General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)
spanone
(135,897 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)That's why the mossy gave way to my AR as my primary home defense long arm.
BTW: ...I want to meet the person who can charge, seat, aim and fire in 20 seconds.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Change the upper and you have a different rifle for different uses. Since the lower is the accountable part. Longer barrel for longer range target shooting, short M4 upper for close in defensive use. AR, 60+ years and going strong.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)The Prussians and the French managed 2 per minute.
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)The 1830's is not exactly the mid-1800's. By the mid 1800's firearms technology had advanced significantly and weapons such as the Henry Rifle, a breech-loading repeating lever action rifle that could fire 28 rounds a minute was available. So over 100 years ago there were weapons available that could be used on approximately as many victims as the modern weapon portrayed in this poster. Gun laws are significantly more robust today then they were in the 1860's, which would kind of contradict the premise that it's the lack of evolution of gun laws that is the defining difference between levels of violence experienced now as compared to then.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)do not confuse them with facts. It goes against their narrative. There are some very low information people around here that suck this stuff up.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)With a velocity comparable to today's 45 caliber.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)("But Lewis and Clark had one!" doesn't change the fact that it was exotic and uncommon.)
Orrex
(63,230 posts)True fact. 100%
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The fact that the author of the poster seems to be ignorant of what guns were available when is no excuse.
From pepper-pot pistols and breech-loading examples, to the henry and the spencer repeaters.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Not "similar lethality", for a start; low-velocity black powder rimfire ammunition? No comparison with a modern smokeless-powder centrefire round (.223 has more than 2000fps greater muzzle velocity and more than double the energy). Prone to misfires, to jams, to fouling, clumsy reloading of single cartridges into a tube magazine. There's not really any practical comparison between a modern weapon like an AR-15 and a Henry or Spencer or an 1866 Winchester. They were a huge advance over what had come before, sure, but in terms of reload speed, rate of effective fire, and overall relative lethality they don't compare with something like a Mauser K-98 or a Lee-Enfield from just a little over 30 years later, let alone with semi-autos like the M1 or AR.
And the author of the poster is quite correct in that the most common weapon in use in the mid-1800's (during the American Civil War, certainly, and also in the earlier Crimean War, and before that the Mexican War) was a muzzle-loading musket (toward the latter part of that period, a rifled musket firing Minie-type ammunition). The Henry rifle? There were approximately 14000 or so used by the Union army during the Civil War. (Out of 2.2 million men under arms.)
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Given that the implication of the poster in the OP is that such tech did not exist at the time, that it existed at all, even if in limited quantity, is enough to show the OP to be in error.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And considering that the image is a redcoat loading Brown Bess I'd guess that the creator of the poster probably meant "mid-18th century", not "mid-1800's"--which has more direct relevance to the Second Amendment, but the argument about changes in technology elide the fact that we're talking about military weapons and not civilian ones in the first place, by definition; "well-regulated militia" and all.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...so the line between "military" and "civilian" weapons was somewhat blurred.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)That should explain why 2A used the term "arms:" The framers knew the tech would change, restricted the language to "bear" arms (that leaves out tanks, artillery, even machine guns we hear so much about in these threads).
(Please note that the First Amendment really specifies communucation and expression: "press." If the courts gave "arms" the same latitude of interpretation as "press," we might have those ships and planes some joke about!)
The OP is more fundamentally flawed. Nearly all the (small) firearms technologies we have today were perfected at least a century earlier. Yes, we added gas semi-auto to mechanical semi-auto, but it's still semi-auto. Rifles are more accurate, auto-loading pistols jam a little less frequently, and the hoary old revolver remains a Mount Rushmore of innovation.
Obviously, we are in stasis as far as what is available to civilians. BTW, the AR-15 dates back to vacuum tubes. The source is grossly deceptive polemecism.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The Second Amendment also specifies "a well-regulated militia". And you're presuming knowledge that can't be deduced in the historical context. (At the time of the writing of the Second Amendment? The largest practical innovation in firearms technology was the rifled barrel. Percussion caps wouldn't be introduced for another 30 years.)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)printing press working for you
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)As with the rifled, cheaply-made weapons, new things and processes were constantly being dealt with, hence "arms."
The right to keep and bear occurs to "the people" individually, as do All the other Bill of Rights. The "militia" announcement is a reiteration of the government's powers to organize a militia, and of its dependency on that broad individual right which is the operative portion of 2A. "Well-regulated" is the government's power to require militia members to report, bearing arms in good operating condition, suitable for military service, and with the bearer having knowledge of its use. The manner of "bearing" arms is a power of the government within its militia powers, but it is also an individual right as written.
As to context, the record is replete with examples of folks reporting for duty with both muskets, but mainly rifles, during the Rev War; the government had to know the people were armed, and later acknowedged this to be a pre-existing right. Any strictures implied in 2A are on its militia powers.
The innovation of breech-loading had been experimented with and patented (in a corrupt manner) by the 1790s. Firearms did not exist in a static technological world.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)But they couldn't have been foreseen from the perspective of 1790, either. And in any case the "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment is grossly revisionist. ("Well-regulated" means "properly drilled", by the way. This is the same thing as Edward III requiring English yeomen to practise with the longbow.) And in contemporary usage, "bearing arms" always has a military context. It never refers to civilians. To speak as though it's something that can be separated from the long-since-redundant militia context is historical ignorance.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. then why did various states pass their own analogs of the second amendment at the same time that included 'himself' / 'themselves' and 'every citizen' or 'the right of citizens'? Were these states wrong in their usage?
You've focused on one phrase without reading the context where it was used, it seems.
Vermont 1777: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."
Pennsylvania 1790: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Kentucky 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Ohio 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State;"
Mississippi 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."
Connecticut 1818: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)and Alan Dershowitz -- no friends of 2A -- see it as recognizing an individual right, and so do most scholars of the Second. On ignorance: The bor deals with individual rights, not the right of governments, militia or other entity. The Articles describe militia powers; from there, the government announces in 2A why the RKBA is necessary within that larger encompassing right. It certainly doesn't condition it.
As I said, well regulated meant having a weapon suitable for the military and knowing how to use it. The gov has within its power to give "bearing" additional meaning as per Article 1. The right to bear is recognized by the feds, but the states reserve the power to regulate the manner so long as it does not run afoul of the Second or the 14th.
Look at it this way: The citizen can own weapons, but he/she better have one suitable for military service as required by Article 1. Frankly, outside of some NYT writers, I don't know many who continue to cling to such a stolid grammar to explain an amendment, or to such an oddball insertion of a conditional communitarian right amid a document replete with individual rights.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...and what the poster actually said are two different things.
The poster is just fine and makes a completely valid point, as was just explained rather clearly.
It also could have used a mini gun as an example of today's tech now couldn't it? But if it did it would have been rightly pointed out that people aren't running around the streets all over the country with freaking mini guns so using it as the example of what we're dealing with today would be freaking stupid.
The point of the poster was not whether the tech existed in some limited and largely inaccessible form. It was the conditions under which the laws were being crafted, that being to deal with the kinds of weapons the general population had ready access to.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)We have thousands of regulations on the books when it comes to firearms, especially in terms of fully automatic firearms.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"We have thousands of regulations on the books when it comes to firearms, especially in terms of fully automatic firearms. "
None of which stop the average person from owning the one in the poster. Which was the freaking point of the poster. Get it?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Saying that we can ONLY compare THOSE TWO firearms in the discussion of firearms and their laws is idiotic and fallacious in any serious discussion of the issues.
And even still, a person purchasing an AR-15 from a licensed dealer will still have to fill out paperwork and go through a background check. These are two areas that could be addressed and expanded to cover private sales, and I don't think you'll find a lot of disagreement on that here, tho I do question how effect such measures would be long term.
Interestingly, the muzzle loader is less regulated, as one can purchase it without the paperwork and background check.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It chose two completely representative examples of things the average citizen can easily get their hands on in the time periods we're dealing with.
Explain the "logical fallacy" in that.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Not exactly sure how else to make that clear to you. And the statement itself is a lie as it implies gun laws haven't evolved over time when they clearly have.
peace
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Or are you not quite clear on what that word means?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Citing legitimate representative examples of two different conditions you are examining is not creating a false dichotomy.
And the argument is not based on an appeal to an emotional state.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)The entire layout of the poster is built to generate an emotional response.
And I disagree with your premise in terms of the false dichotomy in this instance. The implication of the poster is that there were no other more advanced weaponry available at the time, which is simply false.
I think it's obvious we're not going to come to an agreement on this issue.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)For it to be an appeal to emotion the argument must be based upon the appeal in some way and using it to draw its conclusions.
It isn't.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Thousands served, yet people weren't running all over with them. Some did get carried into schools -- by kids hunting game going to & fro.
People want really to ban a century+ old tech possesed by tens of millions. Then, maybe shotguns (I heard they have been used lately in attacks).
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)None of which stop the average person from owning the one in the poster. Which was the freaking point of the poster. Get it?
After this coming January 15th, no one will be able to purchase, receive, or transfer the AR-15 in New York State. And when this law was passed last year, we had members of the legislature promise on the floor of the chamber and in front of the television cameras that "this is only the beginning."
The biggest myth of the anti-gun-rights movement is that gun ownership in the United States is "unregulated." Regulation has been steadily increasing since the early 20th century, and there is no indication that any level of regulation will be sufficient for those who wish to curtail the private ownership of firearms. "Sensible regulation" is always defined as one step beyond what is currently on the books. Let's stop pretending otherwise, shall we?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Well since clearly this poster was only talking about New York it has now been totally invalidated.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Similar laws are in effect in California, the most populous state, as well as Connecticut and New Jersey. We're now talking about approximately one in five people in the United States.
Shall we keep going?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...since the poster was talking about the state of affairs in the entire country, not in a fraction of it that you feel like cherry picking.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)...since the poster was talking about the state of affairs in the entire country, not in a fraction of it that you feel like cherry picking.
One fifth is a fraction, yes. Apparently you think it is insignificant that these laws affect one in five Americans. What proportion would it have to be before you would consider it significant?
The headline referred to "our" laws. That in no way indicates federal law only, in other words, laws that affect "the entire country." Gun control is an issue at the federal, state, and local level. Don't try to pretend that it isn't.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Apparently you think it is insignificant that these laws affect one in five Americans.
You're damn right I do, considering 4 in 5 Americans live places they can easily get these weapons, and there's not exactly border control between freaking states.
Which means anyone, anywhere in the country, can get them EASILY if they feel like it.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)You're damn right I do, considering 4 in 5 Americans live places they can easily get these weapons, and there's not exactly border control between freaking states.
So in your mind, the federal government should preempt state control over firearms? That's going to be a tough sell. Count on losing most of the rural swing states to the Republicans in the near term.
Easily, perhaps. Legally, no. And laws are what we're talking about here. Remember?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...the poster in the OP made a 100% legitimate point.
The ease or difficulty in getting people to do anything about it is a separate consideration.
"And laws are what we're talking about here. Remember?"
Yes, the patchwork outdated inadequate laws that make any claim that these weapons are properly and adequately regulated in this country a joke. Those laws.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... you want to increase federal regulatory power over weapons that account for fewer deaths per year than hands, fists, and feet. Tell me why you are willing to throw rural Democrats under the bus in order to do it. Tell me what "proper and adequate" regulation of firearms means to you.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...to the homicide and suicide rates of every other first world nation on earth with better gun control than the US.
Any other questions with ridiculously obvious answers you'd like to ask?
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)...to the homicide and suicide rates of every other first world nation on earth with better gun control than the US.
Any other questions with ridiculously obvious answers you'd like to ask?
... you have a first-world bias, and you consider non-firearm homicide to be inconsequential.
Here are the UN stats on homicide. Go to the Rate column and choose "Sort descending." You'll see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country
Here are suicide rates, according to the WHO. These are already sorted by the descending order of the Average column.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Ridiculously obvious? Now who's cherry-picking?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)..."i know how to look at meaningful comprative data" bias.
Comparing the intentional homicide rates in, say, Somalia to the Us tells you zip about anything relevant to a gun control debate in the US. There are too many other massively widely diverging contributing factors, the noise drowns out any possible signal in the data.
So you compare countries with similar levels of social stability, wealth, etc where the difference in gun control approaches is a far more significant portion of the total differences between those nations...
(Which is another ridiculously obvious point)
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)..."i know how to look at meaningful comprative data" bias.
Comparing the intentional homicide rates in, say, Somalia to the Us tells you zip about anything relevant to a gun control debate in the US. There are too many other massively widely diverging contributing factors, the noise drowns out any possible signal in the data.
How about comparing the suicide rates of France and Japan to that of the United States, then. Could it be that the presence of firearms isn't the driving factor? Or would you prefer to drop the suicide angle?
For homicide rate comparisons, how about if stipulate that for comparison purposes we only look at nations that are ethnically diverse, with high unemployment, a history of violent racial oppression, and a dearth of effective social welfare programs. Then we might have some "meaningful comparative data."
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)" How about comparing the suicide rates of France and Japan to that of the United States, then."
Here's an idea... go back and try actually reading what countries I said to look at in the first place. After you've done that how about you tell the class if you think your two proposed examples are included in the set?
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)You said this:
...to the homicide and suicide rates of every other first world nation on earth with better gun control than the US.
I named two "first world" countries with "better gun control" and higher suicide rates than the US.
How is that not relevant?
Sigh ...
You appear to be saying you realize I already included those countries in my observations from the beginning... yet you still appear to be trying to act as if you're trying to talk me into including them.
Are you having fun playing your silly little game?
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Please decipher this gobbledygook. I'm not trying to "talk you into" anything. You made the following statement:
...to the homicide and suicide rates of every other first world nation on earth with better gun control than the US.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your implication is that the US fares poorly in comparison to such countries. I gave you the examples of Japan and France and their suicide rates. We do not fare poorly in that comparison. Can you deny the truth of that statement?
"Little game" my ass. Please address the issues and spare us your tortured attempts to evade direct evidence.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You claim that it was exotic and uncommon, yet there were others of similar capacity and lethality developed from 1820 to 1870.
If we're talking 'most common weapon', then why choose to compare to today's AR-15? If we're talking most commonly used in crime of our era, that'd be the lowly 38 revolver. Most commonly used in hunting? Pump-action shotgun or bolt/lever action deer rifle.
No, the poster fails in a couple different ways.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
George Zimmerman's shotgun:
The fact is, gun fanciers are not arming up for the reasons envisioned in the 2nd Amendment.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Most people don't live on the frontier anymore. People don't need to hunt for food or defend themselves against marauding Apaches. The role of the "militia" as intended in the Second Amendment has been taken over by the National Guard, and the USA has a standing army of substantial size (as it didn't until 1941, except in wartime). It is in fact the lack of evolution in gun laws that's the defining difference, because those laws have not kept up with social changes that have rendered them largely obsolete and even dangerous in the modern world.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Please keep up, Bond!
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Could you just put them on your credit card and worry about a bill later... After you killed your targets?
Oh... No... You could not.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)you buy them mail order. No background check
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)most all towns also had gunsmiths, pay the man, get a gun
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #156)
Name removed Message auto-removed
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)improved or changed at all since the mid-1800's? And all of you think that the current laws are adequate?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)laws have also changed many times, this part seems to be forgotten
99Forever
(14,524 posts)kpete
(72,024 posts)First Moloch, horrid king, besmear’d with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents’ tears,
Though for the noise of Drums and Timbrels loud
Their children’s cries unheard, that pass’d through fire
To his grim idol. (Paradise Lost 1.392-96)
Read again those lines, with recent images seared into our brains—“besmeared with blood” and “parents’ tears.” They give the real meaning of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School Friday morning. That horror cannot be blamed just on one unhinged person. It was the sacrifice we as a culture made, and continually make, to our demonic god. We guarantee that crazed man after crazed man will have a flood of killing power readily supplied him. We have to make that offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily—sometimes, as at Sandy Hook, by directly throwing them into the fire-hose of bullets from our protected private killing machines, sometimes by blighting our children’s lives by the death of a parent, a schoolmate, a teacher, a protector. Sometimes this is done by mass killings (eight this year), sometimes by private offerings to the god (thousands this year).
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/dec/15/our-moloch/
99Forever
(14,524 posts)1. It has the power to destroy the reasoning process. It forbids making logical connections. We are required to deny that there is any connection between the fact that we have the greatest number of guns in private hands and the greatest number of deaths from them. Denial on this scale always comes from or is protected by religious fundamentalism. Thus do we deny global warming, or evolution, or biblical errancy. Reason is helpless before such abject faith.
2. It has the power to turn all our politicians as a class into invertebrate and mute attendants at the shrine. None dare suggest that Moloch can in any way be reined in without being denounced by the pope of this religion, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, as trying to destroy Moloch, to take away all guns. They whimper and say they never entertained such heresy. Many flourish their guns while campaigning, or boast that they have themselves hunted “varmints.” Better that the children die or their lives be blasted than that a politician should risk an election against the dread sentence of NRA excommunication.
3. It has the power to distort our constitutional thinking. It says that the right to “bear arms,” a military term, gives anyone, anywhere in our country, the power to mow down civilians with military weapons. Even the Supreme Court has been cowed, reversing its own long history of recognizing that the Second Amendment applied to militias. Now the court feels bound to guarantee that any every madman can indulge his “religion” of slaughter. Moloch brooks no dissent, even from the highest court in the land.
Gun culture IS a mental illness.
kpete
(72,024 posts)I was blown away by this piece as well & posted it last night to a sleepy crowd...
- thought it was the best, most powerful thing I have read in a while.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024178660
another snippet:
Adoration of Moloch permeates the country, imposing a hushed silence as he works his will. One cannot question his rites, even as the blood is gushing through the idol’s teeth. The White House spokesman invokes the silence of traditional in religious ceremony. “It is not the time” to question Moloch. No time is right for showing disrespect for Moloch.
another snippet:
powerful, sad, heartwrenching
yet SO true
peace, kp
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and is not supported by the medical community
99Forever
(14,524 posts)As supported by every SANE human being on the planet.
Opposition to SANE thinking is supported by NRA terrorists.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...it makes it MORE TRUER!!!
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why allowing gun threads in DG is such a horrible idea. The hate, vitriol, and bullshit amateur psychoanalysis it engenders are pure poison to this community.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)And those that live in it are fetishists that have the blood of many thousands upon their craven hands.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Then again, can one really expect validity from someone who advocates something so profoundly fallacious as "collective guilt?" Surely not...
Enjoy your irrational hatefest, sweetie...it's long past time you were put on Ignore.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...yeah, I'd say that's a real sickness, irrespective of what the DSM may call it. Do you think it's normal for creepy little fucks to invade every discussion board on the Internet in an attempt to lessen this slaughter of children and glorify guns? These are some sick, useless-to-society fucks, and they need to be hounded to the ends of the earth in order that they are made to understand that they're unacceptable in disposition and behavior. Dogshit deserves more respect than these death fetishists.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)we can disagree but some of these comments really are over the top.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Toward the lower-left corner of my post is a hypertext link that will allow you to alert on my post. You can let the jury know that I had mean things to say about gun freaks on practically every discussion board on the Internet, and you can let them know that this isn't fair because Liberty!
I'll take my chances.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)gun owner that has been called many things. I do not like to alert as I like the discussion. Would be better without the name calling and I really attempt to not sink to that level.
We disagree on issues and I understand both of our positions will not change.
I hope you have a pleasant day.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)The Dem platform supports the right to bear arms. this is a Dem board. Lots can be done with tightening up the laws. No need for this kind of over the top rhetoric. Peace, mojo
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Not all opinions are respectable and the people who cheer guns after massacres deserve to be shunned.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm sure there are some assclowns who are indeed responding directly to these horrific tragedies by "defending guns." However, I think the majority are instead responding to the broad-brush vilification and insults some posters seem to think is an appropriate response to said tragedies. If those attacks were better focused on those fanatics (and not applied to everyone who owns a gun, calling us mentally ill and much worse), they wouldn't garner the response they do.
It's a completely natural human reaction to respond to that sort of insult not by trying to have a reasoned discussion about how to solve the problem, but by reacting in kind. I catch myself doing that all the damn time here when the topic is gun control. I feel guilty about descending to their level...but it happens.
aikoaiko
(34,185 posts) DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)...yeah, I'd say that's a real sickness, irrespective of what the DSM may call it. Do you think it's normal for creepy little fucks to invade every discussion board on the Internet in an attempt to lessen this slaughter of children and glorify guns? These are some sick, useless-to-society fucks, and they need to be hounded to the ends of the earth in order that they are made to understand that they're unacceptable in disposition and behavior. Dogshit deserves more respect than these death fetishists.
I support the right to keep and bear arms within reasonable limits, which have pretty much already been set in our society. I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right. Does that make me a "creepy little fuck," a "sick, useless-to-society fuck," and a "death fetishist"? I just want to know where I stand here.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Which is a damned effective reminder of why I really should trash all gun threads in GD until Skinner comes to his senses...
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)of allowing guns back into GD results demonstrably in a new hateration little different from the old ones. Is this an experiment in a shaming strategy to get American progressives to give up guns? An attempt to bully that change? (Ha! As if savvy folks in liberal innertube threads are not by now familiar with the droll, boring strains of bullying & shaming.) Are the very loud anti-gunners enabled in their rather violent animosity by a backstage compassion pass? Maybe it's a little of all this. I think progs feel utter frustration with a party & president which have proven unwilling to take on the forces of corporatism and RW nut-hustlers, and we sense our impotency at how to effect a broad movement of change, or even to identify the impulses of change in the scrambled carnival of social "media." So, a convenient, close-by enemy is needed to justify and validate our dubious influence. It's an age-old ploy, but armed progs and libs are witches.
Speaking as an old fart, what ever happened to the peace and love generation?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)The European Union
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
Japan
Singapore
Malaysia
most of the developing world agree with what you call 'inane prattle'.
You do share a point of view that is widely held in Somalia however.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The people of those countries view "gun culture" (whatever the fuck that little gem of pop-psych vagueness means...) as a mental illness? Do tell.
Leaving aside the matter of your argumentam ad numeram fallacy, do you have any actual evidence for that claim? Any reason to believe that those folks, in general, are at all qualified to make a diagnosis that one generally has to go to medical school to make?
If you believe that assertion, feel free to cite the DSM entry for that specific "mental illness."
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Ten of those years I spent in a UN organization that had people from all of those countries.
Many if not most were very conservative in their religious/political beliefs ( I was involved in refugee affairs and most of the expatriates were doctors and nurses who took 1-2 years off of their professional careers to contribute to resettling refugees from Southeast Asia after the Khmer Rouge genocide and the war in Vietnam).
Many of them, especially the Swiss were gun owners.
Many were admirers of the US in general.
None of them, and I mean not a single one, understood, admired, had sympathy for, or supported the very careless way that guns and ammunition are, purchased, stored, or used in the US and they considered the mythology of personal gun ownership in the US as something between a religious or fetish obsession.
I found the Swiss, all of whom were members of the Swiss national guard and required by law to maintain guns in their home to be the most biting in their criticism. I was told repeatedly that while gun ownership was universal that training on handling and storage of guns was also universal. They also told me that every year they had to go to the local police and re register their ammunition which they stored in a locked safe and show that the seal had not been tampered with. Any discharge of ammunition had to be accounted for by the police. (That was in the 1970-80s, I don't know if the practice has been modified, just that all of them knew exactly how many rounds they had and exactly how each round is used.)
Among all other issues there was no consensus about other parts of the US sans one: universal access to basic health care.
On both of these issues the conversation would ultimately come to the same conclusion: We don't understand how a great and good country like the US can have such a morally untenable policy, we just don't understand.
You may consider yourself well educated but your reply shows a painful ignorance on three counts:
1) It is not an Argumentum ad populum.
My point was that it wasn't simply popular or in your pejorative attempt a 'bandwagon' opinion among the people in a country, nation or culture which the word populum means but rather it was a widely held, virtually unanimous opinion held by all other civilized and developed peoples, which would be the plural populi.
You will have to find another Latin phrase that is meant to convene the idea that something is a fallacy because it is a widely held believe held over a long period of time by multiple civilizations, cultures and peoples widely disturbed across the entire world.
2) You may continue to spend your time thinking that you are doing something great and noble by participating in discussion forums defending liberal easy access for everyone to own a gun but it really is a fact that for the rest of the civilized world your support of these policies is perceived as substantive as the cultural contribution of Duck Dynasty is to the Arts.
3) Finally put aside the anecdotal of my and all other Americans who have lived overseas. The fact is that all the other well developed law abiding constitutional democratic countries have found ways to keep guns from exercising a weekly epidemic of mayhem and violence, and only the American tolerance for this river of the blood of innocents has allowed "a gun culture" to continue, however you define that word.
You may think that you are participating in an exercise of freedom, and this is where your ignorance of how the rest of the world actually operates is so significant. I have lived and travelled dozens of countries in Europe and Asia and in all of them I knew that I could travel in the seediest and darkest locations, whether remote or down by the docks in an industrial area at the middle of the night and I would never have to be worried about a personal assault.
If your are even semi aware as an American when you leave your domicile you have some part of your thinking that is taking precautionary steps because an incidental car accident or simply a malevolent character can take over your space and your life in an instant, in a place that is secure in the middle of the day. Those seedy and dark locations, both remote and in the urban area, well no thinking American goes to those places in the middle of the night.
That freedom of simply being able to walk down any street at any time in a completely relaxed and free frame of mind is a freedom that Americans have lost, probably forever.
But relax because there are so many obsessed single issue folks like yourself that are willing to 'go to war' on any perceived modest attempt to gain control of this mayhem, progressives like me that would like to see a change will not engage the issue, we lose too much political equity on too many other issues.
So having won the battle, won the war and left with only minor symbolic policy changes why do you still invest so much time exercising your fingers on the issue if it doesn't lie in a misplaced possibly paranoid obsession very much like the way that the Europeans, Australians, Canadians, Japanese, et al. perceive? Because outside of the US the well educated civilized 'masses' that you seem to be laughing at by your grammatically incorrect use of argumentam ad numeram think of you : morally challenged, intellectually stunted, and emotionally obsessed.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Or, more specifically, you're expanding it. My remarks were based on the assertion in the post to which I replied, the one that claimed "gun culture IS a mental illness," and to your assertion that the people on that list of nations hold that opinion. If that was not in fact your assertion (and I suspect it was not), then you should have phrased it with more care. I was not addressing anything but that claim.
On the broader related issues, I happen to hold views similar to those Swiss citizens you mention: that while firearms ownership should be the right of any adult citizen who is not a felon or mentally ill, regulations regarding responsible ownership should be more stringently written and enforced. Those regulations should include proper secure storage, universal bacjkground checks for any transfer of ownership, liability for improperly secured weapons, meaningful requirements for demonstration of competency for CCW permit holders (twice a year, just like most police officers), etc.
I know perfectly well what constitutes an argumentum ad populum fallacy (and its kissing cousin, the argumentum ad numeram). Your implied assertion qualifies as such, as it was (as stated) an attempt to claim that the statement to which I replied ("gun culture is a mental illness"
is valid because the population of those nations believe it to be true. This is Argumentation Theory 101 stuff, to be blunt.
You will have to find another Latin phrase that is meant to convene the idea that something is a fallacy because it is a widely held believe held over a long period of time by multiple civilizations, cultures and peoples widely disturbed across the entire world.
No, I need do nothing of the sort, as I was making no such assertion. That an opinion is widely held doesn't make it fallacious (obviously). My point was that it has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of that assertion...which is why your implication to the contrary is fallacious. But if you'd prefer another Latin phrase, feel free to select argumentum ad numeram or perhaps consensus gentium.
Oh, and you really shouldn't accuse someone of a grammatical error unless you actually know what you're talking about. The philosophical term argumentum ad populum doesn't employ the plural populi because it's not in fact a reference to distinct segments or categories of people (even when they are present), but to the entire group of people holding the view in question. That group is a singular entity, regardless of possible subsets. To put it in simpller terms, it's not "this is true because a whole bunch of different groups of people believe it," it's "this is true because a whole bunch of people believe it." That "bunch" is correctly referred to by "populum," not "populi." This why one doesn't see the term "argumentum ad populi" anywhere in the literature of the field. That would be philosophy, which is what I do for a living (not to risk an argumentum ad verecundiam...)
Now lets talk about travel. I haven't lived abroad, but I do travel six or seven times a year; mostly to the UK (more on that in a bit), and most of the rest of the time to continental Europe. For the last several years, I've probably spent anywhere from a sixth to a quarter of the year abroad. My (relatively rare) conversations about guns have encompassed a rather broad range of reactions. Some were more-or-less what you imply: some don't at all get the US "obssession" with civilian ownership of firearms. Others express considerable jealousy. These reactions are only slightly biased in favor of the former (and most of the people I socialize with are leftists just like you or I...I'm sure that ratio would be reversed if I hung about with conservatives). Clearly we talk to rather different crowds...
I'm a bit dismayed that you feel so safe from potential violence in the places you visit...given that in many there is at least the level of statistical risk as one encounters in the US. The UK, to name the country with which I have the greatest personal experience, has a higher rate of "crimes against the person" than the US does. The risk of homicide is lower, but the overall risk of assault is greater. It is certainly greater (overall) than I experience here in Portland, Oregon (although obviously the UK's overall rate of violent crime is no more universally applicable than is that of the US, which also experiences dramatic differences depending on location).
Some clarifications:
I am by no means laughing at the nations you listed. An interesting take on your part, but utterly incorrect.
I am by no means a one-issue person, politically. Another interesting assumption, likewise utterly incorrect. As it happens, while I don't support most more-extreme gun regulation proposals, I happen to agree with you that the imposition of such is simply not going to occur (and if by some chance it does, that enforcement would be so problematic that one could ignore such laws at one's leisure). It's not anywhere near as important an issue to me as the devastating effect of the radical shift in capital to a minute percentage of the population, the rise of pro-theocratic elements in American society, and so forth.
I rather suspect this conversation will go nowhere useful...but I'm willing to be surprised.
Packerowner740
(676 posts)That DO suffer from mental illness.
Just disgusting. As disgusting as those on the right that say members of the LGTB community are suffering from mental illness.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)Care to expand on that? Really, please, please do, or cease the silly hyperbole.
Any other non normatives you practice bigotry on?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it always seem to devolve. I think Skinner made the right call before, I can live with it either way. I have a thick skin and can handle it.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The almost year-long "guns in GD exception" was an obvious, abject failure, doing almost nothing to promote good, rational, useful discussion and engendering a crap-ton of conflict, vitriol, and fragmentation. Allowing it to rear its ugly head again, even for something like the Newtown anniversary, is proving to be no less awful an idea.
I have a thick skin, too (you should see some of the other forums I participate in!)...but the problem is, heated exchanges are crippled here...and on a very asymmetric way. Given the crapshoot nature of the jury system, responding in kind to the sort of insults and trolling that most forums take for granted can get you hidden and even banned. "Some animals are more equal than others."
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I was hit yesterday and one of the comments said just this.
" I normally never vote to hide anything. I don't like gun nuts and think of this as my way of exterminating the pro gun culture. It shouldn't be hidden, but I despise gun nuts more than I value freedom of expression."
Very nice thing to post.
I have been on many juries and I think I voted to hide 1 post.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That's the problem with the jury system here: to many people base their votes on criteria other than whether or not the alerted post violates the rules. On things like whether or not they agree with the poster or alerter on the general topic at hand or on simple irrational hatred, as in the example you cite.
How "progressive" of them!
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... with what they are doing. But, if it were one of their pet subjects .......
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Talk about a messed up line of reasoning.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The unsubstantiated idea that one's own side in an argument is healthier/better than the opponents side is of itself chavinism and just poor rhetoric.
Placing the mentally ill at the hinge of that facilitates general bigotry, discrimination and stigmatization of the mentally ill who study after study shows as being no more dangerous than the undiagnosed public at large.
If you don't see it, put a colorful disparaging term for women, the LGBT, or minorities in your argument and see how it fits.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)There actually ARE mental illnesses, whether you like it or not. Gun culture IS one of them, one of the most deadly of them all, actually. Sorry if that puts your fetish on display and your undies in a bunch.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Yes there are mental illnesses, but if you look at compendiums of mental illness such as the ICD-10, or the DSM-5 you WILL NOT FIND GUN CULTURE listed.
Yes, some people with mentally ill commit crimes that involve violence (battery against prison guards and institutional staff being the most common). But violence by those diagnosed as mentally ill out in the general population is statistically indifferent from the rate of violence by persons without diagnoses of mental illness. Depending on the study the rate of violence for both varies from just above 3% to about 5%.
What you are promoting is merely a hollow proposition based on bigotry toward the mentally ill (and possibly bigotry toward gun ownership) all the while shrouding the vacuity in the claim of mental illness, an appeal that probably is trying to abscond with the sound of medical or scientific authority.
And by bigotry I mean this: The state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, or views treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Gun fetishists aren't the "victims," they are the perpetrators.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)By placing them in your argument as representatives of the diseased and thereby less good human beings who represent your gun owning opposition.
I appreciate your need to protect your self-view, but really I'm mostly just holding up a mirror so you have the gift of seeing how others see you.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)All you can do is play the strawman crap. over and over and over.
Most mentally ill are not violent killers. Mentally ill gun freaks are.
Get the difference?
Gun culture IS a mental illness, a terrible life ending, innocent killing, drain on all of society, mental illness.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And disgusting. Please, continue to be a major part of the problem. The blood will be on your hands.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)"straw man, noun : a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20man
I claim no imaginary or weak opponent. I claim what is blatantly obvious in your own words. Your argument is chauvinistic and it uses as its fulcrum of disparagement the mentally ill.
Based on what you've written downstream in this thread it is also apparent that you are employing there, as here, the solipsistic notion that your opinion is all that matters regarding the nosology of mental illness.
Everyone gets to have an opinion. Not everyone gets to define illness for others in a manner that is deemed credible and authoritative by others. I understand that this could be an ego-level blow to a person's self-esteem but, within society, and group conversation it is also pretty much operationally true.
So, it seems you've chalked up a rather remarkable list of fallacies and rhetorical miscues in surprisingly few sentences.
Except for your being aroused and needing to display your discomfort and thereby assuage your hurt feelings by attacking others, I see no useful rhetorical purpose to your persistent name calling.
Aren't the people you are calling names the same people made iconic in your username? Why is it that some of the 99% are useful only as disparaging adjectives applied to others of the 99%? Something feels wrong about your sense of eqalite'.
Perhaps you could explore your contributions to this point and refine them with the edit or self-delete functions?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... what you want, I'll post what I want.
Frankly, pleasing you or the Gunz Culture doesn't even cross my mind.
"refine them with the edit or self-delete" that.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... a gunz fetishist calling someone else a "bully."
The irony is thick.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)And I'm not pro-gun. I am ANTI-stigmatizing the mentally ill, a concept that completely evades you.
So, again, a bully and happy holiday to you.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... of doing what it is you yourself are guilty of...
Hmmm, where have I heard this before?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)You clearly have a lot of steam you need to expend.
Work it off, then an hour in the banya, I recommend wetted iron-wood twigs, rather than birch, or willow.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)somebody a part of the "gun culture"?
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)what is it defined under in the DSM-5?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...the other side insane.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)That's how it works in the real world. Tens of thousands of lives WASTED every year just so a minority of insanely paranoid fetishists can keep the object of their insane obsession close to their hearts.
If that seems "normal" to you, then there isn't much of anything that can break thru that kind of fog.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...insane, without having met almost any of them face to face, based on a jaded and warped perspective of their buying habits?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... thousands of dead, including lots of innocent children is a bad thing? An insane thing?
Are you fucking kidding? Or just so obsessed with your fetish that reality has slipped from your grasp?
Don't bother answering, it's pretty damn obvious.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)You're so convinced that it MUST be the guns and gun owners that are the problem, that you are closed off to the possibility of there being any other possibility or solution to the problem.
The sad thing is that by doing this, you've effectively become part of the problem. So congrats.
EDIT: Oh, and does it take a special degree to diagnose people with a mental illness? Yes. Yes it does in fact. What YOU'RE doing is actually marginalizing the plight of the mentally ill in this nation. But that's a whole other topic of conversation.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Without those two things, the slaughter ends. That IS the reality.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)The slaughter was there before guns existed, and it would be there if you were to ever get your way. Until we deal with the true root causes, it'll never stop.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)get rid of the people, do not know how he plans it though. because without guns murder still happens. I assume he means preventing future murders by preemptively getting rid of the potential murderer.
How are you planning on doing this?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)The math is even simple enough for an obsessed fetishist to understand, that is of course, one without a severe case of cognitive dissonance.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)But that's all right, because a gun wouldn't be involved right?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)SSDP.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Especially NRA terrorist bullshit.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)ya know, bullshit.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)People who are killed via other means are less dead? And of course you ignore any and all people who use firearms as a means of self defense from people who would otherwise be able to do great physical harm to them.
cognitive dissonance indeed.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)kpete
(72,024 posts)has my back
COMPLETELY
THE American Gun Culture Is Insane!
http://www.trbimg.com/img-50f03b24/turbine/la-tot-cartoons-pg-alex-jones-and-pro-gun-paranoids-put-nuts-in-gun-nuts/600
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)But hey, victory (or in the this case, the scoring of cheap political points) at any cost, right?
kpete
(72,024 posts)mental illness runs in my family,
I lost my youngest brother to mental illness in 2002
nothing has ever shaken me so hard -especially this time of year...
please, do not accuse me of scoring cheap political points
you do NOT know me,
you did NOT know him,
I am entitled to my opinion that violence of ANY kind-self-imposed or inflicted by others has no place on this earth
(mho) when I last checked is ALSO a constitutional right
thanks for reminded me just how deep these feelings run.
You see for me, eqfan592
It is not about guns
It is about lives...
peace,
kp
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)That may not be your intention, but it IS what you both are doing. And it runs in my family as well, and lost family to it, most recently a 1st cousin literally on the day of my wife and I's wedding.
I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion.
I agree, it should always be about lives. And if that's the case, then we should be focusing not on a single implement, but on attacking the root causes of violent crime in general. Especially when that implement is used to also help people defend themselves.
kpete
(72,024 posts)any kind
I have ALWAYS hated guns
it's in my DNA
your argument just sounds like the broken record that I have been forced to listen to in my darkest of dreams...
again, thank you for reminded me
just how much of a bleeding heart liberal, pacifist, commie I am
and my brother would be proud to hear that...
Patrick Villegas
July (?) 2002
Kangaroo Lake, California
I miss you
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...etc., is the same broken record? Somehow I doubt that very much.
Please, continue to feel that you are so awesome, meanwhile the rest of us will go about trying to fix the real problems at the root of the issue.
kpete
(72,024 posts)continue w/o me...
peace,
kp
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that diagnosis was done in congress if I remember.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)In this case, he hasn't even seen the vast majority of his subjects, yet has somehow managed to provide a diagnosis!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Should charge for that diagnosis. Could get rich.
samsingh
(17,601 posts)
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)I bet you didn't expect to ever hear that from this quarter.... But as someone who grew up outside the US, the fascination and fetishisation of guns that I see there just gives me the squick, to be honest. All those who literally say "from my cold, dead hands" just....I do not understand it. I live in a country where a 5-year occupation is in living memory, and we don't have this obsession with defending ourselves. I guess it could be because the gun culture in the US seems mainly to be composed of the descendants of the occupiers rather than the occupied....
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)No idea what sorts of weapons were available in the "mid-1800's."
No idea of the sort of situation that would actually have to obtain in order to make 30 lethal hits in 48 seconds.
No idea of gunshot wound lethality rates.
No idea of the actual influence of magazine capacity on multiple homicides.
And much, much more...but the prattle in the footnotes about the author's "research" is fucking priceless.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... and the gun technology hasn't kept up.
Did you have a point?
kpete
(72,024 posts)I agree with 99Forever
Gun culture IS a mental illness.
My point is that I am SICK, just plain SICK of this idolatry
Adoration of Moloch permeates the country, imposing a hushed silence as he works his will. One cannot question his rites, even as the blood is gushing through the idol’s teeth. The White House spokesman invokes the silence of traditional in religious ceremony. “It is not the time” to question Moloch. No time is right for showing disrespect for Moloch.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/dec/15/our-moloch/
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)We have had these types of guns for more than a century now. While the AR-15 is a more recent design, by the second decade of the twentieth century, there were plenty of automatic/semi-automatic designs in circulation (1911, BAR, Thompson Sub-Machine Gun, etc.).
The Second Amendment does not say that the right to keep & bear arms should taper downward as technology improves. If you would like to agitate and organize for such a revision, you are free to do so. However, your wishing-away of a Constitutional right should not and does not have any legal impact.
-app
kpete
(72,024 posts)3. It has the power to distort our constitutional thinking. It says that the right to “bear arms,” a military term, gives anyone, anywhere in our country, the power to mow down civilians with military weapons. Even the Supreme Court has been cowed, reversing its own long history of recognizing that the Second Amendment applied to militias. Now the court feels bound to guarantee that any every madman can indulge his “religion” of slaughter. Moloch brooks no dissent, even from the highest court in the land.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/dec/15/our-moloch/
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)AR is not a military weapon. It is the civilian semi-automatic version that has been around for 60+ years. FYI I do have 3 full military specification weapons in my collection. I even have the bayonets that belong to them. One is even permanently mounted. They are a hoot to shoot paper with.
kpete
(72,024 posts)but peace,
kp
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)The Supreme Court interpreting plain language plainly is not 'distortion.' Yes, the 'collective rights' theory about the Second Amendment dominated legal discourse for much of the last century. That does not mean it was any more correct than the distortions of the First Amendment's language that permitted the Alien & Sedition Act in the 18th Century, or the Espionage Act & Sedition Act of the 20th Century (I eagerly await similar plain thinking at the Supreme Court level that overturns these odious and unconstitutional laws).
kpete, you are twisting yourself through some truly tortuous logic to tell me that "...the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed," does not in fact mean that American citizens have a right to keep & bear arms. Basic English reading comprehension disagrees with your assertion. The Supreme Court disagrees with your assertion.
-app
Paladin
(28,277 posts)For a typical example of what I'm talking about, check out the "When 7 rounds just isn't enough" thread in DU's Gun Control & RKBA group.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)because during high stress, they usually cant aim and miss. Facts and human factors.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 05:40 PM - Edit history (2)
Thank you for making such a strong argument for why guns pose a serious threat to public safety.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)???
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I fixed it.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I can recall an NYC incident, but that was caused mostly by the paranoia of the brass at NYPD by requiring 12 pound trigger pulls.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Aiming is very important and if a trained law enforcement officer can not hit his targets with accuracy in a high stress situation then there is no reason to believe an untrained gun nut would be a better shot.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)You made the point that police officers miss their target and hit innocent bystanders. I merely asked you how often such a thing occurs.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)If you want statistics he may be able to provide them, I do know that it does happen I just don't have statistics at the tip of my fingers to tell you how often. I am sure every competent firearms trainer would tell you that precision aiming is very important and stray bullets can put others at risk.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)go to the range, run 1/4 mile get that heart rate up. have someone shooting at you. now try and hit a small moving target. Not very easy and it can take many rounds. That is even if you have good range time. Most gun owners and cops actually get very little range time and I would guess never with a cardio workout to get the heart rate and adrenalin up. The military added different range techniques as the found out the old way of just static shooting was not effective in real life. So yes over 7 rounds may very well be required.
of course on TV they can shoot a tire out with a single round at a 1/4 mile with a 38 snub-nose.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)except maybe in your mind.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The question is
Is 7 rounds enough? you should never need more.
Unless you walk in someones shoes,, don't think you know everything.
Secret, cops don't practice very often. CCW holders tend to get more range time.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Duckhunter did not.
I am simply attempting to discern if you believe that law enforcement should be restricted to 7 rounds in their duty weapons.
You made a claim, I was just wondering if you could back it up.
Of course aiming is important. It is important ANY time a weapon is discharged.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)It happens, I do not know the exact number of times that it happens but a quick Google search will bring up a number of examples of it.
If you acknowledge aiming is important then I would assume you know that the reason it is important is that you don't want a stray bullet to hurt someone.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)seemed to indicate you were against law enforcement from having more than 7 rounds in their duty guns because of their poor aiming under stress. Is that your belief, or did I read something that you did not intend?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I was commenting on how often Duckhunter said they miss their target.
I don't know how many rounds a cop should be allowed to carry, I am undecided on that issue. I do know that I believe cops should be held to a higher standard and held accountable for misuse of firearms, but as far as specifically how many rounds they carry I don't have an opinion on that. I would prefer that none of them had guns but I realize that is not a realistic option when there are so many other guns on the street.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)shooting up vehicles
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)although they were not involved in the chase.
aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Decaffeinated
(556 posts)You could look at virtually all of the amendments through that prism. The clear point is necessary and if you go through and add addendum and extras and qualifiers in the end you have the legislative garbage that we see today.
Shall not be infringed... Easy, clear and decisive... It's fine...
Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)Indoors, the Thompson SMG is considerably deadlier than any semi auto rifle. The laws were changed in the twentieth century to curtail ownership of such fully auto guns.
Of course the second amendment is ambiguous and does not really say what many "gun supporters" want it to; if it did we could all own machine guns and tanks and bombs and whatever else. There is nothing in the Constitution which spells out that fully automatic weapons are for the government only but semi auto variants are fine for everyone else, that is just the status quo we have (mostly) come to accept.
Still, it is obvious that mass shootings are not becoming more common because guns are more effective. If effective guns were the determining factor in mass shootings, the hey-day would have been back in the 19 teens and twenties because of the widespread ownership of Tommy Guns. Of course back then the mass shootings were almost all gang vs gang killings that had an obvious profit motive, very different from the random killings of today.
I don't think that "mental health" screenings will do much to stop these tragedies, but it does seem obvious to me that shootings are becoming more common because of changes in our culture and our "collective psyche," not because the guns are getting better.
It is also important to understand that roughly 2/3s of American gun deaths are suicides, and that the vast majority of gun deaths are committed with pistols that no politician is talking about banning.
Does anyone really think that Newtown would have been less bloody if that lunatic had just taken two pistols instead of the AR-15? At Virginia Tech Cho killed 33 ADULTS with pistols. At the Washington Navy Yard Alexis killed twelve, including an armed guard, with a shotgun and a pistol. How would banning the AR-15 have stopped Lanza from shooting up an elementary school?
In other words, in a discussion of gun violence, mass shootings and assault rifles are basically red herrings. They are emotionally powerful as individual events, but statistically they barely register. An average of 53 Americans die from lightning strikes each year, which indicates to me that I'm about as likely to die from a random mass murderer as I am from lightning. And mass shootings are quite possible using pistols and shotguns, which indicates that small risk would not be mitigated by banning the AR 15.
It would make sense to me to ban private gun ownership altogether. Rates of suicide and murder would likely see a permanent drop. But I am always puzzled by the mobs of people trying to ban certain types of guns. Such bans will not do much, if anything, to stop gun violence.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)you could order full auto from a catalog. I believe Oswald also ordered his via catalog, no FFL or background checks back then. Yes Virginia, laws have been changed.
Paladin
(28,277 posts)The Model 70 is designed for killing game animals, the AR-15 is designed to kill and maim human beings. The fantasies accompanying the two sorts of rifles are vastly different. Daily proof of this is available in DU's Gun Control & RKBA group. (Lotsa luck finding any mention of a Model 70 in Gun Control/RKBA, unless it's been modified to be a Really Cool Sniper Rifle, for use on the same intended targets as an AR-15.)
And as long as you brought up the 1934 law: as a result of its restrictions on the ownership of full-auto firearms, the casualty rate from such weapons is negligible. Which proves---as I never, ever tire of pointing out to Gun Enthusiasts---that gun control is in fact effective....
Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)As I said, if we were to ban all guns then suicide and murder would surely drop. That makes it pretty clear I understand gun control is effective.
Of course since the vast majority of those deaths are from pistols, they should probably be our first target.
Rifles of any sort represent a tiny fraction of American gun deaths. Do you ever tire of reminding people of that?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)is a great and very accurate long range rifle out of the box. It is in action virtually the same as bolt action military rifles. Rifle models may change but the function is the same. The AR series, AR-10 and AR-15 are the same thing. They are the civilian varient of the military M-16 and now have many models that make great hunting rifles. The AR-10 for big game and the AR-15 for varmit and small game. All rifles trace their lineage back to a military firearm.
http://www.remington.com/en/products/firearms/centerfire/model-r-25/model-r-25-rifle.aspx
http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx
now even pump action rifles are available.
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-7600/model-7600.aspx
My 1926 is fully milspec.
Paladin
(28,277 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It is a military specification rifle and every once and a while I go out and shoot paper targets with it. nice how well a 90 year old rifle shoots. I feels fine to shoot. My smart car gives me the same feeling when I drive it. A good plate of pasta or steak I think is better though.
Paladin
(28,277 posts)aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)You know better than to play loose with facts about guns, Paladin.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Play loose with facts? Never. 
Paladin
(28,277 posts)Here I go through my "Gun Control Is Effective, As Shown By The 1934 Law" spiel, and that's all I get back from you? Alright, one more time: Go get your NRA Talking Points Manual, and turn to the chapter entitled "Classy-Sounding Latin Sayings That'll Make You Sound Really Smart." The correct response to my 1934 zinger is "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc." Please don't let me down again.....
(Yeah, it's sarcasm.)
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Now, each side had it's "reasonable laws" in mind, some here, on both sides, are unreasonable, and there are, for the most part, reasonable debates on what's doable and what's not, I fully support universal background checks, mental health checks, national gun owners licenses, etc., what I will oppose is those that, right here on this thread,
advocate a complete ban on firearms, and in another thread, the DP for those caught with firearms.
You seem one of the more reasonable ones on the gun control debate.
Paladin
(28,277 posts)It's a damn shame that being reasonable on this issue is so poorly valued.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)always break down into insults on both sides, which does nothing for reasonable people like you and me to forward the debate.
Paladin
(28,277 posts)If you want to backdate a Model 70 deer rifle to a 98 Mauser, be my guest. But let's not kid ourselves about who's playing loose with facts. The Ford F-150 truck can be tracked back to the Model T, but none of those snotty-voiced F-150 ads on TV today will make mention of it, for good reason.....
Paladin
(28,277 posts)Your decision to dismiss emotional responses in favor of statistics is really off-putting, if typical in discussions like these.
By the way, I've never advocated a ban on private gun ownership that supposedly makes sense to you.
Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)the truth hurts, etc.
And your point about banning guns (or not) is exactly my point, though you seem to need it spelled out again:
Basically no one is proposing to ban all guns, so basically no one is trying to do the one thing that would actually curb gun violence.
Assault weapons are used in a statistically insignificant number of attacks. Furthermore, as VT and the Navy Yard demonstrate, such attacks could generally be carried out with pistols and shotguns and still be very lethal. These two facts basically prove that banning the AR-15 would not have any meaningful impact on gun violence, which is exactly the opposite of what the OP seems to believe.
So, the OP is clearly false, both in its summation of historical fact (the laws HAVE changed since muskets) and in conclusion (banning the AR-15 is not important).
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)I hate when it gets shown improperly like this. Someone might try to follow this and get hurt.
I load and then prime the pan and under most state laws a flintlock is not considered loaded until the pan is primed. I use a Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifle for black powder hunting season. I enjoy the challenge.
spanone
(135,897 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Now you have it. I preferred the gun threads in the appropriate furums but I will have the discussion her as long as it is allowed by Skinner.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)"The 1996 reforms made gun laws stronger and uniform across Australia. Semi-automatic rifles were prohibited (with narrow exceptions), and the world's biggest buyback saw nearly 700,000 guns removed from circulation and destroyed. The licensing and registration systems of all states and territories were harmonised and linked, so that a person barred from owning guns in one state can no longer acquire them in another. All gun sales are subject to screening (universal background checks), which means you cannot buy a gun over the internet or at a garage sale.
Gun ownership requires a license, and every sale is subject to a 28-day waiting period. The licensing process considers not only the applicant's age and criminal convictions, but also a range of other factors relevant to possession of a product that is (a) designed for killing and (b) highly coveted by people who should not have it. Relevant factors include the applicant's living circumstances, mental and physical health, restraining orders or other encounters with the law, type of gun desired and for what purpose, safety training, storage arrangements, and the public interest. "
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)just not most in the good old USA. Put it up for vote and and as long as it survives in the USSC. More power too you all. I for one do not agree with it and would lobby my congress critters to vote against it as is my right.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I don't think any one has suggested repealing your right to vote in a way you think is correct.
From reading through your opinions expressed, my impression is that you do not care for honoring the victims of horrific gun violence (the children and others massacred in Newton) with posts decrying the senseless deaths attributable to gun violence.
For many, many of us ... a fitting tribute to this would be to take drastic steps to decrease the potential for this happening again. That is my opinion.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)which are used much more often and are much more concealable.
Yes I do care for the dead and there families. My thread remembering all killed,(not just a select few, as horrible as it was) had very few people post. That leads me to believe that a lot of the people around here really do not care and want to politicize a tragedy. How would a new AWB affect the Chicago children killed every day that never seems to be mentioned. I guess they are the wrong color or not affluent enough to get the same outrage from SOME people around here.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)In remembrance of Newtown I could start a thread remembering the victims in Bhopal or the victims of the Triangle Shirt factory ... horrific tragedies ... and the victims need to be remembered . In many ways they were ... legislation was passed in attempts to decrease these tragedies from repeating. Starting such a thread would be odd (and seemingly posted to deflect the attention from gun violence in America).
There has been a lot of attention paid to the children in Chicago (dying from gun violence) ... here. We have tried to discuss the alarming ways that firearms have infiltrated the American culture.
Directing a comment to me about children not being the right color ... is hysterically funny.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)forget economic status, I actually think it is more that than racial myself. My point was and most missed it that yes those 26 were a tragedy but we should never forget the other thousands. I think they are just as important and very often forgotten.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... that you were addressing all of the child victims of gun violence. I think your earlier post gave the impression that you were attempting to sanitize the horrific tragedy in Newton of "firearms".
I think a "Memorium" post remembering all of the children killed by firearms would be greatly appreciated by all. You do make a good point about the lack of attention paid to some children.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)a child dying of gun violence is the same as a child dying as a result of drunk drivers and I feel should also be remembered and not as a Second class type of death.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And there are a lot more of them on the pro-control side in this thread than on the pro-gun side: "gun humpers," "fetishists," "mentally ill," etc. In another thread, a poster called for a complete ban on gun ownership and the death penalty for non-compliance. The death penalty.
How "progressive."
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... are right up there with pacifists. Trying to address violence and death ... yes some of these folk have grown very weary of the spamming of the board by a very few "gun enthusiasts" (mercifully, they are a very small minority here).
chum
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)But like obnoxious prats everywhere, they garner a disproportionate amount of attention...
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Nature of the (human) beast, really...
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)there is a HUGE divide between gun controllers and gun rights advocates,
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)..... but using the terms "gun-grabber" or "hoplophobe" will often get a post hidden? I had a post hidden merely for asking the question as to whether the term "hoplophobe" was a forbidden term on DU. Apparently it was.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Of course, the apologists for this absurdly asymmetric situation will argue that being a pro-control extremist is "the true progressive position." As if that was somehow universally accepted (and theirs to define in the first place...).
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But on a progressive message board with a jury system where the vast majority is in favor of gun control you are not going to have it your way.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Anyone pretending otherwise hasn't a fucking clue about what constitutes progressivism.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)That would be so progressive.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If you'd like to address anything I actually rote, do let me know...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I see gun owners being all being lumped together and being called killers and murderers. I see a lot of name calling "GUN HUMPERS" come to mind. The always funny penis joke or reference. It seems to be on one side and the other side just wants to have a civil conversation. Can you link to threads that the right wing are disrupting and calling duers names and using the alert and jury system to hide threads they do not agree with? Alerting over TOS in GD does not count.
The gun owners around here are not calling for the death penalty for possessing a firearm, some here are. Do you agree with that?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Please note that disagreeing with your position on guns is not considered a form of bigotry by any definition of the term.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The bigotry I'm referring to is that expressed by the all-too-common sweeping generalizations about gun owners we see here. More specifically, it's expressed by employing terms like "gun humpers" and "gun-toting rednecks," and by assertions like "the blood of children is on all your hands" (collective guilt fallacies of that sort, when applied to, say, African-Americans or Muslims is instantly and correctly identified as bigotry). It's expressed by describing gun owners as "fetishists" or "mentally ill."
Countless examples abound...I trust I needn't link any?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)no matter how many times it is pointed out with examples.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)But those pro-control folks who do accept that this bigotry exists here aren't the ones indulging in it. They're the ones who are already participating civilly in an attempt to find solutions.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I will agree with you that labeling all gun owners as mentally ill is bigoted as the mentally ill are a real minority group and they do not deserve to be lumped with the NRA loons. I also think the people who try to blame gun crime on mental illness are expressing bigotry against the mentally ill as well.
If you are going to use such a broad definition of bigotry however then the people no your side who use terms like "gun grabber" are bigots as well.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and I disagree with its use and yes I think it shows the same intolerance. One side seems to use the bigoted term a lot more though.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)The NRA racists were coming out of the woodwork to smear Trayvon Martin and they are constantly smearing the mentally ill and trying to blame them for gun violence. There is all kinds of real bigotry aimed at minority groups coming from the right-wing gun loving assholes, if you don't see it you are deliberately ignoring it.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I see quite a lot of threads that the mental heath system needs to be fixed and that would cut down on this. I have yet to see it being blamed for the mentally ill. I have also seen quite a few posts on Trayvon and how screwed up the justice system is but I did not see any smearing him, please post some links to those. Should be easy if there that many as you say.
Of course this just might be another "NRA talking point". That phrase seems to get way over used and I have yet to see this mythical list.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)He was continually portrayed as a thug, here is an article that gives a few examples there are many more out there. Just Google "Trayvon Martin smears" and you will get plenty of examples.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/17/trayvon-martin-and-why-the-right-wing-media-spe/194930
I want to fix the mental health system as well, but the NRA has blamed violence on the mentally ill and has actually called for a national database of people with mental health issues, that is a truly bigoted idea.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/nra-takes-fire-stance-mental-illness/t/story?id=18057336&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If the terms genuinely apply to a specific individual (and the same applies on either side of the argument), that's one thing. Broadly applied, I consider them both prejudiced and more than a little intellectually lazy. Moreover, their use is counterproductive to finding consensus and solutions.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I do not think name calling when it comes to disagreement in politics often rises to the level of bigotry but apparently your definition of bigotry is more broad than mine.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I should perhaps use the term "prejudice," which while similar in meaning doesn't convey quite the same degree (at least to me). But the return of gun threads to GD (*headdesk*) and the resulting shitstorm of vitriol has me a bit upset.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)big·ot·ry
The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
There is plenty of that around here, simple disagreement is one thing but name calling and some of the over the top post against gun owners is just that intolerance.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... more equals.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)majority of members do not serve on juries. But some very vocal members do and use it to press their point of view. Not right but that's how it is.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I know you are smarter than that.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)People that you allege are a minority viewpoint here? I have no idea how that happens. You made the claim, please explain how it works.
aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)Your ability to contribute to the discussion is noted.
mountain grammy
(26,658 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)..... which side of the discussion tries to carry on a civil discussion and which side are the raving, irrational name callers.
That's why we shouldn't discuss the issue in GD. It's embarrassing.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Seems to go that way
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and a closet or large gun safe packed full of the dang things?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I have my CCW just in case I want to and want to be legal. I have several weapons in my safe due to their differing uses. Just like anything there are differing types. That is one of the great things about the AR platform being modular. I can change the upper and have a rifle for another purpose without having to buy another rifle. Some here want to ban that. Some want the death penalty for that. Is that rational? How many coats do you have? How many shoes do you need?
Number of weapons does not stop someone from being rational.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)if they can't give up their modular weapons when the government finmally decides that folks don't really need such weapons for self defense.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)it is rarely addressed these days.
Btw, this thread was alerted on for being in stark violation of the rules of the forum, yet here it is still.
What should one conclude from that fact?
Meh, it isn't like any of this makes a real difference in reality anyway. Much of DU left reality long ago on this issue.
samsingh
(17,601 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)If you really want to work against the gun culture, you have to change the culture and you won't do that by focusing on the guns.
When you present inaccuracies as facts, you hurt your own cause.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)of the poster invalidates the point you are attempting to make. The percussion cap was introduced in the early 1820s.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)What ought to be our response to the problem at hand?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Read it again. If you have ideas, I'll will respond.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...is that a factual error at the top of the poster in no way invalidates the point being made: namely, that modern weapons kill much more rapidly than the Founders anticipated. Do you agree that this is a problem? If so, what sort of solutions ought to be attempted?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)The poster does not interest me. If you have suggestions, I will provide my opinion.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...to claim that an error invalidated the OP. If you can make that case, I promise I will pay attention.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)make a point invalidates the point. It's not that difficult to ubderstand.
You really wish to make a point to me, why don't you make it already?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)It seems you're saying that the incorrect date a particular firearm was in use in the nineteenth century somehow means that today's weapons with higher rates of fire aren't a problem that should be addressed. If so, that's nonsensical.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I just do not find this poster to have much merit in and of itself. If you have a slecific way to change or add to gun laws, go ahead and post ykur ideas and I will give you an opinion, if that's what your persistence is about.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...in which you said a factual error invalidated the larger point. However, you've since come out and said you disagreed with that larger point, anyway. 182 doesn't seem honest in that light, but you have at least been clear. You don't believe that higher rates of fire warrant greater regulation, so you are not interested in regulation proposals, I believe.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)If you choose to provide your ideas without referencing the image in the OP, I will give you my opinion. If you choose not to do so, that's OK as well.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)it's not any faster to load and prime a percussion weapon like the 1853 Enfield or 1861 Springfield. The effective rate of fire for both of those was two to three rounds per minute.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)
deathrind
(1,786 posts)It is sad how common sense gets tossed right out the window in order to hold on to a perceived sense of safety / self defense.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Hekate
(90,853 posts)by the way, kpete: KnR.
kpete
(72,024 posts)that was one tough thread...
peace, kp
Response to kpete (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
napkinz
(17,199 posts)
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)the police found most of those 30 round mags still half full, it seems that Lanza would only fire off half of the mag, dump it and reload a full mag, why? Who knows, but on this, Rachael is just plain wrong.
Oakenshield
(614 posts)Not when Americans cling to their guns with the zeal of a fanatic.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,214 posts)
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)napkinz
(17,199 posts)
"It's been 20 years since the Brady Law was passed. But 40% of gun sales still don't require a background check. Tell Congress to stop helping bad guys get guns."
http://www.bradycampaign.org/?q=finish-the-job
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)napkinz
(17,199 posts)... just wish it made sense to Congress.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)You can't run a fast check unless it's querying a database. And the database isn't particularly good.
Just -what- should be in that database?
The best reported categories in the instant check databases are for illegal immigrants deported or waiting deportation and persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces and persons with restraining orders against them.
The worst reported category in the instant check databases is for use of OR addiction to illicit drugs...oh, btw, for as far as the FBI is concerned, marijuana is still an illicit drug.
The reporting on mentally ill only catches about 1/3 of the people who should be reported. But, rather remarkably--and unknown to most gun control advocates--that is ~2 times more complete than the reporting of persons convicted of felonies and misdemeanors whose sentences should require them to be included.
It really must be kept in mind that who should be in the NICS database is quite fluid. People are not born with records that can be linked into categories excluded from gun purchase. These things are acquired and so status re a database changes. And there is no reason to believe that they won't change AFTER a person has made a gun purchase.
Persons get angry and vengeful without meeting criteria for mental illness.
When we say there needs to be a database we are saying there needs to be collection and maintenance of the data. And that means creating the apparatus to sweep up the data and to keep it up to date. Such a system must be secure from hackers and even be safeguarded official misuse so that the passing of information to other databases doesn't happen. NICS information shouldn't be universally shared. For example a mental health flag for something like a hospital stay to treat a self-harming behavior that was successfully resolved should not come into play during a license plate check within traffic stop or a background check for a professional license.
To be used in a constitutional manner under the equal protection clause a database used nationally to deny rights to some citizens should have uniform reporting from all across the country. Historically reporting into the NICS system is far from uniform. As it is, people from different reporting jurisdictions from across the country use somewhat different reporting standards and methods. That makes people from some jurisdictions more likely to have their rights constrained than others.
The idea of background checks sounds great. The devil is really in the details. And as it is, there are many hobgoblins dancing around it.
kpete
(72,024 posts)peace,
kp
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Well, I doubt it would make it through the House, but it's at least within striking distance.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)
napkinz
(17,199 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Polymers make them lighter and weather resistant, I guess, but that's about it.
During that time, we've had eras of very high gun violence (eg, 20 years ago) and eras of comparatively low gun violence (eg, today -- you're actually less likely to get shot in 2013 than you would have been in 1913).
Every time we go down this track, we come up with a bad law. Mass shootings are not what should be driving policy. Nearly all gun deaths are from hand guns, and two thirds of all gun deaths are suicides. If your proposed policy isn't putting handguns and suicide front and center, you aren't actually dealing with the problem.
Response to kpete (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Welcome to DU!
Response to Agschmid (Reply #289)
Name removed Message auto-removed