Gun policy analysis thread.

[dneal]

Chuck noted the bi-partisan framework agreed to in the Senate - which looks to focus on mental health, red flag laws, and juvenile criminal history being included in background checks.

The debate will be in the news for the next few weeks at least, and those other two threads are their own messes.

Perhaps we could start with a clean sheet for the articles and analysis?

[dneal]

This one from the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-congress-wont-ban-assault-weapons-11654939800) is informative, from the perspective of practical political machinations; and relatively free of "opinion".


Why Congress Won’t Ban Assault Weapons
Republican opposition and a Justice Department study showing the 1994 ban’s limited effects leave Democrats reluctant to try to revive it.

President Biden and parents who recently buried their children are again pleading for a federal assault-weapons ban, after AR-15-style rifles again were a weapon of choice in mass shootings.
But the Democratic-led Congress isn’t seriously considering any such proposal, and even gun-control advocates have stopped pursuing it as a top priority.

The reasons behind shelving the ban are both political and practical: Passing such legislation in a closely divided Senate, when Republicans as a party have for years opposed nearly all gun legislation, isn’t feasible. A Justice Department study of the decadelong ban that ended in 2004 also showed its effectiveness was limited. And there are 20 million AR-style rifles in America and little public appetite for seizing them.

As thousands of Americans prepare to attend March for Our Lives rallies in Washington and across the country Saturday, a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons has become less popular. Half of registered voters favor it, while 45% oppose it, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released this week—the lowest level of support since Quinnipiac first asked the question in 2013.

“I would love to have an assault-weapons ban. Nobody should be running around with an AR-15,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii). “However, I’m very clear also in the need—and the urgent need—to enact some kind of legislation that will provide more gun safety than we have now. And I have to say it’s a pretty low bar, but we need to at least get to that point.”

The Democratic-controlled House didn’t include an assault-weapons ban in a gun-control package that passed this week just hours after the mother of 10-year-old Lexi Rubio, a victim of the Uvalde, Texas, mass killing, tearfully asked for it in a congressional hearing. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) has promised a separate hearing on an assault-weapons ban, but she hasn’t committed to bringing legislation to the floor for a vote by the full House.

Bills to ban semiautomatic weapons like AR-15 style rifles haven’t come close to passing since the federal ban expired in 2004.
The political landscape has shifted dramatically since 1994, when former President Bill Clinton, along with a coalition of Democrats, police leaders, and moderate suburban Republicans, outmaneuvered the National Rifle Association to push the ban through as part of a broad anticrime bill.

Now, Republicans almost uniformly oppose such a ban, while law-enforcement groups spend their time lobbying on other issues. Meanwhile, gun-control groups still support a ban but are placing a priority on less-divisive measures such as red-flag laws, which allow law enforcement, and sometimes family members, to petition courts to take guns temporarily from people deemed dangerous to themselves or others.

The 1994 law banned the manufacture of 19 weapons by name, including Colt’s AR-15. It prohibited semiautomatic rifles—guns that can fire one shot after another with each squeeze of the trigger—that had detachable ammunition magazines and at least two military-style features, such as a pistol grip or a bayonet mount. New magazines holding more than 10 rounds also were outlawed. Guns and magazines that were already in circulation before the ban were grandfathered in.

Gun makers quickly figured out how to produce similar weapons without the prohibited features and sold their guns under new names. Colt called its post-ban rifle the Match Target.

The post-ban guns looked a little different, and they were sold with 10-round magazines instead of 30-round magazines. But they still fired the same bullets as fast as a shooter could pull the trigger. By 1999, multiple gun makers were producing more AR-15s than ever before.

[dneal]

That article referenced and linked this essay (https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-failed-attempt-to-ban-assault-weapons-11617285945) from 2021, also in the WSJ; which is very informative from a history perspective.

I was familiar with most of it, but was surprised at the exponential increase in AR15 style rifles pre and post ban. 400k to 20M? Did the ban have the opposite effect, and generate more desire and ownership?


America’s Failed Attempt to Ban Assault Weapons
As President Biden calls for new gun laws in the wake of mass shootings, the federal ban passed in 1994 offers a reminder of how difficult it is to craft an effective prohibition.

As the U.S. begins to make progress against Covid-19, a different tragedy has returned to the headlines: mass shootings. On March 16, a gunman killed eight people at spas and massage parlors in the Atlanta area. Days later, another gunman killed 10 at a supermarket in Boulder, Colo.

With the tragedies have come renewed calls from Democratic leaders, including President Joe Biden, to authorize a new federal ban on assault weapons. “We can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country once again,” Mr. Biden said the day after the Boulder shooting. “I got that done when I was a senator. It passed. It was law for the longest time, and it brought down these mass killings. We should do it again.”

But the history of the federal assault-weapons ban, passed in 1994 after an epic political battle on Capitol Hill, offers a cautionary tale about the difficulty of constructing an effective and politically acceptable ban. Mr. Biden, then the powerful chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was a key supporter of the ban as part of a major anticrime bill pushed by President Bill Clinton. When Mr. Clinton signed the law in September 1994, he touted it as a major victory over the National Rifle Association, declaring, “We will finally ban these assault weapons from our streets that have no purpose other than to kill.”

Yet the Democratic Party paid a political price, losing its House majority in that fall’s elections for the first time in four decades. When the ban came up for reauthorization in 2004, it failed to get the necessary votes in Congress, even though then-President George W. Bush, a Republican, said he would sign it if it came to his desk.

Today, gun-rights advocates and many gun-control advocates view the ban as ineffective and politically destructive. Above all, these critics argue, it didn’t do what it set out to do: limit sales of the weapons it purported to ban. In fact, sales of weapons like AR-15-style rifles rose during the era of the assault-weapons ban and skyrocketed when it was lifted.

The 1994 law prohibited the manufacture of 19 weapons by name, including Colt’s AR-15. It banned semiautomatic rifles—guns that can quickly fire one shot after another with each squeeze of the trigger—that had detachable ammunition magazines and at least two military-style features, such as a pistol grip or a bayonet mount. New magazines holding more than 10 rounds also were outlawed. Guns and magazines that were already in circulation before the ban were grandfathered in.

Those rules, which also applied to what the law called “assault pistols,” would have prohibited the AR-style pistol used by 21-year-old Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, the accused shooter in Boulder, but not the 9mm handgun used by the alleged Atlanta shooter, Robert Aaron Long, also 21. Semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines were used in about a quarter of the 170 mass shootings in which four or more people were killed in a public place between 1966 and 2020, according to the Violence Project, a mass shooting database founded by criminology professors Jillian Peterson and James Densley.

The term “assault rifle” originated in the military to describe weapons used in combat. In the 1980s, gun makers producing semiautomatic versions of military weapons embraced the term to market their firearms to wannabe warriors. By the end of that decade, however, gun-control groups were using it to label guns they wanted banned. When the federal assault-weapons ban was passed in 1994, both gun-rights and gun-control supporters believed it would severely limit civilian ownership of assault rifles.

But that didn’t happen. Gun makers quickly figured out how to make similar weapons without the prohibited features, such as the bayonet mount. A frequent joke in the gun world was that the ban greatly reduced the number of drive-by bayonettings. Prohibiting Colt’s AR-15 by name didn’t deter gun makers from selling AR-15 style weapons under different names; Colt called its post-ban rifle the Match Target. The post-ban guns looked a little different, and they were sold with 10-round magazines instead of 30-round magazines. But they still fired the same bullets as fast as a shooter could pull the trigger. By 1999, multiple gun makers were producing more AR-15s than ever before.

A 2004 report for the Justice Department found that the ban’s “effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” That year Congress let the ban lapse without much debate. Since then sales of weapons prohibited under the ban have soared, spurred by periodic calls to ban them again, and in the past year by fears over the pandemic and rioting. Before the 1994 ban, Americans owned approximately 400,000 AR-15s, according to government estimates; today, there are approximately 20 million AR-15 style rifles or similar weapons in private hands, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the gun industry.

Over the same period, mass shootings have also increased in frequency and deadliness, according to the FBI. One of the authors of the 2004 report, Christopher Koper, an associate professor of criminology at George Mason University, wrote in 2020 that “It is reasonable to argue that the federal ban could have prevented some of the recent increase in persons killed and injured in mass shootings had it remained in place,” mainly because of its restrictions on magazine capacity. Investigators are probing whether the Boulder shooter used an illegal 30-round magazine; Colorado state law limits new magazines to 15 rounds.

But efforts to reinstate an assault weapons ban haven’t come close to passing Congress, and even activist groups have moved it lower down on their agendas. Instead, their lobbying has been focused on other proposals, such as mandatory background checks for all gun sales and red flag laws, which allow authorities to temporarily seize guns from people considered to be a danger to themselves or others. Gun-rights groups have spent much of their energy lobbying Congress and state legislatures on allowing gun owners to carry weapons in public spaces. Neither side really expected another federal assault-weapons ban.

Now Mr. Biden and other Democratic leaders, including former President Clinton, have resurrected the idea. And a better-financed gun-control movement, including groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, is eager to push for new laws following the recent mass shootings. At the same time, gun-rights groups have been bolstered by new support. Last year saw record-breaking gun purchases, including an estimated 8.4 million new gun-owners, many purchasing weapons like the AR-15 that Mr. Biden says he wants to ban.

If a new assault-weapons ban does come before Congress, it may once again create a fierce political brawl while doing little to make America safer, leaving both gun-control and gun-rights backers disillusioned and angry.
-----------------
Mr. McWhirter and Mr. Elinson are reporters at The Wall Street Journal and are writing a book about the history of the AR-15 rifle.

[TSherbs]

just goes to show how sick with guns America is

addiction is hard to break

[dneal]

Can we please leave the vitriol in the other threads?

[TSherbs]

[I]

2nd amendment is subject to change through constitutional process


consensus is achieved at near-complete level

will to change is absent


rationale for resistance based on flawed reasoning

rationale for resistance based on venal considerations

agree on all points

[TSherbs]

changes for America:

1) Revise 2nd Amendment

2) 50-year buyback program funded by taxes and fees on gun purchases

3) Mandatory insurance program included with mandatory licensing process to cover costs to society for presence of these lethal weapons



Changing the relationship between Americans and guns will take decades of work. So let's get started. It's time for America to get its head out of its ass and believe in the value of long-term commitment to change. To take the mantra from the Civil Rights movement, we must keep our eyes on the prize.

[dneal]

Yeah, none of that is going to happen. Democrats won’t support it, and they’ll happily blame it’s lack of being on the table on Republicans.

[TSherbs]

just goes to show how sick with guns America is

addiction is hard to break

repeat, so EoC bot can enter the appropriate data

/organicformerlyknownasthemarlboroman

[dneal]

Ohio GOP Gov. DeWine signs bill allowing teachers to carry gun after 24 hours training (https://justthenews.com/government/state-houses/ohio-gop-gov-dewine-signs-bill-allowing-teachers-carry-gun-after-24-hours?utm_source=sf&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twjs)




Under the new law, local school boards still have the ability to prohibit firearms on their campuses

Ohio GOP Gov. Mike DeWine signed a bill Monday making it easier for teachers to carry guns in schools, capping the required training to no more than 24 hours.

Teachers and other school employees previously were required to complete the same basic training as law enforcement, which took over 700 hours.

Under the new law, local school boards still have the ability to prohibit firearms on their campuses. Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb said last week his school district intends to ban non-security personnel from carrying on campuses.

DeWine after signing the bill thanked the Legislature for "passing this bill to protect Ohio children and teachers." And he made clear: "This does not require any school to arm teachers or staff,” he said. “Every school will make its own decision."

Agree or not, this does seem to comport with Justice Brandeis' notion that: "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

Some may claim there is increased risk. Some may claim there is increased security. Mass school shootings are actually so statistically rare that we'll probably never know. It does seem reasonable that local communities, through their elected school boards, may choose the policy that affects their children - as opposed to some federal diktat.

[Chuck Naill]

Ironically no training was required for the Texas shooter.

Only if the teachers have extra-capacity assault rifes and whereby the teen mass shooter must give a ten minute warning prior to entering the class room.

The stupidity of the law comes from the recent incident from Uvalde where the police's weaponry was outmatched by the shooter. Imagine teaching and suddenly a shooter storms the back door.

The simple solution is either ban assualt type weapons for citizen or required age, training, background checks, and a 30 day waiting person.

[Lloyd]

Using Mental Health Team, Not Cops, on 911 Calls Lowers Crime

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20220614/sending-mental-health-team-not-cops-on-911-calls-lowers-crime?src=RSS_PUBLIC

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Ironically no training was required for the Texas shooter.

Fair point on the irony.


Only if the teachers have extra-capacity assault rifes and whereby the teen mass shooter must give a ten minute warning prior to entering the class room.

Chuck, you have a conditional statement with an antecedent but no consequent. What is the "then" to your "if"?


The stupidity of the law comes from the recent incident from Uvalde where the police's weaponry was outmatched by the shooter. Imagine teaching and suddenly a shooter storms the back door.

The police's weaponry was equivalent to the shooter. They both had ARs. Police also had pistols and shotguns, indicating the police's weaponry was actually superior to the shooter. Their motivation and determination did appear to be outmatched.


The simple solution is either ban assualt type weapons for citizen or required age, training, background checks, and a 30 day waiting person.

"Assault weapons" have only had cosmetic criteria when written into law, rendering the rest of the argument moot.

See: Winchester Model 1907, it's functional characteristics and availability, date of origin, etc... Semi-automatic rifles in civilian usage arguably predate military usage.

[dneal]

Using Mental Health Team, Not Cops, on 911 Calls Lowers Crime

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20220614/sending-mental-health-team-not-cops-on-911-calls-lowers-crime?src=RSS_PUBLIC

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Kind of turns into a different topic I've been interested in, that revolves around the idea in Radley Balko's The Rise of the Warrior Cop. There are many instances of police responding to clear mental health crises which end up fatal to the citizen.

There seems to have been a shift in a few things: The first is the psych exam (and there are a few different ones used). I can't recall the specific axis, but it related to psychopathy and conscientiousness, and was a high bar. That has been lowered over the years - a mix of not enough recruits and police unions. An example question was "would you rather chase down a bank robber or help an old lady change a tire". The tire change was the "correct" answer.

The second revolves around training. "officer safety" and "compliance" are considered critical, and have replaced "verbal judo" to deescalate. My uncle is a recently retired highway patrolman, and we talk about military and police differences and similarities. One conversation was about the news video of a black preacher undergoing threat training with simunition guns. The role-player doesn't comply and the preacher eventually shoots. That's used as justification of just how dangerous it is "out there" and why shootings are justified. I pointed out it was bad training that created and reinforced unnecessary escalation. Tell the "bad guy" role-player that the preacher has live ammunition, and see if he is still as quick to disregard commands and rush the preacher playing police officer... He laughed, and said "yeah, that probably would change things a little bit..."

[Chuck Naill]

The condition would be to allow teachers to arm themselves.

Your last statement is too vague to appreciate your point. If your point is an assault rifle is one that looks like one, that’s not what I am addressing. In context, most Americans have an idea of what constitutes an assault rifles.

[dneal]

The condition would be to allow teachers to arm themselves.

Your last statement is too vague to appreciate your point. If your point is an assault rifle is one that looks like one, that’s not what I am addressing. In context, most Americans have an idea of what constitutes an assault rifles.

Thanks. I understand your point to be "if teachers have high-capacity assault rifles, and shooters give a 10 minute warning, then we could allow teachers to be armed." Let me know if I didn't get that right.

For the second point, it is the vagueness that is the problem. "Assault rifle" usually is defined by characteristics that don't have anything to do with functionality.

Senator Feinstein is usually at the front of these bans. Her proposals are summarized on her senate website (https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary)

Let's look at the first one.


All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

Note that a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine, but without one of the other features, remains legal in her proposal. This is where the Winchester 1907 of that same year, or current the current production Ruger Mini 14 referenced in another thread, are unaffected.

No one can explain how a threaded barrel, barrel shroud or pistol grip, for example, affects the "deadliness" of an "assault rifle". That's kind of the problem alluded to in the other thread(s). When the proposals don't make any sense to those who actually understand firearms, those advocates of the proposals lose a lot of credibility. The military does have a grenade launcher (M203, for example) that attach to an M16, but all grenade launchers are already categorized as destructive devices by the ATF (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-1). By the time you get to "rocket launcher", the proposal is ridiculous. Those are specific weapon systems, and not attached to small arms even in the DOD.

Here are her proposals for shotguns:


All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

So basically a plain-old semiautomatic shotgun is just fine. A pump shotgun can have a fixed (tube) magazine of more than 5 rounds? The DOD doesn't even have shotguns with grenade launchers.

A 12 gauge shotgun is just as lethal without a pistol grip or without.

[Chuck Naill]

I can appreciate now what you’re saying. I think what most of us want are restrictions for potential lethal capacity, no weapon that could outmatch military or police, a waiting period, and required training to use legally.

If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

[dneal]

So a couple of things. First is the overarching point that those who ask everyone come together for "common sense" gun reform often end up proposing "nonsense" gun reform. I harp on this point because the gun-control side undermines its potential support, then gets more vocal which further undermines potential support.

Here are two Mossberg semiautomatic shotguns. One would be illegal simply because of the pistol grip. That's really just an ergonomic thing, and I actually prefer a traditional grip.

7066470665

Second, it is completely unambiguous that the 2nd Amendment was intended to provide the citizens the ability to fight both foreign and domestic powers. The Army is mentioned in the original document, and the militia is referred to in the amendments. It is clear that they are two different things. But even if one was to cede your argument that Heller was a new interpretation - and you'll find that there are no real previous rulings about what it meant until Heller - "Well regulated" didn't mean "lots of regulations". Its meaning is better considered in terms of a "well regulated" clock. Efficient. Effective.

There is precedent for citizens needing to come together to defeat an over reaching government. See: "Battle of Athens" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)). Firearms that match the police and military are important, even if it doesn't seem so in today's society.

Even if one cedes there would never be a tyrannical government (a harder claim with each day, and both parties love to disregard the 4th and 5th amendments, and now the 1st, as is convenient to them), how would you fight an invader if you didn't have some sort of parity?

Lastly, hypothesize that you eliminate nearly all legally owned weapons in the United States. One only needs to look at Mexico to see the danger of well-funded, ruthless, criminal organizations and the ease with which a government can fight one. Keep going. Honduras. Colombia. El Salvador. There's more than one reason we have so many people fleeing here - aside from economic reasons.

You could argue that sort of criminal activity would be easily quashed by U.S. police and/or military. I would point you to our "successes" in Viet Nam and Afghanistan. An insurgency, whether ideological or criminal, is nearly impossible to defeat.

Yes, guns are a problem. But before you spend all the mental effort on which ones should be outlawed and why, it's beneficial to spend some time considering the consequences. Military planners consider a "most likely" course of action, but also a "most dangerous" one. These examples of Central and South American countries aren't impossible, or even improbable. Look at the trouble we already have with cartel funded gangs, like MS13.

You have no idea the resources we already dedicate in the NORTHCOM (responsible for Mexico) and SOUTHCOM (responsible for central and South America) AOR's - and that's just the DOD. Add in the FBI, CIA, State Dept, DEA, etc... See: Joint Interagency Taskforce South (JIATF-S) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Interagency_Task_Force_South).

[Chuck Naill]

The second amendment is not ambiguous.

The issue is readily available killing potential to any American.

[dneal]

The second amendment is not ambiguous.

The issue is readily available killing potential to any American.

Perhaps you could plainly state what you believe it means. Maybe I've missed it, but I think you've just said it's been reinterpreted and it's not ambiguous - but not what it means.

There are lots of readily available things to potentially kill any American with.

You seem to be back to simply making statements but offering no rationale for them. That's fine, but that's where the impasse is reached and there's little reason to keep reiterating your point.

[Chuck Naill]

If you don’t comprehend my last post, I’ll try again. Not sure how more clear I could state my opinion.

[Lloyd]

dneal - Do you think that some legislation should be put in place to limit/restrict arms to the general populace? If so, in what way?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

dneal - Do you think that some legislation should be put in place to limit/restrict arms to the general populace? If so, in what way?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I'm admittedly conflicted. I have a hard time coming up with a solution, mainly because there are so many gaps in the system. Pick your proposal and I'll list many ways it won't do what you want or is too impractical to implement. I'm also conflicted as a matter of principle. The 2nd Amendment says what it says, and I don't think you nibble around the Constitution when there is a clear (but admittedly difficult) way to change it if that's what "the people" really wanted.

I'm still of the opinion that it's a largely mental health problem (the mass shootings in general, excepting gang related drive by nonsense and outright terrorism). I think something that addresses that is reasonable, and generally in accordance with the law and the constitution. The flip side it that it's a big opening into an individual's privacy. It violates doctor-patient privilege, which is pretty "sacred". It could cause people who need help to not seek it.

Most of the solutions are double edged swords that need deliberate consideration and not knee-jerk decrees.

I think red-flag laws can be crafted to be useful and not be abused (but I also think that's already in the realm of a judge's authority).

We can pass red flag laws, waiting periods, ban assault weapons, or any other seemingly reasonable law. The sheer volume of "modern" guns, gathered for over 100 years with no record of them is a big hurdle to overcome. Then some person who has a family Winchester 1907, Browning Automatic Rifle (the famous BAR of WWII), whatever... which has no record of even existing... decides to shoot something up. What law would prevent that? Criminals only become criminals after the fact. A pump-shotgun in a close environment would be horrible - much worse than anything you would see from an AR15 - and the politicians are talking about pistol grips and barrel shrouds on black rifles.

[Lloyd]

Thank you for you response, dneal. In the same close environment, why would a pump be worse than a semi-auto?


Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Thank you for you response, dneal. In the same close environment, why would a pump be worse than a semi-auto?


Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Just to be clear, a shotgun would be worse than a rifle in a close environment. 00 Buck has 8-9 pellets that are .33" in diameter (just a hair smaller than a 9mm bullet). #1 buck has 12-16 pellets that are .30" in diameter (caliber is diameter in decimal inches - so those are .30 caliber pellets). That's one shell. A shotgun usually holds 5 shells. One shell of #1 puts all those pellets in a pattern that is wider depending on distance. The equivalent of 12-16 shots in close proximity with one trigger squeeze. Everything starts to get gruesome after this, so I'll just leave it.

Most modern shotguns are loaded from the bottom. Just shove more shells in whenever you want, as you go. It's amazing how fast people can do this when they practice (like 3-gun competitions).

To address pump vs semiautomatic (sticking with shotguns, but the principle applies to rifles and handguns), the semiautomatic firearm will self-load the next round and shoot more rounds per minute (finger speed on the trigger is the limiting factor - it will cycle faster than your ability). But, there is recoil every time you pull the trigger. It becomes harder to get back on target.

[Chuck Naill]

Isn’t this is issue? Does anyone think the shooters are working to get back on target?

These men are not in the caliber of a military sniper or marksman.

All they bring is rage/anger and enough resources to run down a get a high human killing tool with copious amounts of bullets.

The solution is clear and it’s not to try to heal hurting people. It is not a better understanding of the definition of an assault firearm.

[Chip]

Rather than zeroing in (so to speak) on the individual, I'd urge that firearms manufacturers be subject to the same standards of liability as makers of baby seats or automobiles or medications or tobacco products.

If they choose to supply a product which is calculated to appeal to deranged males, suited only to use as a murder weapon, then they should be subject to the same legal hazard as any supplier of potentially dangerous goods.

[Chuck Naill]

That wouldn’t work. Baby seats are meant to protect babies and children under a certain weight. Liability would be if that product does not work due to a flaw. Guns are made to fire bullets. Obviously those assault rifles are working as designed.

[Chip]

That wouldn’t work. Baby seats are meant to protect babies and children under a certain weight. Liability would be if that product does not work due to a flaw. Guns are made to fire bullets. Obviously those assault rifles are working as designed.

You don't understand tort law. Something might work as designed and still cause an injury (in legal terms, a tort).

Such weapons are designed to kill enemy combatants quickly. Allowing them to be used to murder schoolchildren is clearly a misapplication. If the makers are held responsible (as they are in moral terms) perhaps they'll stop peddling military weapons to crazies.

[Lloyd]

Do lighter fluid and lighter companies pay taxes due to arsons?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Do lighter fluid and lighter companies pay taxes due to arsons?

Nothing to do with taxes. Liability suits are civil proceedings that assign responsibility for harm or injury, and often assess financial penalties.

For instance, a degreasing compound might work very much as intended, but when the maker discharged it into groundwater and it got into a municipal water supply, poisoning thousands, causing cancer and birth defects, etc. that constituted a tort: an injury under the law. Those poisoned or otherwise harmed have a right to sue and recover damages.

Selling extremely lethal weapons with few restrictions is similar to discharging a carcinogenic solvent to public waters.

[Lloyd]

Lighter fluid can be dangerous. Misusing it, like misusing a gun, can cause death.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

Interesting thoughts from a psychiatrist and academic. The second article was written on response to reader comments on the first.
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/62abdbf2a8502/Psych1.PDF
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/62abdbfe3fc70/Psych2.PDF


Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Lloyd, those two articles were very good. They clearly articulate the complexity of just one aspect of the issue, problems identifying and implementing solutions, and negative consequences that may equal or outweigh the positive results desired. The double edged sword of “solutions”.

[Chuck Naill]

Ban assault firearms, do a buy back, put owners in prison if they don't comply, make families and parents responsible, do red flag laws, and see how many mass shooting occur in the next five years.

While you may have knife stabbings and killings, it won't be 19 4th graders in a matter of seconds. Plus, the police may feel emboldened to do their job.

[dneal]

Back on topic, Politico (a left-leaning publication (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politico-media-bias), for our international friends) published an update on the Senate's meetings and the larger political positions and implications.

House Dems fret Senate GOP will pull about-face on gun deal (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/14/house-democrats-gun-deal-worries-00039347?cid=apn)

Some points I thought interesting in bold:


Progressives still have significant questions about the agreement, like whether it would increase police presence in schools. But they'll likely take what they can get.

Getting to legislation will be extremely complicated: Senators in both parties have generally agreed to incentivize “red flag” laws that allow temporary confiscation of guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others; to crack down on “straw purchases” of firearms; to fund school safety; and to create a new way to “review juvenile and mental health records” during background checks.

Progressives warn that hiccups in writing out any one of those policy changes could unravel the entire accord. And they worry the effort could fall apart completely if lawmakers don’t get it to Biden’s desk before leaving for the next lengthy break — the July Fourth recess, which starts at the end of next week.

“Once the text of this agreement is finalized, and I hope it will be as soon as possible, I will put this bill on the floor quickly so the Senate can move quickly to make gun safety reform a reality,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

House progressives are particularly concerned about school security funding: While many of the conversations have been about “hardening” schools with locks and gates, Democrats are worried that it could also mean paying for more cops in schools. That could be a nonstarter for the Congressional Black Caucus, as well as some progressives.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she wanted to see the details of the agreement and had concerns about “criminalization,” including the language about reviewing juvenile records for gun buyers under 21.

“I want to explore the implications of that, and specifically how it’s designed and tailored,” she said. “You know, after Columbine we hired thousands of police officers into schools, and while it didn’t prevent many of the mass shootings that we’ve seen now, it has increased the criminalization of teens in communities like mine.”

Disputes over legislative language are precisely the kind of thorny details that have derailed Congress’ previous attempts at expanding gun-safety laws in the wake of horrific mass shootings. That includes senators’ last effort to expand background checks in 2019, which included some of the same players.

[Lloyd]

Have members here looked at the list of gunless school attacks in China to see what atrocities can be performed without a gun as well as to think what might have happened if guns were available?
Wikipedia-School attacks in China
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China
In most cases things would likely have been significantly worse than even these tragedies with guns. However, several "attackers" were more "creative" and created equally horrific massacres.
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

The solution is easy.

[dneal]

Have members here looked at the list of gunless school attacks in China to see what atrocities can be performed without a gun as well as to think what might have happened if guns were available?
Wikipedia-School attacks in China
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China
In most cases things would likely have been significantly worse than even these tragedies with guns. However, several "attackers" were more "creative" and created equally horrific massacres.
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Yes. (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/37242-Massacre?p=366321&viewfull=1#post366321)

You make a fair point of the potentially worse outcomes if a gun was present. If anything, it provides more evidence that it's not the tool that's the issue and our efforts should be spent identifying the common or root cause(s).

[Lloyd]

Have members here looked at the list of gunless school attacks in China to see what atrocities can be performed without a gun as well as to think what might have happened if guns were available?
Wikipedia-School attacks in China
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China
In most cases things would likely have been significantly worse than even these tragedies with guns. However, several "attackers" were more "creative" and created equally horrific massacres.
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Yes. (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/37242-Massacre?p=366321&viewfull=1#post366321)

You make a fair point of the potentially worse outcomes if a gun was present. If anything, it provides more evidence that it's not the tool that's the issue and our efforts should be spent identifying the common or root cause(s).

The number of attacks in China is far higher than in the USA. However, there it's usually committed by a significantly older MALE than here. I disagree on the guns not being the issue as, with China, most of these incidences would likely have been far worse. In the USA, it seems like the biggest issue is the scale not the frequency. As for figuring out the cause, that psychologist article I posted shows that this is highly unlikely.
I think our society needs to promote reporting of potential individual threats. I think the entertainment industry needs to include this theme in more movies in such a way that it inspires without being saccharine. I think people need to know that, not just the reported on, but the reporters will receive support/protection/ advise.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Guns are part of the issue, no doubt. I can’t reconcile the fact that they’ve been ubiquitous since the founding, but mass shootings are relatively recent. “Going Postal…” and all that. Semiautomatic rifles have been in circulation for over 100 years.

Give this paper (https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=9750940991000070250700690710761130 28118048034028083053113066078025103015067104089087 00001911903102605805508201611410500401708402702702 10840040660681190120311240560000071120671160000861 13094112004069069002090086090091031089086120093003 107075000027&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE) a look. He shows his work, so you can “do the math” quite literally.

I’d honestly be interested in your take of the data.

[Lloyd]

I looked over about 2/3 of it. I'm no specialist in this field, but I know the how statistics can be used to make many points (there ain't no truth). See this article
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/24/980838151/gun-violence-deaths-how-the-u-s-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

I looked over about 2/3 of it. I'm no specialist in this field, but I know the how statistics can be used to make many points (there ain't no truth). See this article
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/24/980838151/gun-violence-deaths-how-the-u-s-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I'm a fan of Disraeli's "lies, damned lies and statistics"*, but that's just pointing out that sophistry can be employed with numbers as well as with letters.

What I was looking for was your opinion of the overall piece. The author goes to great lengths to describe their sources and methodologies, how they scrutinized and employed them, and how they arrived at the conclusion. Setting aside whether they're correct or not for the moment, does it appear to be a good-faith effort to be transparent and/or objective? Some of the information is irrelevant to an extent, but I don't see anything glaringly out of place.

Although the conclusion isn't what one would intuitively suspect, the presentation does seem reasonable. I'm skeptical of everything to some extent, and was curious about your opinion as a second set of eyes with a math background and liberal philosophy.

*attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain

[Lloyd]

I looked over about 2/3 of it. I'm no specialist in this field, but I know the how statistics can be used to make many points (there ain't no truth). See this article
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/24/980838151/gun-violence-deaths-how-the-u-s-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I'm a fan of Disraeli's "lies, damned lies and statistics"*, but that's just pointing out that sophistry can be employed with numbers as well as with letters.

What I was looking for was your opinion of the overall piece. The author goes to great lengths to describe their sources and methodologies, how they scrutinized and employed them, and how they arrived at the conclusion. Setting aside whether they're correct or not for the moment, does it appear to be a good-faith effort to be transparent and/or objective? Some of the information is irrelevant to an extent, but I don't see anything glaringly out of place.

Although the conclusion isn't what one would intuitively suspect, the presentation does seem reasonable. I'm skeptical of everything to some extent, and was curious about your opinion as a second set of eyes with a math background and liberal philosophy.

*attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain
It was tabulations of values which I assume are correct. It was just an exploration into what these numbers might imply. There are other ways of looking at the numbers to make other implications as the article I sent I was trying to do. I assume the numbers aren't lying, but how you interpret them is quite variable.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I would like o e if these.
https://www.shotgunlife.com/shotguns/guns/cz-modern-hammer-classic.html

[Lloyd]

Loopholes and Missing Data: The Gaps in the Gun Background Check System
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/us/gun-background-checks.html

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Paywall... :/

[Lloyd]

Same article, different site
https://worldnewsera.com/news/us-news/loopholes-and-missing-data-the-gaps-in-the-gun-background-check-system/

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Same article, different site
https://worldnewsera.com/news/us-news/loopholes-and-missing-data-the-gaps-in-the-gun-background-check-system/

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Reasonably fair article. Some comments:

The 3 day "limitation inserted by the gun-lobby" was a compromise to prevent the government from dragging its feet. "We didn't deny anyone their 2nd Amendment rights... we just haven't gotten around to approving their purchase yet...". The pro-gun side will claim the Obama administration did this, but in fairness sales went through the roof during his admin. That said, his administration also stopped processing appeals to denials. If the government wants to mandate a system, the government should fund one that works.

Some of it is specious.

Even the smallest error can lead, directly or indirectly, to tragedy. In 2014, a 15-year-old boy walked into his high school in Marysville, Wash., and fatally shot four students before killing himself. The gun he used was purchased by his father, who obtained it after a background check failed to flag an order of protection filed against him for assaulting his onetime partner, after local authorities failed to input a conviction for domestic abuse, which should have halted the sale instantly.

The "Lautenberg Amendment" makes it illegal for anyone convicted of domestic violence to possess a firearm. Not clear here, but a protective order is not a conviction. Also, it could have been average not-wife-beating dude whose 15 y/o did that.

They get the Air Force story right, but that's not a state or local government they're citing as a problem. It's the federal government not reporting to the federal government. Not a NICS problem, but a compliance problem.

Private sales don't require background checks. The ATF doesn't refer to sales though, they refer to "transfers". I can give my mother a gun. No check required. I can sell it to her also. No check required. The argument against universal checks is that it stymies that, imposing an undue burden on the majority who are law-abiding. It ignores that criminals don't go to the gun store and buy guns. They steal them or have a friend/girlfriend/family member/etc... buy it for them. That's already an illegal "straw-purchase". Not much way around that, and we haven't even got to all the guns that have no record of existing.

Gunshows. If you're a dealer at a gun show you conduct a background check. If you're a private seller, you don't have to. It's not a loophole for gunshows, that's just a location. Hypothetically, if you're a dealer selling pens at a penshow, you collect tax. If you're a private seller, you don't. The fact that it's a hotel ballroom is just an incidental fact. "Pen sellers avoid sales tax at penshows!!! There's a penshow loophole!!!" (yeah, I know tax law varies by state, etc... It's just to illustrate a point).

I like that they show the problems with family members having knowledge of something outside the system. Not a lot to be done about that. Notifying police when a family member who owns a firearm has even a non-violent episode or just for a wellness check has resulted in the family member being shot by the police.

I like that they point out the gun-control side has a problem with the mental health and juvenile proposals. It's not just one side that has objections to "common sense" laws.

Each of those issues (mental health and juvenile records) are laden with legitimate objections.

[Lloyd]

Thank you for taking the time to go through that, dneal.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Niner]

If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

The well-documented intent of the Framers makes it clear the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to use fear of the populace to restrain government from becoming tyrannical. The centuries-long recognition of the natural right of self defense is also given note but is not the primary intent. Of course, no one is required to accept the Framers' logic. See Castro, Hitler, Lenin, et al. who seemed to understand what the Framers were getting at.

[TSherbs]

If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

The well-documented intent of the Framers makes it clear the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to use fear of the populace to restrain government from becoming tyrannical.

Which document would that be? Madison's notes?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Just listen to an NPR discussion about smart guns. Sounds promising as a way to have a loaded firearm safely.

[TSherbs]

If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

The well-documented intent of the Framers makes it clear the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to use fear of the populace to restrain government from becoming tyrannical.

Which document would that be? Madison's notes?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Actually, now I have had a chance to read more, spurred by Niner's comment. Adams and Jefferson made a few comments on ownership of arms, but I had not read before the various states' "rights" that were proposed at basically the same time as the convention debates (more or less the same time), which were often clearer in their language. Indeed, the draft version of the 2nd Amendment is even clearer than the final version: in shortening the 2nd, they muddied it.

So let me also be clear about this: I don't disagree with Niner's assessment about the 2nd and its purpose: I was more interested in what sources he/she knew of.

[dneal]

If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

The well-documented intent of the Framers makes it clear the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to use fear of the populace to restrain government from becoming tyrannical. The centuries-long recognition of the natural right of self defense is also given note but is not the primary intent. Of course, no one is required to accept the Framers' logic. See Castro, Hitler, Lenin, et al. who seemed to understand what the Framers were getting at.

Yes, which is made clear to anyone who bothers to read Scalia's Heller decision and the thorough history it includes.

[Chuck Naill]

That's like reading Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. There is no correct way to interpret a document regardless of the source because two people may read the same sentence and have differing opinions. This is why the best way to interpret is not from what someone's opinion is, but to allow the document to speak for itself. "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."

The Heller decision said an individual could keep a gun in the house for personal protection. The amendment says nothing of personal protection, but "security of a free state".

[TSherbs]

That's like reading Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. There is no correct way to interpret a document regardless of the source because two people may read the same sentence and have differing opinions.

You're clearly not Catholic. Nor am I, but traditional Catholics believe in only one interpretation of central teachings of Jesus and the Church. I've read some of the encyclicals and other papal documents. Wild stuff!



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

That's like reading Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. There is no correct way to interpret a document regardless of the source because two people may read the same sentence and have differing opinions. This is why the best way to interpret is not from what someone's opinion is, but to allow the document to speak for itself. "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."

The Heller decision said an individual could keep a gun in the house for personal protection. The amendment says nothing of personal protection, but "security of a free state".

The Heller decision clarifies all that. It points out the difference between the prefatory clause and the operative clause, what difference it makes and why. The militia is one purpose. Personal protection (self-defense), to include keeping a firearm in the home is another. Defense of the people from a tyrannical government is another. It cites the definition of "bear" and "arms" applicable to the period, referencing several dictionaries from the era. It cites state constitutions that predate the federal constitution, and the context of why they were in state constitutions in the first place. It clarifies the history, going back to English common law and the disarming of Catholics. It discusses the disarming of blacks during Jim Crow. It refutes Stevens' dissent as it goes along. It's all thoroughly documented and footnoted.

But you have to read it to know all that. You have to read it to devise a cogent rebuttal. Harping on "but it says 'militia'" just demonstrates that you haven't.

Inform yourself. Do the due diligence of a college undergraduate in a 100 level history or civics class, or mouth off like a 6th grader with an opinion. Respond as if you were demonstrating the familiarity required for a "short answer" quiz. You don't have to agree with Scalia, but you at least should understand the analysis that resulted in the decision.

Since so many people seem to have this issue recently - I don't think I'm smarter than you. I do think you make yourself look dumb (ignorant, more strictly speaking). If pointing out facts that you haven't bothered with is the cause, that's a shortfall on your end and not mine.

Now go on and resort to the predictable ad hominem or other typical deflections...

[Chuck Naill]

The Heller decision is not the Second Ammendment, but an opinion about how it could be interpreted. Of course, you’d have to tie yourself into a pretzel to come to the conclusion that personal protection was the first or secondary purpose. The intent is so obvious.

No reason to attack you @dneal.

[dneal]

Chuck, I think the distinction is that it is the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. A decision is not an opinion about how it could be interpreted, but how it is interpreted.

You don't have to tie yourself in a pretzel to conclude that self-defense is one of the most basic fundamental rights. No life form is obligated to surrender its existence without a struggle.

[TSherbs]

The Heller decision is not the Second Ammendment, but an opinion about how it could be interpreted....

Indeed, as the recent Dobbs decision has demonstrated for us, the SC "opinions" are not sacred, permanent, or even "right" (apparently). Indeed, sometimes the SC tells us in an "opinion" that the other "opinions"--past or present or both--are wrong. SC decisions recognize some forms of precedent and reject others. We should see no permanent or absolute truth in any of these opinions, because the court itself does not see their decions (written as "opinions") this way.

I do acknowledge the wisdom and intelligence of all the members of this court. They are impressively educated, that is for sure (I have two justices whom I feel are unfit to serve in the role, but that is about sexual crimes of the past, not a lack of education or wisdom). But each justice does have a certain judicial philosophy, and this colors how they view precedents and "interpret" the language and meaning of the Constitution. You are right to point out the difference between the actual original document (its language) and the "interpretation" of it by the SC over time (centuries now) and all the different varieties of justices that have comprised it.

[Chuck Naill]

And their interpretations play a role in our lives. That does not mean we need to agree with their interpretations or intentions. It doesn’t mean forum members need to agree.I’m not trying to get @dneal to change his interpretations except if he extends it to mean anyone who wants any firearm or any reason, and not background or training , that that person is protected by the Constitution. They may be currently, but it’s a poor interpretation that allows such a sad state of affairs for 19 forth graders to be decapitated by an angry boy with an assault gun. It’s morally wrong and unjustified.

For me the plain reading of the Second Ammendment was for the “security of the state”.

[TSherbs]

And their interpretations play a role in our lives. That does not mean we need to agree with their interpretations or intentions. It doesn’t mean forum members need to agree.I’m not trying to get @dneal to change his interpretations except if he extends it to mean anyone who wants any firearm or any reason, and not background or training , that that person is protected by the Constitution. They may be currently, but it’s a poor interpretation that allows such a sad state of affairs for 19 forth graders to be decapitated by an angry boy with an assault gun. It’s morally wrong and unjustified.

For me the plain reading of the Second Ammendment was for the “security of the state”.

It was primarily for that reason, but I don't think that that was the *only* reason. But it was the primary one that had the founders most concerned.

[Lloyd]

For me the plain reading of the Second Ammendment was for the “security of the state”.

It seems to have lead to the insecurity of the state.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

And their interpretations play a role in our lives. That does not mean we need to agree with their interpretations or intentions. It doesn’t mean forum members need to agree.I’m not trying to get @dneal to change his interpretations except if he extends it to mean anyone who wants any firearm or any reason, and not background or training , that that person is protected by the Constitution. They may be currently, but it’s a poor interpretation that allows such a sad state of affairs for 19 forth graders to be decapitated by an angry boy with an assault gun. It’s morally wrong and unjustified.

For me the plain reading of the Second Ammendment was for the “security of the state”.

It was primarily for that reason, but I don't think that that was the *only* reason. But it was the primary one that had the founders most concerned.

If the state said you needed transportation to protect the nation, assuming you would use it to get a bread and milk was assumed, I suspect. What was not assumed that you would use that transportation to mow down little ones on their way to school. So, obviously, not everyone needs their own transportation. With right come responsibilities.

What chaps my butt is these so called originalists, learned as they are, saying the constitution does not mention abortion, then deciding that the founders knew in advance that AR-15's would be coming.

If the shooter in Texas really wanted to exercise his rights, he should have had the balls to confront the police head on, not destroying little boys and girls, and educators. I hate the mentality of the fucking people who hide behind the Constitution when it suits them. I don't think that was the intent.

[Chuck Naill]

For me the plain reading of the Second Ammendment was for the “security of the state”.

It seems to have lead to the insecurity of the state.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Good point, sir!!

[Niner]

If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

The well-documented intent of the Framers makes it clear the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to use fear of the populace to restrain government from becoming tyrannical.

Which document would that be? Madison's notes?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I read much on the topic shortly after Heller. The Complete Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, available from several publishers, is a good source. If you don't mind a journey with the length and scope of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, a most excellent starting place is The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams. It's a pre-Heller book.

The Primer footnotes many primary sources. Many. It plainly lays out a one-sided argument, as it is arguing a side of a thing. I recall that until about twenty pages in I thought about using the book to help fill a recycle bin. Either I got into the flow, or the book improves after about twenty pages.

I'll note a couple of things about the author. One is his arrogance about being a lawyer. He mentions a novel yet very good argument a layman (non-lawyer) made and points out how unusual it is for a layman to achieve such a thing. The other disappointing thing is that near the end of the book he gives himself an escape route. I don't recall what it was, but it amounted to "But of course all of this is possibly nonsense." He's a lawyer, after all, so he leaves himself a way to deny everything he has said. Nonetheless, the book is an excellent source for sources.

[TSherbs]

And their interpretations play a role in our lives. That does not mean we need to agree with their interpretations or intentions. It doesn’t mean forum members need to agree.I’m not trying to get @dneal to change his interpretations except if he extends it to mean anyone who wants any firearm or any reason, and not background or training , that that person is protected by the Constitution. They may be currently, but it’s a poor interpretation that allows such a sad state of affairs for 19 forth graders to be decapitated by an angry boy with an assault gun. It’s morally wrong and unjustified.

For me the plain reading of the Second Ammendment was for the “security of the state”.

It was primarily for that reason, but I don't think that that was the *only* reason. But it was the primary one that had the founders most concerned.

If the state said you needed transportation to protect the nation, assuming you would use it to get a bread and milk was assumed, I suspect. What was not assumed that you would use that transportation to mow down little ones on their way to school. So, obviously, not everyone needs their own transportation. With right come responsibilities.

What chaps my butt is these so called originalists, learned as they are, saying the constitution does not mention abortion, then deciding that the founders knew in advance that AR-15's would be coming.

If the shooter in Texas really wanted to exercise his rights, he should have had the balls to confront the police head on, not destroying little boys and girls, and educators. I hate the mentality of the fucking people who hide behind the Constitution when it suits them. I don't think that was the intent.

I don't disagree. The 2nd Amendment needs to be re-written for modern times. It's a terrible (vague) sentence, and its suggestion of an unlimited right is a scourge in modern society.

[TSherbs]

If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

The well-documented intent of the Framers makes it clear the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to use fear of the populace to restrain government from becoming tyrannical.

Which document would that be? Madison's notes?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I read much on the topic shortly after Heller. The Complete Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, available from several publishers, is a good source. If you don't mind a journey with the length and scope of The Lord of the Rings, a most excellent starting place is The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams. It's a pre-Heller book.

The Primer footnotes many primary sources. Many. It plainly lays out a one-sided argument, as it is arguing a side of a thing. I recall that until about twenty pages in I thought about using the book to help fill a recycle bin. Either I got into the flow, or the book improves after about twenty pages.

I'll note a couple of things about the author. One is his arrogance about being a lawyer. He mentions a novel yet very good argument a layman (non-lawyer) made and points out how unusual it is for a layman to achieve such a thing. The other disappointing thing is that near the end of the book he gives himself an escape route. I don't recall what it was, but it amounted to "But of course all of this is possibly nonsense." He's a lawyer, after all, so he leaves himself a way to deny everything he has said. Nonetheless, the book is an excellent source for sources.

Thanks, Niner. I did do some more reading on the subject and learned some things. A full length book on this topic is not something that I am interested in dedicating time to, but I appreciate your response.

[Lloyd]

If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

The well-documented intent of the Framers makes it clear the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to use fear of the populace to restrain government from becoming tyrannical.

Which document would that be? Madison's notes?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I read much on the topic shortly after Heller. The Complete Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, available from several publishers, is a good source. If you don't mind a journey with the length and scope of The Lord of the Rings, a most excellent starting place is The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams. It's a pre-Heller book.

The Primer footnotes many primary sources. Many. It plainly lays out a one-sided argument, as it is arguing a side of a thing. I recall that until about twenty pages in I thought about using the book to help fill a recycle bin. Either I got into the flow, or the book improves after about twenty pages.

I'll note a couple of things about the author. One is his arrogance about being a lawyer. He mentions a novel yet very good argument a layman (non-lawyer) made and points out how unusual it is for a layman to achieve such a thing. The other disappointing thing is that near the end of the book he gives himself an escape route. I don't recall what it was, but it amounted to "But of course all of this is possibly nonsense." He's a lawyer, after all, so he leaves himself a way to deny everything he has said. Nonetheless, the book is an excellent source for sources.
This reminds me of a book version of a documentary film on a significant topic (guns, climate, fast food, etc.) where a lot of effort and knowledge goes into making one side of a debate seem like the only rational choice.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Isn't the point of debating to make one's chosen argument seem to be the rational choice?

Nature of the beast, I reckon.

[Lloyd]

Isn't the point of debating to make one's chosen argument seem to be the rational choice?

Nature of the beast, I reckon.
Absolutely. However, documentaries and (possibly) the aforementioned book were pitched as fact, not opinion. I understand that all so-called facts are matters of opinion, but the obvious misuse by poor statistics (cherry picking, small samples) or using emotional manipulation is what most of these do.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Isn't the point of debating to make one's chosen argument seem to be the rational choice?

Nature of the beast, I reckon.
Absolutely. However, documentaries and (possibly) the aforementioned book were pitched as fact, not opinion. I understand that all so-called facts are matters of opinion, but the obvious misuse by poor statistics (cherry picking, small samples) or using emotional manipulation is what most of these do.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Debates, documentaries, arguments, etc, are neither just "fact" nor "opinion." They are a rhetorical exercises built on a miixture of facts, opinion, logical deductions, logical inferences, open questions, appeals to authority, etc, etc...and other rhetorical strategies in order to persuade, enlighten, caution, etc. The categories "fact" and "opinion" are not, singly, accurate descriptors of what these exercises represent.

[Lloyd]

You and I know this, but some are pitched as facts and some are pitched as opinion.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Here is a new Sig Sauer gun "experience center" opening soon to the public not that far from where I live in Maine (I am in the southern part of Maine). Sig Sauer has a big plant on the former grounds of the Pease Air Force base, once one of the major homes to our fleet of B-52s. The runway (giant!) and terminal are still used by the military and by a couple of private airlines.

Asa Hutchinson attended this opening ceremony in NH because all of the Sig Sauer ammo is manufactured in Arkansas, so he kisses Sig Sauer butt wherever the CEO goes....

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2022/07/14/sig-sauer-unveils-new-13-5-m-experience-center-epping/10051114002/

[Chip]

https://i.imgur.com/0nyVLno.jpg

[Niner]

That would be very much to the point if the number of schoolchildren shot to death by assault rifle-wielding murderers on school grounds during school hours or at school functions (and presumably either in Texas, Cruz's state, or else the in the U.S.) during a known period exactly filled fifty-two school buses (the schoolbus being a unit of variable quantity). To my knowledge, the actual number of schoolchildren ever killed with assault rifles in the U.S. is precisely zero. But then, nearly every reference to an assault rifle that I have ever encountered was made by persons who not only had never touched an assault rifle, but did not know the definition of the term.

[Chip]

To my knowledge, the actual number of schoolchildren ever killed with assault rifles in the U.S. is precisely zero. But then, nearly every reference to an assault rifle that I have ever encountered was made by persons who not only had never touched an assault rifle, but did not know the definition of the term.

So, because the weapons involved don't conform to your narrow definition, the killing of 4368 children is no problem?

Do you have a mil-spec list of approved firearms for slaughtering innocent people?

[TSherbs]

That would be very much to the point ...

I think the point is that too many children have died by gun. The article states that clearly. With which I agree. You?




Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

That would be very much to the point ...

I think the point is that too many children have died by gun. The article states that clearly. With which I agree. You?




Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I think Niner was referring to the image of the buses arranged like an assault rifle.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I know, but that is not the "point" of the message. I'm quoting "point" because Niner used the word.

Again, the "point" of the message was stated in the text: too many children have died from gun violence.

Buses (the way you spell it means "kisses") arranged in a parking lot isn't any specific gun, of course.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

I don't think anyone here is in support of maintaining nor increasing gun violence, especially when it kills kids. The question is how best to combat this issue.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I don't think anyone here is in support of maintaining nor increasing gun violence, especially when it kills kids.

You'd think that this would be easy to state. Niner did not comment on that idea at all. Not even after I queried them.

A weapon similar to the image in the parking lot made by the parked buses has been used to kill children more than once on school grounds and elsewhere. There is nothing nefarious or wrong in using the image. Calling these various rifles with similar profiles "assault weapons" we all know is a generalized term for rifle with a profile born from the history of the M16. They aren't the M16 itself. Semi-automatic rifles which feed bullets via changeable magazines with a similar over-all profile are widely and commonly referred to as "assault rifles," even if the term originally came from a fully automatic military weapon. Those days (WWII) are over, and today the category of weapons referred to this way (not by manufacturers, of course) is much larger.

We all know this.

[Chip]

What upset me was the notion that a) one has to be familiar with combat-type weapons to render an opinion on the subject of the demonstration; and b) that the arrangement of buses might not accurately represent the sort of weapon in question, thus somehow invalidating the statement.

Perhaps I got it wrong, but that seemed like the most stunningly tone-deaf and heartless post I've read in my time on this forum.

This is the pistol that John Wilkes Booth used to kill Abraham Lincoln.

https://i.imgur.com/ZgFfny8.jpg

Does one need to have fondled a derringer and know the technical specs to deplore the act?

[TSherbs]

What upset me was the notion that a) one has to be familiar with combat-type weapons to render an opinion on the subject of the demonstration; and b) that the arrangement of buses might not accurately represent the sort of weapon in question, thus somehow invalidating the statement.

Perhaps I got it wrong, but that seemed like the most stunningly tone-deaf and heartless post I've read in my time on this forum.

This is the pistol that John Wilkes Booth used to kill Abraham Lincoln.

https://i.imgur.com/ZgFfny8.jpg

Does one need to have fondled a derringer and know the technical specs to deplore the act?Is that, therefore, a presidential assault pistol? ;)

(That's for Niner)

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

The type of gun used in most US homicides is not an AR-15

Handguns are used in nearly two-thirds of the nation’s gun murders.


https://abcnews.go.com/US/type-gun-us-homicides-ar-15/story?id=78689504

It's not that I like any gun for public ownership, it's that I don't want the US to focus on one, probably less responsible, type of weapon in any new legislation. If new laws are enacted after the typical legislative battles to ban assault rifles and there's no reduction in gun deaths, the law will be be mocked and removed and nothing stronger will be put in its place. If a different law gets made that does benefit, then additional laws can be added since the first one shows value.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

The type of gun used in most US homicides is not an AR-15

Handguns are used in nearly two-thirds of the nation’s gun murders.

Of course.

And the death of 4300+ children.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

If removing these weapons will reduce death of kids, ban 'em. If removal of them fails to impact kid deaths, the law will be removed and nothing stronger will be put in place. If, instead of focusing on these emblematic tacticool weapons, the focus is broader regarding weapons, laws would have a greater chance of being successful, justifying itself and yielding added legislations to add onto it.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Niner]

To my knowledge, the actual number of schoolchildren ever killed with assault rifles in the U.S. is precisely zero. But then, nearly every reference to an assault rifle that I have ever encountered was made by persons who not only had never touched an assault rifle, but did not know the definition of the term.

So, because the weapons involved don't conform to your narrow definition, the killing of 4368 children is no problem?

Do you have a mil-spec list of approved firearms for slaughtering innocent people?


That's silly.

The grandstanding with school buses was trickery employed against the masses. It is false that 4,368 children have been slayed on school grounds or at school events in the US by murderers using assault rifles. Or even with rifles in general. As far as I know, the actual number thus murdered using assault rifles is zero. Since the "assault rifle" is the focus of the stunt, it is right to point out that few, and most likely zero, assault rifles have been used as claimed.

I do not have my own special, narrow definition of assault rifle. "Assault rifle" is a technical term. Technical terms by definition tend to have narrow meanings. "You're using a narrow definition of a term" is a pretty odd thing to say about someone who has used a term whose definition is narrow. I do understand that a group of people deliberately misuse the term in order to mislead others. I don't accept the deliberate deceptive misuse as a legitimate second definition.

Were I ever to use some technical term to make a crucial societal point, I would be careful not to deliberately use the term in a lying fashion. If, for example, trying to prove a high arson rate in Norway, I could not lump in Swedish arsonists with the Norwegians and claim it's legitimate since they're both Nordic countries and the arsonists from both places kind of look alike. Of course, "assault rifle" as used in the stunt was deliberately used that deceptive way, the term having become a sort of incantation among a dishonest group of people who have had the actual definition rubbed in their noses many times. They continue deliberately using the term in a dishonest fashion in order to trick the masses.

Regarding a list of firearms appropriate for use in murder, you'll have to look to someone else to help you with any mass murder plans you have.

[TSherbs]

I looked up the term "assault rifle" in several places. The definitions are not the same.

Niner, could you help us by giving us the "official" definition?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

Of course, "assault rifle" as used in the stunt was deliberately used that deceptive way, the term having become a sort of incantation among a dishonest group of people who have had the actual definition rubbed in their noses many times. They continue deliberately using the term in a dishonest fashion in order to trick the masses.

Regarding a list of firearms appropriate for use in murder, you'll have to look to someone else to help you with any mass murder plans you have.

I was right about you.

[TSherbs]

... It is false that 4,368 children have been slayed on school grounds or at school events in the US by murderers using assault rifles.



Who claimed this? Why do you keep repeating it?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

A representative sampling of the definitions of "assault rifle":

The NRA: By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

Dictionary.com: noun
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

Britannica: assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.

Merriam Webster: Definition of assault rifle: : any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire
also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

Wikipedia: An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5]

Thefreedictionary.com: assault rifle
n.
1. A rifle that has a detachable magazine and is capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, designed for individual use in combat.
2. An assault weapon having a rifled bore and a shoulder stock.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
assault rifle or assault weapon
n
(Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) chiefly US a semiautomatic firearm with additional features such as a large magazine, a bayonet fitting, etc
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
assault′ ri`fle
n.
1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

[TSherbs]

If removing these weapons will reduce death of kids, ban 'em. If removal of them fails to impact kid deaths, the law will be removed and nothing stronger will be put in place. If, instead of focusing on these emblematic tacticool weapons, the focus is broader regarding weapons, laws would have a greater chance of being successful, justifying itself and yielding added legislations to add onto it.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Until America admits that it has an addiction (mostly male) to the idea of violence (or threat of violence) and the perception of "safety," we will get no changes of any kind (either targeted or broader).

[dneal]

Back on topic...

House Democrats don't have the votes for an assault weapons ban (https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/house-democrats-dont-have-votes-assault-weapons-ban?utm_source=sf&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twjs)





More than six House Democrats remain uncommitted

Following a string of mass shootings across the country, the Democratic Party has set its sights on restoring the federal assault weapons ban, but many of its own congressional lawmakers remain skeptical of such a move.

Democrats have a 220-seat majority in the 435-member House. With four seats now vacant, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs 216 votes to pass Democrat-sponsored legislation, meaning such a measure could pass in the lower chamber without "yes" votes from four Democrat and no Republican members.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., sponsored the guns measure, which would ban a plethora of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and/or select external features.

More than six House Democrats, however, remain uncommitted to such a ban, delaying or nixing its passage.

Among the uncommitted are Reps. Ron Kind, Wis.; Vicente Gonzalez, Texas; and Tom O'Halleran, Arizona, Politico reports.

Reps. Peter DeFazio, Oregon; Mike Thompson, Calif.; and Jim Cooper, Tenn., did not say how they would vote, though Cooper expressed a desire to wait until he could read the text of the bill.

Others have openly opposed the measure, including Reps. Kurt Schrader, Oregon; Henry Cuellar, Texas; and Jared Golden, Maine.

"This is a bill that destroyed the Democrats in ‘94. I guess, do we really have a death wish list as Democrats?" said Schrader, per Politico.

Democrats passed a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, which expired 10 years later under the Republican administration of President George W. Bush. Republicans gained 54 House seats in the 1994 midterm elections after the ban's passage.

Schrader argues the bill goes too far and undermines the success of a moderate gun control bill that became law earlier this year after receiving bipartisan support.

"It undermines what we already did and reemphasizes to all the people in America that are not hardcore urban Democrats that our party’s out of touch," he said, also according to Politico.

Cicilline, however, was optimistic that the measure will get through the chamber, saying, "When the assault weapons ban comes to the floor, it will pass."

[Lloyd]

dneal- I can see that this bill "would prohibit the sale, transfer, import and manufacture of hundreds of models of semi-automatic weapons that boast certain specific features, including those that combine pistol grips with detachable magazines. The ban would not apply to people who already own such weapons." Would this bill ban those rifles that you had shown which perform equal to or better than the stereotypical tacticool assault rifles?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[kazoolaw]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3857331

[kazoolaw]

A representative sampling of the definitions of "assault rifle":

The NRA: By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

Dictionary.com: noun
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

Britannica: assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.

Merriam Webster: Definition of assault rifle: : any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire
also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

Wikipedia: An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5]

Thefreedictionary.com: assault rifle
n.
1. A rifle that has a detachable magazine and is capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, designed for individual use in combat.
2. An assault weapon having a rifled bore and a shoulder stock.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
assault rifle or assault weapon
n
(Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) chiefly US a semiautomatic firearm with additional features such as a large magazine, a bayonet fitting, etc
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
assault′ ri`fle
n.
1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.


An excellent demonstration of "definition" creep in aid of advocacy.
Thanks for the insight.

[dneal]

dneal- I can see that this bill "would prohibit the sale, transfer, import and manufacture of hundreds of models of semi-automatic weapons that boast certain specific features, including those that combine pistol grips with detachable magazines. The ban would not apply to people who already own such weapons." Would this bill ban those rifles that you had shown which perform equal to or better than the stereotypical tacticool assault rifles?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Nope, and the draft bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/text) specifically exempts the Ruger Mini-14 (the comparable rifle I posted in comparison).

They go to great lengths to specify by name specific AR style rifles that would be banned, which is kind of stupid. They included Sig Sauer's 516 and MCX, but omitted the M400. The technical differences are minor, but the M400 was Sig's entry into the market and the actual AR15 clone they make. It looks like the old bill, just recycled.

You should see all the lengths California owners go to in order to get around their ban. They alter the grip so it is a different angle and/or attaches to the stock. They use a "bullet button" in lieu of the outlawed magazine release. They have a mechanism that allows you to load a fixed magazine from the top, which gets around the law.

Lastly, the SC's Bruen ruling (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf) introduces two new tests for the legality of bans or other restrictions, which places a heavy burden on those trying to impose them. I suspect several state bans (Maryland, California, etc...) will get overturned, and if this bill hypothetically makes it out of the House and through the Senate to be signed by the President... it would likely be found unconstitutional.

[Lloyd]

Thank you, dneal.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

A representative sampling of the definitions of "assault rifle":

The NRA: By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

Dictionary.com: noun
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

Britannica: assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.

Merriam Webster: Definition of assault rifle: : any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire
also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

Wikipedia: An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5]

Thefreedictionary.com: assault rifle
n.
1. A rifle that has a detachable magazine and is capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, designed for individual use in combat.
2. An assault weapon having a rifled bore and a shoulder stock.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
assault rifle or assault weapon
n
(Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) chiefly US a semiautomatic firearm with additional features such as a large magazine, a bayonet fitting, etc
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
assault′ ri`fle
n.
1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.


An excellent demonstration of "definition" creep in aid of advocacy.
Thanks for the insight.

Language evolves.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

The key components of TSherbs' definitions are "select" or "selective" fire, and "automatic".

Select fire means you may use a mechanism to choose from safe, semi-automatic (one shot per pull of the trigger), and automatic (repeated firing with one pull of the trigger). There is also a burst function on modern versions, usually 3 shots per pull of the trigger.

"Assault Rifle" originates with the StG 44 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44) - a rifle developed by the Germans during WWII. Intermediate cartridge and select fire. It's the design the AK47 was based on.

[Lloyd]

What's your take on the locking/safety devices that use biometric info (fingerprints)?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

What's your take on the locking/safety devices that use biometric info (fingerprints)?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Not really feasible. Requires a reader, processor, solenoid switch and power source; and can be defeated or removed. Also doesn’t account for existing firearms.

[Lloyd]

What's your take on the locking/safety devices that use biometric info (fingerprints)?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Not really feasible. Requires a reader, processor, solenoid switch and power source; and can be defeated or removed. Also doesn’t account for existing firearms.
Thanks.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[kazoolaw]

Language evolves.

Or, in this case, devolves.

The NRA and Britannica definitions both include being capable of automatic fire [continuing to fire as long as the trigger is pulled] Wikipedia means the same ["selective fire"] though wording it differently.

Dictionary, Merriam Webster, and Collins wander off into "modeled on" or "resembles" which one gathers is in the eye of the beholder. s

American Heritage adds the features of a "large" magazine, or a bayonet fitting.

The Free Dictionary's definition is limited only by having a rifled bore and a shoulder stock. Last century I was taught you can't define a term ["assault rifle"] by including the term ["assault weapon"] in the definition. This definition would sweep in muzzle loaders with rifled barrels, and airguns.

The definitions expand or contract based upon which side of the debate you take. The broader the definition the more guns which would be banned.

[Lloyd]

Dictionaries don't define language; the language at a time and place define the dictionary.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[kazoolaw]

Dictionaries don't define language; the language at a time and place define the dictionary.

Well, of course Lloyd. "Assault rifle" is an example of how people redefine terms to their political advantage. And an example of how some people don't pay attention enough to notice.

[TSherbs]

Change is a bitch.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

Gun Deaths Rose 30% Among U.S. Kids in a Decade

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20220726/gun-deaths-rose-30-among-us-kids-in-a-decade?src=RSS_PUBLIC

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Gun Deaths Rose 30% Among U.S. Kids in a Decade

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20220726/gun-deaths-rose-30-among-us-kids-in-a-decade?src=RSS_PUBLIC

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Yikes.

A very sobering report. Doesn't make easy access to guns in a home look very good.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Gun Deaths Rose 30% Among U.S. Kids in a Decade

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20220726/gun-deaths-rose-30-among-us-kids-in-a-decade?src=RSS_PUBLIC

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Yikes.

A very sobering report. Doesn't make easy access to guns in a home look very good.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

This is why "smart guns" are being considered.

[Lloyd]

To me, a smart gun is an oxymoron.
The huge rise in suicides implies to me that the big issue isn't assault rifles, it's society (in person and on line) induced issues (stress, insufficient support, whatever). Guns expedite suicide but, if one wants to commit suicide and hasn't a gun, one can.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

To me, a smart gun is an oxymoron.
The huge rise in suicides implies to me that the big issue isn't assault rifles, it's society (in person and on line) induced issues (stress, insufficient support, whatever). Guns expedite suicide but, if one wants to commit suicide and hasn't a gun, one can.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

The weapons of choice for criminals are stolen guns.

[Lloyd]

To me, a smart gun is an oxymoron.
The huge rise in suicides implies to me that the big issue isn't assault rifles, it's society (in person and on line) induced issues (stress, insufficient support, whatever). Guns expedite suicide but, if one wants to commit suicide and hasn't a gun, one can.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

The weapons of choice for criminals are stolen guns.
I was only commenting on the sharp rise in childhood gun related deaths.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

.... but, if one wants to commit suicide and hasn't a gun, one can.

What is your point in saying this? I'd rather hear you state your purpose rather than my trying to ascribe one. Then I will respond.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

.... but, if one wants to commit suicide and hasn't a gun, one can.

What is your point in saying this? I'd rather hear you state your purpose rather than my trying to ascribe one. Then I will respond.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Sure. I'm very anti-guns for civilians BUT if all the political efforts are exerted at arguing about assault rifles, it'll delay action where it's more needed in my eyes. If religious people followed the golden rule toward ALL people, not just (some subset of) members of their own faith and those that they can benefit from, the hatreds that lead to bullying, racism, and the huge financial divide would be reduced.
I'm singling out "religious"only because the Golden Rule is at the heart of all of the main faiths.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

.... but, if one wants to commit suicide and hasn't a gun, one can.

What is your point in saying this? I'd rather hear you state your purpose rather than my trying to ascribe one. Then I will respond.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Sure. I'm very anti-guns for civilians BUT if all the political efforts are exerted at arguing about assault rifles, it'll delay action where it's more needed in my eyes. If religious people followed the golden rule toward ALL people, not just (some subset of) members of their own faith and those that they can benefit from, the hatreds that lead to bullying, racism, and the huge financial divide would be reduced.
I'm singling out "religious"only because the Golden Rule is at the heart of all of the main faiths.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]What? I quoted the part about suicide by other means. Why did you close with that? How do other means matter, 8n your thinking?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

If the big concern is the escalation of youth gun related deaths, which the article states is heavily influenced by the sharp rise in youth suicides, I don't feel this much hubbub about guns is warranted, nor beneficial, at this time.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

If the big concern is the escalation of youth gun related deaths, which the article states is heavily influenced by the sharp rise in youth suicides, I don't feel this much hubbub about guns is warranted, nor beneficial, at this time.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Do you have any idea about youth suicide and the importance of avoiding impulsive opportunities for self harm with high lethality? The point is to narrow the opportunities for easy access to the most lethal tools for self harm in the houses of depressed or suicidal children. The longer the time between the severe depressive episode and the lesser lethality of method both increase child survival, which is the ultimate goal. Many children survive other suicidal methods and/or change their minds before, during, or after attempts. The means of suicide are not viewed by experts as equal. This is why, likely, the study found the correlation between lax state gun access rules in homes and the greatest gun death increases.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

True, true. But assault rifles?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

True, true. But assault rifles?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]The article quoted above wasn't about assault rifles. And I didn't make a comment about assault rifles. I commented on the article, which is about child deaths to any type of gun, including accidents and suicides.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

Much of the national and subforum discourse has revolved sought assault rifles. That's why I wrote that.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

..., I don't feel this much hubbub about guns is warranted, nor beneficial, at this time.

But you wrote this. You called it "hubbub about guns." That sounds dismissive, and it isn't about assault rifles. We are not, presently, involved in a national "hubbub about guns." And certainly not those who work in efforts to reduce child suicide!



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

Can you give us any possible situation in which having more guns available will improve the situation, whether suicide, gang shootings, mass shootings, school shootings, domestic violence, etc.

Are you a Belgian waffle or just a regular one?

[TSherbs]

Can you give us any possible situation in which having more guns available will improve the situation, whether suicide, gang shootings, mass shootings, school shootings, domestic violence, etc.

Are you a Belgian waffle or just a regular one?This question for Lloyd?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

For Lloyd.

[Lloyd]

It's about focusing on the most important and attainable action to help save young lives. Strict prohibition of handguns isn't going to happen in the short nor medium term. I don't think assault rifles have anything to do with youth suicide. However, escalating psych awareness, reducing bullying in person and on line, teaching our youth to NOT debate issues the way that's happening in this subforum, etc. are things that can help.
We all know that sugar, refined grains, and heavily processed foods are greatly responsible for the obesity/metabolic-syndrome epidemic in the USA. Should we be spending all our efforts trying to ban these products as they are responsible for incredible amounts of sickness and death? No... it would take too much effort at this time.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

The study did not recommend "strict prohibition." It showed a correlation between easy access in a home and increased child deaths. Some states require guns in the home to be unloaded and locked up, for example.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

How do they enforce such a law?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Here's another take on the radicalization of gun ownership in America (and gun ownership "identity"):

Ryan Busse with Trevor Noah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-m7NkBEFnY

[TSherbs]

How do they enforce such a law?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I'm not the one to ask, I have no experience in the matter.

[Chuck Naill]

You two have reminded me I need to get my 410 shot gun shells more near the Stevens 410. Thanks!!

[kazoolaw]

Dictionaries don't define language; the language at a time and place define the dictionary.

Well, of course Lloyd. "Assault rifle" is an example of how people redefine terms to their political advantage. And an example of how some people don't pay attention enough to notice.



Change is a bitch.

“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks,” observed Orwell. “It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.”
-George Orwell

[TSherbs]

Dictionaries don't define language; the language at a time and place define the dictionary.

Well, of course Lloyd. "Assault rifle" is an example of how people redefine terms to their political advantage. And an example of how some people don't pay attention enough to notice.



Change is a bitch.

“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks,” observed Orwell. “It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.”
-George OrwellOrwell was a repressed wanker (or should I say "onanist" to keep things Biblical?)



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Dictionaries don't define language; the language at a time and place define the dictionary.

Well, of course Lloyd. "Assault rifle" is an example of how people redefine terms to their political advantage. And an example of how some people don't pay attention enough to notice.



Change is a bitch.

“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks,” observed Orwell. “It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.”
-George OrwellOrwell was a repressed wanker (or should I say "onanist" to keep things Biblical?)



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

One who "wastes their seed" so to speak. ;)

[Chip]

How do they enforce such a law?

Other nations manage the problem.

For once, you might do your own research instead of falling into a helpless rhetorical crouch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_New_Zealand

[Lloyd]

How do they enforce such a law?

Other nations manage the problem.

For once, you might do your own research instead of falling into a helpless rhetorical crouch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_New_Zealand
This says that the owners need adequate means in their homes of securing their weapons. If doesn't say how anyone verifies of the safe is used.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

How do they enforce such a law?

Other nations manage the problem.

For once, you might do your own research instead of falling into a helpless rhetorical crouch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_New_Zealand
This says that the owners need adequate means in their homes of securing their weapons. If doesn't say how anyone verifies of the safe is used.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Why are you asking this? Are you worried that no one will comply? That only some will? That only half will? That only 3/4 will? That only the compliant and conscientious will? How does the rate of compliance matter to you?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

How do they enforce such a law?

Other nations manage the problem.

For once, you might do your own research instead of falling into a helpless rhetorical crouch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_New_Zealand
This says that the owners need adequate means in their homes of securing their weapons. If doesn't say how anyone verifies of the safe is used.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Why are you asking this? Are you worried that no one will comply? That only some will? That only half will? That only 3/4 will? That only the compliant and conscientious will? How does the rate of compliance matter to you?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
What's the point of a law, not a request, that can't be instituted?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

How do they enforce such a law?

Other nations manage the problem.

For once, you might do your own research instead of falling into a helpless rhetorical crouch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_New_Zealand
This says that the owners need adequate means in their homes of securing their weapons. If doesn't say how anyone verifies of the safe is used.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Why are you asking this? Are you worried that no one will comply? That only some will? That only half will? That only 3/4 will? That only the compliant and conscientious will? How does the rate of compliance matter to you?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I am sure it matters, but his point is valid. Other nations were touted and yet these glaring issues remain.

Consider your concerns regarding non compliance and not being conscientious and apply it to other topic routinely discussed suich as the pandemic and contraception.

[kazoolaw]

Dictionaries don't define language; the language at a time and place define the dictionary.

Well, of course Lloyd. "Assault rifle" is an example of how people redefine terms to their political advantage. And an example of how some people don't pay attention enough to notice.



Change is a bitch.

“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks,” observed Orwell. “It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.”
-George OrwellOrwell was a repressed wanker (or should I say "onanist" to keep things Biblical?)


Appreciate it: I knew you could be counted on to give us a contemporary demonstration of slovenly language and foolish thoughts.
The good news is that you're reading the Bible.

[Lloyd]

How do they enforce such a law?

Other nations manage the problem.

For once, you might do your own research instead of falling into a helpless rhetorical crouch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_New_Zealand
This says that the owners need adequate means in their homes of securing their weapons. If doesn't say how anyone verifies of the safe is used.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Why are you asking this? Are you worried that no one will comply? That only some will? That only half will? That only 3/4 will? That only the compliant and conscientious will? How does the rate of compliance matter to you?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I am sure it matters, but his point is valid. Other nations were touted and yet these glaring issues remain.

Consider your concerns regarding non compliance and not being conscientious and apply it to other topic routinely discussed suich as the pandemic and contraception.
Yep... compliance. The same "boy crisis" macho-types will get a safe to show the authorities, but they'll never use them. They'll cite that it takes too long to get their weapons when an intruder appears.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

How do they enforce such a law?

Other nations manage the problem.

For once, you might do your own research instead of falling into a helpless rhetorical crouch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_New_Zealand
This says that the owners need adequate means in their homes of securing their weapons. If doesn't say how anyone verifies of the safe is used.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Why are you asking this? Are you worried that no one will comply? That only some will? That only half will? That only 3/4 will? That only the compliant and conscientious will? How does the rate of compliance matter to you?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I am sure it matters, but his point is valid. Other nations were touted and yet these glaring issues remain.

Consider your concerns regarding non compliance and not being conscientious and apply it to other topic routinely discussed suich as the pandemic and contraception.
Yep... compliance. The same "boy crisis" macho-types will get a safe to show the authorities, but they'll never use them. They'll cite that it takes too long to get their weapons when an intruder appears.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

They may show their condoms and never use, birth control pill, but never take, masks and not wear ...yada, yada, yada. Why single out only gun owners?

Some here are working on their far left fringe merit badge and are getting damn close. LOL!!!

[TSherbs]

How do they enforce such a law?

Other nations manage the problem.

For once, you might do your own research instead of falling into a helpless rhetorical crouch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_New_Zealand
This says that the owners need adequate means in their homes of securing their weapons. If doesn't say how anyone verifies of the safe is used.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]Why are you asking this? Are you worried that no one will comply? That only some will? That only half will? That only 3/4 will? That only the compliant and conscientious will? How does the rate of compliance matter to you?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
What's the point of a law, not a request, that can't be instituted?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]"instituted"?

Do you mean "enforced"?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

I knew you could be counted on to give us a contemporary demonstration of slovenly language and foolish thoughts.
The good news is that you're reading the Bible.
[/SIZE][/FONT]I get all my evil thoughts and behaviors from examples therein. It's a great compendium of murder, genocide, sin, sex, and false righteousness.

Shucks, I'm just joshing. I don't get *all* my evil thoughts there...

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[kazoolaw]

Dictionaries don't define language; the language at a time and place define the dictionary.

Well, of course Lloyd. "Assault rifle" is an example of how people redefine terms to their political advantage. And an example of how some people don't pay attention enough to notice.



Change is a bitch.

“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks,” observed Orwell. “It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.”
-George OrwellOrwell was a repressed wanker (or should I say "onanist" to keep things Biblical?)


Appreciate it: I knew you could be counted on to give us a contemporary demonstration of slovenly language and foolish thoughts.
The good news is that you're reading the Bible.
I get all my evil thoughts and behaviors from examples therein. It's a great compendium of murder, genocide, sin, sex, and false righteousness.

Shucks, I'm just joshing. I don't get *all* my evil thoughts there...

There's no need to try to "aw shucks" away your study of the Bible. You often mention what you've read in the Bible. Keep studying: you'll reach the part about dealing with evil thoughts and behavior.

[TSherbs]

Dictionaries don't define language; the language at a time and place define the dictionary.

Well, of course Lloyd. "Assault rifle" is an example of how people redefine terms to their political advantage. And an example of how some people don't pay attention enough to notice.



Change is a bitch.

“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks,” observed Orwell. “It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.”
-George OrwellOrwell was a repressed wanker (or should I say "onanist" to keep things Biblical?)


Appreciate it: I knew you could be counted on to give us a contemporary demonstration of slovenly language and foolish thoughts.
The good news is that you're reading the Bible.
I get all my evil thoughts and behaviors from examples therein. It's a great compendium of murder, genocide, sin, sex, and false righteousness.

Shucks, I'm just joshing. I don't get *all* my evil thoughts there...

There's no need to try to "aw shucks" away your study of the Bible. You often mention what you've read in the Bible. Keep studying: you'll reach the part about dealing with evil thoughts and behavior.
Casting them into pigs and running them off cliffs?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[kazoolaw]

Dictionaries don't define language; the language at a time and place define the dictionary.

Well, of course Lloyd. "Assault rifle" is an example of how people redefine terms to their political advantage. And an example of how some people don't pay attention enough to notice.



Change is a bitch.

“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks,” observed Orwell. “It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.”
-George OrwellOrwell was a repressed wanker (or should I say "onanist" to keep things Biblical?)


Appreciate it: I knew you could be counted on to give us a contemporary demonstration of slovenly language and foolish thoughts.
The good news is that you're reading the Bible.
I get all my evil thoughts and behaviors from examples therein. It's a great compendium of murder, genocide, sin, sex, and false righteousness.

Shucks, I'm just joshing. I don't get *all* my evil thoughts there...

There's no need to try to "aw shucks" away your study of the Bible. You often mention what you've read in the Bible. Keep studying: you'll reach the part about dealing with evil thoughts and behavior.
Casting them into pigs and running them off cliffs?

Keep studying.
Your attempts at misdirection demonstrate you know where in the New Testament to look.

[Chip]

The Bible? And gun policy?

WTF?

Back to gun problems, a couple first steps would be a) to remove the liabilty exemption for the makers and sellers of weapons that have no legitimate use except to murder people; b) to render adults who buy lethal high-power firearms for minors (i.e. their kids) responsible for the murders perpetrated by their dear little darlings; c) Set legal penalties for those whose involvement in gun crimes involves failing to secure the weapons used: you buy a gun, you take responsibility for it.

[Lloyd]

Keep studying: you'll reach the part about dealing with evil thoughts and behavior.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

You might want to suggest this to priests.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

The Bible? And gun policy?

WTF?

Back to gun problems, a couple first steps would be a) to remove the liabilty exemption for the makers and sellers of weapons that have no legitimate use except to murder people; b) to render adults who buy lethal high-power firearms for minors (i.e. their kids) responsible for the murders perpetrated by their dear little darlings; c) Set legal penalties for those whose involvement in gun crimes involves failing to secure the weapons used: you buy a gun, you take responsibility for it.
You might want to add the equivalent of abetting those behaviors. For instance, a relative of friend that doesn't report these behaviors.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Keep studying: you'll reach the part about dealing with evil thoughts and behavior.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

You might want to suggest this to priests.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]--redacted--

Suffice to say, I agree

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

The Bible? And gun policy?

WTF?

Back to gun problems, a couple first steps would be a) to remove the liabilty exemption for the makers and sellers of weapons that have no legitimate use except to murder people; b) to render adults who buy lethal high-power firearms for minors (i.e. their kids) responsible for the murders perpetrated by their dear little darlings; c) Set legal penalties for those whose involvement in gun crimes involves failing to secure the weapons used: you buy a gun, you take responsibility for it.End the gun show loophole

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

You guys are making this too complicated. Just ban the offending firearms or make it so difficult to own and maintain that they are no longer wanted. Mandatory liability insurance (like car insurance), an extensive training education for adults, and thorough background checks would cause many to see the guns are too much trouble. I do agree that if an adult or parent makes the purchase, make it a felony.

[kazoolaw]

Keep studying: you'll reach the part about dealing with evil thoughts and behavior.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

You might want to suggest this to priests.

I include them as well.
They know where to study.

[TSherbs]

Keep studying: you'll reach the part about dealing with evil thoughts and behavior.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

You might want to suggest this to priests.

I include them as well.
They know where to study.
Remind the Pope while on his Canadian apology tour for the abduction, abuse, and murder of indigenous children.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

On the supply side: ban manufacturing and sale to the public of high-powered firearms with no legitimate use for hunting, etc., particularly those weapons easily converted to automatic fire with high-capacity magazines, bump stocks, etc. Ghost guns should be subject to intense federal investigation and severe penalties, for making, selling, and possession. End the immunity from liability (both criminal and civil) for weapons makers and sellers. Close the gun show loophole with a bang.

Demand side: ban gun adverts, except for hunting and target shooting, period. Assess severe penalties for those aimed at young males and playing on manhood, patriotism, etc. Have law enforcement observe activity at shooting ranges, in the same way they monitor drug dealing. Render adults who buy lethal high-power firearms for minors (i.e. their kids) criminally responsible for the murders perpetrated by their darlings; c) Set harsh penalties for those whose involvement in gun crimes involves failing to secure the weapons used: you buy a gun, you take responsibility for it. No bullshit excuses.

[Lloyd]

I thought this article which I lifted from Medscape, was worth posting in this older thread. I apologize if the layout is a little bit off, I had to cut and paste it from the actual article.


Are Mass Shootings Contagious?
Kara Grant August 30, 2022
When a mass shooting happens, another often follows in close succession. That's not just a feeling ― it's a fact.The devastating shooting on May 24 in Uvalde, Texas, which killed 19 children, two teachers,
and injured 17 others, occurred 10 days after a supermarket shooting in Buffalo, New York,
which resulted in 10 deaths. In 2021, a shooting at a massage parlor in Atlanta, which left eight
dead, came less than a week before a shooting at a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado, that
killed 10. And a 2019 shooting in Dayton, Ohio, on August 4 that killed nine people took place
only a day after a Walmart shooting in El Paso, Texas, which claimed 22 lives.
Contagion Theory
Researchers argue that the clustering of mass shootings suggests that this type of violence
spreads like a virus and should be treated as one.
This theory ― called the "contagion effect" ― has been examined at length in cases of suicide,
especially among teens and young adults. Studies have demonstrated that the majority of
adolescents who attempt suicide have previously been exposed to the suicidal behavior of a
peer.
In many cases, mass shootings are also suicides, with shooters taking their own lives at the
time of the shooting or not long after.
"They have literally and figuratively given up on their life as they know it." said Joel Dvoskin,
PhD, a clinical and forensic psychologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and former acting
commissioner of mental health for New York state.
According to contagion theory, mass shootings ― and the round-the-clock media coverage
they generate ― lead to even more killings.
A team of researchers at Arizona State University led by Sherry Towers, PhD, analyzed mass
shooting data in 2015 to find out whether those events followed a similar pattern. Towers spent
much of her career modeling the spread of infectious diseases, such as influenza, Ebola, and
Zika.Towers and her colleagues discovered that a mass killing tended to give rise to more killings in
its immediate aftermath. According to her evaluation of USA Today's mass shooting database, a
second incident was most likely to occur within 13 days of the initial event.
What Defines a Mass Shooting?
The FBI defines a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people die by gunfire.
That definition, however, is not universally accepted. The lack of a standard definition
complicates the the work of researchers who study contagion theory.
Mother Jones magazine created an open-source database of mass killings that employs a
similar definition but that includes only incidents that involve a person shooting indiscriminately
in a public place.
With this narrower definition, shootings involving organized crime, robberies, and domestic
violence ― which make up the vast majority of shootings in which multiple fatalities occur in
this country – are excluded. Events such as those that occurred in Sandy Hook or the killings in
Highland Park, Ill inois, this past July would be included.
The Gun Violence Archive categorizes mass shootings as any incident in which four or more
people are shot but not necessarily killed, while Everytown for Gun Safety tallies mass
shootings that take at least four lives.
Medscape used these three databases to depict how dissimilar the data can be, depending on
which definition of mass shooting is used.
James Meindl, PhD, a professor of behavioral analysis at the University of Memphis who
studies mass shootings, said parsing the differences between what happened in Uvalde and
what happens during a shooting involving organized crime or domestic violence is crucial
when thinking about intervention and prevention.
"If you want to intervene, you have to know why the person engaged in this behavior in the first
place," Meindl said. "The factors that led a person to commit gang violence, the factors in
domestic violence, the factors in indiscriminate mass shootings ― those are all very different
factors that would call for very different interventions."
So, Should Mass Shootings Be Treated Like an Infectious Disease?
Rather than using contagion theory, Meindl said he prefers to view mass shootings through the
lens of "generalized imitation," a psychological concept involving the learned ability to mimic
behaviors observed either in person or through the media. Behaviors "are not diseases that
can spread on contact," he said.
Gary Slutkin, MD, is an epidemiologist who pivoted from studying the spread of diseases such
as tuberculosis, HIV, and cholera to trying to understand the epidemic of gun violence."The more you're exposed [to violence], the more likely you are to repeat it, just like the more you're exposed to COVID, the more likely you are to get it and give it to somebody else," Slutkin said. And just as people have varying degrees of susceptibility to COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, Slutkin argued that some are more susceptible to committing a mass shooting, depending on their level of isolation, personal "grievances, and their need for belonging or credit."
To Slutkin, mass shootings ― and other forms of violence ― should be treated with the standard methods that public health officials would use to stop the spread of a contagious disease: detection and interdiction that would put a stop to potential events. The nonprofit organization that he founded, Cure Violence Global, employs "violence interrupters" to reach out to and engage with community members who might be at risk of being a victim of violence or of committing an act of violence, much as a public health worker would approach epidemic control.
Research conducted on the effects of this method of reducing rates of violence suggests the approach works. In 2017, New York City saw a 63% reduction in gun injuries, according to a study from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And after evaluating the effects of this approach in Chicago in 2014, researchers from the University of Illinois and the University of Chicago determined that there was a 19% reduction in shootings in the city. "The results of stopping an epidemic come really fast," Slutkin said. "But getting people to switch gears to the right kind of treatment happens really slowly."

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[scottt]

Reading this thread was very eye-opening, so thanks for that.

I find it interesting so many advocate for passing more restrictive laws, as if they think the criminals will obey them? I don't quite understand that line of thinking.

It is already against the law to murder, and the criminals seem to have no problem ignoring that one.

[Chip]

What about heavily-armed clowns?

https://i.imgur.com/UHoU31e.jpg

Not a problem?

[TSherbs]

Reading this thread was very eye-opening, so thanks for that.

I find it interesting so many advocate for passing more restrictive laws, as if they think the criminals will obey them? I don't quite understand that line of thinking.

It is already against the law to murder, and the criminals seem to have no problem ignoring that one.

According to your thinking here, we should have no laws at all (since criminals break them).

How can you be puzzled by a set of diverging opinions on any of our fundamental rights? These have been discussed and debated since their inception. Not everyone even wanted to codify them this way.

We have all sorts of regulatory limits on rights in order to "promote the general welfare" of the citizens of the US. The freedoms and welfare and safety of the population are all put into consideration in trying to "create a more perfect union."

[TSherbs]

I thought this article which I lifted from Medscape, was worth posting in this older thread. I apologize if the layout is a little bit off, I had to cut and paste it from the actual article.


...Research conducted on the effects of this method of reducing rates of violence suggests the approach works. In 2017, New York City saw a 63% reduction in gun injuries, according to a study from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And after evaluating the effects of this approach in Chicago in 2014, researchers from the University of Illinois and the University of Chicago determined that there was a 19% reduction in shootings in the city.

This last part that you quoted needs more explanation. It is the crux of the matter, right? Whether anything actually works? I am skeptical of these large decline numbers without further explanation. I don't believe in miracles.

[scottt]

Reading this thread was very eye-opening, so thanks for that.

I find it interesting so many advocate for passing more restrictive laws, as if they think the criminals will obey them? I don't quite understand that line of thinking.

It is already against the law to murder, and the criminals seem to have no problem ignoring that one.

According to your thinking here, we should have no laws at all (since criminals break them).

How can you be puzzled by a set of diverging opinions on any of our fundamental rights? These have been discussed and debated since their inception. Not everyone even wanted to codify them this way.

We have all sorts of regulatory limits on rights in order to "promote the general welfare" of the citizens of the US. The freedoms and welfare and safety of the population are all put into consideration in trying to "create a more perfect union."

That is how you see it? Interesting.

I am amazed more people cannot see that passing more laws, as if the criminals will somehow comply, is an ineffective strategy. I have yet to see how that would work, can you explain it to me?

I am not puzzled that the diverging opinions exist, but at the number holding out for impossibilities. I'm all for debate, as long as it is civil.

Yes, "promote the general welfare", by attempting to disarm those who wish to defend themselves against the criminal element, and at the same time fail to punish the criminal and fail to provide any deterrence to criminal behavior. That is what I see one side trying to accomplish, and I feel that they don't have as many people as they would like in agreement.

[Chip]

A heavily armed mob that storms a government building to threaten elected officials seems by any definition to be a "criminal element."

[Lloyd]

Most US citizens go through life without ever needing to use a gun to defend themselves against a criminal. Even fewer will ever need an arsenal of arms. Acting as a vigilante isn't legal.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Most US citizens go through life without ever needing to use a gun to defend themselves against a criminal. Even fewer will ever need an arsenal of arms. Acting as a vigilante isn't legal.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

How would you know?

[Chip]

How would you know?

Don't be an idiot unless you can't help yourself.

[scottt]

Most US citizens go through life without ever needing to use a gun to defend themselves against a criminal. Even fewer will ever need an arsenal of arms. Acting as a vigilante isn't legal.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Opposing point of view:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/unpublished-cdc-study-confirms-2-million-defensive-handgun-uses-annually/

[Lloyd]

Scott, how many times have you or your family members relied on guns to save yourselves from criminals (not criminals that came solely to steal your guns) ?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Scott, how many times have you or your family members relied on guns to save yourselves from criminals (not criminals that came solely to steal your guns) ?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

How many times have you used that lug wrench or jack in your trunk? There's still utility and prudence in keeping them there.

A firearm is also a tool. There's utility and prudence in keeping and bearing one.

Here's 40 years of stories of events where one proved useful (https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx?page=0&state=0&startDate=&endDate=&search=&contentBuckets=&tgt=latest-news).

Of course it's best to not need it. It's also better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[Lloyd]

Scott, how many times have you or your family members relied on guns to save yourselves from criminals (not criminals that came solely to steal your guns) ?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

How many times have you used that lug wrench or jack in your trunk? There's still utility and prudence in keeping them there.

A firearm is also a tool. There's utility and prudence in keeping and bearing one.

Here's 40 years of stories of events where one proved useful (https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx?page=0&state=0&startDate=&endDate=&search=&contentBuckets=&tgt=latest-news).

Of course it's best to not need it. It's also better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

As I underlined, you said ONE. Why the need for an arsenal?
Yes... I've used a jack and lugwrench on multiple occasions in my life when not at home.
Do you really want me to list out all the times that guns have been used by kids accidentally? Do you really want me to list all the times that guns have been used by an angry spouse? Do you really want me to list all the times that a gun has been used in a suicide?
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

That isn't a good analogy, @dneal.

[Lloyd]

By the way, have they been many mass murders where the tool of choice was a lugwrench and jack? What's the next comparison, the deadly pointed stick?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4PZXuk3TsM

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Scott, how many times have you or your family members relied on guns to save yourselves from criminals (not criminals that came solely to steal your guns) ?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

How many times have you used that lug wrench or jack in your trunk? There's still utility and prudence in keeping them there.

A firearm is also a tool. There's utility and prudence in keeping and bearing one.

Here's 40 years of stories of events where one proved useful (https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx?page=0&state=0&startDate=&endDate=&search=&contentBuckets=&tgt=latest-news).

Of course it's best to not need it. It's also better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

As I underlined, you said ONE. Why the need for an arsenal?
Yes... I've used a jack and lugwrench on multiple occasions in my life when not at home.
Do you really want me to list out all the times that guns have been used by kids accidentally? Do you really want me to list all the times that guns have been used by an angry spouse? Do you really want me to list all the times that a gun has been used in a suicide?
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

You picked the word "one", applied a definition not keeping with the context or gist, and want to formulate an argument from there?

Is there some point to all the rhetorical questions that I'm pretty sure you don't really want the answers to? Does it serve some purpose other than to deflect? Are you really interested in the number of children dead from firearms? What about drowning? What about car accidents? Where does the inquiry end?

So aside from all that irrelevant nonsense, is there something in my statement you disagree with? Does a firearm have utility? Is there prudence in keeping a firearm (heaven forbid I use the word "one" in lieu of "a firearm", lest you interpret that to "no more than one").


By the way, have they been many mass murders where the tool of choice was a lugwrench and jack? What's the next comparison, the deadly pointed stick?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4PZXuk3TsM

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

You tell us. You're the one with the off the wall comparisons. Mass murders with a lug wrench? WTF are you even on about at this point?

[Chuck Naill]

Don’t feed the troll Lloyd. They consistently and persistently travel down the wrong path as history notes. The idea that a gun is just a tool or the same as a lug wrench is nonsense. Sure you could kill somebody with one. You could kill somebody with a feather pillow aka “pillow therapy “.

[TSherbs]

....You're the one with the off the wall comparisons. Mass murders with a lug wrench? WTF are you even on about at this point?

He's responding to the comparison that *you* introduced first, asshole. How typical of you to deflect (a form of dishonesty) responsibility for the line of thinking that you yourself started.

[TSherbs]

Don’t feed the troll Lloyd.

Lloyd tries to be polite with dneal, which can't be blamed, I suppose. My politeness tank with him drained empty some time ago.

[Chuck Naill]

Don’t feed the troll Lloyd.

Lloyd tries to be polite with dneal, which can't be blamed, I suppose. My politeness tank with him drained empty some time ago.

I do believe he thinks himself clever.

[Lloyd]

@dneal - I bolded ONE based on the reply that Scott posted as a reply to my post #168. I asked the hypothetical questions to you because you listed 40 years of instances of where a gun saved someone. Why not weigh that against 40 years of where they did the opposite?
I know you can kill with a lugwrench but, since you brought it up, how often have lugwrenches and jacks been used to kill >4 at a time? As for tool use, me and plenty others have needed and used a jack and lugwrench. I asked Scott about his experience in needing and using one or more guns as tools.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

You guys are cute. I'll let you get back to eating your own.

[Lloyd]

I have to go run out to Home Depot to pick up a few tools.... let me check my list - hammer, drill, Glock, and chisel.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

He’s running on empty again.

[Lloyd]

He’s running on empty again.
Who?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[scottt]

Scott, how many times have you or your family members relied on guns to save yourselves from criminals (not criminals that came solely to steal your guns) ?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Hi Lloyd,

Several, defending home, business and person.

I've never known the 'criminal coming solely to steal guns' scenario, all I know is that the cops advised me to arm myself given the response time of law enforcement.

[scottt]

As I underlined, you said ONE. Why the need for an arsenal?
Yes... I've used a jack and lugwrench on multiple occasions in my life when not at home.
Do you really want me to list out all the times that guns have been used by kids accidentally? Do you really want me to list all the times that guns have been used by an angry spouse? Do you really want me to list all the times that a gun has been used in a suicide?
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Well, the term 'arsenal' put aside for a moment, given that a gun is a tool (inanimate object, incapable of acting on its own), just like there are multiple kinds of hammers, screwdrivers, saws, there are guns that are more optimized for different purposes.

Also, if we dive into why people need things, why do politicians need several armed security forces?

A major factor in reducing accidents with anything is education.

The number of times angry people have used a gun is more about the person, isn't it? Same with suicides, sadly. How many times have we heard a friend or acquaintance took that path and we wonder why. Not what did they use, but why. At least that has been my experience.

[Lloyd]

Scott, how many times have you or your family members relied on guns to save yourselves from criminals (not criminals that came solely to steal your guns) ?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Hi Lloyd,

Several, defending home, business and person.

I've never known the 'criminal coming solely to steal guns' scenario, all I know is that the cops advised me to arm myself given the response time of law enforcement.
I suppose different regions call for different measures.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[scottt]

Don’t feed the troll Lloyd. They consistently and persistently travel down the wrong path as history notes. The idea that a gun is just a tool or the same as a lug wrench is nonsense. Sure you could kill somebody with one. You could kill somebody with a feather pillow aka “pillow therapy “.

Is a gun the same as a lug wrench? Certainly not.

Is a lug wrench the same as a screwdriver? Certainly not.

Is a lug wrench a tool? Yes
Is a screwdriver a tool? Yes
Is a gun a tool? Yes

Why isn't a gun a tool, because of the potential actions?

As you point out, someone can kill with just about anything, it is the person's intent which decides how this happens.

Pharmaceuticals can help, or they can kill. Depends on intent. Same as everything.

[TSherbs]

I have to go run out to Home Depot to pick up a few tools.... let me check my list - hammer, drill, Glock, and chisel.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Pick up some purpose-neutral slugs while you're there!

[TSherbs]

Don’t feed the troll Lloyd. They consistently and persistently travel down the wrong path as history notes. The idea that a gun is just a tool or the same as a lug wrench is nonsense. Sure you could kill somebody with one. You could kill somebody with a feather pillow aka “pillow therapy “.

Is a gun the same as a lug wrench? Certainly not.

Is a lug wrench the same as a screwdriver? Certainly not.

Is a lug wrench a tool? Yes
Is a screwdriver a tool? Yes
Is a gun a tool? Yes

Why isn't a gun a tool, because of the potential actions?

As you point out, someone can kill with just about anything, it is the person's intent which decides how this happens.

Pharmaceuticals can help, or they can kill. Depends on intent. Same as everything.

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse about the purpose that most handguns and assault-style weapons are designed for (putting holes in human flesh). Yes, they are tools. With a very clear design purpose very different from these other tools being mentioned that are designed for very clearly different purposes. The "tool" comparison first introduced by dneal was a cynical attempt at obfuscation (he knows what he is doing here). I am not sure why you are continuing with the same weak argument.

[Lloyd]

I have to go run out to Home Depot to pick up a few tools.... let me check my list - hammer, drill, Glock, and chisel.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Pick up some purpose-neutral slugs while you're there!
Will these suffice?
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220901/808b46a0753919ea2b2dc92cd94df115.jpg

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

a slug is a slug is a slug

-- Gertrude Stein

[Chip]

[QUOTE=Lloyd;374839]Scott, how many times have you or your family members relied on guns to save yourselves from criminals?

Several, defending home, business and person.

So— you stomped out waving your AR-15 and yelling about the Second Amendment, and they cowered and disappeared into the hedge?

You shot them (as Trump advised) in the legs?

You blew out their brains with the Glock you keep under your pillow as they were about to rape your wife and daughters?

Why don't I believe you?

[Lloyd]

Scott- if you don't mind my asking, where do you live and have a business? Is there something specific to you/ your family that puts you at such a high risk of do you live in a city with an exceptionally high crime rate?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

As a practical tool, when I lived on several acres in the country, with livestock, having a shot gun for varmints and stray dogs was essential. Calves are vulnerable and well as dogs and cat pets. Now, I'm in the city. City folks may not appreciate the usefulness of a firearm.

[Chip]

An observation: gun fetishists frequently exaggerate threats fom criminals (black) or wildlife to justify their shameful desire to buy more guns, more scary lethal guns, more high cap mags and murderous accessories such as bump stocks, etc. In practice, their arsenals are more frequently used to titillate their flagging sex drives, threaten their wives and families, and raise their status among fellow gun nuts.

A gun story: I used to pack horses south of Yellowstone and guide hunters. At another camp, a hunter from Texas insisted he needed to carry a handgun to ward off grizzly attacks (despite having a high-powered rifle and being discouraged by the guides.) He sighted a grizzly, at a distance, pulled out his pistol, and shot his horse in the back of the head. The horse dropped like a rock, crushing and fracturing his leg. He had to be evacuated by helicopter.

[scottt]

Don’t feed the troll Lloyd. They consistently and persistently travel down the wrong path as history notes. The idea that a gun is just a tool or the same as a lug wrench is nonsense. Sure you could kill somebody with one. You could kill somebody with a feather pillow aka “pillow therapy “.

Is a gun the same as a lug wrench? Certainly not.

Is a lug wrench the same as a screwdriver? Certainly not.

Is a lug wrench a tool? Yes
Is a screwdriver a tool? Yes
Is a gun a tool? Yes

Why isn't a gun a tool, because of the potential actions?

As you point out, someone can kill with just about anything, it is the person's intent which decides how this happens.

Pharmaceuticals can help, or they can kill. Depends on intent. Same as everything.

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse about the purpose that most handguns and assault-style weapons are designed for (putting holes in human flesh). Yes, they are tools. With a very clear design purpose very different from these other tools being mentioned that are designed for very clearly different purposes. The "tool" comparison first introduced by dneal was a cynical attempt at obfuscation (he knows what he is doing here). I am not sure why you are continuing with the same weak argument.

I never said they were not, though target weapons are really designed for putting holes in paper.

I agree, they are tools. I was responding to Chuck's statement that the idea that a gun is just a tool is nonsense. I don't believe it is, that's all.

[scottt]

[QUOTE=Lloyd;374839]Scott, how many times have you or your family members relied on guns to save yourselves from criminals?

Several, defending home, business and person.

So— you stomped out waving your AR-15 and yelling about the Second Amendment, and they cowered and disappeared into the hedge?

You shot them (as Trump advised) in the legs?

You blew out their brains with the Glock you keep under your pillow as they were about to rape your wife and daughters?

Why don't I believe you?

I can't say why you don't believe me, other than the over the top descriptive language you use lends itself to a picture of you having a less than stable view on guns and their uses?

Perhaps you are hoplophobic?

[scottt]

Scott- if you don't mind my asking, where do you live and have a business? Is there something specific to you/ your family that puts you at such a high risk of do you live in a city with an exceptionally high crime rate?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Hi Lloyd,

Not at all. I spent many years in the Northeast, around Massachusetts and Rhode Island, working in cities or very large suburbs. When younger I would work at a relative's store, which was in a neighborhood of higher crime.

Certainly working/traveling in that store's location would put the risk higher, although the lax prosecution and punishment of criminals was causing the crime to spread out to the one more peaceful suburbs. There was one gentleman robbing a local store in those suburbs who had been arrested over one hundred times. Seems Massachusetts has/had a unique system for determing bail after hours.

Having been robbed while in the store, I had a very eye-opening chat with the police, who gave me a real-world view on police response times and their effectiveness on stopping crime versus reporting and dealing with the aftermath. One of the officers said, "the only person you can count on to defend you is you" and I haven't found any reason to think otherwise.

[Lloyd]

I live in Massachusetts, about 40 minutes north of Boston. While I don't think I'd opt for a gun, I could see someone in one of the "bad" areas justifiably carrying a (one) handgun.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

I can't say why you don't believe me, other than the over the top descriptive language you use lends itself to a picture of you having a less than stable view on guns and their uses? Perhaps you are hoplophobic?

Hoplaphobic doesn't seem to be in the dictionary. NRA-speak?

Less than stable? I've been around guns since I was a kid, but I never liked them much. I hunted for many years, with my wife, and still have a .270 and a .22 pistol for giving the coup de grace to deer that get hit on the highway by drunks in speeding pickups and cattle trucks. No phobia that I can discern.

But I never bought or kept a gun for threatening or shooting other people.

I was also a range cop patrolling grazing allotments on horseback, dealing with gun-packing cowboys, sheepherders, and ranchers, for years, and never carried a gun. I did prevent several shootings over trespass and boundary disputes. I was also threatened many times for posting violations and assessing fines. But it seemed to me that carrying a handgun was more dangerous and psychologically damaging than going unarmed and trusting my wits and good judgement.

Weren't you the one who posted that the US military has a very small carbon footprint?

[Lloyd]

hoplophobia
noun
The fear of guns.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I've never carried a fire arm hike on the Appalachian Trail or other trails in the park. I have had close encounters with black bear and hogs, but never had a problem. Had a small fox follow me once. Current wisdom is that bear mace is more effective than a gun. Also a bear horn and loud whistle are effective, but I have never had to use any of these devices. I just walked on.

The January 6 Trumpian used bear mace and it appeared to be an effective way to attack others.

[Chip]

I know what the word means, grandma L. But it doesn't appear in either my computer dictionary or our enormous Merriam-Webster tome upstairs.

I wrote a book with a section on bear encounters, for which I reviewed heaps of data.

Bears ignore the sound of bells. The two sounds that alert them are breaking sticks and metallic impacts (e.g. setting a trap or cocking a gun.) Concentrated pepper spray was by far the best deterrent in a confrontation. Guns, especially handguns, weren't effective. A charging bear is a tough target and most people, when terrified, are likely to miss. Discharging a gun threatens the bear (often a female protecting cubs) which heightens the intensity of the attack.

Based on which, carrying a couple of steel bolts and clicking them together is probably a good bet as far as warning any bears ahead.

My larger point is that hoplophiles (!) tend to exaggerate threats in order to justify their sick lust for guns.

[scottt]

I live in Massachusetts, about 40 minutes north of Boston. While I don't think I'd opt for a gun, I could see someone in one of the "bad" areas justifiably carrying a (one) handgun.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Ah, the North Shore can have a dramatically different demographic, that's for sure.

I think it boils down to people who are law biding citizens have the right to choose whether or not they carry/have a firearm, according to their Constitutional right.

[scottt]

I've never carried a fire arm hike on the Appalachian Trail or other trails in the park. I have had close encounters with black bear and hogs, but never had a problem. Had a small fox follow me once. Current wisdom is that bear mace is more effective than a gun. Also a bear horn and loud whistle are effective, but I have never had to use any of these devices. I just walked on.

The January 6 Trumpian used bear mace and it appeared to be an effective way to attack others.

I would probably opt for bear mace when bears are the major concern.

The use of mace and pepper spray offensively should have higher penalties. Anything that causes breathing issues is concerning.

[Lloyd]

I live in Massachusetts, about 40 minutes north of Boston. While I don't think I'd opt for a gun, I could see someone in one of the "bad" areas justifiably carrying a (one) handgun.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Ah, the North Shore can have a dramatically different demographic, that's for sure.

I think it boils down to people who are law biding citizens have the right to choose whether or not they carry/have a firearm, according to their Constitutional right.
I'm not north shore.
Based on the current laws, sure.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[scottt]

I know what the word means, grandma L. But it doesn't appear in either my computer dictionary or our enormous Merriam-Webster tome upstairs.

I wrote a book with a section on bear encounters, for which I reviewed heaps of data.

Bears ignore the sound of bells. The two sounds that alert them are breaking sticks and metallic impacts (e.g. setting a trap or cocking a gun.) Concentrated pepper spray was by far the best deterrent in a confrontation. Guns, especially handguns, weren't effective. A charging bear is a tough target and most people, when terrified, are likely to miss. Discharging a gun threatens the bear (often a female protecting cubs) which heightens the intensity of the attack.

Based on which, carrying a couple of steel bolts and clicking them together is probably a good bet as far as warning any bears ahead.

My larger point is that hoplophiles (!) tend to exaggerate threats in order to justify their sick lust for guns.

Thanks for the info on bears, we have them in the area.


I find it interesting you call it a sick lust for guns. Reveals a lot about you. Could you give me an example of exaggerating threats? A threat to life is pretty bad on its own, isn't it?

[Chuck Naill]

I wrote a booK!!

[Chip]

Five books, actually.

[Lloyd]

Five books, actually.
The Pentateuch? Impressive!

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I know what the word means, grandma L. But it doesn't appear in either my computer dictionary or our enormous Merriam-Webster tome upstairs.

I wrote a book with a section on bear encounters, for which I reviewed heaps of data.

Bears ignore the sound of bells. The two sounds that alert them are breaking sticks and metallic impacts (e.g. setting a trap or cocking a gun.) Concentrated pepper spray was by far the best deterrent in a confrontation. Guns, especially handguns, weren't effective. A charging bear is a tough target and most people, when terrified, are likely to miss. Discharging a gun threatens the bear (often a female protecting cubs) which heightens the intensity of the attack.

Based on which, carrying a couple of steel bolts and clicking them together is probably a good bet as far as warning any bears ahead.

My larger point is that hoplophiles (!) tend to exaggerate threats in order to justify their sick lust for guns.

Thanks for the info on bears, we have them in the area.


I find it interesting you call it a sick lust for guns. Reveals a lot about you. Could you give me an example of exaggerating threats? A threat to life is pretty bad on its own, isn't it?

What do you think are the chances that you will die from an assault? Death is serious, of course. The hyperbole is in exaggerating the likelihood that it will happen and that gun ownership significantly reduces the likelihood of injury to you or others. As a broad trend of greater and wider gun ownership has spread through America (or at least an increase of hundreds of millions of weapons among the citizenry), have murder and assault declined with a strong correlation?

[Chip]

My chances of dying by an assault owe less to the fact that I don't carry a gun or have one in reach, and more to possession of a gun by an assailant.

Here's a very clear chart of gun ownership and gun deaths by state.

https://i.imgur.com/tMFaHDK.jpg

Here's another more recent chart:

https://i.imgur.com/jJcsAgt.jpg

[scottt]

I live in Massachusetts, about 40 minutes north of Boston. While I don't think I'd opt for a gun, I could see someone in one of the "bad" areas justifiably carrying a (one) handgun.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Ah, the North Shore can have a dramatically different demographic, that's for sure.

I think it boils down to people who are law biding citizens have the right to choose whether or not they carry/have a firearm, according to their Constitutional right.
I'm not north shore.
Based on the current laws, sure.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Apologies, I had assumed. Whereabouts are you?

[Chip]

Further note on bears: Besides learning how to read sign and avoiding areas used by bears, being able to tell the species of the bear is also vital.

The best reponse to a grizzly attack is to guard your face and head with your arms, curl in a ball, and go limp. Try not to make noises, gasp, etc.

With a black bear, you're better off to yell, scream, resist (punch the bear on the nose, hit it with a stick, etc.)

I've chased black bears out of a camp or away from a horse herd several times. Wouldn't try it with a griz.

[Lloyd]

Further note on bears: Besides learning how to read sign and avoiding areas used by bears, being able to tell the species of the bear is also vital.

The best reponse to a grizzly attack is to guard your face and head with your arms, curl in a ball, and go limp. Try not to make noises, gasp, etc.

With a black bear, you're better off to yell, scream, resist (punch the bear on the nose, hit it with a stick, etc.)

I've chased black bears out of a camp or away from a horse herd several times. Wouldn't try it with a griz.
I need to bookmark this so, when I'm being attacked, I can pull out my phone and look it up...

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

I live in Massachusetts, about 40 minutes north of Boston. While I don't think I'd opt for a gun, I could see someone in one of the "bad" areas justifiably carrying a (one) handgun.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Ah, the North Shore can have a dramatically different demographic, that's for sure.

I think it boils down to people who are law biding citizens have the right to choose whether or not they carry/have a firearm, according to their Constitutional right.
I'm not north shore.
Based on the current laws, sure.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Apologies, I had assumed. Whereabouts are you?
Around where rte 3 & Rte 495 meet.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

My chances of dying by an assault owe less to the fact that I don't carry a gun or have one in reach, and more to possession of a gun by an assailant.

Here's a very clear chart of gun ownership and gun deaths by state.

https://i.imgur.com/tMFaHDK.jpg

Here's another more recent chart:

https://i.imgur.com/jJcsAgt.jpg
The correlation coefficient of the first plot is too near zero to draw any conclusions. The second one (if accurate) IS shocking. Not the relationship (outliers aren't useful) but in the sheer number of guns per capita in the USA. I wonder which gets used more in the USA, guns or fountain pens...

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[scottt]

I know what the word means, grandma L. But it doesn't appear in either my computer dictionary or our enormous Merriam-Webster tome upstairs.

I wrote a book with a section on bear encounters, for which I reviewed heaps of data.

Bears ignore the sound of bells. The two sounds that alert them are breaking sticks and metallic impacts (e.g. setting a trap or cocking a gun.) Concentrated pepper spray was by far the best deterrent in a confrontation. Guns, especially handguns, weren't effective. A charging bear is a tough target and most people, when terrified, are likely to miss. Discharging a gun threatens the bear (often a female protecting cubs) which heightens the intensity of the attack.

Based on which, carrying a couple of steel bolts and clicking them together is probably a good bet as far as warning any bears ahead.

My larger point is that hoplophiles (!) tend to exaggerate threats in order to justify their sick lust for guns.

Thanks for the info on bears, we have them in the area.


I find it interesting you call it a sick lust for guns. Reveals a lot about you. Could you give me an example of exaggerating threats? A threat to life is pretty bad on its own, isn't it?

What do you think are the chances that you will die from an assault? Death is serious, of course. The hyperbole is in exaggerating the likelihood that it will happen and that gun ownership significantly reduces the likelihood of injury to you or others. As a broad trend of greater and wider gun ownership has spread through America (or at least an increase of hundreds of millions of weapons among the citizenry), have murder and assault declined with a strong correlation?

Great question. It depends on the intent of the assaulter, minus whatever defense you can provide, so to speak. If they are armed and I am unarmed, for the most part the ball is in their court. If both are armed, multiple variables come into play, and the best case is that the defender has a better chance of surviving. If the assaulter is unarmed and the defender is armed, chances of defense increase. I'm probably expressing it badly, but having a gun gives you a chance you did not previously have, and I will take whatever advantage I can in that situation. Wouldn't you? I certainly would not want to hope the person who chose to violate the law and assault me stops out of the goodness in their heart.

As for correlations, I think there is too much going on right now to make a determination. The past couple of years with the pandemic, summer of peaceful protests, reform of prosecution guidelines (no bail/revolving door), defunding of police and lack of confidence in police, especially with Uvalde, the number of purchases have skyrocketed. Some say more guns have caused more crime, others say the crimes caused many citizens to realize they can't count on government/police, with the resulting increase in personal ownership.

What are your thoughts?

[scottt]

My chances of dying by an assault owe less to the fact that I don't carry a gun or have one in reach, and more to possession of a gun by an assailant.

Here's a very clear chart of gun ownership and gun deaths by state.

https://i.imgur.com/tMFaHDK.jpg

Here's another more recent chart:

https://i.imgur.com/jJcsAgt.jpg
The correlation coefficient of the first plot is too near zero to draw any conclusions. The second one (if accurate) IS shocking. Not the relationship (outliers aren't useful) but in the sheer number of guns per capita in the USA. I wonder which gets used more in the USA, guns or fountain pens...

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

That is one of the things people in the discussion have to realize, that America has a strong gun culture, and for many it is a part of their heritage. That makes it different from the other countries, so the comparisons are not as straight-forward as it might seem.

[Lloyd]

I think if the criminal has a weapon and sees you do, too, they're likely to shoot first. I think that if the criminal is unarmed and you are armed, there's a chance you'll shoot and regret it

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[scottt]

My chances of dying by an assault owe less to the fact that I don't carry a gun or have one in reach, and more to possession of a gun by an assailant.


That doesn't take into account the disparity between the assaulter and victim. You see the eldery being targeted more than others in many cases, and a closed fist or shod foot can indeed kill.

I feel the brutality among criminals has risen sharply recently, and wonder if is due to the laxness of prosecution. What do you think?

[scottt]

I think if the criminal has a weapon and sees you do, too, they're likely to shoot first. I think that if the criminal is unarmed and you are armed, there's a chance you'll shoot and regret it

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I agree, if they are armed and see you are, they have no reason not to shoot. That is why I don't like open carry. Of course, if they are armed and you are not, you are at their mercy for the most part. Not a good place to be.

I believe the CDC had an unpublished study on how many times guns are used in defensive situations (not just shooting) to drive the criminal off. Over a million per year.

There is always a chance, and it is up to the person to determine if it is called for and what the laws in their area cover and so forth. Part of the responsibility of owning a gun.

[Lloyd]

I think if the criminal has a weapon and sees you do, too, they're likely to shoot first. I think that if the criminal is unarmed and you are armed, there's a chance you'll shoot and regret it

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I agree, if they are armed and see you are, they have no reason not to shoot. That is why I don't like open carry. Of course, if they are armed and you are not, you are at their mercy for the most part. Not a good place to be.

I believe the CDC had an unpublished study on how many times guns are used in defensive situations (not just shooting) to drive the criminal off. Over a million per year.

There is always a chance, and it is up to the person to determine if it is called for and what the laws in their area cover and so forth. Part of the responsibility of owning a gun.
Your last paragraph is what bothers many in the anti-gun group.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

.

There is always a chance,...

There's always a chance that a meteor will hit your house, too.

Again, it's all about exaggerating probabilities through fear (and the consequences of flooding a population with hundreds of millions of weapons in households).

[TSherbs]

America, to its discredit IMO, permits its population to be flooded with a toxic scourge of disgusting weaponry, all designed to put holes in human flesh. Every one is a machine of death, designed by genius minds in the art of mechanics, propulsion, metallurgy, and damage to soft tissue (and bones). I consider this one of the great tragic flaws of the human culture: how much energy and thought are put into potential (if not real) lethality.

Our "heritage," indeed.

[Chip]

I need to bookmark this so, when I'm being attacked, I can pull out my phone and look it up...

:dirol:

[Chip]

If I was surprised by an armed criminal (or drunk Republican) there's no way I'd win the gunfight. I'm not a character in a movie. Nor could I just blast away without hesitation.

My home state (Wyoming) is in the top three as far as guns per person. So I'm always aware of the potential hazard. But I feel, pretty strongly, that carrying a murder weapon (no other purpose for a concealed handgun) is psychologically damaging. It gives the bearer an unearned feeling of power and keeps the possibility of lethal violence always at hand.

I'd rather not have that in my daily life. I'd rather die without that stain on my soul.

[Chuck Naill]

I feel the same. I just reviewed to make sure I’m correct, bear mace is more effective than a hand gun as a hiker. It would be my last resort behind to keep walking, using a air horn, or whistle. Not being in grizzly environments, I might change steps for them, but no a gun. No idea what you’d have to carry to stop them .

[Chuck Naill]

https://www.northwestoutlet.com/blog/does-bear-spray-work/

[Lloyd]

If you get bear spray, it's highly recommended to use it periodically (in a secluded wooded area) for practice.
My wife is a nurse practitioner and, prior to COVID, she traveled into "bad" areas for home calls. She carried bear spray for self-defense against human preditors (they're worse than bears😒) just in case. Luckily, she never needed it.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[scottt]

I think if the criminal has a weapon and sees you do, too, they're likely to shoot first. I think that if the criminal is unarmed and you are armed, there's a chance you'll shoot and regret it

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I agree, if they are armed and see you are, they have no reason not to shoot. That is why I don't like open carry. Of course, if they are armed and you are not, you are at their mercy for the most part. Not a good place to be.

I believe the CDC had an unpublished study on how many times guns are used in defensive situations (not just shooting) to drive the criminal off. Over a million per year.

There is always a chance, and it is up to the person to determine if it is called for and what the laws in their area cover and so forth. Part of the responsibility of owning a gun.
Your last paragraph is what bothers many in the anti-gun group.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

One can choose to take responsibility for their own safety, or not. Given the police's record so far, I don't choose to cede my safety to them alone. I feel sorry that others choose to see that as a bad thing, and wonder what they do to insure their own safety, besides rely on someone else?

[scottt]

.

There is always a chance,...

There's always a chance that a meteor will hit your house, too.

Again, it's all about exaggerating probabilities through fear (and the consequences of flooding a population with hundreds of millions of weapons in households).

What exactly do you think will happen? Do you think the vast majority of crimes are carried out by legal gun owners?

[scottt]

America, to its discredit IMO, permits its population to be flooded with a toxic scourge of disgusting weaponry, all designed to put holes in human flesh. Every one is a machine of death, designed by genius minds in the art of mechanics, propulsion, metallurgy, and damage to soft tissue (and bones). I consider this one of the great tragic flaws of the human culture: how much energy and thought are put into potential (if not real) lethality.

Our "heritage," indeed.

That is quote worthy to be sure.

[scottt]

If I was surprised by an armed criminal (or drunk Republican) there's no way I'd win the gunfight. I'm not a character in a movie. Nor could I just blast away without hesitation.

My home state (Wyoming) is in the top three as far as guns per person. So I'm always aware of the potential hazard. But I feel, pretty strongly, that carrying a murder weapon (no other purpose for a concealed handgun) is psychologically damaging. It gives the bearer an unearned feeling of power and keeps the possibility of lethal violence always at hand.

I'd rather not have that in my daily life. I'd rather die without that stain on my soul.

Given that you refer to guns as murder weapons, I'd tend to agree in your case. And one should not blast away without hesitation. Ever.

You just do not believe people are capable of carrying the responsibility of owning/carrying a gun? What about police and military, they're just as human as we are? Are they staining their souls to protect you?

[TSherbs]

.

There is always a chance,...

There's always a chance that a meteor will hit your house, too.

Again, it's all about exaggerating probabilities through fear (and the consequences of flooding a population with hundreds of millions of weapons in households).

What exactly do you think will happen? Do you think the vast majority of crimes are carried out by legal gun owners?

"Happen" when? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.

[Lloyd]

If lawful firearm owners cause most gun deaths, what can we*do?

https://theconversation.com/if-lawful-firearm-owners-cause-most-gun-deaths-what-can-we-do-48567

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

About bear spray, it's a good idea to buy two cans: one for practice and a fresh one to carry on hikes. The spray has a bright colored dye that makes it easier to aim. Don't shoot into the wind (!!!) Also get a rugged, airtight container (surplus ammo box) to stow the bear spray while transporting it. People who inadvertently triggered a can (curious kids) have wrecked their cars.

When I was poking around on islands near Sitka, looking for deer, my local pal carried a 12 ga. pump shotgun loaded with slugs. Only problem was he walked in front of me and kept stepping into holes (muskeg and soggy forest). He'd plunge knee-deep and that shotgun, on a sling, would be pointed at my head. Dropping back twenty paces settled my nerves considerably. We saw no deer or bears. Lots of bear sign including a well-worn trail along the shore where they patrolled for dead fish, seals, birds, etc. When he spent nights out there, he slept on his boat offshore.

[Chuck Naill]

The bear mace I carry has a metal pull tab to prevent discharging accidentally. An ammo box is impractical for hiking.

[Chip]

https://i.imgur.com/TrCwrNf.jpg

[Chuck Naill]

And you can put the pull tab back into the trigger mechanism.

[Chip]

The bear mace I carry has a metal pull tab to prevent discharging accidentally. An ammo box is impractical for hiking.

Say what? That's for car transport. Most canisters come with a holster to use while hiking, when you want quick access.

[TSherbs]

When he spent nights out there, he slept on his boat offshore. He was spooked for sure.

Once, when I was 12, I went camping north in Maine with a friend and his dad (they were from Long Island). The dad, from fear of bears, had to bring a rifle along (just one night away). My parents were nervous about the dude, but let me go anyway. Well, during the night I rolled over and pushed on my side of the tent, which pulled his side of the tent tighter against him. In his fear, he thought that a bear might be nuzzling him from outside. He scrambled blind in the dark in the tent for his rifle (which he had brought in with him) and for his ammo, which thank god he could not find. Otherwise, that fool was probably gonna try to shoot the phantom bear of his dreams right through the tent wall. Who knows what or who he might have actually hit.

[Chuck Naill]

The bear mace I carry has a metal pull tab to prevent discharging accidentally. An ammo box is impractical for hiking.

Say what? That's for car transport. Most canisters come with a holster to use while hiking, when you want quick access.

Nope, mine came with a holster. Like I’ve explained, mace is never my first response.

[Chip]

Bears are attracted to food like crazy. They can smell frying bacon or trout miles away. When I was a backcountry ranger, a camper stashed his can of Skoal in the sidepocket of his tent.

In the middle of the night there was a scary noise and suddenly a big hole in his tent appeared a foot from his face.

The bear smelled the menthol snuff, chomped it, spit out the piece of nylon tent, and carried the can away.

Ahhhh, wilderness!

[Chip]

A generalization: a person is often most dangerous when frightened or threatened.

They are also more likely to react in a really stupid way.

If a gun is involved, it increases the hazard, to them and anyone nearby.

[Lloyd]

A generalization: a person is often most dangerous when frightened or threatened.

They are also more likely to react in a really stupid way.

If a gun is involved, it increases the hazard, to them and anyone nearby.
I think this is amplified when a criminal with a weapon encounters a homeowner that has a gun.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Bears are attracted to food like crazy. They can smell frying bacon or trout miles away. When I was a backcountry ranger, a camper stashed his can of Skoal in the sidepocket of his tent.

In the middle of the night there was a scary noise and suddenly a big hole in his tent appeared a foot from his face.

The bear smelled the menthol snuff, chomped it, spit out the piece of nylon tent, and carried the can away.

Ahhhh, wilderness!

That bear didn't pay attention to his schooldays' anti-chew campaign videos!

[scottt]

.

There is always a chance,...

There's always a chance that a meteor will hit your house, too.

Again, it's all about exaggerating probabilities through fear (and the consequences of flooding a population with hundreds of millions of weapons in households).

What exactly do you think will happen? Do you think the vast majority of crimes are carried out by legal gun owners?

"Happen" when? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.

Apologies, I meant what do you think the result will be with more legal gun owners in the mix, especially in higher-crime/urban areas?

[scottt]

If lawful firearm owners cause most gun deaths, what can we*do?

https://theconversation.com/if-lawful-firearm-owners-cause-most-gun-deaths-what-can-we-do-48567

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Interesting read, thanks.

Here is an opposing viewpoint: https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/debunking-the-myth-concealed-carry-killers

I think both sides have valid points.

I do wonder, all those people who think the citizenry should not be able to arm themselves, who are we to count on for help?