiency test. Perhaps ironically, firearms training was once part of school curriculum. Although the intent was to establish fundamentals of marksmanship for future possible military service, it did teach gun safety. Should we reintroduce something like this?

FredRydr
May 20th, 2016, 12:36 PM
First, there is no "gun" problem.... ...Have the balls to just say it, instead of creating smug pseudo-intellectual sideshows. Second, there is no "crazy people getting their hands on guns" problem. This is because there is no gun problem....(emphasis added)

Comment isn't even necessary; the foregoing speaks for itself.

Fred

Empty_of_Clouds
May 20th, 2016, 06:29 PM
Motor vehicle traffic deaths in the US.

Number of deaths: 33,804
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths in the US.

Number of deaths: 33,636
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6



Vehicle use is, I would imagine, a great deal more common than gun use. Correct me if you have evidence to show this is not the case.


So, those who are talking about the numbers of gun deaths being insignificant should be cautious in making such statements, as they are no less significant than vehicle related deaths.


For the record, these statistics were extracted from data collected and analysed by the CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a body that is considered to be somewhat authoritative when it comes to epidemiological studies.

Edit: this is data from 2013. I cannot at this time find more up to date data.

dneal
May 21st, 2016, 05:15 AM
Motor vehicle traffic deaths in the US.

Number of deaths: 33,804
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths in the US.

Number of deaths: 33,636
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6



Vehicle use is, I would imagine, a great deal more common than gun use. Correct me if you have evidence to show this is not the case.


So, those who are talking about the numbers of gun deaths being insignificant should be cautious in making such statements, as they are no less significant than vehicle related deaths.


For the record, these statistics were extracted from data collected and analysed by the CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a body that is considered to be somewhat authoritative when it comes to epidemiological studies.

Edit: this is data from 2013. I cannot at this time find more up to date data.

Now remove suicides from gun deaths. It's a BS way of inflating the number to prove an irrelevant point. Japan has a higher suicide rate but essentially no guns.

Don't want to do that, because it's about saving lives? Fine, ban cars too then and let's prevent all those unnecessary deaths. Heck, we don't even need a Constitutional amendment to do it.

But... Cars are useful! Well, then your argument isn't about saving lives. It's about getting rid of something that you don't like.

But... The benefit of cars outweighs the deaths! Fine. Then factor in the 800k-2.5M defensive gun uses per year. Those are assaults, homicides, robberies, rapes and other crime that didn't happen because of guns.

Stop searching for 'facts' that support your opinion, and look at the issue objectively.

Crazyorange
May 21st, 2016, 10:06 AM
Stop searching for 'facts' that support your opinion, and look at the issue objectively.[/QUOTE]

Hummmm...I do believe you've been quoting stats as well. What's good for goose isn't good for the gander?

Let's face it, looking "objectively" only depends what YOU want to hear.

dneal
May 21st, 2016, 11:15 AM
Stop searching for 'facts' that support your opinion, and look at the issue objectively.

Hummmm...I do believe you've been quoting stats as well. What's good for goose isn't good for the gander?

Let's face it, looking "objectively" only depends what YOU want to hear.

Go back and read the thread. Read the links. I approached it objectively. I read the old CDC studies (before they were forbidden from spending money on any more). I searched for the academic critiques of them. Most of them fell apart. I found John Lott and Gary Kleck on the 'pro' side of the issue, read their work, and then looked for the academic critiques. I'm talking true academic publications submitted for peer review. Their work still stands, after 20 years. The CDC's last study, authorized by the current president, confirms Lott's work.

Empty_of_Clouds
May 21st, 2016, 07:07 PM
The way you present your arguments suggest that you are cherry picking among the reports for those that support your view. I'm sorry but that is how it reads on this thread.

I would suggest you provide links for the academic critiques. Bear in mind that I would prefer systematic reviews, or even better a meta analysis, rather than your personal opinion. Also, I work in academic research and have been a peer reviewer. I don't mention this as a point to authority - as I do not claim to be such - more to highlight that I have some familiarity with the process and know how to assess papers. I have no doubt that I am as subject to various biases as anyone else in a research field, maybe more so as I am relatively new to it.

However, as you have raised the point about academic critiques I believe it is incumbent upon you to provide the links rather than expecting me to go and find them.


Whether gun deaths are third party or suicides is an irrelevant point with regard to numbers of deaths by method. Your point seeks only to distract from this. The CDC data simply provides the numbers, it does not seek to interpret or find meaning in it. There are two questions here: one, is the number of deaths associated with firearm use high enough to be a cause for concern, and two, if the numbers are high enough what are the significant risk factors and predictors?

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 08:43 AM
The way you present your arguments suggest that you are cherry picking among the reports for those that support your view. I'm sorry but that is how it reads on this thread.

That explains why I haven't posted opinion pieces - Right? Look, I've done the homework and come to a conclusion. Of course my arguments support the conclusion I've been convinced of. Feel free to post the CDC study that shows family members are more likely to be killed than bad guys. Then, I'll post the many academic critiques of it and its methodology. That's the way debate works. You seem to have come to the party with a view, and are now scrambling for data that supports it.

I allowed for the "opposition's" position. 800k defensive gun uses instead of Kleck's 2.5M. I've allowed for the inflated 30k number of gun deaths that include suicides. Even when I factor the worst case, I come to the conclusion that 30k deaths is preferable to 800k rapes, robberies, assaults, murders, or whatever those prevented crimes might have been. 30k is .01% of the population.


I would suggest you provide links for the academic critiques. Bear in mind that I would prefer systematic reviews, or even better a meta analysis, rather than your personal opinion. Also, I work in academic research and have been a peer reviewer. I don't mention this as a point to authority - as I do not claim to be such - more to highlight that I have some familiarity with the process and know how to assess papers. I have no doubt that I am as subject to various biases as anyone else in a research field, maybe more so as I am relatively new to it.

However, as you have raised the point about academic critiques I believe it is incumbent upon you to provide the links rather than expecting me to go and find them.

You think it's incumbent upon me to provide you the links to any critique? Seriously? Then you should also post all the critiques of your position. I shouldn't be expected to go find those, after all. I'm sorry, but that's absurd. My discipline is Philosophy, with a focus on sentential logic.

Did you bother to read the paper by Kleck that I did post the link to? Did you bother to watch the entirety of the debate I posted? While you were searching for CDC data, did you bother to read the 2013 study (http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1) ordered by President Obama?

What about Lott's work? Have you read More Guns, Less Crime (http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463925397&sr=1-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime) by John Lott? Did you even bother to browse the Amazon reviews? I'm not going to provide you Donohue's argument against it, or Lott's rebuttal of Donohue, if you're not going to bother with reading the source material.


Whether gun deaths are third party or suicides is an irrelevant point with regard to numbers of deaths by method. Your point seeks only to distract from this. The CDC data simply provides the numbers, it does not seek to interpret or find meaning in it. There are two questions here: one, is the number of deaths associated with firearm use high enough to be a cause for concern, and two, if the numbers are high enough what are the significant risk factors and predictors?

Actually, this pseudo-argument seeks to distract from the fact that you can't or won't argue the facts of the point that I made. Why did you bother to post the data in the first place, unless you were attempting to make an implication? Asserting that you did not intend to have it interpreted or imply meaning is disingenuous. Furthermore, I offered each permutation of argument that can be derived from it. Feel free to add one I missed. I will wager that the answers to your "new" questions are in my previous commentary, but I'll go ahead and answer them specifically.

No, the numbers of firearm deaths are not high enough to be cause for concern. Furthermore, it is a meaningless metric because it does not look at the root cause(s), which your second point begins to. There is a distinct difference between evaluating suicides, and the method by which they are done; and "firearm deaths", and the circumstances involved.

It is the intellectual equivalent of evaluating death by doctor; without bothering to distinguish between high-risk complications, low survivability rates categorized by type of medical issue, and simple doctor negligence. The correct approach is to examine how to reduce doctor negligence, or how to improve survivability for specific illnesses.

FredRydr
May 22nd, 2016, 08:59 AM
Actually, this pseudo-argument seeks to distract from the fact that you can't or won't argue the facts of the point that I made.
You need to learn the definition of "fact."

Since your method of debate starts from a premise that something "is" as a tautological thing (e.g., "First, there is no gun problem...") and then treat that as a "fact" to support your remaining argument (e.g., "...[t]his is because there is no gun problem...") is specious at best, and intellectual vacuity at its worst. Therefore, it's a waste of time to engage in an exchange with you. The use of gun would likely resolve the issue just as well. Many Americans prefer the latter, since we make it extremely convenient.

Fred

Crazyorange
May 22nd, 2016, 09:00 AM
I did ask if Lott was pro guns....which you never replied. So did a quick google....Lott is pro guns and has strong NRA connections. "Objectively" pro gun.

Without banning guns, what would you recommend to change to lessen the negative impact of improper gun usage? Jail time? Financial penalties? Or am I correct, you want nothing to change?

That said I did get a good laugh from last nights Saturday night live....if you're pro gun don't watch.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-52116-part-1-of-2/3039812

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 10:01 AM
Actually, this pseudo-argument seeks to distract from the fact that you can't or won't argue the facts of the point that I made.
You need to learn the definition of "fact."

Since your method of debate starts from a premise that something "is" as a tautological thing (e.g., "First, there is no gun problem...") and then treat that as a "fact" to support your remaining argument (e.g., "...[t]his is because there is no gun problem...") is specious at best, and intellectual vacuity at its worst. Therefore, it's a waste of time to engage in an exchange with you. The use of gun would likely resolve the issue just as well. Many Americans prefer the latter, since we make it extremely convenient.

Fred

If we're going to be pedantic, you're wrongly claiming that I called my opinion or assertion a "fact". There are also multiple uses of words, depending on the vernacular or context. You have the option of trying to understand my point, and offer commentary; or you have the option to focus on semantics and waste electrons. If you're going to do the latter, then yes, it probably is a waste of time having an exchange (which you did anyway, despite your protest...).

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 10:34 AM
I did ask if Lott was pro guns....which you never replied. So did a quick google....Lott is pro guns and has strong NRA connections. "Objectively" pro gun.

Without banning guns, what would you recommend to change to lessen the negative impact of improper gun usage? Jail time? Financial penalties? Or am I correct, you want nothing to change?

That said I did get a good laugh from last nights Saturday night live....if you're pro gun don't watch.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-52116-part-1-of-2/3039812

He, like Kleck, are indeed "pro-gun". If you look at their history, they were neither before their studies. Their research led them to being "pro-gun". Examine their data, their arguments, and their oppositions' arguments and come to a conclusion. I find it convincing, and I've looked at the arguments against.

I'm "pro-truth". If you want to influence my world-view, do it with a comprehensive argument. "They're pro-gun" isn't a very strong argument, and neither is "John Donohue is anti-gun". I don't pay any attention to propaganda from either side, and lord knows there is a lot of it.

For the last part, I don't really know. Most "improper gun usage" is already illegal. What specifically are you wanting to change? The 2013 CDC report concludes that "mass shootings", for example, account for a very small portion of gun deaths, and are declining. Is it already in the realm of acceptable? There is no way to mitigate all risk to human life. Toddlers still drown in toilets, tubs and swimming pools. It's tragic, especially to the families; but at what point does the cost outweigh the benefit? We could prevent toddler drowning in toilets, tubs and swimming pools by outlawing and eliminating them. We could replace all western style toilets with the "hole in the floor" style found in other parts of the world. Why not just outlaw tubs and require showers only? Who really needs a swimming pool?

Empty_of_Clouds
May 22nd, 2016, 12:03 PM
Fred, you are quite correct. Further argument is without point.

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 12:09 PM
Fred, you are quite correct. Further argument is without point.

This passive-aggressiveness is ridiculous, and a poor substitute for vigorous debate. I'll take your post as your concession of your position though.

Empty_of_Clouds
May 22nd, 2016, 12:17 PM
No surprises there then!

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 12:28 PM
No surprises there then!

Based on all the hand-wringing you do about pens, no it doesn't surprise me in the least.

It's disappointing that you and others have chosen to turn this thread nasty though. I can play at that too.

Empty_of_Clouds
May 22nd, 2016, 01:19 PM
Unrelated argument - scores no points, sorry.


Okay, I've got to go to work but I am going to leave you with this.

I would like to know what tools you used to assess the papers you read. I don't know how you do research in Philosophy, but in the sciences there are methods of study quality assessment. Personal opinion of papers doesn't really count for much.

Did the papers examine the right cohort? Did they ask the right questions? Was their statistical analysis methodology appropriate? How did they eliminate various biases? How was the cohort chosen, what were the controls and comparison groups? What were the limitations on the studies? And so on. If you cannot answer these questions it means you didn't actually assess the papers. You only formed an opinion.

Peer review doesn't just happen at the point of publication. It is sometimes alarmingly easy for stuff to slip through the gaps. Take Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent research paper on vaccines and mmr that got published in one of the most prestigious medical journals around. I'm not saying the papers you have read are like that, only that vigilance is key when interpreting these documents.

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 02:10 PM
John Lott's work and data have been available for testing since the late 90's. This is a 20+ year fight between data nerds. This paper (http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/MoodyMarvellCommentSeptember2008.pdf) probably best summarizes the issue in a fair manner, and it's 8 years old. This paper (http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=2741130640650750670900681250700831 07105033003077055038110067080100121119005107013071 00103003100301203200210110702503011202902403903806 40790791180110860121171200890070500030971190080660 82126008091108123069019090097006123093099098098123 007069108083&EXT=pdf) is a little more recent, and covers the most recent developments.

I would be interested in your thoughts after reading them. Lott is involved with the writing of the second paper, and Moody does tend to support Lott's position.

Empty_of_Clouds
May 22nd, 2016, 02:39 PM
You didn't answer my questions. If you cannot support your opinion on the quality of the papers with a good rigorous methodology then you should say so. I will look at the papers when I get more time.

Also, to note, in my citing of the CDC data (not report) I was looking at the raw numbers of deaths caused by method. I haven't even begun to delve into possible risk factors. As epidemiology is a 'thing' for me and my work I don't approach it lightly or casually.

As a further aside I am a little interested in how any of the studies managed to measure non-events, i.e. something not happening due to a cause, and how you would apply that rationale to (in my cited example) motor vehicles. That is a very difficult question.


EDIT: For the lay person looking at statistics and epidemiology I would recommend reading the book Freakonomics to get a flavour of how counter-intuitive statistics can often seem, and how tricky they can be to interpret - even for experts.

FredRydr
May 22nd, 2016, 03:04 PM
I'll take your post as your concession of your position though.
:crazy:


...you and others have chosen to turn this thread nasty though. I can play at that too.
:nono:

Fred

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 04:10 PM
You didn't answer my questions. If you cannot support your opinion on the quality of the papers with a good rigorous methodology then you should say so. I will look at the papers when I get more time.

Also, to note, in my citing of the CDC data (not report) I was looking at the raw numbers of deaths caused by method. I haven't even begun to delve into possible risk factors. As epidemiology is a 'thing' for me and my work I don't approach it lightly or casually.

As a further aside I am a little interested in how any of the studies managed to measure non-events, i.e. something not happening due to a cause, and how you would apply that rationale to (in my cited example) motor vehicles. That is a very difficult question.


EDIT: For the lay person looking at statistics and epidemiology I would recommend reading the book Freakonomics to get a flavour of how counter-intuitive statistics can often seem, and how tricky they can be to interpret - even for experts.

I approach all arguments the same way. Are the premises valid? Is the logic sound? Does the conclusion necessarily follow? What is the competing argument, and how does it fare? It's why I don't bother with opinion pieces. Pro or con, they fail in the construction of logical argument and rely on selective premises, arguments from emotion, etc...

I agree that data and the math can be manipulated. I can trust that the data sets and calculations are valid, test them myself (and that level of compilation is beyond my expertise), or I can examine the data and conclusions reached by others using the same data sets. In all cases, I read the arguments that go along with the data and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 04:13 PM
:crazy:


...you and others have chosen to turn this thread nasty though. I can play at that too.
:nono:

Fred

You're welcome to offer something constructive, you know.

Empty_of_Clouds
May 22nd, 2016, 04:27 PM
You didn't answer my questions. If you cannot support your opinion on the quality of the papers with a good rigorous methodology then you should say so. I will look at the papers when I get more time.

Also, to note, in my citing of the CDC data (not report) I was looking at the raw numbers of deaths caused by method. I haven't even begun to delve into possible risk factors. As epidemiology is a 'thing' for me and my work I don't approach it lightly or casually.

As a further aside I am a little interested in how any of the studies managed to measure non-events, i.e. something not happening due to a cause, and how you would apply that rationale to (in my cited example) motor vehicles. That is a very difficult question.


EDIT: For the lay person looking at statistics and epidemiology I would recommend reading the book Freakonomics to get a flavour of how counter-intuitive statistics can often seem, and how tricky they can be to interpret - even for experts.

I approach all arguments the same way. Are the premises valid? Is the logic sound? Does the conclusion necessarily follow? What is the competing argument, and how does it fare? It's why I don't bother with opinion pieces. Pro or con, they fail in the construction of logical argument and rely on selective premises, arguments from emotion, etc...

I agree that data and the math can be manipulated. I can trust that the data sets and calculations are valid, test them myself (and that level of compilation is beyond my expertise), or I can examine the data and conclusions reached by others using the same data sets. In all cases, I read the arguments that go along with the data and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

In order for a study to be deemed of good quality it has meet certain criteria. You still haven't explained how you evaluate the strengths and weaknesses. There is a range of existing tools that are used in this field. If you're not using any of them then your evaluation has little validity.

This is going to be a sticking point I'm afraid, but it's an important one if you want to discuss this kind of paper sensibly.

TAYLORPUPPY
May 22nd, 2016, 05:22 PM
Yes, I understand.
I get both sides of this, I really do.

There's the,
"What should come first, personal rights or community rights ?", that HughC nicely summarized.

Verses the,
'if guns are banned only the criminals will have them' /
"the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", that stonerman33 also nicely put forward.

What I'm saying is that this is a never ending rhetorical argument that blows up every 6 weeks or so when there's yet another mass shooting that, I think, can be solved by a country wide referendum.

Basically, let democracy work it out in a no holes barred, 2 go in, 1 comes out fight for gun freedom or gun control.

Power to the people; right on.

Cheers,
Noel

We are not a Democracy

TAYLORPUPPY
May 22nd, 2016, 05:24 PM
Ok, so to summarise, can't win, don't try.

As a non-American I didn't realize that the US doesn't have country wide referenda. So I guess to get any constitutional admendments through you'd have to wrangle all of the 50 states. Now it all makes sense why it's impossible to change direction on gun control.

I wonder how this will unfold over the next couple of hundred years as weapons become ever more sophisticated?

I'll end all this with a quote Arnie in The Terminator film, "Plasma rifle in the 40 Watt range".

Cheers
Noel

I thought you didn't have a side in this issue

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 05:25 PM
I explained it, you just don't seem to like the answer. Shall I borrow a play from your book and just declare it an unrelated argument?

Are you interested in a discussion on guns and the 2nd amendment in the U.S.? Do you intend to read the links I posted? You did ask for some, after all.

TAYLORPUPPY
May 22nd, 2016, 05:34 PM
I want banana chocolate pudding.

-d

You wanted banana pudding a year ago

Empty_of_Clouds
May 22nd, 2016, 05:49 PM
I'm sorry, you were the one who has repeatedly stated that you want to stick with facts and not opinions. If you want to do that then I expect some scientific rigour. Not seen any yet.

In post #178 I gave the following set of examples. Obviously not an exhaustive list but one that gives a general idea of the approach to critical appraisal.


Did the papers examine the right cohort? Did they ask the right questions? Was their statistical analysis methodology appropriate? How did they eliminate various biases? How was the cohort chosen, what were the controls and comparison groups? What were the limitations on the studies? And so on. If you cannot answer these questions it means you didn't actually assess the papers. You only formed an opinion.

Did you examine these points (and other related ones)? C'mon, it's a simple enough question. Yes or no.

At the moment all I'm seeing is sidestepping.

FredRydr
May 22nd, 2016, 06:07 PM
You're welcome to offer something constructive, you know.
There's no point with you (see above). And now you threaten to "turn this thread nasty" because you've pronounced others as having done so, where the only nastiness (if one could even call it that) is not accepting your premises.

Fred

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 06:08 PM
At the moment all I'm seeing is sidestepping.

Curiously, that's what I'm seeing as well.

Empty_of_Clouds
May 22nd, 2016, 06:14 PM
Rubbish. I'm quite happy to discuss these issues but it has to be on terms that are clearly defined to all. At the moment I am asking you to provide a statement that you appraised the papers (in your links) in the approved manner generally expected by the scientific community. You have repeatedly failed to do so. Considering that you are strident concerning facts over opinions this is somewhat perplexing

However, if you want to drop your assertion about being factual, and instead adopt the position that what you have said is actually just your opinion (which is far more likely given what I've read here), then we can discuss it within that framework.

I am not sidestepping anything. What I am trying to avoid is playing with your loaded dice.

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 06:15 PM
You're welcome to offer something constructive, you know.
There's no point with you (see above). And now you threaten to "turn this thread nasty" because you've pronounced others as having done so, where the only nastiness is not accepting your premises.

Fred

If that's what you think, you can always stop participating. You do keep threatening it. You certainly haven't offered anything to advance the conversation, from even the first page.

I'm not emotionally invested in this topic. I'd like to discuss it. I'm not particularly interested in the random posting of statistics that are claimed to have no meaning, or the hyperbolic opinion. I'll still comment on them, as I see fit.

FredRydr
May 22nd, 2016, 06:27 PM
Face it; dneal will never acknowledge his circuitous method of supporting so-called "facts" with what are his opinions.

Empty, he's all yours if you want him, but to me, his method of "conversation" is a waste of your/our time. Jo mamma!

Fred

Empty_of_Clouds
May 22nd, 2016, 06:32 PM
I'm not particularly interested in the random posting of statistics that are claimed to have no meaning, or the hyperbolic opinion.

I said that I was commenting on the numbers and not the CDC's interpretation of them. That's quite different. Neither have I offered any hyperbolic opinion. I have simply asked questions and received little by way of answers.

And you are wrong to dismiss gun related suicides from overall gun related deaths. That's popularly referred to as massaging the data.

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 06:46 PM
Rubbish. I'm quite happy to discuss these issues but it has to be on terms that are clearly defined to all. At the moment I am asking you to provide a statement that you appraised the papers (in your links) in the approved manner generally expected by the scientific community. You have repeatedly failed to do so. Considering that you are strident concerning facts over opinions this is somewhat perplexing

However, if you want to drop your assertion about being factual, and instead adopt the position that what you have said is actually just your opinion (which is far more likely given what I've read here), then we can discuss it within that framework.

I am not sidestepping anything. What I am trying to avoid is playing with your loaded dice.

Should we begin again then? Would you like me to start?

It is unfortunate that violence exists. Guns certainly do make doing violence easier. They also make defending against violence easier. I assert that the latter outweighs the former, and that guns in the hands of decent people creates enough risk in the mind of the miscreant that it causes them to avoid that risk. My justification for holding this belief is based primarily on the work of Lott and Kleck. I have searched for proof to the contrary, but have not found it yet. I am open to it.

A question that has been poorly presented is: "How do we minimize the ability of ill-intentioned or mentally disturbed people to kill or injure innocents with guns?". It is a question I do not have an easy answer to. Most efforts seem to involve restrictions and background checks, and I think there is strong evidence to indicate that those efforts have little effect. I am hesitant to agree with more or different restrictions, as they are likely to impact the ability to defend against violence. Some nations that have banned guns, or placed onerous restrictions on owning them, have seen a rise in violent crime. I am hesitant to compare nations, as that is also comparing different cultures; but I should not completely ignore apparent consequences.

The topic is charged with emotion, although I am not emotional about it. Many arguments use that appeal to emotion as their basis. "If it saves just one life", is a stereotypical example. Aside from the "argument from emotion" being fallacious, if you apply the rationale to other problems in some Kantian 'categorical imperative' fashion; the argument suddenly doesn't carry as much weight to the person advocating it. I.E.: "We should ban all guns. If it just saves one life...". Well, what about the plethora of things that also applies to? Guns are pretty low on the list for causes of death. To me, it is evidence of the insincerity of the person making the argument; and I therefore suspect their motives.

I do find old arguments tiresome. "The 2nd amendment uses the words 'militia', and 'regulated'", for example. While I admit the amendment is poorly worded, a little reading would quickly inform one what the relevant definitions and context are. There are ridiculous arguments about the founders only meaning muskets, which is equally absurd. Still, I do my part and try to present information for consideration.

I'm happy to expound on any of that, consider reasoned arguments, etc... I'm not interested in fallacious arguments designed to "win" a silly internet battle. I'm quite secure in my person and world view, and have no need to 'win' anything.

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 06:52 PM
I'm not particularly interested in the random posting of statistics that are claimed to have no meaning, or the hyperbolic opinion.

I said that I was commenting on the numbers and not the CDC's interpretation of them. That's quite different. Neither have I offered any hyperbolic opinion. I have simply asked questions and received little by way of answers.

And you are wrong to dismiss gun related suicides from overall gun related deaths. That's popularly referred to as massaging the data.

In the spirit of my last post - I think it is important to distinguish suicides when considering possible gun policies relating to gun violence, if the "gun death" numbers are going to be used as a basis for developing those policies. Similarly, accidental shootings should be removed from consideration if one is determining approaches to gun use and gang violence. They should be included if "gun safety" is the focus. I don't see why this is a contentious issue.

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 06:53 PM
Face it; dneal will never acknowledge his circuitous method of supporting so-called "facts" with what are his opinions.

Empty, he's all yours if you want him, but to me, his method of "conversation" is a waste of your/our time. Jo mamma!

Fred

And I'm the nasty one... :rolleyes:

Empty_of_Clouds
May 22nd, 2016, 07:26 PM
dneal, you are starting the discussion with a premise which has not yet been established. You are also determined - it seems - to push violence and gun deaths together. However, in the course of an inquiry that is rather putting the cart before the horse.

I'm going to go back to the CDC data for a moment because it is simpler to grasp. Their data shows, according to available records, that the level of gun related deaths per 100,000 people is more or less the same as for vehicle related deaths. This isn't an opinion, it's a verifiable fact (at least for 2013). The situation surrounding each and every death in both cases has not been touched upon. That comes later.

It would be very interesting - and I cannot find a source for this yet - to see data that compares the usage times for both guns and vehicles. The reason why this is important is because even common sense will tell us that vehicles get used far more, by a far greater number of people every day, than guns. So, deaths per 100,000 doesn't necessarily tell us a great deal.

How about the likelihood of a death resulting from a single use of either? The purpose behind using a vehicle and using a gun are diametrically opposite. If I draw a gun it means I am intending to shoot something. If I get in my car it means (usually) that I wish to go somewhere. While it is possible that I could miss with the gun, or accidentally run someone down with the car, these outcomes are not the goal of use. I think that is quite important to remember, especially when you consider later on attempting to change attitudes in the public.

We also need to consider retrospective data, to see what if anything has changed over the last (say) 100 years. That's going to take a multidisciplinary approach to tease out all the changes.

So, when we have established that there may be a growing problem, or an existing problem which we would like to improve, then we can start looking at factors involved. Have we established this is a problem, truthfully?

With regard to gun suicides. They are important data. there is no point in comparing suicide rates between countries by method if one country clearly doesn't have the level of access to such methods as the other. So, in Japan the suicide rate may be higher per 100,000 people (say), but the number of gun related suicides may be proportionally lower because of the lack of access to guns. I'm guessing here as I haven't seen the figures, I could be counter-intuitively wrong. Assuming that I am not wrong then the argument that less guns would lead to less gun related suicides (but not necessarily less suicides overall) seems quite reasonable.


At the moment I am not convinced that we have defined the problem sufficiently well.

dneal
May 22nd, 2016, 08:04 PM
The embedded premise is something I have been trying to avoid, and get others to avoid as well. I am actually trying to distinguish gun deaths from gun violence deaths (and gun violence in general, I suppose, because it does not always result in death). My impression has been that people have been compiling them, and I assumed you were as well.

I agree with you that is what the CDC data shows.

I also agree with your third paragraph. I will reiterate that guns do seem to prevent 800k - 3M (depending on the source) criminal acts per year. I think that also constitutes "use", and they're termed "defensive gun uses". Note that the gun does not always have to be fired. Often times simple presentation de-escalates a situation. Lastly, Lott's thesis is that criminals knowing some members of the public are armed, but not knowing which ones; creates a 'blanket' or 'bubble' of protection for all as it causes the potential aggressor to choose otherwise. I think that constitutes "use" in some manner.

People use guns for all sorts of reasons. Yes, the intent is to "shoot"; but that does not mean it is always to cause death or injury to another human. Hunting is one example, although death of the animal is the goal. Target, or recreational shooting is another; and death is not the purpose. The likelihood of death to a human is greatly diminished in the latter two cases.

Regarding retrospective data and what has changed, I concur completely. This is the hardest thing to identify. We used to buy guns at the hardware store, with no background checks. I drove to school with guns in the rack of my truck (as did many others), and no one gave it a second thought. That's only 30 something years ago. I wonder if things are really more "dangerous", or if we have become more hypersensitive. What role does the 24/7 national news play? I suspect mass-drugging of the population with psychotropics within the last few decades plays a role. It is a complicated issue, to be sure.

I think there is a problem, but I'm not sure of the severity - i.e.: does it warrant attention? There is a loud anti-gun movement determined to "solve" it, and the equally loud pro-gun movement in response. Both of which only leads to the politicization and irrational influence on the discussion.

I agree that it stands to reason that less guns would lead to less suicide by gun. My problem with including gun suicides is only when addressing any gun "problem". The numbers are usually included by the anti-gun position, which I think is disingenuous. Suicide should be dealt with as its own topic, and not lumped into any gun debate, IMHO.

Yes, I agree that we have not defined the problem; and that was the source of my consternation with the earlier discussion with Jar. The fact that there was a problem in need of a solution seemed to be the imbedded premise, but no clarification of what specifically was the problem (i.e.: school shootings, suicides, accidental shootings, etc...) I think any of those (or others) need to be addressed individually, after assessing if they are indeed problems given the low frequency with which they occur. That is not to diminish the tragic nature.

duckmcf
May 23rd, 2016, 08:02 PM
Hi Gang,
Once again, I really apologise for starting this thread.

It's turning FP Geek against FP Geek. I'm worried that someone will accuse someone else of using a ballpoint pen and then all hell will really break loose. :argue:

But seriously, as an outsider to the US I originally started this to try and get an understanding of why every time there's a mass shooting in the US, one side of it talks up banning guns and the other side goes all out to shut them down. Meanwhile a good chunk of the population goes to their local gun store and votes with their feet by coming home with a shiny new AR-15.

As a thought experiment imagine what would happen if this president, or the next, initiated the process to repeal the 2nd Amendment (Please don't flame me if this isn't how it works in the US, I really have no idea how your system works). I fear that US politics would journey down an even darker place which would likely turn into mass demonstrations that could escalate into riots in hot spots all over the US.

My thinking is that both Obama and Clinton know how it could unfold and so rather than unleash a whirlwind they both talk a big a game that ends in business as usual.

To hoist my colours to the mast, I knew a couple of people that were killed at the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 and while I've fired my fair share of guns, I happy that we have solid gun restrictions here in Oz and I think that we have balance about right. For me, I think it's just a better way to live, but I'm sure others will disagree.

Please, lets just leave it all there, turn off the lights and shut the door.

Cheers,
Noel

HughC
May 23rd, 2016, 09:58 PM
The one issue not discussed in depth is the "more guns less crime" theory and I'm not fond of it as I've mentioned previously. Statistics tell us that from 1950 to 1965 homicides where ~4.5/100k rising to ~10/100k in 1980 before declining to current levels. Another startling stat is that in 1980 whites killed or killers was ~6.5/100k while among blacks the rate was ~38/100k killed and ~50/100k being killers. By 2005 the white figure was negligible while the black figures where ~22 and 25/100k. The 2015 NORC ( Uni of Chicago) report indicates that households with guns has declined from 47% to 31% ( note the actual number has probably risen as there are more households now) from 1973 to 2013.

Putting some of the stats together it would appear that in mainstream America there has been % wise a decrease in gun ownership. Something I would associate with a falling homicide rate.

Why did homicide rates increase in the mid '60's ? Is the cause of this increase linked to the eventual decline? Environmental lead has been offered as a cause ( meaning increased violence is a health issue ) and the addition of lead into petrol and removal fits the observations. This also fits that the amount of lead found in poorer inner city areas is normally very high. Drugs has been offered as well. Anyway they're just theories that may or may not have had an impact. I'm inclined to think there's a number of factors involved and maybe "more guns less crime" has had some impact but I doubt it's the major factor. In good news for those anti gun people it does mean, if the stats are correct (!!), that it's actually much safer than 20 yrs ago and as a % the number of people with guns has declined but those with guns have a larger, increasing number....now as pen collectors most of us could relate to that !!

Regards
Hugh

Empty_of_Clouds
May 24th, 2016, 12:21 AM
There are some who will contend that crime figures in general did not rise as expected - from looking at the 60s increases - because of Roe vs. Wade. It's a contentious theory, although it does make some quite good points. HughC, the figures you give above of ~10 per 100,000 in 1980 are pretty much the same as those cited by the CDC in 2003 for gun deaths, which at first sight suggests that there has been a long level period. Are your figures for all homicides or only gun related ones. That could alter the picture a bit.

If the figures are correct then perhaps all the publicity surrounding whatever is the latest gun tragedy is just that, and represents not an increase in the crimes so much as more strident blaring of the media's trumpets. Essentially, is there more gun death, or is there just more talk about it?

I'm not saying any of this is necessarily correct, but do give me pause for thought.

Interesting ethnic involvement figures. Not seen those before.

Unfortunately, as with many things in the wonderful world of epidemiology, there is rarely a single factor involved. Here we may be seeing the ethnic divide along the socioeconomic axis contributing to the figures, or as you have pointed out there is the issue of lead in/out of petrol. Determining whether these or any other factors are causative rather than correlative is trick. Bloody difficult trick at that!

HughC
May 24th, 2016, 05:19 AM
The figures quoted are total homicides not just gun related. In the context of "more guns less crime" I think it's the relevant statistic as well as in broader context of violent crime. The more I look at the "figures" ( assuming what I find has an acceptable margin of error) the less the "gun" problem looks now....clearly it was a lot worse. Still VertOlive suggests that it's not "better" in her experience so again there is clearly regional variability in the data. Obviously "correctly" analyzing the data is beyond every one here so we're really down to "opinions" based on how we see the data. Personally I like the "lead" theory because it fits both the rise and decline of homicides and I like simple solutions which is rarely the reality.

There has been a rise in mass shootings and statistically the numbers are small but with terrible impacts that justifiably attract media attention. Anyway I've found this topic informative at many levels.

dneal
May 24th, 2016, 10:54 AM
RE: Hugh's point about gun ownership percentages. This piqued my interest. During the Obama administration, gun sales have skyrocketed. What isn't clear to me is what percentage are new owners, and what are additional guns purchased by existing owners. I found two recent surveys, one from Gallup (which tends to lean slightly left) and one from Pew (which leans slightly right). I think it's a reasonably uninfluenced set of data, although it's certainly not comprehensive or absolute. It is food for thought.

Gallup 2011 survey (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx)
Pew 2014 survey (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/)

Some data points are not surprising. Male, white, rural conservatives are more frequently gun owners - and there are probably many reasons for this.
Some data points are surprising. Female gun ownership appears to have increased significantly, as has liberal/Democrat gun ownership.

RE: 60's homicide rates. Another interesting sub-topic. I suspect it has to do with baby-boomers coming of age, the increase in drug usage, and the illegalization of many drugs (i.e.: the beginning of the drug trade and 'drug war'); though there are certainly other factors. Several years ago, I read a paper which examined the black middle class. Various cultures can be tracked as they rise in affluence. The Irish, for example; began as highly impoverished, often indentured servants. Local commerce (within the ethnic group) creates a middle class, which can then afford to create a professional class (doctors, lawyers, etc...). The study noted that this was beginning with the black demographic in the U.S., and climbing up until the civil rights act, after which there was a steep decline. The thesis was that one negative result of the civil rights act was that black consumers quit patronizing black businesses and instead chose to frequent white business which they were previously forbidden to use. Combined with the "Great Society" envisioned by LBJ, and the vast expansion of the welfare state, this was an enormous economic set-back to the black community. Their environment for natural economic advancement was destroyed, and replaced with a government system that had incentives not to work. We know that impoverished communities often have higher rates of crime (murder among them), it's not surprising to see the black murder rate increase.

dneal
May 24th, 2016, 11:01 AM
As a thought experiment imagine what would happen if this president, or the next, initiated the process to repeal the 2nd Amendment (Please don't flame me if this isn't how it works in the US, I really have no idea how your system works).

If you go back to the first few pages of the thread, you'll find the process in detail. In summary, the process has to originate in the Congress or by a convention of states. 2/3rds have to approve the change, and then it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the States.

duckmcf
May 24th, 2016, 04:36 PM
As a thought experiment imagine what would happen if this president, or the next, initiated the process to repeal the 2nd Amendment (Please don't flame me if this isn't how it works in the US, I really have no idea how your system works).

If you go back to the first few pages of the thread, you'll find the process in detail. In summary, the process has to originate in the Congress or by a convention of states. 2/3rds have to approve the change, and then it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the States.
Thanks for that, but the mechanism's not the point I was trying to make.

Here's my point, if the planets aligned (post a Trump presidency ;- ) and Congress got the 2/3rds necessary to repeal the 2nd, ratification by the states could well result in another Civil war.

I think this is why the anti-gun politicians talk a big game, but nothing changes. They intuitively know how it could unfold.

Cheers,
Noel

dneal
May 24th, 2016, 07:10 PM
Thanks for that, but the mechanism's not the point I was trying to make.

Here's my point, if the planets aligned (post a Trump presidency ;- ) and Congress got the 2/3rds necessary to repeal the 2nd, ratification by the states could well result in another Civil war.



Ok, but you noted that you have no idea of how the U.S. system works (even though it was previously explained).

Honestly, I don't see the point of your thought experiment since it's not going to happen any time soon. Are you speculating on what the results of a successful Constitutional change would be? There's a long way to swing the pendulum first, and we don't know what the mindset of America would be in that hypothetical case. Currently 42 of the 50 states have "shall issue" concealed carry laws or are completely unrestricted. The remaining 8 are "may issue", with varying degrees of difficulty imposed. That's a big swing in the last 30 years. Wikipedia has a pretty good graphic illustrating the changing mindset.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif



Anyway, nothing changes because politicians know for a fact what would unfold. With the exception of a few that are in "safe" (i.e.: highly liberal) districts, they would lose their seats. Democrats fear gun legislation like Republicans fear "shutting down" the government. Once bitten, twice shy...

HughC
May 24th, 2016, 09:41 PM
Included for completeness:

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf

http://wmbriggs.com/post/5969/

While there's always a margin of error in surveys Pew is probably more reliable than Gallup by virtue of sample size being 3 times larger and CSS the most reliable with over 55,000 ( or 15 times more than Pew). Of course the data from previous years is also open to the same vagaries. As far as I can see the majority of surveys mirror CSS. As Dneal points out the data set could be wider but we can say with some confidence that due to population growth there are many new gun owners just not what percentage they account for. With growing population for gun ownership to remain a steady % then sales should increase and records be set but again the data is not easily at hand ( which means I couldn't be bothered trying to find it...).

Regards
Hugh

duckmcf
May 24th, 2016, 09:48 PM
That animated gif is interesting. That's a big swing over 30 years for a 200+ year old democracy.

I wonder if there's a root cause for the swing? Perhaps perceived fear or perceived freedom?

Dragonmaster Lou
May 25th, 2016, 11:10 AM
That animated gif is interesting. That's a big swing over 30 years for a 200+ year old democracy.

I wonder if there's a root cause for the swing? Perhaps perceived fear or perceived freedom?

I'm thinking fear. That overlap seems to coincide with the prevalence of 24 hour news channels which hype up every little violent crime they can for the sake of ratings, thus frightening the population.

The biggest jump also appeared to be during the Bill Clinton administration. I wouldn't be surprised if part of this was fear that "Them Democrats 'r' gunna take away all yer guns!" There was a smaller jump, post 9/11, probably due to terrorism fears and a possible belief that being armed was the best defense against a possible terrorist attack.

There wasn't a significant jump during the Obama administration (despite more "take away all yer guns" rhetoric), but by that point, most of the states had already gone to "shall issue," so it was moot.

dneal
May 25th, 2016, 02:05 PM
Note that the graphic is simply portraying concealed carry laws, not gun sales or anything else.

The 90's period was also the height of gang and other violence, which prompted "mandatory minimums", increased police funding, providing military equipment to police, etc... An interesting read is Radley Balko's "Rise of the Warrior Cop".

Fear was the main reason that concealed carry agendas were usually not successful. "It'll be the Wild West" was the usual cry. As Florida showed, followed by other States; it was an unfounded fear. Things took off after that, so you can also say that it is a lack of fear that causes the spread of concealed carry.

Each State's politics are unique though. Vermont is typically liberal, but has always had no restrictions on concealed or open carry. Missouri didn't allow concealed weapons, but had (and still has) "Peaceable Journey" laws (you can have a loaded gun in an automobile with no permit).

Morgaine
May 26th, 2016, 07:53 AM
There will always be guns. The number used in crimes in the UK has increased (I don't know the %/amount at the moment) and I believe the UK has quite strict rules.

As an outsider, I guess the issue is the number of guns children have access to - wasn't a pro-gun person shot in the back by her young child? How many accidental shootings are there?

bamapendude
May 28th, 2016, 05:32 PM
We don't do "country-wide referendums". Either you aren't American or (if you are) you didn't pay attention in civics.

- When the Clinton administration enacted the "assault weapon" ban, the country threw out the majority party that enacted it.
- When the issue reached the Supreme Court (several times), the intent of the wording was made perfectly clear.
- The overwhelming majority of States have loosened restrictions on public possession (usually concealed).

The American people have worked it out, many times. A vocal minority keeps bringing it back up as if the discussion hasn't taken place yet. That's simply not true. They just don't like the result.



WELL SAID! The problem is the minority bring it up again and again and outsiders looking in that see our leftist media pushing the minority agenda on the subject. No disrespect to original poster but he has no skin in the game....

HughC
May 29th, 2016, 05:27 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL_8YT2qtAI

HughC
May 29th, 2016, 09:49 PM
We don't do "country-wide referendums". Either you aren't American or (if you are) you didn't pay attention in civics.

- When the Clinton administration enacted the "assault weapon" ban, the country threw out the majority party that enacted it.
- When the issue reached the Supreme Court (several times), the intent of the wording was made perfectly clear.
- The overwhelming majority of States have loosened restrictions on public possession (usually concealed).

The American people have worked it out, many times. A vocal minority keeps bringing it back up as if the discussion hasn't taken place yet. That's simply not true. They just don't like the result.



WELL SAID! The problem is the minority bring it up again and again and outsiders looking in that see our leftist media pushing the minority agenda on the subject. No disrespect to original poster but he has no skin in the game....

American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

dneal
May 30th, 2016, 08:16 AM
American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

C'mon Hugh, that's some seriously tortured logic and willful ignoring of history.

But no, I see no evidence that domestic "pro-gun" policy/culture makes the US more inclined to military intervention. Feel free to provide such.

pengeezer
May 30th, 2016, 11:01 AM
American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

C'mon Hugh, that's some seriously tortured logic and willful ignoring of history.

But no, I see no evidence that domestic "pro-gun" policy/culture makes the US more inclined to military intervention. Feel free to provide such.



I was always under the impression that our gov't./military didn't intervene unless they wanted something....



John

dneal
May 30th, 2016, 11:34 AM
American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

C'mon Hugh, that's some seriously tortured logic and willful ignoring of history.

But no, I see no evidence that domestic "pro-gun" policy/culture makes the US more inclined to military intervention. Feel free to provide such.



I was always under the impression that our gov't./military didn't intervene unless they wanted something....



John

It has become that way. We usually only act when it's in our national interest, and has nothing to do with a domestic gun policy/culture. But each war was fought for different reasons. The Spanish American war was whipped up by Hearst and "Yellow Journalism". The "Banana Wars" were on behalf of the United Fruit Company. America favored neutrality in the case of WWI and WWII - the opposite of Hugh's argument - but was forced into it in both cases. The Cold War that followed is its own story.

HughC
May 30th, 2016, 10:01 PM
It has become that way. We usually only act when it's in our national interest, and has nothing to do with a domestic gun policy/culture. But each war was fought for different reasons. The Spanish American war was whipped up by Hearst and "Yellow Journalism". The "Banana Wars" were on behalf of the United Fruit Company. America favored neutrality in the case of WWI and WWII - the opposite of Hugh's argument - but was forced into it in both cases. The Cold War that followed is its own story.

Indeed the US did initially favour neutrality in both World Wars, public opinion dictated this option then in both cases public opinion changed in favour of entering the wars (http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww1/cou/us/home/w1cush-opi.html http://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/michigan_2003.pdf ) which thankfully happened. The stance of Govt. is reflected in the opinions of the people in these cases which supports "American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world".

Since then the political, economic and military importance of the US has grown to it's current world dominating position ( economically though as an entity the EU is larger and in output terms China is the leader) with military facilities throughout the world. A stuff up in the US ( or China for that matter) can have far reaching impacts, the sub-prime fiasco that started the GFC is one example, and the reality is domestic US policies can flow over to other countries. Looking at the last Iraq invasion, it had public support and the US Govt. went with that support....of course Uncle Sam knocked on a few doors and said " come on"....you don't say no when asked so many countries where tied up in it. Again that's what you do to keep on the good side of the "big boy" but it also shows how much power the US Govt. has and as it's a product of it's people that power is in the voters hands (to a degree).

The current fiasco in Syria and Iraq ( you could add Libya and Afghanistan) show clearly the perils that military action can have when not backed up with a workable future plan. I'm not sure arming opponents of Assad can be shown to have been in the "national interest", more a case of guns before brains, because the Russians where never going to allow their military presence in the region to be reduced. With hindsight the dictators where better than the current situation that's evolved. While few would criticize US targets in Pakistan it needs to be noted there is scant regard for Pakistani sovereignty, if the boot was on the other foot...

I'm of the opinion that "public opinion" is a very powerful political force and Govts take notice.

duckmcf
May 30th, 2016, 11:41 PM
No disrespect to original poster but he has no skin in the game....
Quite right, I have no skin in the game. It wouldn't bother me if you collectively banned every private gun in the US or if gun related death in the US went up by an order of magnitude.

I kicked the tread off because I couldn't get my head around why, post a mass shooting, the left talks up gun reform, but then almost never talks about repealing the 2nd.

Given that this thread has been active for around 8 months plenty of other people have been interested enough to exchange views to the point that I now have a better understanding of the body politics' view on the gun issue. As a bonus, I also have a better understanding of how your constitutional amendment process works.

I guess, and no disrespect intended here, I was interested in US gun violence kind of like the way David Attenborough is interested in the natural world. It's just too fascinating to look away.

pengeezer
May 31st, 2016, 05:47 AM
American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

C'mon Hugh, that's some seriously tortured logic and willful ignoring of history.

But no, I see no evidence that domestic "pro-gun" policy/culture makes the US more inclined to military intervention. Feel free to provide such.



I was always under the impression that our gov't./military didn't intervene unless they wanted something....



John

It has become that way. We usually only act when it's in our national interest, and has nothing to do with a domestic gun policy/culture. But each war was fought for different reasons. The Spanish American war was whipped up by Hearst and "Yellow Journalism". The "Banana Wars" were on behalf of the United Fruit Company. America favored neutrality in the case of WWI and WWII - the opposite of Hugh's argument - but was forced into it in both cases. The Cold War that followed is its own story.



I would personally disagree with our entrance into WW2 via Pearl Harbor(from what I've read FDR intended and
intentionally let the Japanese attack PH),but technically you could consider that forcing us into WW2.
In the case of the Spanish-American war,neither country wanted the Phillipine natives to have their
own independence,so they fought a "fake" war over it,though many died in the process.



John

Dragonmaster Lou
May 31st, 2016, 09:00 AM
I would personally disagree with our entrance into WW2 via Pearl Harbor(from what I've read FDR intended and
intentionally let the Japanese attack PH),but technically you could consider that forcing us into WW2.
In the case of the Spanish-American war,neither country wanted the Phillipine natives to have their
own independence,so they fought a "fake" war over it,though many died in the process.
John

PH was a bit more subtle than that. Apparently PH was never meant to be a surprise/sneak attack. The Japanese government fully intended to let the US know about a declaration of war against the US before the attack on PH (granted, only something like a couple of hours beforehand, but still prior to the attack), but there was some screw up in the messaging between the Tokyo government, the Japanese embassy in Washington, and the US government, such that the message never arrived until after the attack.

dneal
May 31st, 2016, 11:53 AM
You guys have been reading too many internet conspiracies.

pengeezer
June 1st, 2016, 05:21 AM
You guys have been reading too many internet conspiracies.


Not so. In 2000,a retired US naval officer,Robert Stinnett,wrote a book showing that there was an 8-point plan
to lure the Japanese into attacking PH(the book was archived,of course). Prior to that,John Toland wrote a
book,Pearl Harbor: Aftermath,explaining the lengths to which the truth about the attack was taken,even to
the destroying of two commanding officers reputations--Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short--to cover up the de-
bacle. Toland even points out that during WW2,even to speak about what might have happened about PH
was a quick end to any advancement to one's military career.


The Stinnett book is entitled Day of Deceit: The truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor.



John

dneal
June 1st, 2016, 09:13 AM
If you're interested in military history, one of the best resources is the DOD itself.

Here are some links:

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/
http://usacac.army.mil/organizations/mccoe/call/publications
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/





Americans have always been fascinated by conspiracy theories. At the top of our pantheon of paranoia are the myriad hypotheses surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Close behind are the continuing arguments that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt deliberately provoked and allowed the destruction of the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, in order to galvanize a reluctant American public into supporting national participation in World War II. This lingering suspicion is partly responsible for the recent drive to exonerate the commanders at Pearl Harbor, Admiral Husband Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short, for their responsibility in the disaster on 7 December 1941.

The latest book expounding this well-worn theory is Robert B. Stinnett's Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. The author is a World War II Navy veteran who became a photographer and journalist for the Oakland Tribune. He has done some admirable and dogged primary research, filing innumerable requests under the Freedom of Information Act and spending many long hours searching in archives, and he demonstrates a journalist's knack for presenting a sensational story. The end result is an apparently damning indictment of FDR and his Cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, many naval officers above and below Admiral Kimmel, and the military intelligence community. Unfortunately the author failed to do much basic secondary historical research and has a tendency to leap to conclusions based on questionable or erroneous interpretations of evidence. This is a dangerous book that will dupe unsuspecting readers who misinterpret the author's earnestness and technical explanations as signs of balance and accuracy, and it will perpetuate myths that should have long been forgotten.

At the core of Stinnett's case is a memorandum written by Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, in October 1940. Stinnett interprets it as outlining eight actions designed to provoke Japan into war, and while he cannot prove FDR ever saw the document, Stinnett accepts it as the blueprint for the American actions in the Pacific leading to Pearl Harbor. Once he allegedly decided to sacrifice the Pacific Fleet, FDR carefully placed fellow conspirators in key positions, such as when he sent the Director of Naval Intelligence, Rear Admiral Walter Anderson, to command the fleet battleships. Stinnett continues to weave his web of conspiracy by arguing that for decades naval and intelligence organizations have covered up the fact that key information from radio intercepts and code-breaking revealing exact Japanese intentions was withheld from Kimmel and Short to ensure their unpreparedness.

Stinnett does provide some provocative new information about the interception of radio transmissions from Japanese ships and has uncovered a number of misstatements by witnesses in the many official hearings that have been conducted to investigate the disaster. However, this is not enough to prove the existence of a conspiracy so widespread that it included eminent senior leaders like George Marshall and Ernest King of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, distinguished intelligence officers like Edwin Layton and Joseph Rochefort, and a myriad of other naval officers including Commander Vincent Murphy, who just happened to be fleet duty officer at Pearl Harbor on the morning of the Japanese attack. Many of Stinnett's arguments are based on hindsight; for him any mistake or oversight that contributed to the surprise attack becomes part of the plot that victimized Kimmel and Short.

A look at the McCollum memorandum in Appendix A of the book reveals more flaws in Stinnett's analysis. The author admits that he can link FDR's actions to only six of the eight items on the list, and fails to explain that those that were actually executed occurred because of Japanese provocations or from understandable diplomatic or military motivations. Stinnett would have benefited greatly from secondary research in the standard works on FDR's foreign policy. Moreover, the McCollum proposal itself was designed to prevent war, not provoke it. A close reading shows that its recommendations were supposed to deter and contain Japan, while better preparing the United States for a future conflict in the Pacific. There is an offhand remark that an overt Japanese act of war would make it easier to garner public support for actions against Japan, but the document's intent was not to ensure that event happened.

Stinnett's technical explanations of the intricacies and revelations from code-breaking appear persuasive to those of us unfamiliar with the field, but he has not fooled the experts. Edward Drea, one of the most notable authorities on codes and code-breaking in the Pacific, recently savaged this book in the April 2000 Journal of Military History. In a detailed critique, Drea points out that Stinnett misrepresented messages decoded in 1945 as being available in 1941, erroneously assumed that just because a message was intercepted it could be and was deciphered, erred in his explanation about when the Americans broke key Japanese codes, and misquoted or distorted many messages.

Historians should be judges and not lawyers. When the public picks up a history book, they expect thorough research, truthfulness, and a balanced assessment of the facts. That is why so many readers can be misled or fooled by flawed works like Day of Deceit. Ultimately books like this threaten the integrity of the whole historical profession, as well as the credibility of the journals and reviewers who have praised it. They should know better. Since he was also a newspaper reporter, Stinnett's many inaccuracies don't do much for the reputation of that profession, either. This is a bad book that is best ignored, but because of American fascination with the theory it propounds, it will end up getting much more attention than it deserves.

Dragonmaster Lou
June 1st, 2016, 10:18 AM
[QUOTE=dneal;172321]You guys have been reading too many internet conspiracies.

To be honest, I never believed that FDR had some conspiracy to goad the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor and trashing our fleet there. That's solidly in tin-foil-hat territory for me.

Anyway, I did a bit more quick research on the whole "Japan meant to declare war before Pearl Harbor, but screwed up in notifying the US" thing... and well, it turns out even the Japanese were kinda fuzzy about it:

http://faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/japanwc/2.htm

The message that was late was not a formal declaration of war, but some in the Japanese government thought it was enough "fair warning" before the actual attack. They also felt giving some sort of warning (even if it was only 30 minutes before the attack was supposed to commence) was the honorable (and required under the terms of international law) thing to do, and honor is a big deal in Japanese culture going back to ancient times.

duckmcf
June 1st, 2016, 02:28 PM
[QUOTE=dneal;172321]You guys have been reading too many internet conspiracies.Anyway, I did a bit more quick research on the whole "Japan meant to declare war before Pearl Harbor, but screwed up in notifying the US"
For what ever it's worth I've always taken the view that if the choice is between, a deep seeded conspiracy or a screw up, it's more likely to be the screw up.

Dragonmaster Lou
June 1st, 2016, 08:23 PM
For what ever it's worth I've always taken the view that if the choice is between, a deep seeded conspiracy or a screw up, it's more likely to be the screw up.
Same here. It's a corollary to the old "Never attributed to malice what can be attributed to stupidity" saying.

Empty_of_Clouds
June 12th, 2016, 09:27 PM
Erm, warning, stupid question inbound!

Could someone who has a more than passing acquaintance with the US Constitution please explain to me what the word "regulated" means in respect of the 2nd Amendment?

Many thanks.



ps: I just noticed - being somewhat dim - that the Declaration of Independence is based on an unproven assumption that cannot actually be proved. Wonder how that slipped through. :confused:

SIR
June 13th, 2016, 03:33 AM
Erm, warning, stupid question inbound!

Could someone who has a more than passing acquaintance with the US Constitution please explain to me what the word "regulated" means in respect of the 2nd Amendment?

Many thanks.



ps: I just noticed - being somewhat dim - that the Declaration of Independence is based on an unproven and assumption that cannot actually be proved. Wonder how that slipped through. :confused:

Henry VIII could do without the pope and the Roman church but couldn't do without God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Regulated I would assume to mean disciplined and ordered, as used in the former name for the Royal Navy Police - "The Royal Navy Regulating Branch (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Police)", and, of course, "The Queen's Regulations (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Regulations)"

dneal
June 13th, 2016, 04:21 AM
Erm, warning, stupid question inbound!

Could someone who has a more than passing acquaintance with the US Constitution please explain to me what the word "regulated" means in respect of the 2nd Amendment?

Many thanks.



ps: I just noticed - being somewhat dim - that the Declaration of Independence is based on an unproven assumption that cannot actually be proved. Wonder how that slipped through. :confused:

Well regulated explained (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm)

As to the assumption that hasn't been proven... Well, that is why it is an assumption. It is a perfectly valid form of inductive logic. But to be honest, it's not clear which phrase you're referring to.

SIR
June 13th, 2016, 07:00 AM
Well regulated explained (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm)

A useful little link, thanks!

Here is something from across the pond to add historical context;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
Note well the right of protestants to bear arms for their defence as permitted by law.

edteach
June 13th, 2016, 08:24 AM
This is the ridiculous argument the left uses all the time. Well the founding fathers did not envision TV, the internet or radio but we don't say obtuse things like we need to limit these. The second amendment was not designed for deer hunting, it was designed to keep the power with the people. To give them a recourse against a standing army and tyrannical gov. Those who are against the second amendment know nothing of our history or the history of man in general. The lies the left tells that they do not want our guns is so thinly veiled that any real gun owner or one who actually looks at what is going on knows its a lie. When Dian Feinstein said after passing the 94 gun ban or crime bill as it was labeled, said that some are upset it did not go far enough but if I could have passed a bill that said Mr and Mrs America turn them all in I would have done that but there was not enough votes. We know the end game. Ammo up Ammo up people before you wish you had. Blaming guns for things like Orlando is like blaming the bat for Babe Ruth for hitting home runs. Islam is the problem for a lot of this. Muslims are peaceful. Trump is correct stop them from immigrating until we know what is going on.

edteach
June 13th, 2016, 08:32 AM
[QUOTE=dneal;172321]You guys have been reading too many internet conspiracies.

To be honest, I never believed that FDR had some conspiracy to goad the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor and trashing our fleet there. That's solidly in tin-foil-hat territory for me.

Anyway, I did a bit more quick research on the whole "Japan meant to declare war before Pearl Harbor, but screwed up in notifying the US" thing... and well, it turns out even the Japanese were kinda fuzzy about it:

http://faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/japanwc/2.htm

The message that was late was not a formal declaration of war, but some in the Japanese government thought it was enough "fair warning" before the actual attack. They also felt giving some sort of warning (even if it was only 30 minutes before the attack was supposed to commence) was the honorable (and required under the terms of international law) thing to do, and honor is a big deal in Japanese culture going back to ancient times.

The A-Bomb built by lazy Americans Tested in Japan. Lest you forget the Japanese went into China and Korea and raped and murdered hundreds of thousands. We owe nothing to the Japanese concerning the war. War is the medicine they chose and we gave them all that was needed to cure them. The Japanese took women of China and Korea and made them comfort women forced prostitution for the Japanese soldiers. They used Chinese citizens tied to post for bayonet practice and to test new land mines effectiveness. Not to mention Unit 731 in China where they did horrible testing medically on Chinese that made Mangle look like a Dr without boarders. We owe nothing to the Japanese for the war and after we were very magnanimous with the Marshall plan.

edteach
June 13th, 2016, 08:40 AM
Erm, warning, stupid question inbound!

Could someone who has a more than passing acquaintance with the US Constitution please explain to me what the word "regulated" means in respect of the 2nd Amendment?

Many thanks.



ps: I just noticed - being somewhat dim - that the Declaration of Independence is based on an unproven assumption that cannot actually be proved. Wonder how that slipped through. :confused:
The founding fathers knew the power was a very dangerous thing. That the power should rest with the people, I.E you and me. They knew that a standing army is very dangerous and could be used against the people. To counter balance this a militia made up of citizens I.E you and me should have the ability to defend against a tyrannical government from taking power away form the people. If the people were armed and had the ability to fight against a hostile government it would put a check and balance to this possibility. It would make anyone in power think twice before trying this. Many Americans have become so mentally lazy they want every thing for free or given to them and love the idea of a Government that is a nanny state. The Bill of rights the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are all rights of the individual not some right of the state or any other group. None have ever been repealed or even tried to be repealed. Only one amendment has ever been repealed. That is the 18th the Volstead act. The one making it illegal to make and or use Alcohol.

Dragonmaster Lou
June 13th, 2016, 09:22 AM
The A-Bomb built by lazy Americans Tested in Japan. Lest you forget the Japanese went into China and Korea and raped and murdered hundreds of thousands. We owe nothing to the Japanese concerning the war. War is the medicine they chose and we gave them all that was needed to cure them. The Japanese took women of China and Korea and made them comfort women forced prostitution for the Japanese soldiers. They used Chinese citizens tied to post for bayonet practice and to test new land mines effectiveness. Not to mention Unit 731 in China where they did horrible testing medically on Chinese that made Mangle look like a Dr without boarders. We owe nothing to the Japanese for the war and after we were very magnanimous with the Marshall plan.

Wait, wait, wait, what what?! Where are you getting any commentary about "owing" anything to the Japanese. I was simply stating that Pearl Harbor was not intended to be a pure unprovoked attack -- there was supposed to be at least some sort of warning, from the Japanese to the US, about it, although there was debate among Japanese officials as to whether the "we're pissed at you for doing x, y, and z" letter that was supposed to be delivered prior to Pearl Harbor was sufficient vs. a formal declaration of war.

That is an entirely separate issue from the barbarism of the Japanese actions in carrying out the war itself, whether against the Chinese and Koreans, POWs, and so on, let alone the issue as to whether the use of the atom bomb was justified (which, to be fair, I think probably was justified given both the alternatives and the fact that knowledge of what the long term ramifications of using such a weapon would be was very limited at the time).

edteach
June 13th, 2016, 09:43 AM
I was not accusing you, You brought up how some feel. I was just responding to that liberal rant about we were the aggressors in WW2 which is a fantasy.

dneal
June 13th, 2016, 10:51 AM
Well regulated explained (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm)

A useful little link, thanks!

Here is something from across the pond to add historical context;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
Note well the right of protestants to bear arms for their defence as permitted by law.

I'm not sure I understand your emphasis on 'permitted by law'. Just to be clear, 'well regulated' in the context of the 2nd amendment means well equipped and trained.

SIR
June 13th, 2016, 11:12 AM
I'm not sure I understand your emphasis on 'permitted by law'. Just to be clear, 'well regulated' in the context of the 2nd amendment means well equipped and trained.

My emphasis is on the fact that since that UK bill of rights was enacted in 1689, the British population has progressively lost 'permission in law' to bear arms for their own defence, though largely this has been within the last hundred or so years.

I would agree that "well regulated" should be interpreted as training and by extension equipment, but an essential part of training is order and discipline.

edteach
June 13th, 2016, 11:14 AM
Well regulated explained (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm)

A useful little link, thanks!

Here is something from across the pond to add historical context;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
Note well the right of protestants to bear arms for their defence as permitted by law.

I'm not sure I understand your emphasis on 'permitted by law'. Just to be clear, 'well regulated' in the context of the 2nd amendment means well equipped and trained.
Which was made up of private citizens.

dneal
June 13th, 2016, 12:47 PM
I'm not sure I understand your emphasis on 'permitted by law'. Just to be clear, 'well regulated' in the context of the 2nd amendment means well equipped and trained.

My emphasis is on the fact that since that UK bill of rights was enacted in 1689, the British population has progressively lost 'permission in law' to bear arms for their own defence, though largely this has been within the last hundred or so years.

I would agree that "well regulated" should be interpreted as training and by extension equipment, but an essential part of training is order and discipline.

The problem, which Scalia addresses thoroughly in the Heller decision, is in the emphasis of the non-operative clause. Discussion of militias and regulation is an attempt to obfuscate the most important clause that the amendment ends with. The DC circuit court's Heller decision, before it went to the Supreme Court, is simple and clear.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.

I suspect that our founders intended to remedy the weakness you point out in your bill of rights.

SIR
June 13th, 2016, 12:52 PM
I suspect that our founders intended to remedy the weakness you point out in your bill of rights.

I concur.

Empty_of_Clouds
June 13th, 2016, 01:04 PM
Okay thanks guys. As I read the Amendment and its commentary it would appear that the original intent was with regard to militias only. The 'right to keep and bear arms' was connected only with that in mind and has, apparently, nothing to do with defending oneself in a civilian-only context. I can't find where the change in thinking happened that led from the 2nd Amendment's intent to the general Wild West kind of situation that exists today.


As to the Declaration of Independence. Rather amusingly, from the point of view of the 1st Amendment, it contains statements that tie both government and the people into a Christian framework whether they like it or not. Of course I understand that this was likely the prevailing view back in the day.

dneal
June 13th, 2016, 01:35 PM
Okay thanks guys. As I read the Amendment and its commentary it would appear that the original intent was with regard to militias only. The 'right to keep and bear arms' was connected only with that in mind and has, apparently, nothing to do with defending oneself in a civilian-only context. I can't find where the change in thinking happened that led from the 2nd Amendment's intent to the general Wild West kind of situation that exists today.


As to the Declaration of Independence. Rather amusingly, from the point of view of the 1st Amendment, it contains statements that tie both government and the people into a Christian framework whether they like it or not. Of course I understand that this was likely the prevailing view back in the day.

I would recommend reading the Heller decision LINK to .pdf (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) I don't agree with all his decisions, but there is no arguing that Scalia wasn't a legal titan. His logic is penetrating and deep.

Regarding the Declaration - The founders weren't necessarily Christian. There is a lot of assertion that's what they intended, but it simply isn't true. Jefferson was a deist, and as critical of formal Christianity (and even religion) as anyone. Thomas Paine was an atheist. Many (if not most) were "FreeThinkers".

Empty_of_Clouds
June 13th, 2016, 02:25 PM
1. Yes I read Heller, and a host of other commentaries. In my opinion the 2nd Amendment was not intended to be used as a carte blanche for the carrying and using of arms in anything other than a defence against a wayward government (edit: or a clear national danger). Obviously times change and quite frankly the US Govt. forces would sweep aside any militia today without breaking a sweat. Anyway, I just found it interesting how the Amendment started off being one thing and ended up being something entirely different.

2. Then they should probably have left out all the "God" and "Creator" parts from the Declaration. There is a reason they are included, and it has nothing to do with freedom. Again, I just find it amusing, much in the same light that one must make all the right religious sounds if one wants to have any hope of gaining the highest office.

SIR
June 13th, 2016, 02:59 PM
they should probably have left out all the "God" and "Creator" parts from the Declaration. There is a reason they are included, and it has nothing to do with freedom.

Indeed, quite the opposite, in fact.

dneal
June 13th, 2016, 04:04 PM
1. Yes I read Heller, and a host of other commentaries. In my opinion the 2nd Amendment was not intended to be used as a carte blanche for the carrying and using of arms in anything other than a defence against a wayward government (edit: or a clear national danger). Obviously times change and quite frankly the US Govt. forces would sweep aside any militia today without breaking a sweat. Anyway, I just found it interesting how the Amendment started off being one thing and ended up being something entirely different.

If you've read the Heller decision, your questions are particularly curious. Anyway, why do you assume that a fight against tyranny was the only justification? Certainly the founders were aware of how a government goes about subjugating it's citizens, but firearms are tools as well. Defense of person and property isn't a novel concept. Game animals were critical to survival, particularly among frontiersmen. The North American continent still has natural predators.

As to the notion that the U.S. Government would "sweep aside any militia today without breaking a sweat"... You are clearly ignoring many, many things with that statement. An insurgency is one of the most difficult things to defeat, and you assume that the military would be on the side of the government in some hypothetical situation.


2. Then they should probably have left out all the "God" and "Creator" parts from the Declaration. There is a reason they are included, and it has nothing to do with freedom. Again, I just find it amusing, much in the same light that one must make all the right religious sounds if one wants to have any hope of gaining the highest office.

*sigh* Please do your homework before you start making insinuations about purpose. Jefferson drafted the Declaration. He didn't use "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" or "endowed by their Creator" because he was some secret Calvinist.

In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Jefferson wrote:

"...while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

The bolded portion is inscribed under the dome of the Jefferson Memorial. Note the lack of capitalization for "god".

Empty_of_Clouds
June 13th, 2016, 05:51 PM
Before I say anything else I would remind you not to take anything I say so damned seriously! :)

1. I was referring to defence of citizen against citizen. I am totally aware and in favour of the use of the proper tools for defence against wild animals. And as ex-mil I am quite cognizant of the difficulties certain types of engagement present. I was just being somewhat general (if you'll excuse the pun). To me the US seems such a paranoid nation that it holds on so desperately to the notion of rising up against its own elected government. I am speaking as one whose own country last had a civil war nearly 400 years ago, and whose citizens, while constantly ragging on their government, do not feel they will ever have to take up arms against it.

2. I can make insinuations whenever I please. In this case they are based on the actual wording as I see it. Your bolded part: despite the lack of capitals is taken as meaning the Christian God (by pretty much everybody seeking office in the US I would imagine). Your government, and your founding fathers, are just as adept at talking out the side of their collective mouths as the politicians of every other nation. I remain unconvinced that there was no agenda behind the wording. Not that it matters much other than being something I find entertaining. I don't lose sleep over it.


Perhaps you'll get Mr Trump as POTUS and full rein will be given to a literal interpretation of the Bills. Welcome back to the (Hollywood version of) the Wild West!



... for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Looks pretty tyrannical to me, someone telling me what I can and cannot do. Just sayin'

duckmcf
June 13th, 2016, 05:51 PM
Could someone who has a more than passing acquaintance with the US Constitution please explain to me what the word "regulated" means in respect of the 2nd Amendment?
No idea, but could "regulated" be interpreted to mean regulation or registration?
Perhaps analogous to the licencing, registration and insurance that is required to operate a motor car?

Also, given that there's a seat vacant on the Supreme court that hinges on the outcome of the presidential / congressional elections, could the court's interpretation of this wording change if the seat is eventually filled by a lefty judge? ....just thinking out loud here......