HomeGroupsTalkZeitgeist
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
  • LibraryThing
  • Book discussions
  • Your LibraryThing
  • Join to start using.

Mass Shootings...contd....of course (4)

This is a continuation of the topic Mass Shootings...contd....of course (3).

Pro and Con

Join LibraryThing to post.

1margd
Jan 11, 9:54am Top

Alternative NOAA @altNOAA | 10:46 PM - 10 Jan 2019:

Dear GOP: In terms of unnecessary deaths, more people die from gun violence committed by Americans than by any violence committed by illegal immigrants. That's the real National Emergency. Go ahead, set the precedent (by declaring wall emergency)-- we'll have the White House in two years!

2rastaphrog
Jan 11, 11:32am Top

There's a few variations on that theme floating around the web right now.

3johnthefireman
Jan 12, 2:43am Top

I've probably posted this video before, but Mr Bean makes some rather good points here...

No Firearms For Anyone

4margd
Edited: Jan 24, 5:21am Top

David Hogg: "Let's not arm teachers."

Bergen Teacher Fired, Said She'd 'Shoot Up' School: Officials
Daniel Hubbard, Patch Staff | Jan 23, 2019

Gina Schroeder, who taught infants at a Goddard school in Elmwood Park, allegedly said "I'm gonna come here and shoot it up," police said.

...Schroeder was the lead teacher in the school's infant room. She said recently a staff member noticed that Schroeder's behavior was "different." When she allegedly uttered the threat, it gave the school "reason for us to call the police," (Olga Dubinski, the school's owner) said.

Schroeder, of Nutley, was arrested after police received a report that she allegedly made a statement to the effect of,"one day, I'm gonna come here and shoot it up," Chief Michael Foligno previously said...

Schroeder also told a staff member that she owns three guns, the chief said.

Dubinski said Schroeder passed her mandatory background check when she was hired...

https://patch.com/new-jersey/mahwah/goddard-school-teacher-fired-after-saying-sh...

5margd
Edited: Jan 27, 8:50am Top

Mass-shooting Checklist (Sebing FL Sun Trust, Jan 23, 2019 Edition. 5 dead)
This one doesn't seem to have provoked as much response attention as some other mass shootings?
Just five women--employees and customers, 20s-60s, all married--shot execution style in their bank by a young man whose problems had been noted by authorities in two other states...https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/us/florida-bank-shooting-zephen-xaver/index.html...http://time.com/5513090/florida-bank-shooting-victims/

___moment of silence
X__flag at half mast/ETA (per FL Governor)
___overlay Facebook profile pic
___condolences & prayers
___reference deity

___thank first responders, emergency depts., & police
___"Now is not the time to talk about gun control"
___"We need police reports before we can talk about solutions."
___"Unite!"

X__interview family, neighbors, coworkers (shooter's dad)
X__blame mental illness, lone wolf (IN: dreamt of killing students. MI: discussed 'death by cop'.)
___hate (online)
___history of abuse
___celebrate heroes (Sgt Ron Helus, RIP)
___give blood, $

___Presidential visit
___blame others

___call for improved gun control
___investigate/improve processing of tips, warnings

___NRA: go dark
___NRA: issue "good guy with a gun" argument
___NRA: incite
___invest in gun stocks

___allow CDC to research gun violence?
___introduce meaningful screening of wouldbe gun buyers?
___ban silencers, automatic weapons, Saturday night specials, hollow bullets, bump stocks, _____?
___cover mental health?
___direct Justice Dept to address domestic terrorism?
___ban guns in public milieux?
___allow states/cities to protect their citizens?
___buyback firearms (per Australia)?

NAH!
X__repeat (Louisiana, 5)

7margd
Jan 27, 8:54am Top

Mass-shooting Checklist (Gonzalez, LA domestic violence, Jan 26, 2019 Edition. 5 dead. Shooter still on loose.)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/27/us/louisiana-shooting-rampage/index.html

___moment of silence
___flag at half mast/ETA (per FL Governor)
___overlay Facebook profile pic
___condolences & prayers
___reference deity

___thank first responders, emergency depts., & police
___"Now is not the time to talk about gun control"
___"We need police reports before we can talk about solutions."
___"Unite!"

___interview family, neighbors, coworkers (dad id'd his son as shooter before he died)
___blame mental illness, lone wolf
___hate
___history of abuse
___celebrate heroes
___give blood, $

___Presidential visit
___blame others

___call for improved gun control
___investigate/improve processing of tips, warnings

___NRA: go dark
___NRA: issue "good guy with a gun" argument
___NRA: incite
___invest in gun stocks

___allow CDC to research gun violence?
___introduce meaningful screening of wouldbe gun buyers?
___ban silencers, automatic weapons, Saturday night specials, hollow bullets, bump stocks, _____?
___cover mental health?
___direct Justice Dept to address domestic terrorism?
___ban guns in public milieux?
___allow states/cities to protect their citizens?
___buyback firearms (per Australia)?

NAH!
___repeat (Louisiana, 5)

8TrippB
Edited: Jan 28, 9:26pm Top

This wasn't a gun incident. It was an illegal drug incident.
“We know he had a drug problem. He got kicked out last Monday because of the drug problem. His dad kicked him out of here. He did have a violent streak,” Mincks said.

He could have accomplished his evil with a golf club, baseball bat, machete, gallon of gasoline, big rock, or any number of improvised weapons.

Focus on the real problem, instead of the tool that was used.

9johnthefireman
Jan 28, 10:51pm Top

>8 TrippB:

"5 dead after golf club spree"? "5 dead in big rock rampage"? "5 dead in improvised weapon attack?" Somehow I doubt it. Whatever his motive and mental state, the easy availability of a tool which is specifically designed to kill people easily makes it, er, easy to kill people.

10TrippB
Jan 30, 8:49pm Top

>9 johnthefireman:
Really? Why the doubt? I've heard multiple times about a guy who killed a thousand people, and he was reportedly armed with nothing more than the jawbone of an ass. You don't think rocks are deadly weapons? Google "lapidation." Actually, I recommend you don't. It's horrible what humans can do to people unable to protect themselves.

In any case, the Gonzalez killer was a very dangerous piece of human trash. If I ever encounter someone like that, I sure hope I have a gun to protect myself, my friends, and my family....or even strangers who might be vulnerable. Fortunately, good people in the U.S. have the right, and available tools, to defend themselves.

11JGL53
Jan 31, 10:53am Top

> 10

"..I've heard multiple times about a guy who killed a thousand people, and he was reportedly armed with nothing more than the jawbone of an ass..."

The book of myths you quote also relates the fact that the universe was created out of nothing by a magic man in six days about 6,000 years ago. You believe that crap too?

"...If I ever encounter someone like that, I sure hope I have a gun to protect myself, my friends, and my family..."

If you ever encounter a mass murderer my money would be on the mass murderer. Even if you were packing a dozen guns, all fully loaded and cocked, I suspect he would get the drop on you and shoot you dead before you even realized it.

Do you own a thinking cap, TrippB? If so, please put it on before you post here again. Thanks.

12TrippB
Edited: Feb 5, 10:36pm Top

>11 JGL53:

Wow. Do you regularly make such wildly inaccurate assumptions? Your response is one big swing and a miss. I didn't initially consider it even worthy of a response....but, why not.

First, the biblical anecdote was intended for johnthefireman. I consider it fitting, as most of us here know he often makes direct or subtle Christian references in his posts. I don’t think most people would immediately consider use of a such a well known story to be sufficient to assume religious beliefs.

Second, without knowing anything about my skills, you said you’d put your money on the Hernandez murderer, who was/is reportedly a strung-out, drug-addled, 21-year-old loser. I think my odds in such an encounter would be quite good, especially since this loser quickly dropped his stolen gun the first time a good guy with a gun challenged him….but that isn't even the primary issue. Not to be too dramatic, I'd rather die fighting than begging for my life. In an encounter with a murderer, a firearm puts me on even terms--especially if he's armed with a big rock, or even an ass's jawbone.

Regarding your final remark, I'll just say (mostly for my own amusement) that I hope the good Lord above eases whatever pain is causing such bitterness in your heart.

13johnthefireman
Feb 5, 11:24pm Top

>12 TrippB: the biblical anecdote was intended for johnthefireman. I consider it fitting, as most of us here know he often makes direct or subtle Christian references in his posts

Indeed I do from time to time make Christian references. But I am not a bible literalist nor fundamentalist, so the story of the young chap with the jawbone of an ass is, er, a story.

14prosfilaes
Feb 6, 4:01am Top

>8 TrippB: In the immigration thread, you say that people threatened should buy a gun. Why not a rock, a golf club, baseball bat, machete, gallon of gasoline, big rock, or depend on any number of improvised weapons?

Focus on the real problem, instead of the tool that was used.

What the real problem is is rarely a trivial question. If the question is how do we reduce the number of deaths from violence, then looking at the tools used certainly seems like a reasonable mode of action to consider. We've focused on illegal drugs, and haven't seemed to be able to make much headway there.

15Crypto-Willobie
Feb 7, 3:22pm Top

>14 prosfilaes:
Thanks for that!

All we need to protect our schools is a good guy with a rock...

16JGL53
Edited: Feb 7, 7:40pm Top

Only a small minority of Americans own guns, i.e., most Americans do not own guns.

Is there any statistical evidence that gun-owners suffer less, on average, from violent gun attacks which result in serious injury or death, in comparison to the non-gun owning majority?

I am not aware of such statistics. Do they exist? If not, then I rest my case - that people owning guns to protect themselves are as sophisticated as witch doctors who own amulets to ward off evil spirits.

17johnthefireman
Feb 7, 10:58pm Top

>12 TrippB: In an encounter with a murderer, a firearm puts me on even terms

On the various occasions when I have been held at gunpoint by murderers, I have survived by not having a gun but by surrendering, demonstrating that I am not a threat, talking to them. If I had had a gun I might have killed the first one or two of them (although even that is arguable, given that they already had their fingers on the triggers of their AK47s) but the rest would certainly have shot me down. Far from putting me on even terms, a firearm would have put me at a distinct disadvantage.

18TrippB
Feb 8, 4:25pm Top

>14 prosfilaes:
”…you say that people threatened should buy a gun. Why not a rock, a golf club, baseball bat, machete, gallon of gasoline, big rock, or depend on any number of improvised weapons.”?

A gun isn't appropriate for everyone. If someone is facing a deadly threat; they're not a convicted felon; don't have a history of inflicting domestic violence; and, they are mentally and physically capable of responsibly using a gun, then that would be my recommendation. My mother is about five-foot-nothing and nearly 80, and any of those improvised weapons would likely be taken away from her by a violent criminal before she could inflict much damage. Her concealed weapons permit expired years ago, and it’s probably been a couple of years since she’s fired a gun, but I’m pretty sure she could very effectively wield a shotgun against anyone breaking through her door at 3am.

>16 JGL53:
” Is there any statistical evidence that gun-owners suffer less, on average, from violent gun attacks which result in serious injury or death, in comparison to the non-gun owning majority?

I am not aware of such statistics. Do they exist? If not, then I rest my case - that people owning guns to protect themselves are as sophisticated as witch doctors who own amulets to ward off evil spirits.”


“Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events”
https://www.concealedcarry.com/news/armed-citizens-are-successful-95-of-the-time...

https://www.concealedcarry.com/statistics-and-research/

These aren’t statistics, but they’re interesting anecdotal accounts of people who’ve used a gun to avoid becoming an unfortunate statistic—which they probably would have been if armed only with an amulet: https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/the-armed-citizen/

>17 johnthefireman: ” Far from putting me on even terms, a firearm would have put me at a distinct disadvantage.”

I’m glad you've been able to charm your way out of very difficult situations! I was referring more to a one-on-one encounter, or maybe even five-on-one, if the five are only armed with big rocks. There are certainly times when showing a gun is not a good idea. That’s one reason I don’t understand people who prefer to open carry in public. If a bad guy is hell-bent on shooting up a place, I’d think someone openly carrying a gun would be the first target. I also believe that, in areas where it’s allowed, knowing that anyone around might be carrying a gun has been an effective deterrent to criminal activity. That might be a reason why mass shootings are often committed in areas where people are prohibited from being armed.

Except for times when I’ve been outside of the U.S., I’ve carried a concealed handgun nearly every day for about 25 years. I doubt anyone’s ever noticed. There have been a few occasions in sketchy situations when my wife has quietly asked if I’m armed, and she’s been relieved and reassured when I’ve replied in the affirmative. Over all those years, my gun has never once pried itself out of the holster and started shooting. A gun is not inherently evil.

19johnthefireman
Edited: Feb 8, 11:37pm Top

>18 TrippB: in areas where it’s allowed, knowing that anyone around might be carrying a gun has been an effective deterrent to criminal activity

Not in my experience. I have lived for decades in areas where guns are common, and indeed "anyone around might be carrying a gun". I know priests and doctors who sleep with an AK47 under the mattress, lorry drivers who have one behind their seat, and frequently travelling on light aircraft where the pilot insists on taking possession of all the firearms before anyone gets on the plane it has often surprised me how many people are carrying pistols. It has done nothing to deter criminal activity and there's a great deal of evidence globally that suggest that small arms and light weapons in the hands of civilians has the opposite effect.

20StormRaven
Feb 9, 1:06am Top

I also believe that, in areas where it’s allowed, knowing that anyone around might be carrying a gun has been an effective deterrent to criminal activity.

There is no evidence that "an armed society is a polite society". More guns does not translate to a reduction in crime or increased safety for citizens. I would go so far as to say that historical evidence tends to show that heavily armed societies tend to be the most violent.

That might be a reason why mass shootings are often committed in areas where people are prohibited from being armed.

There is almost no credible evidence supporting the notion that mass shooters target areas where guns are banned.

21prosfilaes
Feb 9, 9:08am Top

>18 TrippB: My mother is about five-foot-nothing and nearly 80, and any of those improvised weapons would likely be taken away from her by a violent criminal before she could inflict much damage.

A gun, too, could be taken away from her before she get a targetted shot off. One of the problems with a one-on-one situation is that either she's pulling a gun on someone who might be harmless, or she has to try and pull a gun on someone who already has a gun to her head or a knife to her throat.

I’m pretty sure she could very effectively wield a shotgun against anyone breaking through her door at 3am.

Of course, that's a pretty unlikely scenario; if there's someone trying to get through the door at 3 AM, it's more likely to be a drunk at the wrong house than someone trying to break into an occupied house at 3 AM. It makes for dramatic stories, but really stupid and rare burglars. In fact, it's one of my concerns with guns; Yoshihiro Hattori was shot to death because someone with a gun decided he was a danger and needed shooting, instead doing what anyone without a gun (or sane) would have done, and kept the door closed and called the police.

And that does nothing about the guy with a few gallons of gasoline trying to burn the house down or willing to shoot her through the door before she fires.

I was referring more to a one-on-one encounter, or maybe even five-on-one, if the five are only armed with big rocks.

Exactly. People with big rocks are dangerous when you need to downplay the specific danger of a gun, but they're not dangerous when you need to brag about the value of a gun.

anyone around might be carrying a gun has been an effective deterrent to criminal activity.

If that were true, then arming street gangs would be wise; they'd never go against each other if they knew the other side had guns. Er, more guns? How many guns would it take to make street gangs stop shooting?

On the other hand, London had 135 murders in 2018 and NYC had 289, for comparable size cities, so guns have not been an effective deterrent US versus UK.

Most murders are acts of rage, not planned acts. If the fact that they're going to be in a cell in 24 hours and for the rest of their life won't stop them, why do you think the possibility the other person might shoot them would? Having lethal weapons at hand can escalate violent but non-lethal rages into lethal attacks.

Over all those years, my gun has never once pried itself out of the holster and started shooting. A gun is not inherently evil.

So you've never seen the FBI agent do a backflip while dancing and accidentally shoot someone? I try not to dwell on gun accidents, because they're pretty minimal compared to gun murders and suicides, but they do happen.

Guns are not inherently evil, no more than nuclear weapons, phosgene, ammonium nitrate or anthrax. You're attacking a strawman there. But while phosgene is a valuable chemical used in many industrial processes, that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about the safe transport and use of the most deadly WWI chemical weapon. Likewise with ammonium nitrate, a valuable fertilizer whose mishandling or deliberate misuse has caused many deaths.

* See https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-murder-rate-new-york-compare-... and https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2019/jan/14/london-killings-20... . For a couple months, London's murder rate beat NYC's, but for 2018 as a whole, London was 135 whereas NYC hit 289, while NYC's murder rate was lower than many other American cities. https://abc7ny.com/nyc-sees-record-low-homicides-in-2018-based-on-preliminary-da...

22TrippB
Edited: Feb 10, 9:57pm Top

>19 johnthefireman:
Not in my experience.
Your experiences are in areas with significant cultural differences from the U.S. I lived in Switzerland for several years, where gun ownership rates were much higher than the U.S. Swiss culture is also much less violent than the U.S. I don’t think you can compare Swiss culture, in terms of violence, to the U.S., any more than you can compare U.S. violence with Sudan violence. I'd say we’re somewhere in between.

>20 StormRaven:
There is no evidence that "an armed society is a polite society"
Hi Stormraven. We’ve been down this road before. I’ll, again, point out that the statistics in your studies include suicides as gun violence, which I don’t consider relevant in a debate regarding the use of firearms for self protection. Many of your preferred studies also include every homicide (in simple terms, the killing of one person by another—and that is not clarified for your benefit) in their statistics. I don’t consider justifiable use of deadly force, ending in the death of the bad guy, to be relevant. In a gun safety study, there should be a separation between those who deserved to die, and those who did not. Regardless, before we get into a debate of whether your researchers are better than my researchers, I suggest we acknowledge the differing perspectives of the researchers we cite, and the certainty that neither of us will convince the other who is right. I’ll go even further and just move on to a point I made in a previous debate on this issue: When those opposed to self defense tools eliminate violent crime, I’ll give up my guns. Until then, I won’t. I’m one of millions who have views somewhere along those lines. I do hope your “side” is successful within my lifetime, but the odds are not in your favor. I fully expect to pass my grandfather’s service revolver to the next heir.

I’ll also include a reminder that those who founded the U.S. recognized the need to keep governments in check to ensure they do not become tyrannical. I appreciate the symbolic value of being part of an armed society that is entrusted (or, not prohibited by overreaching government authority) to keep and bear arms for self defense, and which also gives us the tools to rise up against an unjust government. Among my tools for self defense, I have what many incorrectly refer to as an assault rifle, and a few thousand rounds of ammunition, bought only for that symbolic purpose. I’ve never fired that rifle, and would prefer that it remain a mere reminder of one valuable intent of the second amendment.

There is almost no credible evidence supporting the notion that mass shooters target areas where guns are banned.

Almost…..almost, with missing data. Perhaps you missed one section illustrated in this link posted earlier that shows missing data for more than 40% of incidents: https://www.concealedcarry.com/news/armed-citizens-are-successful-95-of-the-time...

>21 prosfilaes:

A gun, too, could be taken away from her before she get a targetted shot off.


Not quite so easily, in comparison. Plus, a home defense shotgun does not involved a targeted shot. Buckshot and a (legal) short barrel makes a shotgun a very easy point-and-shoot weapon that nearly anyone can use. Even better, just racking the action to put a round into the chamber produces a distinctive sound that will send any sane or sober person running away—even those who’ve only heard it in a video game or movie.

“Of course, that's a pretty unlikely scenario”
Is it? Really? Perhaps you need to look into that a little deeper. The time was just an example. It could also be at 9am, when most have left their homes for work, but a time when my mother would never answer a knock at her door, because she probably hasn’t gotten her hair and makeup perfect. If a piece of human trash interprets her lack of doorbell acknowledgement to mean the house is empty and vulnerable, and kicks in her door, they deserve to be hit with a few blasts from her shotgun.

Yoshihiro Hattori was shot to death because someone with a gun decided he was a danger and needed shooting”
This was a disturbing incident I won’t defend—mostly because I haven’t reviewed all the evidence. Even so, the fact that it has its own Wikipedia page confirms that it was a very isolated incident. Home invasion robberies, and intentions to commit burglary that evolve into robbery, rape, and murder, are much more prevalent. Those violent crimes happen too frequently, and victimize people unable to protect themselves. I wasn’t talking about someone who “kept the door closed and called the police.” My post said they kicked the door in. If someone drunk or suffering a medical issue kicks in a door at 3am, it is reasonable for the peaceful inhabitant of that house to administer a 12 gauge cure for their problem. A microsecond to make an assessment is fine, but any more could mean the victim’s death, and, as much as they want to arrive in time, police can’t be everywhere at once.

People with big rocks are dangerous when you need to downplay the specific danger of a gun, but they're not dangerous when you need to brag about the value of a gun.

People with big rocks are dangerous, and can kill you just as dead as any gun. My point is that there are multiple ways to kill people, but some people seem to ignore any violence that is accomplished with anything other than a gun. London has a serious knife problem, or, in general, a violence problem.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8104412/london-stabbings-2019-latest-knife-crime-s...

To me, one of the worst aspects of the UK’s crime is that good people are terrified of using self-defense to protect themselves.
What has happened to the once-great, strong, British people? “Pensioner, 78, arrested for murder after 'stabbing burglar to death in his home' “https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/04/suspected-burglar-dies-tussle-pensioner-78/. When good people, such as this 78-year-old pensioner, are prohibited from protecting themselves from evil, something is very wrong. History has shown that nearly every burglar is just one panicked moment from progressing from two-bit thief to vicious murderer. In the sanctity of a home, no one should ever be in the position of having to consider if self defense is appropriate when the burglar in their home may be on the verge of becoming their murderer.

Yes, I’ve seen the FBI backflip dancer. Not so impressive moves, but accidents happen, and one incident is not sufficient to make a decision for millions of Americans.

Likewise with ammonium nitrate, a valuable fertilizer whose mishandling or deliberate misuse has caused many deaths.
I’m glad you brought up something like ammonium nitrate. Anfo is really easy to make, and a pound or so of anfo can do far more damage than a thousand assault rifles. You highlight the fact that many of the zealots’ misguided focus on guns is on the tools used by evil people, without regard to the positive uses of those tools by good people. Laws should focus on appropriate and inappropriate use of those tools—actions of people--and not the tools themselves. Without people, every gun in existence would eventually corrode to the elements without harming anything.

23johnthefireman
Feb 11, 1:53am Top

>22 TrippB: but accidents happen, and one incident is not sufficient to make a decision for millions of Americans

But it's not one incident. I read just a few days ago about a 4-year old who shot his mother while playing with a gun he found under the mattress. One reads frequently about different types of accident involving firearms in the USA, including the innocent people shot by a nervous homeowner, including the bloke who shot his own son when he came in late unexpectedly, or the one who shot his own child who had crept out of bed to go and see if Santa had left any presents under the Christmas tree. I personally have seen a baby playing with a live hand grenade and a small boy loosing a burst from an AK47 through the ceiling (neither of those were in the USA, but accidents are accidents). And I'm not sure why you exclude suicides from the list - again these are gun deaths.

there should be a separation between those who deserved to die, and those who did not

Nobody "deserves to die". Obviously I am opposed to capital punishment under any circumstances. Killing someone in self-defence may be an unfortunate necessity in certain circumstances, but that's not the same as someone deserving to die. We all die eventually.

People with big rocks are dangerous, and can kill you just as dead as any gun. My point is that there are multiple ways to kill people

Straw man. Of course there are many ways to kill people. But some are more difficult, require physical strength, require the attacker to make physical contact with the victim which allows the victim the possibility of fighting back, and are probably also more difficult for the killer pyschologically as she struggles with a warm, breathing, possibly screaming or pleading victim whose blood is literally on her hands. Guns are much easier, cleaner and impersonal. Rocks are not usually used in mass killings for a reason. Guns are.

24prosfilaes
Edited: Feb 11, 8:51am Top

>22 TrippB: just racking the action to put a round into the chamber produces a distinctive sound that will send any sane or sober person running away—even those who’ve only heard it in a video game or movie.

Even those people know that making a distinctive sound gives away your location for anyone willing to shoot you. And any sane and sober person knows that killing someone in a home invasion brings down the full force of the police and they're likely looking at life in prison, so if they find someone in house they should run away, gun or no gun. Oh, and if the burglars come in pairs, and you kill the first one, the second one rationally should kill you before you can kill him.

it was a very isolated incident.

It's amazing how isolated incidents are irrelevant here but not when you were using them to justify your case. How many "good and innocent people" need to die?

London has a serious knife problem, or, in general, a violence problem.

That matters, but the fact the US has a more serious gun problem, or, in general, a more serious violence problem doesn't?

Anfo is really easy to make, and a pound or so of anfo can do far more damage than a thousand assault rifles.

Ammonium Nitrate is pretty controlled right now, so not so easy to make. Timothy McVeigh used 4,800 pounds of ANFO to kill 168 and injure 680; the Las Vegas shooter killed 58 and injured 851 with 24 guns, and the Orlando nightclub shooter killed 49 and inured 53 with 2 guns. In other words, a pound of ANFO is not nearly as dangerous as a single gun.

without regard to the positive uses of those tools by good people.

I note you provide no numbers on that. And again, you're a lot more free restricting good people when they're immigrants because the bad acts of a few than restricting good people when they're gun owners because of the bad acts of a few.

Laws should focus on appropriate and inappropriate use of those tools—actions of people--and not the tools themselves.

It's an interesting idea. Do you believe it? I've been contemplating the argument that whatever chemicals we want to self-administer is our business, and that would certainly fall under a subset of this argument. This would also apply to any number of other things, including high explosives, and biscuits cooked with trans fats and sweetened with lead (II) acetate. There's a reason I restricted it to self-administered chemicals, and was careful to speak about it in those terms alone; do you really believe in the whole principle?

>23 johnthefireman: But it's not one incident. ... different types of accident involving firearms in the USA

IIRC, the last time I looked at the stats, it was less than 100 deaths per year in the US due to accidents involving firearms. In the whole pattern of the discussion, it's not worth bringing up, IMO.

And I'm not sure why you exclude suicides from the list - again these are gun deaths.

Those are about 10,000 a year in the US. And when a highly lethal tool used in suicide is restricted, suicides go down.

25StormRaven
Feb 11, 11:34am Top

I’ll, again, point out that the statistics in your studies include suicides as gun violence, which I don’t consider relevant in a debate regarding the use of firearms for self protection.

You clearly didn't bother to read the linked article.

I’ll also include a reminder that those who founded the U.S. recognized the need to keep governments in check to ensure they do not become tyrannical.

Actually, they did not. They recognized the need to provide for an armed militia to serve the government. The "we need guns to prevent tyranny" claim is historically illiterate.

Perhaps you missed one section illustrated in this link posted earlier that shows missing data for more than 40% of incidents

Your study is based on John Lott's work. John Lott is a proven fraud. Every time you cite his work or work that depends upon his work, you just expose that your claims are fraudulent.

I’m glad you brought up something like ammonium nitrate.

Ammonium nitrate is heavily regulated and tracked.

26TrippB
Feb 11, 9:10pm Top

>24 prosfilaes:
”And any sane and sober person knows that killing someone in a home invasion brings down the full force of the police and they're likely looking at life in prison, so if they find someone in house they should run away, gun or no gun.

The problem is that too many intruders do not run away. Here are just a few examples when a gun made the difference between life and death of innocent victims:

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/8/11/the-armed-citizen-super-mo... “Martha Lewis was at home with her two daughters when she heard a loud noise. It was 3 a.m., so Lewis immediately called police and grabbed her gun. She went to her daughters’ room and told them each to get something with which to defend themselves….”

>24 prosfilaes: ”Ammonium Nitrate is pretty controlled right now, so not so easy to make.”
>25 StormRaven: “ Ammonium nitrate is heavily regulated and tracked.”

Yes, there are laws. I just found what is purported to be 34-0-0 ammonium nitrate, in 50lb quantities, on Amazon, described as instant cold pack kits. Might be a ruse. Might not.

Guns are also heavily regulated—in some ways far more than ammonium nitrate. Still, a lot of ammonium nitrate is lost or stolen within the U.S., and possibly in the hands of criminals. One could probably even find people in Mexico willing to smuggle sacks of it on their backs as they cross an unprotected section of the southern border.

>24 prosfilaes:…you're a lot more free restricting good people when they're immigrants because the bad acts of a few than restricting good people when they're gun owners because of the bad acts of a few.”

Likewise, pointing out that many bad illegal aliens often commit bad acts with guns would be accurate, but that isn’t our focus in this thread.

”I've been contemplating the argument that whatever chemicals we want to self-administer is our business…”

I believe you, and the libertarian side of me says that’s your choice. I support common sense laws which prohibit what you can do that might harm others. Applying the same reasoning to firearms, there are already multiple gun restrictions imposed by laws intended to protect the public. I do not see value in applying more—particularly when many of the proposed measures may infringe my right to keep and bear arms. In my most recent post, I said I plan to bequeath my grandfather’s gun to an heir. Since then, it’s been reported that House Democrats are already looking to ensure that doesn’t happen without permission from the government and a few fees, of course (H.R. 8). Additional bureaucracy, the need for government permission, and a hand in my pocket—not a surprise from Democrats.

27TrippB
Feb 11, 9:19pm Top

>25 StormRaven:
” You clearly didn't bother to read the linked article.
My statement was not in response to that linked article. I think we have this discussion about every year, and there are multiple studies which support both our views.

The "we need guns to prevent tyranny" claim is historically illiterate.

Well, maybe I’ve been misreading the comments of America’s founding fathers, which seem to support gun freedoms and encourage the people to rise up against tyranny, when necessary. Let’s take a quick look at statements attributed to them.

Thomas Jefferson:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Benjamin Franklin:
“They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

George Mason:
"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

James Madison:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.. (where) ..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Noah Webster:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

Thomas Paine:
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property …Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong.."

Samuel Adams:
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Alexander Hamilton:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state….The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

Tench Coxe:
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

More can be found at https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

I may be illiterate, but the views of those who shaped the U.S. Constitution sure seem to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and to use those arms to remove any unjust government which infringes on the inalienable rights of the people. Regarding your comment, “They recognized the need to provide for an armed militia to serve the government,” I don’t see much mention of “serve the government” in the Federalist Papers and other publications of the time. My quite possibly illiterate interpretation is that those who drafted the Constitution believed the government should serve the people, and not the other way around. Can you provide a single reference where they used the term “serve the government?”

Your study is based on John Lott's work.
I didn’t cite John Lott, and the study—an analysis of three FBI reports—was done by someone else. Can you refute any figure from the analysis?

28johnthefireman
Edited: Feb 11, 11:13pm Top

>27 TrippB:

Doesn't your constitution link the bearing of arms to a "well regulated miitia", and to "the people" rather than individuals? Apart from the fact that I have never seen a "well regulated" militia (and I would add that I have seen a lot of militias), I wonder how you connect your individual gun ownership with the concept of some sort of militia?

More broadly, I think much of your argument buys into the narrative that the only way to deal with violence or the threat of violence is with more violence. It's a common narrative in the USA and in some other parts of the world. There are other narratives, one of which is that countering violence with violence inevitably leads to an escalating cycle of violence.

29TrippB
Feb 11, 11:10pm Top

>28 johnthefireman:

More broadly, I think much of your argument buys into the narrative that the only way to deal with violence or the threat of violence is with more violence.

Yes, this tactic is very effective. The lesson is, don't bring violence against the U S.

30johnthefireman
Feb 11, 11:19pm Top

>29 TrippB: Yes, this tactic is very effective

Is it really? Or only if one views it through the subjective lens of that same narrative?

Have you ever read any of the literature on nonviolence? A good start would be Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan. The authors research more than 300 conflicts and find that about 25% were successful after a violent struggle, against more than 50% after a nonviolent struggle. They also found that the post-conflict society was far more likely to be peaceful, democratic and human rights respecting after a nonviolent struggle.

31StormRaven
Feb 11, 11:32pm Top

My statement was not in response to that linked article.

So, you're arguing in bad faith.

I think we have this discussion about every year, and there are multiple studies which support both our views.

Every year you cite studies that are rooted in John Lott's work, since there are no gun studies that find in favor of gun use that are not. Everything you claim is based upon out-and-out fraud.

Well, maybe I’ve been misreading the comments of America’s founding fathers

You have. Almost all of those quotes are about arming a society via a militia, and that militia is to be in the service of the government. The founders were opposed to standing armies - they thought the security of the country could be provided for via a militia, but belief that proved untenable as soon as the War of 1812. The idea that the founders thought that citizens armed with personal weapons were to be an effective check on the government is a fiction based upon gross misreadings (and selective quotation) of the writings of the founders. In point of fact, there has never been a time in U.S. history in which personally owned firearms provided any kind of deterrent to the power of the government. No, not even during the Revolutionary War.

I didn’t cite John Lott, and the study—an analysis of three FBI reports—was done by someone else.

You didn't actually read the study, did you? It was based upon John Lott's analysis of data. You're citing a fraud.

The fundamental issue is this: I've lived in Lagos, Kinshasa, and Dar es Salaam. I currently work in Washington D.C. I lived in Richmond when gun nuts wrung their hands about how horribly violent it was and how citizens needed guns for protection. I've never had, nor ever felt the need to own a gun. I've never been in a situation in which I felt that having a gun would have improved my position. In my opinion, anyone who thinks they need to be armed in order to feel safe while walking around in everyday life in the United States is a coward, and cowards should not be making public policy.

32johnthefireman
Feb 12, 5:12am Top

Students around the world on US school shootings and their own fears (BBC)

School shootings are feared by a majority of American teenagers, a study from Pew Research Center suggests...

33prosfilaes
Feb 12, 9:15am Top

>26 TrippB: Here are just a few examples when a gun made the difference between life and death of innocent victims:

We have many examples where a gun made the difference between life and death of innocent victims; I mentioned 107 killed by guns in just two events in the post you quoted. Again, you're only interested in examples when they support your case.

One could probably even find people in Mexico willing to smuggle sacks of it on their backs as they cross an unprotected section of the southern border.

One could probably even find people in the US willing to smuggle sacks of it into Mexico. For the dozenth time, drugs and other contraband cross the border at established crossing-points, hidden away or bribed away from border officers, or they cross under tunnels. They don't usually cross over unprotected sections of the border.

I support common sense laws which prohibit what you can do that might harm others.

In other words, your broad principle is not anything helpful; we're just back to arguing what "common sense laws" should happen.

that doesn’t happen without permission from the government and a few fees, of course

Common sense gun control laws should check everyone who gets a gun, and not have random loopholes, and instead of charging the taxpayer, charge the person who needs the check.

34TrippB
Feb 12, 8:38pm Top

>30 johnthefireman:
Thank you for the suggestion. When it’s an option, peaceful change is always preferable.

>31 StormRaven:

”The founders were opposed to standing armies…”

They were also opposed to government infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense, and the Supreme Court has agreed.

”I've lived in Lagos, Kinshasa, and Dar es Salaam….I've never had, nor ever felt the need to own a gun.”

Lagos is an interesting place. Nigeria’s gun laws are an American gun-grabber’s dream. From what I understand, there is no recognition of the right to keep and bear arms, and only the president can grant the privilege of having one. Illegal gun possession carries a minimum 10-year prison sentence. After half a century of this policy, and based on the some of the claims of those seeking to make guns illegal in the U.S., you’d think Lagos would be a peaceful, crime-free, Utopia. Not so much, right? I went about my days there without a gun, too, but probably didn’t get the full experience. I was strongly advised to only travel in an armored vehicle, and the Nigerian authorities assigned two heavily-armed police officers to accompany my colleague and me every time we left the secure compound of the hotel. Gun control has not given Nigeria a safe society.

”In my opinion, anyone who thinks they need to be armed in order to feel safe while walking around in everyday life in the United States is a coward, and cowards should not be making public policy.”

Thomas Jefferson authored public policy, and he was a very vocal proponent of walking around in every day life with a gun. In a letter to Peter Carr, he recommended his friend walk for exercise, and, while doing so, to have a gun with him. Jefferson has been accused of many things, but being a coward is not one of them. Perhaps you mean cowards on Capitol Hill, who spend their days making public policy behind magnetometer and x-ray screening points, protected by a small army of armed Capitol Police. While federal employees were recently furloughed, Nancy Pelosi reportedly visited a very expensive Hawaiian resort, and her armed security detail cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. She’s a coward, obviously. Or perhaps cowards in the White House and its executive offices, who enjoy similar security. I’ll let them be my guide. When the Capitol Police and Secret Service are disarmed, I’ll consider giving up my guns. I’m not expecting that, so I suppose we’ll talk again on this issue in 2020.

>33 prosfilaes:
”For the dozenth time, drugs and other contraband cross the border at established crossing-points, hidden away or bribed away from border officers, or they cross under tunnels.”

You can keep saying it, and you’ll be wrong every time. Large amounts of contraband are brought across unprotected sections of the border. Just look at frequent CBP reports about boats, trucks, and people caught where there is no wall. Some sections of the Rio Grande are shallow enough to wade across, and human mule trains carry across large sacks of contraband on their backs. We only know about the what they’re smuggling when CBP is successful—we have no idea what has not been caught.



”Common sense gun control laws should check everyone who gets a gun, and not have random loopholes,…”

Or, since most guns are not registered, people will just arrange for their guns to be given to select heirs. The latest attack on gun rights also encourages people to store guns unsecured. When I moved to Europe, a friend with multiple large gun safes offered to store my guns at his home until I returned. That was preferable to my leaving them with a relative who does not have a safe. The recent Democrat bill would require him to undergo a background check and me to pay fees for every transferred gun, only to be repeated when I returned. Nope. Next time, I’ll just stack them under my relative’s guest bed. That’s the problem with naïve good intentions—unintended consequences that do not make anyone safer.

35johnthefireman
Feb 12, 11:33pm Top

>34 TrippB: you’d think Lagos would be a peaceful, crime-free, Utopia

No, you wouldn't. There will always be conflict and crime in society. The argument is not about creating a utopia but about making it more difficult to access and use one of the prime tools of killing.

The latest attack on gun rights

It interests me how many people in the USA use such polarising and hyperbolic language. An attack? Is it an attack on automobile-owning rights when the authorities seek to make them safer through greater regulation and control?

The recent Democrat bill would require him to undergo a background check and me to pay fees for every transferred gun, only to be repeated when I returned. Nope. Next time, I’ll just stack them under my relative’s guest bed.

So you are not a law-abiding citizen? You think it is OK to leave your guns with someone who hasn't undergone a background check, and you object to paying a fee for that background check? And now you state that you will in future leave them with someone who hasn't even got a gun safe? Are you a responsible gun owner, and indeed a responsible citizen?

36southernbooklady
Feb 13, 8:26am Top

>35 johnthefireman: An attack?

If you're holding a gun, you're already predisposed to view things through a framework of attack/defense. That's what guns are for, after all. Attacking. Waving one around doesn't exactly signal you're open to compromise.

37margd
Edited: Feb 13, 9:07am Top

As one-year anniversary of Parkland shooting approaches (and the Pittsburgh PA synagogue shooting more recently), police parked prominently in front of a Gainesville, FL synagogue during services and a county sheriff publicized in local schools a bounty program for illegal guns.

Meanwhile...

Democrats propose high-capacity gun magazine ban
Elizabeth Landers | February 12, 2019

(CNN)After a year without any significant gun legislation passed by Congress since the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting in Parkland, Florida, Democrats introduced a bill banning high-capacity gun magazines Tuesday, as the one-year anniversary of the massacre nears.

The Democratic legislation, cosponsored by Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida and Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, would ban any magazine that exceeds 10 rounds of ammunition. The legislation, which has been dubbed the "Keep Americans Safe Act," currently has no Republican cosponsors, one of many obstacles that would stand in the way of it advancing.

During a news conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the Democratic legislators described the bill as one step in a process of passing individual gun control measures instead of a big comprehensive package...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/12/politics/gun-control-high-capacity-gun-magazine-b...

38margd
Edited: Feb 13, 12:54pm Top

This message has been deleted by its author.

40prosfilaes
Feb 13, 3:22pm Top

>34 TrippB: You can keep saying it, and you’ll be wrong every time. ... We only know about the what they’re smuggling when CBP is successful—we have no idea what has not been caught.

Once again, you manage to assert firm knowledge and just after claim something can't be known.

Or, since most guns are not registered, people will just arrange for their guns to be given to select heirs.

So what you're saying is that criminals will do their best to evade the law. And?

When I moved to Europe, a friend with multiple large gun safes offered to store my guns at his home until I returned. That was preferable to my leaving them with a relative who does not have a safe. The recent Democrat bill would require him to undergo a background check and me to pay fees for every transferred gun, only to be repeated when I returned. Nope. Next time, I’ll just stack them under my relative’s guest bed.

So when you cross international borders, you're willing to violate US law for your own convenience. Seems like you were just attacking other people for that.

That’s the problem with naïve good intentions—unintended consequences that do not make anyone safer.

What are the odds your mother will protect herself with a gun, versus the odds that it will be used (on purpose or accident) to hurt her or some innocent third party? How many old people with guns will successfully defend themselves with them, as opposed to accidentally or on purpose shooting someone else with them? How many old people will kill themselves with a firearm?

(And if suicides don't count, then we should get honest and responsible as a society and let people kill themselves through effective, humane means, instead of forcing them to use risky means and have third parties come upon the mess, or be legally liable as an accessory.)

You know how to reduce the unintended consequences in such laws? Participate in the process, instead of treating all such laws as an attack.

Again, I don't want to be shot. Thus I feel it's in my best interest reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals, and thus expect law-abiding people to register their guns, just like I had to register my car. That you're willing to turn away the poor, starving masses but not willing to register your guns and legally transfer them disturbs me, and makes me feel like your concern about crime by immigrants to be a farce.

(Again, you're going to complain that they're separate topics. To the extent they're driven by concerns of how best to reduce violent crime, especially murders, in the US, I don't think they're separate. It's all about balance of concerns; what are we willing as a society to do about crime? On whose back should the burdens fall? If the NRA won't protest the shooting of a black gunholder for being a gunholder, is this really about the (universal) right to carry guns, or are we going back to the old-school all people (who look like Thomas Jefferson) have inalienable rights?)

41TrippB
Feb 13, 7:53pm Top

>35 johnthefireman:
"There will always be conflict and crime in society."

Then I'd prefer to just keep my self defense tools. I'm well on my way to eventually becoming an arthritic old man. As long as I can quickly draw and fire, I'm still in the fight against an aggressor.

>35 johnthefireman:
”It interests me how many people in the USA use such polarising and hyperbolic language.”

It is sometimes difficult for non-Americans to understand why such language is used when rights are threatened, especially when those people are from societies where rights have only been allowed to exist if they've been granted by royalty or governments. In the American tradition, rights are natural and unalienable. A common misconception is that the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution grants rights to the people. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights--it recognizes them. From that perspective, there reasonably should be a strong response to any attempt to infringe rights, and passing laws to restrict rights should never be easy. I'll remind you of a quote from one of America's most respected founders, who advocated never giving up tools necessary to preserve liberty:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry

>35 johnthefireman:
"Are you are not a law-abiding citizen? .... Are you a responsible gun owner, and indeed a responsible citizen?'
>40 prosfilaes:
”So when you cross international borders, you're willing to violate US law for your own convenience.”

Thank you both for your concern that I may become a criminal. I’m still a law-abiding citizen. I'm in the USA, where bills are often drafted by corporate lobbyists and special interest groups, compiled by interns, and then voted into law by sometimes clueless members of Congress who ask their chiefs of staff which way to vote when they hear bells. There are usually loopholes.

I didn't make up the "under the bed" scenario. One of my rifles was too big for a safe, so that's how I stored it while I was in Europe. Perfectly legal. The latest Democrat attack on gun rights will probably fade away, and I haven’t read anything but the summary, but the likely loophole would be for me to just transfer my record of residence to my relative's address before leaving the country.

Regarding being responsible, I've known the friend who kept my other guns for years; I know for a fact that he's never been arrested; he has no previously identified psychological issues; he doesn’t use any illegal drugs; and, most relevant, compared with his dozens of much better firearms, none of mine would be a top choice for any unanticipated nefarious activity.

The too-big rifle is an excellent symbol of the fact that passive defense is not always an option. It was manufactured in Russia not long after they were invaded by the German army. Plus, I like the way it looks in my library. It's even been in my LT profile photo for years.

>40 prosfilaes:
”Once again, you manage to assert firm knowledge and just after claim something can't be known.
I give up. This time, I even provided photographic evidence of smuggling between checkpoints, and you still deny that unprotected sections of the border are unquestionably being used to sneak contraband and illegal aliens into the U.S. There are no authorized border crossings that require swimming, boats, and innertubes to lead to a brushy bank. The photo shows just one small section where the U.S. is being invaded by criminals—including many violent, previously deported, thugs who know they’d be turned away at a border checkpoint. You don’t want to be shot, but apparently you have no problem being killed by a previously deported, violent, illegal alien.

”What are the odds….
I don’t know. How many old people, with no means to protect themselves, are robbed, assaulted, or murdered in their own homes by intruders? Are you suggesting she be disarmed and put into that vulnerable position simply because some people consider her to be old? She doesn’t self-identify as old. What kind of discriminating ageist are you?

”….and thus expect law-abiding people to register their guns…”
Can you provide any statistical evidence which supports the premise that gun registration reduces gun deaths? How? Historically, gun registration has been used as precursor to gun confiscation. Any attempt to introduce mandatory registration federally will likely not end well.

42johnthefireman
Edited: Feb 13, 11:48pm Top

>41 TrippB: As long as I can quickly draw and fire, I'm still in the fight against an aggressor

If you draw and fire fatally on a burglar who is simply trying to steal an object from you and had no intention of harming you, then you become the aggressor. He is committing a nonviolent crime for which the penalty is a short prison term, not death. If you say that you have no idea whether or not he will become violent once surprised so you need to draw and fire pre-emptively, then you become the aggressor. You have ramped up the ante and reinforced the message to burglars that being a nonviolent burglar is dangerous and in future they had better carry guns and shoot you first. Violence is an escalating cycle.

those people are from societies where rights have only been allowed to exist if they've been granted by royalty or governments

That is simplistic and condescending, but it also fails to recognise what democracy is. In most developed western democracies "government" is not something out there which grants rights, it is a group of people who have been elected by the population to represent them and indeed to recognise the inalienable rights of the people. Most of us prefer to fight for democracy rather than gun ownership.

downright force

I don't dispute that this type of attitude is part of the US narrative. The US has (and is built on) a negative tradition of violence, force, militarism, fear, etc, alongside its more positive traditions of freedom, democracy, humanitarianism, due process, welcoming the poor huddled masses, etc. To many US citizens whom I know, and to many of us foreigners, it is both strange and unfortunate that the former set of values seem to be dominating the narrative.

I've known the friend who kept my other guns for years; I know for a fact that he's never been arrested; he has no previously identified psychological issues; he doesn’t use any illegal drugs

Do you realise how often this trope is repeated by those who knew a closet criminal when his crimes finally come to light? Paedophiles, rapists, embezzlers, domestic abusers are all nice well-behaved people on the surface. "I've known him for years, he's never been in trouble with the police, he has no identified psychological issues, doesn't use drugs... I'd never have thought he raped children and beat his wife".

Edited to add: passive defense is not always an option. It was manufactured in Russia not long after they were invaded by the German army

Straw man. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the USA as a nation should not defend itself if it is attacked by a foreign army.

How many old people, with no means to protect themselves, are robbed, assaulted, or murdered in their own homes by intruders?

I don't know. Do you have the figures? Also the figures for how many of them would actually be able to prevent themselves being robbed, assaulted or murdered if they had a firearm? And how many of them, in failing to do so, simply had their firearm stolen and added to the mass of illegal weapons that could be used to rob, assault or murder more old people? And, once you have all those figures, compare them to the deaths caused by legally owned weapons and see how the equation balances out?

43margd
Feb 14, 3:41am Top

Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 7:03 PM - 13 Feb 2019:

HR 8, requiring universal background checks for gun purchases, passed the House Judiciary Committee tonight. This is the first gun safety measure to get through the key House Committee in decades. BRAVO!

44jjwilson61
Feb 14, 9:42am Top

It is sometimes difficult for non-Americans to understand why such language is used when rights are threatened, especially when those people are from societies where rights have only been allowed to exist if they've been granted by royalty or governments.

The UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (and the French had the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen in 1789) so I think most people these days have a sense of rights that exist regardless of their gov'ts.

45prosfilaes
Feb 14, 2:45pm Top

>41 TrippB: You don’t want to be shot, but apparently you have no problem being killed by a previously deported, violent, illegal alien.

I have a problem with being ripped apart by a bear, but I'm not planning to put up walls to prevent bears from coming into my city. I try to keep my concerns based on risk and controllability.

I don’t know. How many old people, with no means to protect themselves, are robbed, assaulted, or murdered in their own homes by intruders?

Again, you phrase that as an argument, when instead it's a statement of ignorance.

My grandmother awoke to intruders in her bedroom, wherein she threw everything at hand at them. I'm glad she didn't have a gun at hand, because then she would have shot her roommate in the nursing home.

Can you provide any statistical evidence which supports the premise that gun registration reduces gun deaths? How?

In theory, it means that guns can be tracked; sellers that are selling guns to criminal elements can be shutdown, and criminal gun wielders can be arrested for just having an unregistered gun before they use it. I don't have any statistical evidence, but neither do you.

Any attempt to introduce mandatory registration federally will likely not end well.

And this is why law-abiding and gun owner doesn't always ring well for many of us. It's like Wikileaks saying that ending net-neutrality will not end well for Ajit Pai. Except that Wikileaks doesn't have tools to murder people.

46TrippB
Feb 14, 9:42pm Top

>42 johnthefireman:
”If you draw and fire fatally on a burglar who is simply trying to steal an object from you and had no intention of harming you, then you become the aggressor. He is committing a nonviolent crime for which the penalty is a short prison term, not death.:

When a criminal leech on society violently forces his way into the sanctity of a home when the resident is there (whether he knows that or not), he’s committing a home invasion robbery—not a nonviolent property crime. No one should ever be terrorized in such a way. It’s reasonable to politely invite him to drop to a prone position while both patiently wait for police, but, if he resists, there’s no reason to hesitate to use deadly force. I’ve had the great fortune to spend most of my life in Texas. Texans don’t want human trash like this preying on the public, and deadly force is authorized even if he then tries to ignore a warning before stealing and running away with a first edition Winnie the Pooh. The incident may be referred to a grand jury as a routine matter, but the general consensus will likely be something along the lines of, “That boy needed killin.” If my neighbor eliminated such a threat before he also made his way to my home to victimize me, I’d convey to the hero my appreciation for doing the community a favor.

”That is simplistic and condescending, but it also fails to recognise what democracy is. …Most of us prefer to fight for democracy rather than gun ownership.”

I intended it to be simplistic, but not condescending. I apologize if it was. I only included the clarification because, the last time I mentioned inalienable rights, you quickly attempted to correct me with a reply of, “"Or, perhaps more accurately, a right granted by the Constitution…," which is not what I had meant at all. It also reminded me of a similar conversation with a colleague in London whose description of rights made it sound like rights are gifts from a benevolent government. He also took exception to my use of the word “pants,” and the way I pronounce Birmingham, but our amiable conversation was over a pint or two, and I always enjoy hearing his perspective. Online chats leave out many aspects compared to real one-on-one communication.

Your opinion of democracy is apparently also at odds with mine. To me, when I support gun ownership; voice my opinion on the matter; express my preferences to representatives; and, vote in favor of politicians who support my views, that is democracy.

”Do you realise how often this trope is repeated”
I know you don’t know what is involved in the background check required to buy a firearm in the U.S., but I mentioned the pertinent requirements in my comments about my friend. He would pass a background check without difficulty.

”Also the figures for how many of them would actually be able to prevent themselves being robbed, assaulted or murdered if they had a firearm?:

As I said, I don’t know the numbers, but there is enough successful inspiration to encourage me to ensure I always have a fighting chance. Sure, any of these incidents could have ended badly for the true victim, but, as I said before, I’d rather die fighting than begging for my life.

Elderly man fights off intruders, fatally shoots one of them
https://apnews.com/fdf7ef4ed2d3473399c98215a64e6de5

Michigan woman headed for church shoots, kills home intruder
https://www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-woman...

Elderly Arkansas woman shoots, kills 19-year-old who broke into home
https://fox6now-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/fox6now.com/2017/10/31/elderly-arkans...

47TrippB
Feb 14, 9:46pm Top

>43 margd:>” HR 8, requiring universal background checks for gun purchases, passed the House Judiciary Committee tonight. This is the first gun safety measure to get through the key House Committee in decades. BRAVO!”

The committee’s approval of this bill would not have been a concern to me, as it’s just a publicity stunt, but then I read about the slimy hypocrisy of these Democrats. Before passing this bill along, which they want to claim is a measure to protect Americans, they denied a provision which would have required ICE to be notified if an illegal alien failed the background check to buy a gun. To fail a background check means the applicant is a criminal, mentally unbalanced, a drug addict, or otherwise a potential threat to the public, and they stipulated that such a person may not be reported to the appropriate federal authorities. These Democrats are absolutely shameless.

The “Bipartisan” name on the bill is also a joke. The Senate companion bill doesn’t have a single Republican co-sponsor (bravo). Not so bipartisan, but, hey, the truth never gets in the way of a good Democrat publicity stunt.

48TrippB
Feb 14, 9:58pm Top

>45 prosfilaes:
Again, you phrase that as an argument, when instead it's a statement of ignorance.

Did you even notice I flipped your unanswered questions of “How many old people with guns will successfully defend themselves with them, as opposed to accidentally or on purpose shooting someone else with them? How many old people will kill themselves with a firearm?” You didn’t answer my questions, either ("How many old people, with no means to protect themselves, are robbed, assaulted, or murdered in their own homes by intruders? Are you suggesting she be disarmed and put into that vulnerable position simply because some people consider her to be old? She doesn’t self-identify as old. What kind of discriminating ageist are you?). I have no issue saying I don’t know when it is appropriate. Some people clearly find it quite difficult to make such an admission.

I'm glad she didn't have a gun at hand, because then she would have shot her roommate in the nursing home.”

Every nursing home I’ve visited (and that’s dozens) have been gun-free zones. That means a shooting will never happen there, right? It would be illegal.

” In theory, it means that guns can be tracked…and criminal gun wielders can be arrested for just having an unregistered gun before they use it.”

Under current law, the federal government is prohibited from retaining information from background checks. You admit the real goal of universal background checks is gun registration. Otherwise, it would be a useless, unenforceable, law. Such ulterior motives are not a surprise, and also a reason I’ll continue to tell my representatives that the bill is a trick I do not support. As I said before, registration has historically been a precursor to confiscation.

49JGL53
Edited: Feb 15, 12:39pm Top

When President (name here of the winner of the Democratic Presidential primary process) takes office in January of 2021 he or she can declare a national emergency and ban all civilian ownership of firearms - excepting those civilians who are members of a citizen's militia, as required in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

Start being paranoid now, TrippB, and get the jump on all your fellow gun nuts.

lol.

50TrippB
Feb 14, 11:18pm Top

>49 JGL53: Yes, very funny. I, too, see the dark humor in the possibility. As I said, some actions have unintended consequences. An unprecedented national emergency, even though completely justified, sets a dangerous precedent, and while President Trump has the best interests of the U.S. in mind regarding the crisis on our southern border, another president may not hesitate to use the power to the detriment of the U.S.

However, it isn't quite as simple as that. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment supports private ownership and use of firearms for self defense. The militia reference is more broad than your jovial statement implies. I don't see the Supreme Court ruling in favor of your interpretation of a militia for another generation, at least. They might just deny President Trump's national emergency, too.

Also, I deny being a gun nut. I merely support the concepts of the right to keep and bear arms, and recognize their value in the basic good versus evil scenarios of government abuse and self defense use against violence of those who prey on the weak.

51johnthefireman
Feb 14, 11:25pm Top

>48 TrippB: the real goal of universal background checks is gun registration

I cannot for the life of me understand what is your objection to gun registration. They are lethal pieces of kit. We register cars, we register aeroplanes, we register pressurised steam boilers, we register all manner of things which are potentially dangerous but which people can and do own. Why on earth shouldn't we register firearms which are actually, not potentially, dangerous? It won't stop you owning them.

52margd
Feb 15, 5:34am Top

When Canada (Ontario) considered doing away with gun registration, we learned that its most common use was by police checking to see if there was a gun on the premises before intervening in a domestic disturbance--apparently one of the more dangerous kinds of calls (for everyone involved). Police there supported gun registration, you bet!

53JGL53
Edited: Feb 15, 12:56pm Top

The (adult male) citizens of Switzerland who are heads of household are among the most heavily and reliably armed people in the world. In fact, each (male) head of household in Switzerland is REQUIRED to have a gun on premise at all times. The authorities come around regularly to check that each man has his gun and it is in working order.

The Swiss government makes every effort to know who has a gun and who does not. It is the law.

This goes way beyond any notion of mere gun registration, as the authorities make every effort to know exactly where all the guns are at any particular time.

Thus, the idea of registration of guns ain't shit. Those who are paranoid about gun registration are clearly paranoids. lol.

- - Just an interesting side note: at the beginning of WWII Hitler decided to leave Switzerland the hell alone because he knew of the above facts. The Germans' assessment was that it would take the bulk of the German army to conquer Switzerland, with the loss in killed and wounded Germans around several hundred thousand if not half a million. Plus Hitler would have had to put everything else on hold for many months. In effect Hitler was scared shitless of registered guns. As he should have been. But my advice to gun nuts in the U.S. in 2019 is: Don't be a Hitler. lol.

54johnthefireman
Feb 15, 1:41pm Top

>53 JGL53: The authorities come around regularly to check that each man has his gun and it is in working order. The Swiss government makes every effort to know who has a gun and who does not. It is the law.

Sounds to me a bit like a well-regulated militia, as written in the US constitution. The actual system (or lack of a system) which exists in the USA sounds like the exact opposite of a well-regulated militia.

55TrippB
Feb 15, 1:58pm Top


>51 johnthefireman:
”I cannot for the life of me understand what is your objection to gun registration.”

In 1984, an outstanding documentary film was released which demonstrated a foreign invader’s use of gun registration records to disarm the populace and round up people deemed likely to resist. Military forces went house to house, based on the gun registration information, seizing weapons and their owners. As I recall, the documentary was called, “Red Dawn.”

Well….I suppose it’s possible that Red Dawn may have been a fictional drama rather than a documentary, but aspects of the plot premise are plausible, and there are numerous historical records to show that gun registration leads to confiscation. House-to-house confiscation has already happened in the US (see below).

This article, highlighted on the website of Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership, is an excellent essay on the registration-confiscation problem.
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/kopel-catastrophic-consequences.htm

This article describes the broad overreach inherent in New York’s handgun registration “Safe Act,” which allows the use of handgun registration records to seize rifles and shotguns for which no license or registration is required.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171222/fake-news-on-gun-confiscation

This article by Timothy Wheeler, MD, describes how gun confiscation using registration records has already been attempted in California:
https://drgo.us/we-told-you-so-gun-registration-leads-to-confiscation/

A Warning from Canada – Gun Registration Leads to Confiscation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZYm2s6gzAY

Finally, and most disturbing for me, are the videos of unlawful seizure of firearms from U.S. citizens by military personnel and police. The videos are difficult to watch. I don’t know what these military personnel and police officers were thinking when they followed such blatantly unconstitutional orders. Years later, the citizens prevailed in court, but many of their firearms had already been destroyed.

Hurricane Katrina Door to Door Firearms Confiscation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo

The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Fortunately, many National Guard members reportedly refused to participate in the unlawful seizures.

And, if it wasn't clear enough, I was merely joking about Red Dawn. This is a chat room....no reason to be too serious.

56prosfilaes
Feb 15, 7:24pm Top

>48 TrippB: https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/oct/25/michael-moore/micha... says that there's about 100 homicides in burglaries each year. So she's about 150 times more likely to kill herself than she is to get killed in burglarly.

I have no issue saying I don’t know when it is appropriate.

Did you even notice that you didn't say I don't know?

Under current law, the federal government is prohibited from retaining information from background checks. You admit the real goal of universal background checks is gun registration. Otherwise, it would be a useless, unenforceable, law. Such ulterior motives are not a surprise, and also a reason I’ll continue to tell my representatives that the bill is a trick I do not support. As I said before, registration has historically been a precursor to confiscation.

So, we need all Mexicans registered because they might be bad hombres. People, on the other hand, who own a few dozen guns should absolutely not have to register their guns, and the government should absolutely not keep track of them. (It might be a death sentence to be found carrying while black, though, so that really only applies to white people.)

In 1984, an outstanding documentary film was released which demonstrated a foreign invader’s use of gun registration records to disarm the populace and round up people deemed likely to resist.

That documentary film that reminded us that even the most powerful capitalist nation in the world couldn't defend itself against the awesome power that was Communism? And why didn't they just walk around and check to see who had NRA bumper stickers and shit? Or just look at the NRA's membership lists?

I notice real documentary films about gun shootings aren't on your watching list. This is part of the complaint about gun nuts, that they spend more time stressing about fantasies where they can be the hero like Red Dawn, than they do stressing about events in reality.

57johnthefireman
Feb 15, 11:44pm Top

>55 TrippB:

Well, it's interesting to hear that much of your argument against gun registration is based on a joke.

Any comment on my >54 johnthefireman:?

59TrippB
Feb 16, 10:02am Top

>56 prosfilaes:
"So, we need all Mexicans registered because they might be bad hombres. People, on the other hand, who own a few dozen guns should absolutely not have to register their guns, and the government should absolutely not keep track of them. "

Not all Mexicans, or Hondurans, or Guatemalans, or any other good, legal, immigrants, of course. Just the bad hombres who circumvent our immigration laws and illegally sneak across our border. We should register them, disqualify them from any future entry, and then deport them. The rest of your statement is fine.

As I said, the Red Dawn “documentary” reference was just a relevant joke. You ignored the substance of my post, as usual.

60TrippB
Feb 16, 10:23am Top

>57 johnthefireman:
Well, it's interesting to hear that much of your argument against gun registration is based on a joke.

I’m disappointed jtf. I don’t recall you being so blatantly deceptive in your posts. The documentary reference to Red Dawn is not “much” of my argument by any measure. The film provides a good illustration of how gun registration records will be used for unintended purposes, and the filmmaker intentionally highlighted how that will be done. I also included multiple references that lead to solid examples of how gun registration records have already been misused, and how anti-gun zealots are eager for gun registration to be implemented, as it creates a useful list for confiscation.

Since you choose to pretend the links I included are not part of my argument, I’ll share a few examples. With New York’s gun registration program, the records are public. Violent criminal inmates access those records to find the home addresses of prison guards, and use that information in attempts to intimidate the guards. Criminals who can’t pass the current mandatory background checks to buy guns also use those records to target homes where they are likely to find guns to steal. Rather than protecting the public, gun registration records make everyone less safe.

Registration begets confiscation. A California lawmaker proposed state legislation which referenced registered firearm information that would be used to notify known gun owners to surrender their weapons or face criminal charges. In Louisiana, the expedient of a devastating hurricane was used to disarm law-abiding people who only wanted to protect themselves from thugs. In multiple parts of the world, and throughout history, gun registration has aided confiscation.

I’m glad you brought up Switzerland. Implementing just a fraction of their laws would have American liberals wailing in the streets (even more than they already are). The example of mandatory gun ownership is not for the purposes of the militia as defined in U.S.—it’s for the standing army, which every adult male is required to be a part of. Perhaps the U.S. should require conscription for every male. In addition to teaching proper gun handling, it could only improve the personal discipline that is lacking in so many American men. Of course, in the U.S., that would require not just men to serve in the military, but also the other 56 genders. The military tradition has also eliminated emotional responses that so many Americans have with firearms. It's very common to see military personnel on trains, in restaurants, and walking around in public with military rifles. No one appears to pay the least attention, and I think most Swiss would consider the possibility of anyone being "triggered" by the sight of a gun to be a ridiculous reaction.

Switzerland also has less violent crime due to other legal requirements. Every immigrant must be registered. I’d say I had to show my carte de legitimation at least once a week while I lived there. Without it, I would not have been allowed to obtain housing, open a bank account, purchase a mobile phone, drive on the public roadways, set up utilities, buy a train pass, or accomplish much of anything. I recall even having to show my carte de legitimation when I had my car serviced.

The Swiss do not tolerate bad immigrants. Swiss immigrants have to undergo an interview and criminal check on an annual basis to renew their card. If you aren’t making progress to learn the local language, or if you’ve violated Swiss laws, you are invited to leave the country. Immediately. You are not welcome to import your culture either. Swiss voters outlawed the construction of minarets. All schoolchildren must complete swimming lessons, and parents can’t claim that their daughters are prohibited from sharing a swimming pool with boys—and don’t send your girl to swim in a burkini, either. In some areas of Switzerland full-face veils are also verboten. To become a citizen is even more difficult. Immigrants must prove that they have fully assimilated socially and culturally. My colleague in Switzerland was born there; never lived anywhere else; married a Swiss woman; had a child with her; and, he was middle-aged before they finally granted him citizen status. He also told me that the government requires full reimbursement of any pubic assistance before citizenship is granted. Pay back the public dole or get out.

Although just a temporary resident, I was invited to purchase a handgun in Switzerland. The shop owner said all I had to do was go to the nearest post office and pay 40 francs for a certified copy of my criminal history, and, if I wasn't a criminal, I could choose any gun in his inventory.

We could learn a few things from the Swiss, but there’s no way U.S. liberals would follow their example.

61proximity1
Feb 16, 11:23am Top


"A gunman who targeted a group of families gathered for a Mother's Day celebration at a school in Brazil was fatally shot by an off-duty cop. Katia Sastre was praised by local officials for her bravery and was credited with saving the day."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EwJYRVixIU

62prosfilaes
Feb 17, 4:52pm Top

>59 TrippB: Not all Mexicans, or Hondurans, or Guatemalans, or any other good, legal, immigrants, of course. Just the bad hombres who circumvent our immigration laws and illegally sneak across our border.

Because that makes sense. Why don't you support registering the guns that are going to be used illegally?

As I said, the Red Dawn “documentary” reference was just a relevant joke. You ignored the substance of my post, as usual.

And you ignored my response, as usual. You don't need gun registration if you're the Soviets; you can just go through NRA membership records. If you looking for a “documentary”, we could look at Mad Max for why only the police should have guns. And the mere fact that you refer to Red Dawn is part of the reason why liberals get scared by gun holders; it's this fantasy that an action movie tells us what to expect and that's that we can be heroes if we just have guns to shoot the (obvious) bad guys.

Criminals who can’t pass the current mandatory background checks to buy guns also use those records to target homes where they are likely to find guns to steal.

Which my gun friends told me was impossible, that they were all locked away in completely impermeable safes. And wouldn't they be too terrified to enter a house they knew had a gun?

>60 TrippB: The example of mandatory gun ownership is not for the purposes of the militia as defined in U.S.—it’s for the standing army, which every adult male is required to be a part of. Perhaps the U.S. should require conscription for every male.

Maybe. It's questionable whether that's actually optimal for Switzerland today, and would probably reduce our military readiness, given our dependency on high-tech low-manpower military systems. It would be more valuable as social cohesion and reducing our fetishization of the military. It would be a billion dollar social engineering project, which I thought conservatives were all against.

I think most Swiss would consider the possibility of anyone being "triggered" by the sight of a gun to be a ridiculous reaction.

The people triggered by the sight of a gun seems to be cops, especially if it happens to be a black person holding that gun. Ronald Reagan and the NRA supported disarming Americans when they happened to be black.

Switzerland also has less violent crime due to other legal requirements. Every immigrant must be registered.

I notice how you juxtapose those, even if though there's no evidence that that has anything to with the amount of violent crime.

You are not welcome to import your culture either.

They were also the last bastion of male-only suffrage in Europe, with the last canton letting people vote 30 years ago.

Swiss voters outlawed the construction of minarets.

As always, conservatives harp on the constitution when it comes to the second amendment, but not when it comes to the first. Okay, that's not far; as I pointed out above they don't care about the second amendment when it comes to minorities, and they do care about the first amendment when it comes to the majority.

Group: Pro and Con

421 members

127,319 messages

About

This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 132,536,484 books! | Top bar: Always visible