All Things Second Amendment

[Town Heretic]

That's one opinion, and it's far from an authoritative one

Makes some pretty good points. I've read similar opinions from people with solid backgrounds in other forums and magazines. I'm not sure what would constitute authority on the point. I'm more interested in good and supportable positions/arguments.

, and it also conflicts with what troops actually do in similar close quarters situations'

Troops trained in group support with highly developed muscle memory and armed for a different context that is by its nature volatile?

Do tell. lain:

when the weaponry judged generally best is still a service carbine like the American M4, with a shorter barrel for better navigating close quarters than the M16 (the American service rifle). A criminal intruder in your home would be an example of 'close quarters.'

Supra. We arm soldiers for their purpose, which isn't home security and that's before we get to different training and expectations. A shotgun would be a horrible weapon to take into close quarter combat where you and the enemy would almost certainly be found mixed and where the field could open and change from moment to moment, and where the number of enemies is undetermined going it\n (and possibly out again, etc.). None of those relate/transfer well to the home defender.

Pump action shotguns are about as "rapid succession" as a bolt action rifle. So what does the last line mean "five to nine shells capable of being fired in rapid succession," if it doesn't mean semiautomatic shotguns? And Town, you would ban those, correct?

I can fire a revolver rapidly. But I can't fire much without reloading outside of reliance on magazines that I'm also in opposition to.

 

[Town Heretic]

So the danger in such an anecdote is that to the uninformed, it seems to indicate that the best policy is to practice shooting enough so that you can always just shoot once to accomplish what needs to be done.

It's how it seems to anyone who understands that being a better shot is a good idea, and wasting ammo isn't. That not being good enough to hit what you aim at with the first shot makes you more likely to hit what you don't mean to, which can include other people you don't mean to harm.

What the uninformed would fail to consider is that criminals don't always operate as individuals.

Yeah. Sometimes they come in waves...but mostly in the movies. In real life it's usually a lot fewer. But regardless of how few or many, being a great shot is always a plus, to the informed gun owner.

Also, if this seemingly reasonable policy held water, then at least one military on the earth you would think would implement it, and that's not true.

I addressed this the second time he said it, but to be clear, he's misleading you (you the reader) or just hasn't thought his position through.

Here's my response on the point: "We arm soldiers for their purpose, which isn't home security and that's before we get to different training and expectations. A shotgun would be a horrible weapon to take into close quarter combat where you and the enemy would almost certainly be found mixed and where the field could open and change from moment to moment, and where the number of enemies is undetermined going in (and possibly out again, etc.). None of those relate/transfer well to the home defender."

Recall that most armed forces around the world are professionals who work with weaponry. In contrast to Town's implication that the best policy is to practice enough to ensure 'one shot kills,'

To be clear, my position is actually that you can accomplish what you need to accomplish without large magazines. That you can repel, frighten off, or kill intruders without spending a lot of ammo, that a shotgun is a great way to accomplish this, and that being a practiced shot is a very good idea.

and to then only bear arms capable of only single /non-rapidly repeating shots

That's also not my position. A revolver typically carries six shots. Many rifles, like my Winchester, carry several shots and I've never suggested possession of guns should be limited to single shot or even double barreled weapons, though there's nothing wrong with them and I could accomplish by and large everything you need a weapon for using one, as could anyone else with practice.

, all the professional militaries in the world instead outfit their troops with service rifles and service carbines, each capable of, with the flip of a selector switch, going from semiautomatic to full auto.

Right. Soldiers need weapons best suited to their work, like machine guns from time to time, or tanks. And professional firefighters need fire trucks.

As the rest of this rests on a few assumptions I've already addressed above I omit it as my response covers the points illustrated.

 

[Idolater]

Makes some pretty good points. I've read similar opinions from people with solid backgrounds in other forums and magazines. I'm not sure what would constitute authority on the point.

Absolutely correct, and I'm not faulting you for holding the opinion. I merely point out that there are others that are equally valid.

I'm more interested in good and supportable positions/arguments.

That's interesting. I'm more interested in saving my life when it's imperiled. And the lives of my kin, and of my neighbors, and of other innocent (of capital crimes) people.

Troops trained

You yourself advocate training, nothing wrong with that.

in group support

Is your point in mentioning this that, if we are alone facing a threat, that we are better off without selective fire weaponry, and instead that single-shot or bolt-action weaponry is better in those cases?

with highly developed muscle memory

Comes from training, supra.

and armed for a different context that is by its nature volatile?

At this point please provide a little more detail from the experience that you've had that you've alluded to a number of times when you were under fire. I would like to know the particular difference from this circumstance of yours, from circumstances that troops find themselves in, when their lives are imperiled. Obviously when our lives are not imperiled, we don't need any kind of weapon at all to defend them.

Do tell. lain:

Supra.

Supra. We arm soldiers for their purpose, which isn't home security and that's before we get to different training and expectations.

You say that as if "home security" is the only situation that might concern us needing to defend ourselves.

A shotgun would be a horrible weapon to take into close quarter combat where you and the enemy would almost certainly be found mixed and where the field could open and change from moment to moment, and where the number of enemies is undetermined going it\n (and possibly out again, etc.). None of those relate/transfer well to the home defender.

Well that's not categorically true at all. All of those things could occur during a home invasion.

I can fire a revolver rapidly. But I can't fire much without reloading outside of reliance on magazines that I'm also in opposition to.

Then in certain cases, you and your revolver would be dead.

I'd rather that you're very well armed and can defend yourself in a much wider variety of circumstances that might endanger your life or limb.

 

[Idolater]

It's how it seems to anyone who understands that being a better shot is a good idea, and wasting ammo isn't.

Everybody thinks that Town, myself included.

That not being good enough to hit what you aim at with the first shot makes you more likely to hit what you don't mean to, which can include other people you don't mean to harm.

The nature of shooting, affecting everybody including military and police too.

Yeah. Sometimes they come in waves...but mostly in the movies. In real life it's usually a lot fewer.

You're employing another statistical argument here. One thing is that I reject that you can just dismiss what is less likely to occur and make laws preventing our ability to prepare for those unlikely but still possible things, and another thing is that because of my own view of the right to bear arms, this isn't an argument at all, but merely an observation with no bearing on the right.

But regardless of how few or many, being a great shot is always a plus, to the informed gun owner.

Agreed, and I never said or implied otherwise.

I addressed this the second time he said it, but to be clear, he's misleading you (you the reader) or just hasn't thought his position through.

What I said is an absolute fact. So you'd be the misleading one in saying this.

Here's my response on the point: "We arm soldiers for their purpose, which isn't home security and that's before we get to different training and expectations. A shotgun would be a horrible weapon to take into close quarter combat where you and the enemy would almost certainly be found mixed and where the field could open and change from moment to moment, and where the number of enemies is undetermined going in (and possibly out again, etc.). None of those relate/transfer well to the home defender."

Addressed in my previous post to you.

To be clear, my position is actually that you can accomplish what you need to accomplish without large magazines.

You forgot to include the word "usually" in there somewhere.

That you can repel, frighten off, or kill intruders without spending a lot of ammo, that a shotgun is a great way to accomplish this, and that being a practiced shot is a very good idea.

Usually.

That's also not my position. A revolver typically carries six shots.

The most dangerous revolvers fire rounds that do not compare with the rounds that most rifles and carbines fire, and they also have a far shorter range.

Many rifles, like my Winchester, carry several shots

And your rifle is bolt action, which means that followup shots are delayed by your (hopefully correctly) cycling of the action. Each time. Under stress.

and I've never suggested possession of guns should be limited to single shot or even double barreled weapons, though there's nothing wrong with them and I could accomplish by and large everything you need a weapon for using one, as could anyone else with practice.

By and large.

Right. Soldiers need weapons best suited to their work, like machine guns from time to time, or tanks. And professional firefighters need fire trucks.

Again we need to know the difference between circumstances where the lives of troops are imperiled, and the ones where our own lives are imperiled, to make any kind of sense of what we have a right to arm ourselves with, and what we might not need ever.

As the rest of this rests on a few assumptions I've already addressed above I omit it as my response covers the points illustrated.

The only point I've ever made that could be construed as any kind of 'assumption' is that people possess an inalienable right to bear arms. I've set out all the reasons for all my other positions based upon this one, if you want to force the word, assumption.

And we do disagree on what "the right to bear arms" means of course. Maybe we should bring the discussion all the way back to why you believe that we possess the right to bear arms. I've set out my reasons why, what are yours?

 

[ok doser]

... I reject that you can just dismiss what is less likely to occur ....

How likely do you suppose the British government felt that the American revolution was to occur in 1775?

 

[Idolater]

How likely do you suppose the British government felt that the American revolution was to occur in 1775?

Before or after General Gage seized all our standard issue military weaponry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gage#American_Revolutionary_War

On 14 April 1775 Gage received orders from London to take decisive action against the Patriots. Given intelligence that the militia had been stockpiling weapons at Concord, Massachusetts, he ordered detachments of regulars from the Boston garrison to march there on the night of 18 April to confiscate them.

​

 

[Town Heretic]

Everybody thinks that Town, myself included.

Well, experience tells me not everyone cares enough about that, but for the sake of argument--right, but that's not what you said about my position, so I was clarifying, among other points. :thumb:

You're employing another statistical argument here.

More general observation, empowered by common sense and the lack of the NRA promoting the heck out of the contrary idea.

One thing is that I reject that you can just dismiss what is less likely to occur and make laws preventing our ability to prepare

For zombie apocalypse?

for those unlikely but still possible things

It's possible that gravity won't work tomorrow, but I'm not going to make a law based on the concern.

and another thing is that because of my own view of the right to bear arms, this isn't an argument at all, but merely an observation with no bearing on the right.

I've long understood that I was arguing property rights with a Marxist, by which I mean our foundation precludes more than contest among others.

Agreed, and I never said or implied otherwise.

Addressed above.

You forgot to include the word "usually" in there somewhere.

Yeah, I express a rule, though almost any point can have that qualification and I hope by this point people understand that, since it's a topic addressed prior. Reminds me of when one of you guys tried to use South American countries as part of a counter and I noted that I'd repeatedly isolated terms to the point where I shouldn't have to keep saying Western Industrial Democracies...that if I used shorthand it should be understood, having hammered the particulars home enough to establish the reference.

Usually.

Usually is a little misleading in that context though. More, with potential if extraordinarily rare exception, and as a rule. Usually can feel like 6 of 10.

The most dangerous revolvers fire rounds that do not compare with the rounds that most rifles and carbines fire, and they also have a far shorter range.

Who disagreed with that?

And your rifle is bolt action, which means that followup shots are delayed by your (hopefully correctly) cycling of the action. Each time. Under stress.

And I did pointedly note my Winchester, before you try the bolt/lever distinction.

By and large.

(see: usually)

Again we need to know the difference between circumstances where the lives of troops are imperiled, and the ones where our own lives are imperiled, to make any kind of sense of what we have a right to arm ourselves with, and what we might not need ever.

Like I said, troops are armed for a different thing. You could be going house to house and out in the open in short order. And I noted a few other reasons why a shotgun, while ideal for home defense, doesn't make sense for a soldier.

The only point I've ever made that could be construed as any kind of 'assumption' is that people possess an inalienable right to bear arms.

No, you made more and I addressed them. And your idea of the right and the actuality are in opposition to findings by the Court and, I believe, would be treating the right unlike any other.

And we do disagree on what "the right to bear arms" means of course. Maybe we should bring the discussion all the way back to why you believe that we possess the right to bear arms. I've set out my reasons why, what are yours?

It's not a belief with me, it's recognizing what exists. Now as to why I think it's a good idea, there are any number of reasons, from hunting and control of animal populations to recreation that strengthens other uses, to self-defense.

But my proffer here has never been about whether there was a right, but in noting that the weapons and aids I oppose meet certain concerns of the Court and should not be a reasonable part of the exercise, which is not impeded by my inability to fire a shoulder launched nuclear weapon, if one existed.

 

[ok doser]

What gets lost in these discussions is the fact that the second amendment was not written for hunting, it was not written for home defense

It was written for protection against an oppressive government - the type of government, for example, that would take away the guns of law-abiding citizens

 

[Town Heretic]

That's interesting. I'm more interested in saving my life when it's imperiled. And the lives of my kin, and of my neighbors, and of other innocent (of capital crimes) people.

I'm speaking to the basis of the rule. Your approach isn't really that anyway, as you wouldn't have any restrictions on these weapons, even if I demonstrated you could absolutely do anything with them except increase the rate of fire. That is, you're masking a philosophical position with a resonate emotional appeal.

But your position isn't rooted in that. That is to say, you are not arguing that we should have the right to every sort of firearm because we may use them to defend our families or person. It's larger than that with you.

My position is entirely about the larger public safety and the reasonableness of a cost/benefit examination.

You yourself advocate training, nothing wrong with that.

I advocate mandatory public safety courses, among other things.

Is your point in mentioning this that, if we are alone facing a threat, that we are better off without selective fire weaponry, and instead that single-shot or bolt-action weaponry is better in those cases?

I really haven't limited it to bolt only or single shot, for that matter (see: revolvers, lever action Winchester rifles, etc). What I oppose are semi and fully automatic weapons, speed loaders, bump stocks and likened aids, along with large magazines, all of which facilitate the sort of horrific mass murder and relating carnage that we witnessed in Las Vegas and other places in recent years.

Comes from training, supra.

Hammered into troops, along with related discipline, over intense periods of time. Not something you're going to see in the general public and not something remotely required of anyone at present.

At this point please provide a little more detail from the experience that you've had that you've alluded to a number of times when you were under fire.

No. I've given you what I'm comfortable giving on that point. But if you want to discuss anything I relate about being under fire I'm game to take it on, from what adrenaline does to you and your judgment, to the psychological factors that we can only hope to overcome by training involving a number of close stressors and a great deal of repetition, none of which you'll find in the overwhelming majority of the population.

You say that as if "home security" is the only situation that might concern us needing to defend ourselves.

No, though it's a primary concern I suspect for most people.

Then in certain cases, you and your revolver would be dead.

A person can likely construct a hypothetical in which nearly any point they mean to raise is true, but it doesn't make it a reasonable hypothetical or one that isn't overwhelmed by a pressing actual and objectively established harm.

I'd rather that you're very well armed and can defend yourself in a much wider variety of circumstances that might endanger your life or limb.

I'd rather we adopt the practices demonstrated in a number of models that will result in your being less likely to find your life and limb endangered.

 

[Idolater]

What gets lost in these discussions is the fact that the second amendment was not written for hunting, it was not written for home defense

It was written for protection against an oppressive government - the type of government, for example, that would take away the guns of law-abiding citizens

It's so easy to get lost because there's just so much to keep in mind. We're literally talking about life and death. We're talking about guns.

So to help I'll share what I myself do, I check with my most fundamental tenets, and in this case there's just one---every innocent (of capital crimes) person has the right to not be outgunned. And that's fundamentally what the Second Amendment means, and That means, that we're breaking the law with gun control.

So we can disagree about what the right to bear arms means, and about what the Second Amendment means (or should mean), but if we can never agree, then we'll never fix something that I agree is broken, in many ways.

So let's rally around the idea that we should in any case amend the Constitution to address this crisis in our government right now, and for the long term, not just as a kneejerk reaction, but because the gravity of a 'seam' in our government is revealed right now, and we've got to address that Constitutionally.

If we can't amend the right to bear arms right now, then let's consider the idea to amend the procedure for confirming new (lifetime) justices to the Supreme Court. If we require a super majority in Congress to confirm justices (who are nominated by the President), then this will tend to automatically cull out any extremists, who could otherwise be confirmed with a simple majority in both houses of Congress. Simple majority confirmation tends to destabilize this Second Amendment debate (the one happening irl in the US), and I think unnecessarily, and I think that a reasonable and rational fix, that would yield benefits long term as well, in the general stability of the S. Ct.'s reasoning wrt interpreting the Constitution, would be to raise the bar for Congressional confirmation of S. Ct. justices to a super majority.

All it has to be is 3:2 for me, but the gold standard for super majorities is 2:1 (two-thirds) and 3:1 (75%), both of which feature in the first version of our supreme law. I argue that we have found another case where we need to 'pull out the big guns,' and impose a super majority into our government, for the benefit of everybody.

Nobody needs to have these debates. We can approach the whole thing more rationally if we know that the authoritative judgments rendered by our Supremes aren't so volatile, in the 'conservative' and then to the 'liberal' partisan side, violent lurches are happening. That's not in my reading of the Constitution, that the framers had any thought that rational people would suffer this kind of instability for so long without addressing it.

Super majorities are what republics use to protect minorities from the majority. That, and a Bill of Rights.

 

[Idolater]

Well, experience tells me not everyone cares enough about that, but for the sake of argument--right, but that's not what you said about my position, so I was clarifying, among other points. :thumb:

I actually specifically called out the fact that I agree that 'one shot kills' are the gold standard in shooting, and training /practicing with that goal in mind is commendable, I just disagree with the complete idea of yours, that that's The Best way to practice shooting. I provided a contrary view, that range time should also involve training in being a miniature artillery piece.

You're going to need to figure on another half-second per shot now, because you can't as quickly site in your target on followup shots with the kind of action you've got on your rifle, not like with a semiauto. A semiauto isn't just faster because you don't have to do anything between rounds but press the trigger again, it's also because every other action takes time, and during that time, you lose the site picture at least a little more than you do with a semiauto, ceteris paribus, which not only means that you can't fire as rapidly with slower guns than semiautos, but you also can't fire accurately as rapidly. You still have to pull the trigger on the terminator gun, just like with the semiauto, but the terminator has to spin his gun around to eject the empty and 'chamber' the next round. In the meantime maybe the terminator gets clipped by his enemy, being that the terminator 'don't real,' and can't just take bullet wounds without flinching, or without being interrupted from what they're trying to do, in cycling the action of their gun. In defense of their life. Under stress.

You'll probably never need to shoot any more than seven rounds to defend your life or the life of your loved ones, neighbors, and other innocent people, from anything, human or not, ever in your lifetime. Statistically. Statistically significantly, also, coincidentally perhaps, if not ironically.

Some shooting is for warning shots too. Sometimes covering fire. Sometimes just as a distraction. There's lot of different reasons for shooting a gun besides killing lots of people.

More general observation, empowered by common sense and the lack of the NRA promoting the heck out of the contrary idea.

The NRA has to be expedient, I understand their pressure to be like that, but it does not reflect my belief in the right to bear arms. They have to 'play ball' to defend the right to bear arms from people like you who make laws, and from people like you who vote for people like you who make laws. It's my job to figure out how to vote, since my role in this whole thing is a voter. So it's such a fraught matter, that I as a voter need to know first what it is that the right to bear arms actually means, and then to compare that with what our laws forbid, and then compare our laws to the Constitution, and to consider whether the laws are Constitutional, and to vote based upon that whole matter.

I earlier pointed out that your vocation as a whole does not agree on what the Second Amendment means, and it would be nice if that were not the case, so that along with all the people dying while we try to solve this problem, we didn't also have the challenge that our own lawyers can't even agree among themselves, what this one sentence means. There are lawyers who believe what I believe about the right to bear arms, and that we are contravening the Bill of Rights in making gun control laws.

It doesn't matter if we are in fact breaking our own law in making gun control laws, it does matter what we do about this fact. We need to address it. It is exceptionally poor practice to flagrantly break your own law, and then pretend and act like we're not doing it. It's worse than whistling past the graveyard.

For zombie apocalypse?

Oh gesundheit I didn't realize you'd come Town with something.

It's possible that gravity won't work tomorrow, but I'm not going to make a law based on the concern.

It's logically possible. But is it practically possible? You see what I did there, by introducing the subjective word 'practical?' I am alluding to prior posts where you challenged me for introducing it, indicating that I was being a little disingenuous (or just ignorant) to do so. So here I'm introducing it again, to point out the ways in which thought becomes clearer, it's by introducing things like 'practical' and 'usual' into your thinking, so that it corresponds better to the real world, instead of constantly leaving the intellectual ground with daydreams.

I've long understood that I was arguing property rights with a Marxist, by which I mean our foundation precludes more than contest among others.

Oh now you've gone and done it. This is like the third time you've compared me with a Marxist. Marx being one of the most influential philosophers who's ever lived---I'm blushing. I had no idea my thoughts were so persuasive, but I do thank you profusely for the compliment.

Addressed above.

As did I, and as did I in my first response to your idealistic notion. Did you see what I did there? I implied, without even saying it, that while your notion is 'idealistic,' mine must be the practical one, because idealism and pragmatism are in tension with one another.

Yeah, I express a rule, though almost any point can have that qualification and I hope by this point people understand that, since it's a topic addressed prior. Reminds me of when one of you guys tried to use South American countries as part of a counter and I noted that I'd repeatedly isolated terms to the point where I shouldn't have to keep saying Western Industrial Democracies...that if I used shorthand it should be understood, having hammered the particulars home enough to establish the reference.

:AMR: What you continue to hammer home is what we continue to dispute about. You are the one who thinks that a study that shows that making another federal "AWB" law is justified because of a tiny percentage change for the better, affecting the lives of a handful of people. I argue that the same is true for the right to bear arms to denote standard issue military weaponry, and you tell me that no, because it will only affect the lives of a handful of people. You're losing it.

Usually is a little misleading in that context though. More, with potential if extraordinarily rare exception, and as a rule. Usually can feel like 6 of 10.

So is 0.09% in your mind "usual" or "unusual." Do you see what I mean? You're losing it.

Who disagreed with that?

We were talking about carbines and then you suddenly changed the subject to revolvers, and now you're asking me who disagrees that revolvers are inferior weapons to carbines? You're seriously losing it.

(see: usually)

I also was quoting you, did you know that? or did you not notice.

Like I said, troops are armed for a different thing.

They are armed for at minimum, self defense, and the defense of those around them. That doesn't sound very different to me at all.

You could be going house to house and out in the open in short order.

Yeah, like a 0.09% that you might have to do that, right. Agreed. 'Xcept, I know you're talking about the troop here, and I'm talking about the civilian, and then I went and injected the 0.09% figure that you have previously agreed is sufficient grounds to make a sweeping gun control law.

And I noted a few other reasons why a shotgun, while ideal for home defense, doesn't make sense for a soldier.

It Does make sense for a troop, Sometimes. (That's another point of disagreement between us, and I don't know what to 'chalk up' this one to.)

No, you made more and I addressed them.

No you didn't, because there weren't any. Anything else I've argued is founded upon the notion that the right to bear arms is inalienable, so they are not assumptions.

Unless you're using the wrong word, or using the word in a way I'm unfamiliar with, which is possible, but in my mind doubtful. An assumption is something unsupported by anything either logical or empirical, and I don't have any other ideas that 'assumption' could possibly refer to.

So name them if you want to continue down this path. I 'call.'

And your idea of the right and the actuality are in opposition to findings by the Court and, I believe, would be treating the right unlike any other.

'Shall not be infringed' is what the framers chose to associate with the right to bear arms, which was called out specifically into its own Amendment, the Second, the OP of this thread, in our supreme law the Constitution.

The S. Ct. has found that the Second Amendment applies to any instrument that can constitute a bearable arm, whether or not it had been invented yet in 1791, and that it specially applies to weapons that are in common use, and that it is an individual right, and that it is an expression of the non-enumerated human right to self defense.

My position is all in keeping with all of that.

It's not a belief with me, it's recognizing what exists.

Then show it to me, where is it? Point it out? Give me a picture? Or a map with a route for how I can go see it? Where is this right to bear arms? It seems mythical to me, but you say it exists---where is it? I want to Touch it.

Now as to why I think it's a good idea, there are any number of reasons, from hunting and control of animal populations to recreation that strengthens other uses, to self-defense.

Everything but self-defense is done in every other Western country, and do you know how many of those Western democracies have anything approaching 'the right to bear arms' anywhere in any of their laws? Do you have to check? or do you already know that it's none /zero. We don't even need the Second Amendment to do what you're proposing we do. Nobody else does, and they're all already doing it. They've got no Second Amendment, they've got no recognition of the right to bear arms anywhere in their law, and they're all already doing what you want us to do too.

My position's that we're disobeying the Second Amendment, just as a reminder.

But my proffer here has never been about whether there was a right, but in noting that the weapons and aids I oppose meet certain concerns of the Court and should not be a reasonable part of the exercise, which is not impeded by my inability to fire a shoulder launched nuclear weapon, if one existed.

I just think that if we don't mean what the Second Amendment says, then we should amend the Constitution and tell the S. Ct. what they should think about gun control. Right now it's up to them, and so it's up to the President, and all the President needs is a simple majority of his party in Congress to confirm a justice who agrees with me.

That shouldn't be, even if things were reversed. A justice who believes what you believe shouldn't be confirmed either, not with just a simple majority, this is too volatile to be 'jockeying for justices' here, and also with abortion. This all concerns abortion too. We should just gather up our political will and tell the S. Ct. what to think, because that's Our job.

Once we tell them what to think---they can take it from there.

 

[Lon]

I think sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but if you aren't of the mind to see it, then it's a lit stick being waved at you to no good end...maybe.

Not in this case. "Decent" and "reasonable" and 'right kind of values' very much have a derogatory slight implied. I realize you've meant it as a cigar (not an offense) but I want you to be aware of these. They do get you into trouble on TOL. With me? Nope. I didn't think you were saying I wasn't reasonable, decent, or lacking the right kind of values. My endeavor rather, to make you aware if you were not. :e4e:

Well, you can't really do with any of those what one man in a hotel room managed to do with his AR in a brief span of time. Maybe if you understand how to use the fertilizer to make a bomb, then can transport it without being caught and have enough expertise to set it off when you mean to, but even then the damage you do will be up to a lot of factors that are harder to control. And there's something in the psychology of it too. People who use knives want to be up close and it tends to be personal. Or they're substituting weapons. But it takes a different sort of person to do that, even among killers. And it opens the attacker to being thwarted or killed without accomplishing any of his aim.

That and the media doesn't call them cowards nor the dredges of society. People still see Ted Bundy as 'intelligent' more than an inhumane monster. It is a media problem. I've no idea how to hold them responsible, but I wish we could sue media for irresponsible reporting. Back to AR's, the box cutters then planes caused exponentially more, but I'll say more when we come to the "ONE" idea vs. another good and or better idea.

ISince the last massacre in Australia, where they also have cars, box cutters, and fertilizer, they haven't seen a rash of bombings, cuttings, airplane crashes, etc. taking the place of guns. Makes sense. It's so much easier to just buy a gun, some bullets, and drive to a spot where you see a lot of people, or to the church or mosque where the particular people you hate are found. That sort of thing.

I was reading one Australian discuss the differences: Australians were used to being protected and have not had the same history of problems trusting government. The point is, what works for one child in my house may not be the right way to do it with the next child. Australia is not out of the woods. Another article says that the death rates in most countries are comparably down.

Well, my idea has a number of expressions with one fundamental truth attached, where it is found people are safer. So there may be any number of ideas, but is there a best idea? My argument is that the data says yes, there is.

Similar to one-size or one Band-aid fits all. It 'might' but we've both given statistics here. As I said, we DID have a buy-back program for awhile that was found not to work.

Yes. I said that in my last, at the end, and several times before to others. But even simply putting an end to ARs would help, along with registration, safety courses, and the banning of aids like bump stocks and speed loaders. The better course is to ban semi-automatic weapons.

Gotcha. The argument against, I think, is 1) right to defend, and 2) perhaps like Doser is saying: a coupe of shots sometimes. I believe my brother likes them because they are 3) fun (he could simply rent one on a range if they are restricted), they 4) cheaper and 5) more lethal for penetration as well as hitting the target which is important for consideration when hunting, pest control, or defense.

It's not the weapon then, it's what you're shooting at. Try a paper target at relative distance and see. And that's before we get to the psychological advantages of using the weapon for home defense. Or, as Range365 put it:

"Handguns are hip, but a home defense shotgun, kept clean and handy, and paired with the right home defense shotgun ammo is the best tool to defend your family and property.

A shotgun’s superiority has little to do with its deadly pellet spread or the menacing sound it makes when its action is racked (more on that later). Rather, it’s about accuracy and control. If you’ve ever shot a handgun, you know how easy it is to miss your target. Combine a short sight radius with a single grip and the pressure of a life-or-death situation, and it becomes easier to understand that about 75 percent of all bullets fired by trained police miss their mark.

Conversely, a shotgun offers four points of contact to steady and guide an easier-to-aim barrel. And then there’s its terminal energy. In each typical shotshell of 00 Buck, there are nine pellets that combine to deliver roughly 1500 ft.-lbs. of energy to the target—or four times the energy of a .45 ACP bullet fired from a Model 1911 pistol. Factor in five to nine shells capable of being fired in rapid succession, and what you have is one of the most formidable arms for home defense ever conceived..." LINK

Thank you.

So we made the doors more secure and upped the ante on martials. But box cutters aren't designed to kill people. In fact, they're not a very efficient instrument in that regard. They can paralyze people who have no reason to believe more than their safety is in question, a thing they could control by complying, they likely believed.

Agree. People get paralyzed. One thing the police officer said was "If you run, you stand a 96% chance of getting away." He said in almost all of these shootings, people hunkered down, some trying to protect others/shield them. Your police hitting 25% supports this too.

Again, box knives aren't designed to kill, aren't easily used to that purpose, and aren't really an instrument we can meaningfully ban, or one that you'll see someone kill a few dozen people with in a couple of minutes.

Agree. That's why stopping them from getting onto the airplane was the right tactic. Question: Why can't all education institutions have fences and metal detectors? (just another ONE idea) :think:

But it really isn't an option, because it wasn't purposed to that end and there were many alternatives that could have been as effective. That is, all seeming options/choices aren't equal to the task, again.

Part of the problem is we just don't allow for more than one option. One option was "arm teachers." It wasn't a good options for several reasons, BUT it could be. You gave police as 25% accuracy, so I can't imagine the curve for arming teachers but there are other good options, it seemed to me (like the metal detector perhaps).

Sort of...I posted a study on it. It wasn't what I'm calling for and it didn't last long, but it happened. And it saved lives.

It's yet a good study for how or if such things would work here in the U.S.

I'm in favor of simply banning semi-automatic weapons as a class. But the conversation at some point was largely about mass murder events and if you want to end those the quickest route is banning the AR, along with large magazines.

Well, if you take away one, you take away the other. There is no point having an AR if you can't buy shells to shoot it, unless you just like decorating your fireplace or den.

It's entirely right. If you understand that banning these things will make children safer and choose not to then you are making a value statement.

The same can be said for driving a car. If everybody had motorcycles, the only people who'd be killed would be the riders themselves. I'm not giving that as THE answer, just ONE answer for someone who values children, right?

This isn't about a set of values. It's about how and what we value.

Yes, but giving only ONE solution and lambasting someone's values for not being on board? I realize it is, or at least seems just this black and white to you, but you first have to show someone why it is just this black and white as well as convince, fully, the guy who sees his/her opposition, just as black and white. I'm convinced of this: No force of anything nor any law, has ever created morality or values. Morality and values is when we each, on our own time, compare what we like/appreciate/want with what having it will cost another. If nothing? Maybe we are all good and clear. I talked to kids in school all the time and tried to get them to understand, prior legality, why marijuana was a horrible choice: It cost lives (just like prohibition). While they may have morally been okay partaking, they had to see that every single leaf smoked, contained someone's blood for the cost of it. I was WAY more concerned with that exponentially, than I've been about guns. Every single person who took/takes illegal drugs needs to know the numbers are exponentially higher in deaths than any terrorist activity.

No, because all guns aren't capable of unleashing this sort of horror, and I've said from the outset that we're talking about a cost/benefit analysis. I believe that without an armed citizenry you would have more death, not less. Because there is a point to self defense that is legitimate. But it is not a point that legitimately extends to a weapon only distinguished by its ability to kill a great many people in a very short order of time. Again, all things aren't necessarily equal.

Handguns, as I said, still kill the most people every year. We are talking about lowering one or two criminal's statistics with the ban on one compared to the other. I'm not opposed, just trying to give all the concerns with this particular solution. If there are others, like metal detectors and fences, maybe those would work better.

The kids who do that have larger mental health issues. Charles Manson thought he was being instructed by the Beetles in a song.

And mass doses of illegal recreational drugs.

Not unless you want to kill a great many more people who would be without food. But, again, it's not really a matter of can we think of some alternative, but can we think of one that is equal or superior in impact? Not that I know of or see supported in working models.

That and anybody can make/collect fertilizer....

It objectively did work for Australia, if the point was to end Port Arthur like mass shootings. Thirteen in less than two decades before the laws and none in over twenty since.

...And after this, then a ban on semi-automatic pistols... Again, I'm not opposed per say, but the NRA and many gun-owning Americans are. It cannot just be a values discussion. For most on TOL, I think it can. I'm not sure about concerts, but the open park concerts are more difficult. Banning AR's isn't the only option. It may be one of the cheaper ones, though.

In the sense that Australia could have chosen, instead, to have a, "Say 'Meh' to Murder" musical that toured the country. That would have been another choice. A pointless one that wouldn't have impacted the death toll negatively and may instead have raised it (a lot of people with weapons might really hate musical theater). So having choices isn't the same as having good or roughly equal choices in terms of efficacy.

Some of the above links said that banning the AR didn't drop that rate and that those statistics can be misleading. I don't think I linked them, but two of those articles I read, said it didn't work: That the homicide rate was the same and that other crimes went up.

I've noted that in Europe there are a number of models. In a few countries you can, with a great deal of red tape, still own semi-automatics. But that difficulty tends to mean few do and it's essentially just a way to do, to a lesser extent, what I'm arguing for. And it's less effective.

Criminals will always find a way. Perhaps we'll curtail the lazy or unintelligent ones....

The problem is in the gun itself, the potential in its design. The solution is as obvious as it is effective everywhere it's found.

This is why I'm not opposed. It certainly was a military weapon (and one reason it is less expensive in mass production). A instrument made for military, to kill people, isn't 'civilian.' I don't think civilians should own tanks, rocket launchers, or anything else they cannot possibly use barring an incredible rat plague. Of the articles I read, one was by an Australian that said Australians were not very attached to their guns. Another was written by an American that believes getting guns away from American's will only happen from their cold-dead fingers and a huge military action. -Lon

 

[Stripe]

 

[Idolater]

It certainly was a military weapon

Nope. Assault weapons are civilian replicas of the real things, with permanently and largely irreversibly reduced functionality. (Any military commander who authorized their troops to be armed only with ARs, would be criminally negligent and derelict in their duty to their troops.)

A instrument made for military, to kill people, isn't 'civilian.'

Military sniper rifles and semiauto pistols are identical to their 'civilian counterparts.'

... getting guns away from American's will only happen from their cold-dead fingers and a huge military action. -Lon

Understood that this isn't your thought but a quote, but in response to it: Nobody's advocating confiscating all guns, but will Americans resist violently somewhere before that extreme? and if so, where is that line?

 

[Idolater]

What gets lost in these discussions is the fact that the second amendment was not written for hunting, it was not written for home defense

It was written for protection against an oppressive government - the type of government, for example, that would take away the guns of law-abiding citizens

I forgot to mention. When people read 'oppressive government' oftentimes they think it means their own government, when it actually is for Any government that happens to be claiming power over us. The Chinese could stage a D-Day like land invasion with hundreds of millions of troops storming our shores in coordination. We don't know what they're going to do. We do know we've watched their military steadily and surely grow in strength over the past 25 years. Not much else, about what they're thinking of doing with all that power. They could literally have hundreds of millions of troops, we know that too. Like, that part's easy---they've got the men. But what are they going to do? The Second Amendment's for that too. It'll never happen, statistically, it's 'practically' an insignificant risk, even though it's not statistically significantly a zero percent chance. It's like 0.09% chance of something like that happening.

 

[Stripe]

I forgot to mention. When people read 'oppressive government' oftentimes they think it means their own government, when it actually is for Any government that happens to be claiming power over us. The Chinese could stage a D-Day like land invasion with hundreds of millions of troops storming our shores in coordination. We don't know what they're going to do. We do know we've watched their military steadily and surely grow in strength over the past 25 years. Not much else, about what they're thinking of doing with all that power. They could literally have hundreds of millions of troops, we know that too. Like, that part's easy---they've got the men. But what are they going to do? The Second Amendment's for that too. It'll never happen, statistically, it's 'practically' an insignificant risk, even though it's not statistically significantly a zero percent chance. It's like 0.09% chance of something like that happening.

Slightly more likely over here.

 

[Idolater]

Slightly more likely over here.

Move to New Hampshire, safest place on earth, and get yourself an arsenal, without needing any permit, to either buy or carry them publicly. NH's almost on the precise other side of the earth from China too.

 

[Stripe]

NH's almost on the precise other side of the earth from China too.

Ignoring hemispheres.

True story: At the direct opposite longitude and latitude from Taiwan — formerly known as Formosa — is the city of Formosa in Argentina.

 

[Town Heretic]

Not in this case. "Decent" and "reasonable" and 'right kind of values' very much have a derogatory slight implied.

I don't believe I've ever said or will say, unless it's sarcastic, "the right kind of values." Reasonable sounds like me, and I'd need "decent" in some context. I'm only speaking to these because you've hit this note a few times without quoting me and I can't really respond to it.

Okay. Moving on then.

That and the media doesn't call them cowards nor the dredges of society. People still see Ted Bundy as 'intelligent' more than an inhumane monster. It is a media problem.

I think it's a human problem. You should read M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie. We don't know how to process that sort of evil. It's often what paralyzes people when they come into direct contact with it. We try to put some sort of human face on it to make it comprehensible.

I've no idea how to hold them responsible, but I wish we could sue media for irresponsible reporting.

If we stop watching it and demanding more we'll get more and they'll stop making it...maybe. It couldn't hurt.

Back to AR's, the box cutters then planes caused exponentially more, but I'll say more when we come to the "ONE" idea vs. another good and or better idea.

Box cutters are a non-issue for the reason noted, principally because weren't capable of doing what the the planes did and the planes weren't designed to do what they were used to do. Neither of these things are like the other, by which I mean the AR.

I was reading one Australian discuss the differences: Australians were used to being protected and have not had the same history of problems trusting government.

Anecdotal unease from a citizen against a twenty plus range of mass shooting free years? It's a tough call, but I'm going with the absence of slaughter.

The point is, what works for one child in my house may not be the right way to do it with the next child. Australia is not out of the woods. Another article says that the death rates in most countries are comparably down.

What does it say about deaths from mass shootings. Because that would be on the point.

Similar to one-size or one Band-aid fits all. It 'might' but we've both given statistics here.

What statistics did you find that negated my note about states and nations with stronger gun control laws? Because that's the shooting match, so to speak.

As I said, we DID have a buy-back program for awhile that was found not to work.

They do work. But they need to be sustained. Doesn't matter if they're an overwhelming success, since time and attrition coupled with the inability to obtain replacements will do the rest.

Gotcha. The argument against, I think, is 1) right to defend,

Unimpeded (see: we managed it for most of our nation's history).

and fun (he could simply rent one on a range if they are restricted)

Fun against the potential for a schoolyard of dead children. I'm going to go with protect innocent life over recreational joy. If shooting is fun there will be a lot of guns to do that with. If it's the thrill of a near machine gun, there are disappointments in life.

, they 4) cheaper

They're are all sorts of weapons across a range and ARs eat ammo, which is no longer cheap. So probably more expensive over time if not up front.

and 5) more lethal for penetration as well as hitting the target which is important for consideration when hunting, pest control, or defense.

No. Penetration is about the ammo. Otherwise we're talking about rate of fire, which comes with an increased chance of killing unintended people.

Agree. People get paralyzed. One thing the police officer said was "If you run, you stand a 96% chance of getting away." He said in almost all of these shootings, people hunkered down, some trying to protect others/shield them. Your police hitting 25% supports this too.

People suck at shooting when they're upset. By all means run away. Unless someone has an AR and is then spraying a wide area. That gun is going to lower your chances.

Agree. That's why stopping them from getting onto the airplane was the right tactic. Question: Why can't all education institutions have fences and metal detectors? (just another ONE idea)

Fences can be jumped or cut and metal detectors are expensive to buy and operate. Given how the government these days is trying to cut support for schools and states are often cash strapped or have competing priorities and interests...and then you could stand apart and kill a lot of people in a great many schools. There are a lot of them that were designed in an open campus setting.

Part of the problem is we just don't allow for more than one option. One option was "arm teachers." It wasn't a good options for several reasons, BUT it could be. You gave police as 25% accuracy, so I can't imagine the curve for arming teachers but there are other good options, it seemed to me (like the metal detector perhaps).

What we're doing here is essentially designing new schools like old Roman homes, with few points of entry, locked and set apart so that if there was a breech there would be options. Our high school doesn't have window facing out and has an open courtyard only accessible once you're inside the school. There's an officer on duty to respond to threats of a breech and augment security in general.

Well, if you take away one, you take away the other. There is no point having an AR if you can't buy shells to shoot it, unless you just like decorating your fireplace or den.

Could make for a fetching dead centerpiece. lain: I'll be here all week.

The same can be said for driving a car.

We have to have cars for all sorts of reasons and, again (not to put to sharp a point on it) cars aren't designed to kill people. In fact, we try to make them as safe as we can for all involved. And we heavily regulate cars, what's drivable, who can drive them. You need a test, a license and, wait for it, registration.

If everybody had motorcycles, the only people who'd be killed would be the riders themselves. I'm not giving that as THE answer, just ONE answer for someone who values children, right?

All sorts of things you can't do with motorcycles that would remove them as a reasonable alternative for a great many Americans before we ever get to weather, animals, and how safe they actually aren't, comparatively. Especially for transporting children.

Yes, but giving only ONE solution and lambasting someone's values for not being on board?

Rather, noting there are a number of solutions (check Europe) while noting the best involve removing these weapons from the stream of commerce. And the people who are valuing something more than they are human life are logically and necessarily those resisting a thing that will save those lives without (unlike your car or other analogies) removing from them the right to bear arms.

I realize it is, or at least seems just this black and white to you, but you first have to show someone why it is just this black and white as well as convince, fully, the guy who sees his/her opposition, just as black and white.

I think it's a straightforward proposition largely opposed by people for reasons unrelated to the protection of human life. There are the "tree of liberty" folks, who are essentially nuts if they think they'd stand a chance against the Marines. There are those who won't get to the question at all because their consideration stops at the most expansive reading of the right possible, period. There may be and probably are a few who think they're safer with the weapon, but then we're back to examining the rational need for it, the rarest scenarios where that capacity will matter, etc.

I'm convinced of this: No force of anything nor any law, has ever created morality or values.

I agree. I think they reflect value, not generate it.

I agree with your position on drugs, but don't want to get that far afield.

Handguns, as I said, still kill the most people every year.

The suicide weapon of choice. 2/3rds of deaths by weapon are suicide, according to a data summary by 538.

Some people think more guns are the answer. I haven't really cared about that argument, but I recently came across data looking at that from Safehome. Interestingly, my current state of residence is 8th in terms of the most guns per citizen. It also is rated by Gifford's as having some of the worst/weakest laws relating to gun deaths, and is one of the highest rated in terms of deaths per 100k. I also noted that NY, with an A rating for gun laws has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership and among the lowest rate of death by firearms.

I'm going to factor in gun ownership, state by state, at some point. It's more estimate than absolute given the lack of mandatory registration laws, and given I haven't predicated any part of my argument on who owns how many of what...but I think it's interesting.

We are talking about lowering one or two criminal's statistics with the ban on one compared to the other. I'm not opposed, just trying to give all the concerns with this particular solution. If there are others, like metal detectors and fences, maybe those would work better.

Well, none of my proposals is singularly about semi-automatics and aids. I also want mandatory gun safety courses, mental health checks with probable cause, registration of guns. In fact, I'd really like to get past the opening and into an examination of our cousins, especially looking at common measures adopted across the best of them in terms of stopping gun violence.

That and anybody can make/collect fertilizer....

Even tracking purchases is problematic and requires a clearinghouse and sophisticated monitoring.

...And after this, then a ban on semi-automatic pistols...

Better a ban on semi automatics all together, but if it's only ARs we do take a hard swing at mass murders of the sort we found in those churches and other venues I noted. That's not hay, even if it's a statistical sliver of the overall death by gun outlay.

Again, I'm not opposed per say, but the NRA and many gun-owning Americans are. It cannot just be a values discussion. For most on TOL, I think it can. I'm not sure about concerts, but the open park concerts are more difficult. Banning AR's isn't the only option. It may be one of the cheaper ones, though.

You either have to ban them outright or make the ownership contingent on serious measures that in themselves will seriously reduce the numbers in circulation and make the owners a minor and known quantity. The safest and best is elimination.

Some of the above links said that banning the AR didn't drop that rate and that those statistics can be misleading. I don't think I linked them, but two of those articles I read, said it didn't work: That the homicide rate was the same and that other crimes went up.

Measuring the impact of banning ARs on the homicide rates will be problematic because, while horrific, they're comparatively minor events in terms of overall deaths. So while the loss of life is significant, morally and in terms of its impact in a larger, connective sense...

Criminals will always find a way. Perhaps we'll curtail the lazy or unintelligent ones....

Europe has its own criminal class. It still works. Sometimes, the easy availability of a thing makes it more likely to happen...it's like beer and the prom.

This is why I'm not opposed. It certainly was a military weapon (and one reason it is less expensive in mass production). A instrument made for military, to kill people, isn't 'civilian.' I don't think civilians should own tanks, rocket launchers, or anything else they cannot possibly use barring an incredible rat plague. Of the articles I read, one was by an Australian that said Australians were not very attached to their guns. Another was written by an American that believes getting guns away from American's will only happen from their cold-dead fingers and a huge military action. -Lon

But we never get a sense of the rule by asking the people who want to tell us the most and say it the loudest, do we?

 

[Idolater]

Ignoring hemispheres.

Oh yeah. I don't know why I keep thinking China is more south.

True story: At the direct opposite longitude and latitude from Taiwan — formerly known as Formosa — is the city of Formosa in Argentina.

I'd stay away from Argentina though, best stick with NH (or Vermont or Maine, NH's contiguous neighbors with similar low murderer populations and 'weak' gun laws).