Guns guns guns

[geonuc]

... And I am a firm believer in the second amendment. ...

What does this mean exactly?

Just that. I pretty much agree with the SCOTUS ruling that says 2A applies to individuals. And that you should not create a de facto ban by making it too onerous to own a gun. Too much regulation. Raising the cost of gun ownership through hugh fees so that only a rich person can afford to own a gun. Banning gun ownership of any kind. etc etc.

Does that mean I object to background checks or a three day "cooling off" period for handguns? Technically I do not. The devil is in the details. for example, what if we started charging people $500 for a background check? IMO that would be a de facto ban for everyone but the rich. Not good.

Thanks for the clarification.

Although, to be pedantic - "Just that" doesn't really work here. Taken literally in many contexts, if you say you believe in something, it means you believe that something exists. Like Santa Claus. Or god. I didn't think you meant that you believed the 2nd amendment existed, but saying you believe in the amendment leaves a host of interpretations. Which is why I asked.

[geonuc]

No one asked, but to be fair since I asked for a clarification, here's my position:

I think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed in full. Not clarified; not watered down. Repealed. Gun ownership should be controlled by legislation much as the ownership of other potentially dangerous things is controlled. We have many examples in our society of legal but controlled ownership. Guns should be no different.

I also don't care what the framers were thinking, or what people think the framers were thinking, when they drafted and foisted that poorly worded amendment on us. Things have changed since the late 18th century. I can't help noticing that it's now illegal to own a slave and my wife is allowed (even encouraged!) to vote.

I actually have no problem with some people owning some guns. I have half a dozen here in this house, including an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine. If I were to somehow be offered the option of giving up or registering them in exchange for the repeal of the 2nd amendment, I'd be among the first in line at the police station to drop off the goods. I'm sick of people being mass-murdered in this country.

[Swift]

Good post geonuc

I oscillate back and forth about appealing the 2nd amendment, but if I had to decide I would probably would appeal it. But I say the odds of that happening are absolutely zero.

But I have no problem with regulating gun ownership and I don't see that as a violation of the 2nd amendment. It says "a well regulated militia" The 1st amendment says "make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Yet we regulate both speech and press. You cannot create a panic, you cannot libel, you cannot make false statements under oath, etc. All of those are constitutional.

And yes, I hate the whole "original intent" argument about anything. What was the Founding Fathers' original intent with regard to Twitter or Climate Change? If you are going to use original intent with regard to gun regulation, then you are only allowed to have weapons available in the late 18th century. Muskets should be completely unregulated.

[Rommie]

"

Mass murderers tend to have a history of pent-up frustration and failures, are socially isolated and vengeful, blaming others for their unhappiness, experts say.

From this article

And they are almost always male.

IMO this points to a cultural and societal failing. We are failing people because we don't make them feel like they are part of our society. And we are failing to give them purpose and an identity.

Now, since it is almost impossible to fix this issue most people get fixated on trying to fix the what they see as the "real problem" GUNS! if the killers didn't have access to guns their rampage would be limited to far fewer victims or no victims. Of course, they *might* be right. Or the murderers might start resorting to home made bombs or creating ricin in their bathtubs.

I never liked this argument. You know why? Well yesterday, some awful man (who was likely socially isolated, but likely also just super racist) attacked a school in Sweden that was in a high immigrant area, with a sword. Killed two people, critically injured another. So yes, the part where this guy was determined is true, but had he been in the USA I guarantee you he would've gone in with a gun instead and likely killed many more people. But even though Sweden is a very high gun-owning country (#9 in statistics), he didn't do that. Why? Because getting a gun in Sweden is limited to hunters, who need to go to classes, and are required to keep their guns in safes at all times, etc etc. A 21 year old kid who walks up saying he wants one in a non-hunting area would be weird as hell and not really be able to get one.

Second, frankly most of the guys who do this stuff are frankly insane. I'm thinking, for example, of the guy who went on a shooting spree in Santa Barbara essentially because women didn't want to sleep with him, and he thought it was his right to have sex with women. (I read some of his manifesto. It was pretty warped, and you weren't going to just "give him an identity" by being nicer to him because he was irrationally reacting even when people were being kind to him.) Or the guy who shot Gabby Giffords in Arizona- he has rants on YouTube from paranoid schizophrenia, and there was the guy who went into the movie theatre in Colorado and shot up people because he thought he was the Joker. Obviously, these are crazy people. Obviously, they should be helped. (And I will note those on the right who say the real problem is mental illness never actually want to devote resources to this problem, which makes me wonder how sincere their thoughts are on this.) But obviously, these people also exist in other countries- some with even worse mental health systems than the USA, frankly!- and these people do not shoot up classrooms of first graders. (In China, you can read about guys going into schools and stabbing children- obviously horrific too- but, once again, a small fraction of people die from that compared to people in the USA in a country several times larger.)

I mean yes, obviously it would be very nice if in society everyone got the help they needed and that guy who shot up Santa Barbara got laid and everything else. But I don't see why it has to be either/or, or why people think these people are equally capable of the complex things like making ricin in their bathtubs over walking to a gun show and buying a weapon literally designed to kill people.

[SciFiFisher]

Rommie. I understand why you say these killers are crazy. It does seem insane to the rational person. In almost every case though these individuals are found to be sane enough to stand trial. They typically are not considered to be legally insane. In many cases they may suffer from some form of mental illness. Interestingly, most pyschiatrists will tell you that mental illness is not necessarily an indicator of dangerous behavior. Self destructive frequently, but not homicidal.

This is what makes it so difficult. If we could just perfect the clairvoyant predictive scanner(s) we could solve all these issues.

[geonuc]

Legal insanity is not knowing right from wrong, a much narrower test than the full range of what psychiatrists might define as insane, or what a reasonable person might.

[SciFiFisher]

Legal insanity is not knowing right from wrong, a much narrower test than the full range of what psychiatrists might define as insane, or what a reasonable person might.

Actually, while I did mix the two up a bit. The truth is that most of the shooters don't necessarily fit the definition of insanity either way. While the acts they commit are irrational they are very often sane. The challenge is that we live in a society that has decided that randomly killing people because you are peeved with society and/or life is considered to be insane.

Edited to add: of course the fact that they are or are not insane is rather moot. The real challenge seems to be getting people to agree on a reasonable prevention approach.

[geonuc]

The challenge is that we live in a society that has decided that randomly killing people because you are peeved with society and/or life is considered to be insane.

That's the challenge? I actually think that's a pretty good starting indicator of insanity, if insane means acting substantially contrary to rational thought and contrary to the norms established for peaceful coexistence with others. Yes, I know that isn't anything like a clinical definition of insanity.

While I fully support better mental health care in this country, I am not one of those people that think the problem is just crazy people (clinically crazy, that is) going off their rocker and shooting up the place. The problem is that guns are too easily obtained by anyone with bad motives - crazy people, gangsters, anti-government fanatics, militant racists, neo-Nazis, whoever. Trying to remedy all the underlying issues all these people have with whatever and whomever they're pissed at is, at best, challenging.

In the meantime, let's restrict the access to guns. Maybe something on the order of what you need to do to fly a private airplane in this country. Annual license, initial and maybe periodic training, background check, gun registration, etc. And no public carry unless you have a legitimate need (money courier, for example).

[Swift]

The real challenge seems to be getting people to agree on a reasonable prevention approach.

No, the real challenge seems to be to getting anything done at all. A couple of states and cities have enacted universal background checks and a few other very modest measures. As best as I can tell no one is doing anything to improve mental health. So, for all practical purposes, we are doing absolutely nothing as a nation. Another 3 or 5 or 10 people get shot in the shooting-of-the-month, and there is lots of moaning and praying and posturing, but absolutely nothing happens.

Heck, I'd like to see a really bad law passed in response, at least it would demonstrate a response, an awareness that there is actually a god damn problem. If nothing else it could serve as an example of what not to do.

[SciFi Chick]

Heck, I'd like to see a really bad law passed in response, at least it would demonstrate a response, an awareness that there is actually a god damn problem. If nothing else it could serve as an example of what not to do.

Kind of like Obamacare. It sucks, but it's a starting point and I believe it will get better from here.

Australia over reacted when they had a mass shooting and passed some really restrictive gun laws. This was spear headed by Prime Minister Howard who was very ideologically like President Bush.

Certain aspects of the laws they passed are very annoying and very over the top. Well, so what? I have to jump through hoops to get a gun to go shoot rabbits. And I really couldn't give a fuck. I'm happy to jump through those hoops. Why? Because I'm an American who has witnessed one too many shootings of innocent people.

And yes - stabbing violence has gone up since this law was passed. But you know what? There has not been another mass shooting.

I doubt we'd be so lucky here, but it would be a fucking beginning!

Also, not that anyone probably cares, but I agree with geonuc and swift 100% on repealing the 2nd amendment.

[vendic]

The 2nd amendment in layman's terms:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms and kill anyone they think or suspect might harm them, their family, friends, pets, property or country shall not be abridged. To provide security to this free state, the people should not be restricted on how and where they keep loaded firearms and if a child accidentally gets one and shoots another child, that is a tragic accident. The right for individuals to practice to shoot is important to the maintenance of a free state; any deaths that result due to this practice, regardless of how negligent the shooter is or ignorant the shooter is, if they kill someone in pursuit of their god given right to firearm happiness, it will be deemed a tragic accident.
Since this is the second amendment, it overrides all others except the first. So you cannot shoot a person for what they are saying. That is their right given to them by the first amendment, but dear friends, you can shoot that fucker for how he says it!

[vendic]

Well, this is about as surreal as it gets.

Bullet proof blankets on the market for school kids

This planet is fucked.

[Swift]

Well, this is about as surreal as it gets.

Bullet proof blankets on the market for school kids

This planet is fucked.

I saw that on Facebook. We are a disgrace of a species.

[vendic]

I've seen a lot of arguments lately about guns.

1) Only an armed guy can defend their family.

The problem here is that unfortunately the idea that you can protect your family and what actually happens are two different things. People that own a firearm for family defense are far more likely to kill themselves, a member of their family or a family member kills another family member or them selves, than you are likely to protect your family with a gun. The chances are about 40 times more likely in fact.
The ratio is about 4:1 in the case of an actual attack when carrying. Yes, that's right. If you are attacked, you have 4 times more chance of getting shot if you have a gun for self defense than if you don't.

So if you hate your family, the statistics are pretty clear, buy a gun for home defense. If you love them, then you're better off not getting one.
This is a general population statistic. If we start narrowing it down, you might find that ex military or police have better odds. As far as I'm aware though, no one has actually done any study in this. Having said this and it is logical, it will also mean that if you are not military or police, you have far worse odds than the ones given.

2) A gun makes you safer.
A gun makes you feel safer. It's like telling a guy to put on a chemical suit when entering a radiation zone. It does nothing for your safety except give you false security.
Anyone that disputes must think that the gun transfers instant experience and safety practices via telepathic means upon purchase.
It's like owning a gym set. Buying it doesn't make you fit and strong.
If people thought the day they buy a gym set they can lift 200 pounds over their head and they try and get injured, we call them fuckwits, usually mocking them. Buy a gun the same way and the gun community congratulates you on being wise. w.t.f?
If you buy a gun and think you are now safer, you are a fuckwit. End of story. If you encourage a person without explaining that it's the training that is the key, then you are also a fuckwit and are making others potentially unsafe.
It's the application of safe long term practice that makes you safer, not the gun. That only comes with practice and guidance.

more to add later.

[vendic]

I've posted this before but it's still relevant: gun training in practice

[vendic]

Ok, laugh time. A guy is claiming most seriously that the USA and Australia have comparable mass killing rates with firearms.

[geonuc]

I've posted this before but it's still relevant: gun training in practice

That's a good video.

[grapes]

Ok, laugh time. A guy is claiming most seriously that the USA and Australia have comparable mass killing rates with firearms.

Was he using numbers? From somewhere?

I tried to look up actual figures, did find this from two years ago that claimed "Gun ownership in Australia is back at pre-Port Arthur massacre levels."
http://www.news.com.au/national/is-aust ... 6690018325

[vendic]

I'm still waiting for his numbers...and it turns out he gave up.

[grapes]

Here's a good one: the US has 15 times the population, but only 10 times the gun-death rate

[vendic]

rofl

I've actually read where people make such claims!

[brite]

Yeah... I saw his argument... I just couldn't go there.

My personal favorites at the moment are the ones that say that every Muslim is a terrorist... but those upstanding WASP Christians who has shot up movie theaters, historic black churches, Sikh temples, political rallies and Planned Parenthood clinics... they are simply poor sad, mentally ill lone wolves... We should pity them...

You will pardon me while I have issues with domestic terrorism, because it's far more rampant than any other kind, and we are in far more danger from these freaks who don't know how to use a weapon properly than we are from ISIS/ISL/DAESH

[vendic]

Yeah... I saw his argument... I just couldn't go there.

I did.
He really seemed convinced and couldn't understand why we look a the same data and come to different conclusions.
His claim that small sample statistics is very well established was laughable.
Small sample statistics afaik require a small sample of a large group chosen at random.
That means using sequential years is not allowed as it's no longer random sampling.
Either that or he confused the "small sample" with small data set.
A data set of 10 dice throws isn't going to give you shit statistically and that's about the sample size he was drawing on to support his position.

I actually have more credible evidence that the stress of introducing gun laws is likely to increase gun deaths because I can produce several data points that correlate compared to his one. Yet he called my suggestion absurd. It has three times the validity! lol

[SciFiFisher]

Yeah... I saw his argument... I just couldn't go there.

I did.
He really seemed convinced and couldn't understand why we look a the same data and come to different conclusions.
His claim that small sample statistics is very well established was laughable.
Small sample statistics afaik require a small sample of a large group chosen at random.
That means using sequential years is not allowed as it's no longer random sampling.
Either that or he confused the "small sample" with small data set.
A data set of 10 dice throws isn't going to give you shit statistically and that's about the sample size he was drawing on to support his position.

I actually have more credible evidence that the stress of introducing gun laws is likely to increase gun deaths because I can produce several data points that correlate compared to his one. Yet he called my suggestion absurd. It has three times the validity! lol

Welcome to a world where every opinion has equal validity. (emoticon chosen by Poe the resident 5 year old)

[vendic]

You're letting a 5 year old near FWIS. The kid is damaged for life!