The Comrade Anklebiter your outfit represents what is wrong with the world! Nothing says 'we reject your societal straight-jackets!' quite like having your club ALSO happen to be a sex-crazed swingin' singles club - because those Sisters should have the freedom and liberty of objectifying you right back.Comrade Dwarf, you shock me!
We are trying to build a party of professional revolutionaries here, not a sex-crazed swingin' singles club!
Would you care to become a member of OHWFA!, Mr. Shifty?
If the availability of guns is the sole or main cause for gun violence, as you suggest, then there truly is no hope.
Isn't that tautological? If a gun is required for gun violence to take place, it necessarily follows that if a gun is not available, gun violence cannot take place.
But my main point is that the USA is not like most other developed countries, it is almost unique. It has always had a gun ownership culture, which is very different from Japan, which instead has a long history of the government confiscating weapons from the citizenry. Not surprising that Japan has a low gun ownership rate and a low gun violence rate.
Switzerland, on the other hand, has a culture where gun ownership is considered part of the obligation of the citizenry, so ownership rates are much higher. But yet the gun violence rate is much smaller than the USA.
Three different developed countries, three different cultures, and, yet gun availability doesn't neatly correspond to gun violence for all three.
Which is why we make use of broad statistical analyses that tell us that gun violence and gun control laws are correlated (negatively), both between states in the United States, and between nations in the developed world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you care to become a member of OHWFA!, Mr. Shifty?
Sure, Anita would be thrilled to see the cohort grow.
|
Which is why we make use of broad statistical analyses that tell us that gun violence and gun control laws are correlated (negatively), both between states in the United States, and between nations in the developed world.But my main point is that the USA is not like most other developed countries, it is almost unique. It has always had a gun ownership culture, which is very different from Japan, which instead has a long history of the government confiscating weapons from the citizenry. Not surprising that Japan has a low gun ownership rate and a low gun violence rate.
Switzerland, on the other hand, has a culture where gun ownership is considered part of the obligation of the citizenry, so ownership rates are much higher. But yet the gun violence rate is much smaller than the USA.
Three different developed countries, three different cultures, and, yet gun availability doesn't neatly correspond to gun violence for all three.
Actually, between states in tne US, the politacal orientation of the state is way more strongly corralated with gun crimes then gun laws. Gun laws were broken up to certain types but still the strongest gun law factor was the eighth strongest factor with the rest firmly on the low middle of the pack.
This was from report linked in one of the prior gun threads by someone else. I can't link anymore so I'll find it later.
Would you care to become a member of OHWFA!, Mr. Shifty?Sure, Anita would be thrilled to see the cohort grow.
That's three! The movement is growing like wildfire, Comrade Mean DM!
If you've been following along in the "History Is Cool" thread, you will see that I've been reading Priscilla Robertson's The Revolutions of 1848: A Social History. I haven't finished it yet (still have Italy and the British Chartists to get through), but in France, Prussia and Austria, a key demand of the liberals and democrats was the right to bear arms and the formation of people's militias.
But there was a recurring pattern: eventually, the workers would get the idea that all this talk about freedom and liberty also applied to them and they armed and demonstrated in their own interests.
They would then usually get gun downed by forces loyal to the liberals and democrats. And then, when the reactionaries would come against the libs and dems, they no longer had the workers behind them, and they would get crushed. After that, the right to bear arms became a lot less popular with the liberals and democrats of Europe. Gun control has always been racist and classist.
Chapter XVI: Milan's Five Glorious Days
"The formal request of this body of citizens was that the Austrian police should be disbanded and a civic guard be formed by the citizens. The Austrian officials, even while they abolished censorship in imitation of the capital of the Empire, had tried to hide the fact that Vienna had won a national guard. But once this fact leaked out, the citizens' case seemed strong. Casati, for one, was so sure that the demand would be granted that he persuaded the Austrian officials to refrain from asking military protection from Radetzky--a move which, argued the mayor, would lead to certain and needless bloodshed.
"The highest Austrian official whom these patriots could find at his office was terrified, and he signed at once the order they asked for, an order to establish a civic guard for all citizens not living by their daily work."
Hmmm. I wonder what's going to happen next?
|
I was thinking... I know, scary thought right? ;-)
From what I see, the majority of the "pro-gun" crowd does not like what the "anti-gun" crowd wants to do concerning gun control; claiming that their proposals won't work, or that the proposals are an erosion of the rights of gun owners...
And the "anti-gun" crowd accuses the "pro-gun" crowd of not coming up with any viable solutions of their own...
I see that a lot of the "anti-gun" crowd wants to ban "assault weapons" and/or semi-auto firearms in general (which includes the "assault weapons") because of their ability to fire a lot of ammunition in a short amount of time (partially due to high capacity magazines, and the relative ease in which the magazines can be changed).
What I thought of, were two simple laws that if implemented on a Federal level, could very well make both sides happy provided that both sides are willing to settle on a compromise...
First, limit magazine capacity to say, no more than 10 rounds; effectively banning any magazines that hold 11 or more rounds.
And second, require all semi-auto firearms that accept detachable magazines (such as what most "assault weapons" do), to have a device that locks the magazine in place, requiring the use of some sort of tool in order to release the magazine...
These two relatively simple laws would limit the amount of ammunition that these firearms can hold and therefore fire, AND dramatically slow down the shooter's ability to change out magazines.
I dare say that if these two laws were in effect prior to Colorado and Sandy Hook, then these events would not have been the tragedies that they were...
|
Digitalelf;Your premise is flawed. You cannot retroactively change existing weapons without seizure. Seizure is where the control crowd wants to go but can't immediately accomplish. So they rely on incremental means. Don't worry the control crowd will eventually win in time. Personal liberty is on its way out.
|
|
Digitalelf;Your premise is flawed. You cannot retroactively change existing weapons without seizure.
Most of the gun bans that have been and are being proposed, grandfather in firearms that are already owned... So this would be a requirement of all new manufacture firearms. It is something that can even be done to all current stock in gun stores across the United States before the firearm is sold (and provided that you know what you're doing, which any gunsmith should, it is a simple, simple process to add these magazine locks)...
I think that the real sticking point for most of the "pro-gun" crowd would be the limit of magazine capacity, but that is why I say that this could work if BOTH sides are willing to compromise on this...
|
|
Magazine capacity laws have been proposed. Even passed in some states.
The "locking magazine in place, requiring some kind of tool to release" law has been passed in some places. (California at least) The response was to make various addons (bullet buttons) to make it both legal and nearly as quick and easy as before.
Of course many gun owners simultaneously hate the law and point at how easily it is to circumvent, depending on which better suits their argument.
Anything that is made can be unmade provided you know what you are doing...
That being said, these "bullet buttons" do not make it nearly as quick and easy to change magazines, they make the changing of a magazine about as fast as a "speed loader" used for revolvers... So a shooter intent on harming others, has to either drop the firearm when the magazine is empty, and grab a new firearm, OR fiddle around with some sort of tool to drop the empty magazine before a fresh magazine can be inserted. Either one of these, would delay the shooter possibly long enough for those being shot at a chance to run and/hide from the shooter.
And the "work around" for the bullet button (at least here in California) is to make the firearm "featureless" and thus not make it an "assault weapon" in the eyes of the California DOJ, and therefore not needing a bullet button.
What I propose is to require the magazines on all new firearms be equipped with this lock, so that there is no "work-around" (and a bullet button is considered a lock, because you cannot just use your finger and push a button to easily remove the magazine. You must use a tool in order to release the magazine)...
I can't speak of the high capacity magazine bans in other states, but while California has banned high capacity magazines, the ban is not quite complete; the ban is only on the sale and transfer of them. It is NOT illegal to possess one... That is why the "ban" on high cap magazines here in California has no teeth.
What I thought of, were two simple laws that if implemented on a Federal level, could very well make both sides happy provided that both sides are willing to settle on a compromise...
First, limit magazine capacity to say, no more than 10 rounds; effectively banning any magazines that hold 11 or more rounds.
And second, require all semi-auto firearms that accept detachable magazines (such as what most "assault weapons" do), to have a device that locks the magazine in place, requiring the use of some sort of tool in order to release the magazine...
I feel like the guy in the fedex commercial who says something, gets ignored, and then someone says it with a hand gesture and everyone nods their heads...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the guy in the fedex commercial who says something, gets ignored, and then someone says it with a hand gesture and everyone nods their heads...
With all due respect, BNW, all I recall you advocating (aside from banning manufacturers from selling assault weapons/semi-auto firearms to the GP) is an out-right ban on all semi-auto firearms, leaving us with nothing but revolves, break-open shot-guns, and bolt-action rifles…
|
I feel like the guy in the fedex commercial who says something, gets ignored, and then someone says it with a hand gesture and everyone nods their heads...With all due respect, BNW, all I recall you advocating (aside from banning manufacturers from selling assault weapons/semi-auto firearms to the GP) is an out-right ban on all semi-auto firearms, leaving us with nothing but revolves, break-open shot-guns, and bolt-action rifles…
While those that do not respect the law have an even higher edge over the law abiding yay.
While those that do not respect the law have an even higher edge over the law abiding yay.I feel like the guy in the fedex commercial who says something, gets ignored, and then someone says it with a hand gesture and everyone nods their heads...With all due respect, BNW, all I recall you advocating (aside from banning manufacturers from selling assault weapons/semi-auto firearms to the GP) is an out-right ban on all semi-auto firearms, leaving us with nothing but revolves, break-open shot-guns, and bolt-action rifles…
To those reading: again, note the black-and-white division.
In conservative thinking, there are people who do not respect the law.
And there are people are are "law-abiding" (always that term).
There is no gradient of people who respect most laws but not some (read: most people), or people who are "law-abiding" right up until the day they break the law, etc.
That is responsible, nuanced, developed thought, and there is no place for that kind of thinking in conservative culture.
I feel like the guy in the fedex commercial who says something, gets ignored, and then someone says it with a hand gesture and everyone nods their heads...With all due respect, BNW, all I recall you advocating (aside from banning manufacturers from selling assault weapons/semi-auto firearms to the GP) is an out-right ban on all semi-auto firearms, leaving us with nothing but revolves, break-open shot-guns, and bolt-action rifles…
I said the rate of fire was too high and you had too many bullets. You said the only way to stop that was to ban semi autos. I said oh well then, if they need to go then they need to go.
You also continue to yell at the empty chair over the cosmetic title of assault weapon.
I'm curious as to why you think you need more armament than you can get with revolvers , pump action shotguns, bolt and lever action rifles. Its not like most crooks stick around for an extended shootout.
|
|
You also continue to yell at the empty chair over the cosmetic title of assault weapon.
I'm curious as to why you think you need more armament than you can get with revolvers , pump action shotguns, bolt and lever action rifles. Its not like most crooks stick around for an extended shootout.
I agree that the term "assault weapon" is disingenuous. The firearms that were given this unfortunate title, are much like kit cars because once you get up close and "pop the hood" you can clearly see that the difference between the two is merely cosmetic, and the similarities between them end with how they look.
I continue to use this term, as this is the "type" of firearm that most of the anti-gun crowd focus upon.
As to your question...
You're not going to like, nor agree with my answer. I am not looking to get into a shootout, much less an extended one. It also is not about more armament or firepower.
What is it about then?
Quite frankly, it is about the cosmetics... I live in a state that does not allow the private ownership of most NFA firearms. And even if I lived in a state that did, I simply do not have the thousands of dollars to spend on that kind of thing. So, I purchase the closest thing that I am allowed to and that I can afford.
In the state that I live in, in order to own one of these "assault weapons", I must never use a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, and the firearm itself must be equipped with a magazine lock. It's not ideal, but at least I can own one; it is a compromise I am willing to live with...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you care to become a member of OHWFA!, Mr. Shifty?Sure, Anita would be thrilled to see the cohort grow.
As a cofounder of OHFWA, and self appointed vice-comrade to senior comrade Goblin, I welcome you to the movement.
Viva le OHFWA!
Ok, dunno what side of the fence I'm on. Had a drug dealer move in across the hall, started getting all kinds of disturbances, altercations, screaming threats, police right outside the front door at all times of night. Realizing I lived in one of the gun-owninist cities in the world (something like 97%), I purchased a shotgun, kept 2 shells with it, and told my wife if I was out of town: "Someone yells threats at the door, rack the thing so they hear it. If (and only if) they break the door down, pull the trigger on them. Then jack the next shell in, in case they have friends. When you're sure the coast is clear, then call 911."
There's no need there for a concealable handgun. No need to fire 100 rounds off -- real life isn't like Death Wish III, where endless hordes of baddies keep coming at your house in waves like a game of Space Invaders.
This applies to hunting deer as well. If you can't take one with a bolt-action rifle, you have no freaking business being out in the woods with a firearm at all.
I support ownership of appropriate firearms for hunting or home defense. I see little need for anything past that, unless you've got serious inadequacy issues that are the real problem -- I knew some people who owned entire arsenals, fired off something like 1,000 rounds a weekend (usually while drunk), based their entire masculinity on their firearm collection, and seriously wanted to know why "the gubbermint" wouldn't let them own tactical nuclear weapons.
Sometimes I wonder why there doesn't seem to be any middle ground on the issue, when it's debated in the media.
So, I purchase the closest thing that I am allowed to and that I can afford.
Why?
I continue to use this term, as this is the "type" of firearm that most of the anti-gun crowd focus upon.
Its kind of annoying being talked to as if i were the ontological representation of a stock position rather than a human being.
Wait, you're not? :-)
Chapter XVI: Milan's Five Glorious Days
"The formal request of this body of citizens was that the Austrian police should be disbanded and a civic guard be formed by the citizens. The Austrian officials, even while they abolished censorship in imitation of the capital of the Empire, had tried to hide the fact that Vienna had won a national guard. But once this fact leaked out, the citizens' case seemed strong. Casati, for one, was so sure that the demand would be granted that he persuaded the Austrian officials to refrain from asking military protection from Radetzky--a move which, argued the mayor, would lead to certain and needless bloodshed.
"The highest Austrian official whom these patriots could find at his office was terrified, and he signed at once the order they asked for, an order to establish a civic guard for all citizens not living by their daily work."
Hmmm. I wonder what's going to happen next?
Turns out the Austrians crushed the Milanese before the usual workers vs. the liberals conflict could come into play.
The Austrians, though, executed close to 1,000 people. Their crime? Possession of weapons.
|
|
While those that do not respect the law have an even higher edge over the law abiding yay.I feel like the guy in the fedex commercial who says something, gets ignored, and then someone says it with a hand gesture and everyone nods their heads...With all due respect, BNW, all I recall you advocating (aside from banning manufacturers from selling assault weapons/semi-auto firearms to the GP) is an out-right ban on all semi-auto firearms, leaving us with nothing but revolves, break-open shot-guns, and bolt-action rifles…To those reading: again, note the black-and-white division.
In conservative thinking, there are people who do not respect the law.
And there are people are are "law-abiding" (always that term).
There is no gradient of people who respect most laws but not some (read: most people), or people who are "law-abiding" right up until the day they break the law, etc.
That is responsible, nuanced, developed thought, and there is no place for that kind of thinking in conservative culture.
Yes there are people that do follow the law as best they can and those that do as they damn well please
Yes there are people that do follow the law as best they can and those that do as they damn well please
That's never been my experience, in which there's a very fine line between a "law-abiding citizen" who gets too drunk one night, and a "criminal." I also notice that, again in my experience, the majority of self-labelled "law-abiding citizens" are also generally people who flagrantly speed on the highways and cheat on their taxes, so evidently "the law" isn't as neat a category as people like to present it to be.
Gun toting grandma stops intruder.
With a revolver, I notice.
Gun toting grandma stops intruder.With a revolver, I notice.
Not to pile on, but given that it was a legally purchased and registered revolver, from which a single shot was fired, I don't understand how this story relates to the thread topic.
I don't think this thread has been about 3-D printers in a while, Dicey.
But it does remind me of a tune...
I wasn't saying that was the thread topic at this point. A little old lady scared off a burglar with a weapon well within the limits of any current gun control.
How does that relate to the topic at hand? It's just my own preference, but this incident would seem to support gun control.
I don't know. But then again, I've been posting about 1848, Robert F. Williams, and Blackstone's Commentaries, so, don't pay me any mind...
Not to mention my new mass movement, OHWFA!
|
|
So, I purchase the closest thing that I am allowed to and that I can afford.Why?
I continue to use this term, as this is the "type" of firearm that most of the anti-gun crowd focus upon.Its kind of annoying being talked to as if i were the ontological representation of a stock position rather than a human being.
I dislike the term "assault weapon", and it sounds like you too dislike the term as well. However, California has managed to make the term so pervasive that I'm afraid that even if you and I were standing face to face holding this conversation in private, that I'd still use that term when referring to that particular group of semi-automatic firearms.
As for your question (and again, I know you're not going to like nor agree with my answer)...
As I said, it's about how the firearm looks; but I don't like all of the modern firearms however. I find the aesthetics of most (and again, not all) of the modern firearms pleasing and I base my choices on personal preference and how much money I am willing to and can spend. I have never liked the looks of the more traditional "broomstick" style stocks (even while growing up). But it's more than just the aesthetics; I find the ergonomics of the more modern firearms better than that of the older more traditional firearms. I'm not looking for more firepower; I'm not looking to get into a shootout with anyone. I just want to go out to the range every once in a while and enjoy myself with my preferred firearm.
Chapter XIX: Venice: A Model Republic
"The first thought in Manin's busy mind during that day and the next was that Venice must have a civic guard. An armed people, in Venice as in Vienna, would have a guarantee that they could keep their rights. Part of Manin's alarm came from fear that the proletariat would get out of hand. He expected frankly that they would have to be kept down, and he thought it would better be by Italian arms than by Austrian."
Gun control has always been yada yada yada...
|
|
Yes there are people that do follow the law as best they can and those that do as they damn well pleaseThat's never been my experience, in which there's a very fine line between a "law-abiding citizen" who gets too drunk one night, and a "criminal." I also notice that, again in my experience, the majority of self-labelled "law-abiding citizens" are also generally people who flagrantly speed on the highways and cheat on their taxes, so evidently "the law" isn't as neat a category as people like to present it to be.
Then we all should have no freedoms then by your logic. After all any man is one drink short of a rapist or of choking someone to death and you need a weapon for neither. You might be one drink short of a killer, I prefer to stay clear head and armed.
Yes there are people that do follow the law as best they can and those that do as they damn well please
No, not really. Most people fall into a gray area somewhere between those two extremes. Pretending that people are either totally law-abiding or totally law-ignoring is insane. It is literally the sort of policy perspective that you would have to be insane to adopt.
Then we all should have no freedoms then by your logic. After all any man is one drink short of a rapist or of choking someone to death and you need a weapon for neither. You might be one drink short of a killer, I prefer to stay clear head and armed.Yes there are people that do follow the law as best they can and those that do as they damn well pleaseThat's never been my experience, in which there's a very fine line between a "law-abiding citizen" who gets too drunk one night, and a "criminal." I also notice that, again in my experience, the majority of self-labelled "law-abiding citizens" are also generally people who flagrantly speed on the highways and cheat on their taxes, so evidently "the law" isn't as neat a category as people like to present it to be.
Again, for those watching at home: No nuance. No deep understanding. Superficial, exaggerated thinking is the only sort that Andrew_R and those like him are willing to work with. It's not "we need a robust system of institutional regulations to handle the vast array of individual motivations for crime and violence." Instead, it's "Everyone is one drink away from murder, so I need to have a gun on me all the time.
It's bonkers.
|
|
Yes there are people that do follow the law as best they can and those that do as they damn well pleaseNo, not really. Most people fall into a gray area somewhere between those two extremes. Pretending that people are either totally law-abiding or totally law-ignoring is insane. It is literally the sort of policy perspective that you would have to be insane to adopt.
I don't thinkanyone thinks it's black and white but rather that 99% can be easily lumped to one side or the other. Peope who generally do the right thing (maybe speed or cheat on taxes) they don't ever intentionally endanger peoples lives and usually show some respect for the law, then you have the people who intentionally endanger peoples lives or have no respect for the law and do whatever they want. The former are generally refered toas law abiding and the latter, criminals.
I don't thinkanyone thinks it's black and white but rather that 99% can be easily lumped to one side or the other.
No, they can't.
If this is what you seriously think, you need to remove yourself from this discussion. Your input is counterproductive.
|
|
Then they're not, because responsible gun owners would never do that.
And both of those are examples of irresponsible gun owners from the start. Not because we're all human and accidents (however unfortunate) can happen, but because these are examples of irresponsible behavior. If you carry a firearm (no matter if it's concealed carry or open carry), then you must be aware of that firearm at all times. And when you pick up a firearm, especially if you intend upon cleaning it, you must visually AND physically check that firearm to see that it is unloaded...
The people in these two examples clearly did not do these very basic things, and while I obviously do not know any more than what was said in those reports, their actions were indicative of complacent behavior around their firearms, which in itself, is very irresponsible...
And both of those are examples of irresponsible gun owners from the start. Not because we're all human and accidents (however unfortunate) can happen, but because these are examples of irresponsible behavior. If you carry a firearm (no matter if it's concealed carry or open carry), then you must be aware of that firearm at all times. And when you pick up a firearm, especially if you intend upon cleaning it, you must visually AND physically check that firearm to see that it is unloaded...
The people in these two examples clearly did not do these very basic things, and while I obviously do not know any more than what was said in those reports, their actions were indicative of complacent behavior around their firearms, which in itself, is very irresponsible...
And yet, right up until that moment when he leaves the gun unattended somewhere he shouldn't, you and Andrew_R and DarkLightHitomi would vociferously defend him as a "responsible gun owner". Meanwhile, I have a sneaking suspicion that some of you (probably Andrew_R, maybe DLH) would treat certain disadvantaged youth populations as "criminals waiting to happen." Which is the bitterest of hypocrisies.
|
|
And yet, right up until that moment when he leaves the gun unattended somewhere he shouldn't, you and Andrew_R and DarkLightHitomi would vociferously defend him as a "responsible gun owner".
Oh no, I am not defending him or his actions, quite the contrary; re-read my post...
While not knowing the level of their firearm habits prior to these events, and keeping in mind that we are human and are capable of sometimes extremely tragic moments of irresponsibility, from what I know about how to be responsible with a firearm, the mistakes that both of these guys made and their explanations of why they happened told me, they just became complacent and lazy around their firearms.
And yes, we all become complacent at times, but that is why the "responsible gun owner" MUST be extra vigilant around his or anybody else’s firearms...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even vigilent people can make mistakes, that's why the procedure that one learns is so important. People have checked and not realized there was a round in the chamber simply because the habit of checking is so ingrained that they go through the motions automatically without actually thinking about and thus things get missed even though they have set habits to prevent them. It's usually a case of responsible people not realizing there is an issue with there safety habits until something happens.
This is another reason why I advocate gun training. So all the lessons from mistakes of others can be learned and habits improved before the individual learns the hard.
I don't classify a responsible gun owner based on whether a mistake was made but rather on their attitude towards the guns and how they deal with accidents should they occur regardless of whether someone got hurt or not.
Someone who actually believes in being careful, and acts like it, is responsible even if they aren't perfect. Someone who treats it like no big deal, guns are just another object, those would be the irresponsible ones in my book even if they haven't had an accident yet.
And no, I don't think of anybody as anything waiting to happen. I am, however, constantly aware of possibilties and I don't discount possibilities just because they seem unlikely. The things that will keep you alive and well in an emergency are the things often scorned as unneccessary at best or as alarmist at worst during normal day to day life.