Gun Control 5

[The Progressive]

The rifle used in the Newton shooting was a semi-automatic rifle. The press uses the word a lot but I'm not sure everyone realizes what it means. Semi-automatic just means that each time you pull the trigger a bullet is fired and another one is loaded. Pretty much every pistol that isn't a revolver is semi-automatic. It doesn't have anything to do with the power of the cartridge or how many bullets the weapon holds.

I will openly admit my lack of knowledge on the difference between a high-power rifle (they were often described as that: the three taken by the shooter were Bushmaster .223-calibre, the Glock 10 mm and the Sig Sauer 9mm) and a semiautomatic gun.

But honestly, my goal is to ban all guns so it really doesn't matter what type of rifles they are. Seems to me that only gun nuts would obsess about that.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Nobody's claiming it's possible to remove guns overnight, it would have to be an incredibly gradual process. In the whole process, security guards would be way, way down the list of people to give up their guns.

Sure. But there is an example where the presence of a gun helps reduce the risk of harm to innocents in the face of people who do have them. It cannot possibly be unique. In the context of schools, there are a couple of issues, the largest of which are the sheer numbers of them. When the issue of guards in schools has come up before, the main issue has been cost. Police departments can't afford to stick an armed, full-time officer in every school to sit and do nothing 99.99% of the time, simply because of the risk of a random shooter. Usually, police departments and/or schools employing private full-time guards will only do so in violence-prone schools with older students. It's very rare in elementary schools, which is why they make such targets. So, you look at alternatives to full-time protection, and the most obvious alternative is arming someone who will be there full-time anyway. And I suspect you're going to be hearing a lot more about that in the aftermath of what happened in Connecticut.

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/sheriff-to-add-patrols-suggests-to-put-guns-in-sch/nTYXm/

Or this one:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/14/4486271/texas-school-where-teachers-carry.html

I'm puzzled as to why some folks assume that a properly trained and licensed school teacher or administrator presents more of a danger than a security guard with a private company. They can be required to go through training, fire a certain number of rounds a year, be screened, etc.. Why is a teacher who loves kids more of a threat to them than a cop or private security guard, the latter of whom especially may have no more training than the teacher? I suppose the ideal is a cop in every school, but Israeli schools have been arming teachers for a long time without an issue. Why can't that work here?

http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/Follow-the-Leader.htm

The school protection issue aside, you said security guards are "way, way down the list". Okay, who is first, then? We all agree on criminals, people with mental health issues, etc.. But beyond that, you're kind of stuck with just average citizens, and that is asking them to unilaterally disarm in the face of a criminal element, heavily armed, that still has guns.

Why does this ultimate goal of bringing gun ownership down to levels seen in the rest of the developed world seem so impossible to you? America has achieved far greater thing in its history, I don't believe for a second this is beyond your capabilities.

Man on the moon -- a purely technical achievement. Attempts to ban things people want? War on Drugs? Prohibition? I think it is much, much tougher than you think.

And what's wonderful is, every small step you take makes you a little bit safer.

I don't accept the argument that me not having a gun makes me safer. Nor do I accept the argument that both my neighbor and I not having guns makes me safer, because there are going to be a large number of people who will still have access to them for a very long time, and they'll know the rest of us are no longer armed. So, I'll take my chances with my weapons. Seriously, you should go to the Cato Institute article, read some of those stories of armed people defending themselves, and then try repeating to yourself the argument that they'd have been better off if they didn't have a gun. I think folks unfamiliar with that data think that successful, necessary self-defense is much more rare here than it actually is.

[RWHamel]

205.9% sounds a bit...impossible. That's me being polite, BTW.

The 1st had 15,003 battle casualties and 14,002 non-battle casualties between June 6, 1944 and the end of the war, and 292 days in combat.

[Guest Raidne]

People that are afraid deserve some amount of sympathy, but people who are irrationally afraid don't necessarily deserve to have their excessive and dangerous precautions catered to.

Well, my only point on that is that you might be less insensitive to the particular subset of people you're looking to cast aspersions on. If a gun kept you alive for a number of years, it is hard to say that a belief that it will continue to do so is "irrational." There are places in the U.S. where more people in certain demographics die every year than in a war zone, also.

But generally, the point is that the idea that having a gun that you know how to use might save your life or someone else's is not excessive and irrational. Or dangerous. But I don't have to argue that with you - there are already hundreds of pages of SCOTUS text that make the case for me.

What? Hired killers don't get sensitivity from me, and I think it's fair to say they aren't looking for it.

If all veterans and active military are "hired killers" to you, we don't have anything else to talk about.

I think rational people would get out of a hellhole, rather than set up some killing zone in their own home.

And I just don't follow you here. Some people naturally play out contingencies. Other people (like me) don't. It's unlikely it will matter, but if it does, they will likely live and you likely will not. No judgment on your (and my) choice - many people find it disturbing to live that way. Many people don't. But your displacing your feelings about what it would take for you to do that onto them, when that's not what the situation is. I am a lawyer - I naturally run from liability. That doesn't mean I spend every waking moment worrying about what someone is going to sue me for - it just becomes background information after awhile. It's the same thing here.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I will openly admit my lack of knowledge on the difference between a high-power rifle (they were often described as that: the three taken by the shooter were Bushmaster .223-calibre, the Glock 10 mm and the Sig Sauer 9mm) and a semiautomatic gun.

But honestly, my goal is to ban all guns so it really doesn't matter what type of rifles they are. Seems to me that only gun nuts would obsess about that.

I'm not a 'gun nut', and I'm in favor of much more stringent gun control than those that are currently in place. Please don't imply that I'm a 'gun nut'. I was just trying to point out something which has clearly been misunderstood by a lot of people.

I wouldn't call correcting something 'obsessing'. If we're talking about the legislature drawing lines on what's legal and what isn't, then specifics matter (even if they don't matter to you).

[maize]

I don't accept the argument that me not having a gun makes me safer. Nor do I accept the argument that both my neighbor and I not having guns makes me safer, because there are going to be a large number of people who will still have access to them for a very long time, and they'll know the rest of us are no longer armed. So, I'll take my chances with my weapons. Seriously, you should go to the Cato Institute article, read some of those stories of armed people defending themselves, and then try repeating to yourself the argument that they'd have been better off if they didn't have a gun. I think folks unfamiliar with that data think that successful, necessary self-defense is much more rare here than it actually is.

The idea is that there will be a gradual ban and removal of guns from society starting with the most powerful. I imagine handguns for home security would be the last to go once the chances of home invasion with a firearm becomes very, very low.

[SerMixalot]

the chances of a home invasion with a gun are already astronomically low

[Guest Raidne]

I will openly admit my lack of knowledge on the difference between a high-power rifle (they were often described as that: the three taken by the shooter were Bushmaster .223-calibre, the Glock 10 mm and the Sig Sauer 9mm) and a semiautomatic gun.

This is one of the most nonsensical sentences I have ever read. What is "that"? A high-powered rifle? The handguns found with the shooter (2 of the 3) were described as that? What??? I can understand not knowing anything about the subject matter, but all you have to do to get the reporting right is google any article on it and "guns" and you'll get a description. You think you are supposed to "distinguish between" a "high-power rifle" and a "semiautomatic gun"?

Honestly, to all sincere anti-gun advocates, you are going to need to do much, much better than this to avoid doing more damage to your cause just by displaying your lack of understanding of it. Otherwise, people will think it's a smokescreen for a total ban, which is facially unconstitutional, nullifying any obligation they have to discuss the issue with you altogether.

But honestly, my goal is to ban all guns so it really doesn't matter what type of rifles they are. Seems to me that only gun nuts would obsess about that.

Q.E.D.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The rifle used in the Newton shooting was a semi-automatic rifle. The press uses the word a lot but I'm not sure everyone realizes what it means. Semi-automatic just means that each time you pull the trigger a bullet is fired and another one is loaded. Pretty much every pistol that isn't a revolver is semi-automatic. It doesn't have anything to do with the power of the cartridge or how many bullets the weapon holds.

Someone earlier -- a self-proclaimed military vet, yet -- confused automatic cocking of a weapon with automatic firing. "Cocking" is the process for placing the operating system in position to fire, but it doesn't amount to actually firing the weapon. A semi-automatic pistol, upon firing, automatically ejects the last round, loads the next, and cocks the operating mechanism. But you still have to pull the trigger again to fire. A true "automatic" weapon fires multiple rounds as long as you hold the trigger down.

A revolver doesn't automatically cock, although they usually have double-action that means the trigger pull actually cocks the weapon so it is functionally not all that different. Slightly slower and fewer rounds, generally. Also usually not as accurate because the cocking while pulling the trigger tends to reduce accuracy.

I personally think extended magazines should be limited by law for so-called "assault" weapons. The problem is too many people don't understand that the civilian versions of military assault rifles lack automatic fire. So, they're just cool looking rifles.

[maize]

the chances of a home invasion with a gun are already astronomically low

Yeah let me rephrase, low enough for gun proponents like Lorien.

[The Progressive]

If we're talking about the legislature drawing lines on what's legal and what isn't, then specifics matter (even if they don't matter to you).

You do make a great point here that specifics matter if legislation are to be passed based on what is realistically achievable at the time. I concede that Senator Feinstein's proposal to ban all semiautomatic rifles would be a good starting point.

[Guest Raidne]

By the way, the other day I realized that I was going to need to buy a new clothes dryer, and I happened to note whether my current dryer is gas or electric. Am I an "obsessive clothes dryer nut"? After that, I tried to calculate whether I wanted a 6 cubic foot or 7 cubic foot capacity, so I guess I am pretty far gone if so.

[ShowOverBooks]

Honestly, to all sincere anti-gun advocates, you are going to need to do much, much better than this to avoid doing more damage to your cause just by displaying your lack of understanding of it. Otherwise, people will think it's a smokescreen for a total ban, which is facially unconstitutional, nullifying any obligation they have to discuss the issue with you altogether.

As a lawyer, explain to me your interpretation of 'bearing arms' as it is referenced in the Bill of Rights.

Do you think the founding fathers envisioned semi-auto hand guns and sawed-off shot guns as the arms they mention? Personally, I think they were only considering contemporary firearms.

[Robin Of House Hill]

I think rational people would get out of a hellhole, rather than set up some killing zone in their own home.

That is what Lorien has described. "Backlit, so I have a clear silhouette".

Let me see if I can get you out of your alternate reality.

I live in a nice neighborhood, and like that town in CT, it is usually peaceful. I set up security measures, not because I expect them to be needed and not because I'm a sadistic, blood-thirsty killer, but because if something dire happens, I want to survive it. I live in an earthquake prone area, so I buy earthquake insurance. Not because I expect one, but because I want a modicum of protection in the event one occurs.

Unlike you, I confront problems I might face, not run away from them.

[ljkeane]

Otherwise, people will think it's a smokescreen for a total ban, which is facially unconstitutional, nullifying any obligation they have to discuss the issue with you altogether.

Why? Presumably advocates of a total ban want to change that.

[Seli]

...

I don't accept the argument that me not having a gun makes me safer. Nor do I accept the argument that both my neighbor and I not having guns makes me safer, because there are going to be a large number of people who will still have access to them for a very long time, and they'll know the rest of us are no longer armed. So, I'll take my chances with my weapons. Seriously, you should go to the Cato Institute article, read some of those stories of armed people defending themselves, and then try repeating to yourself the argument that they'd have been better off if they didn't have a gun. I think folks unfamiliar with that data think that successful, necessary self-defense is much more rare here than it actually is.

Have you missed the publications people posted links to that a gun in the home is statistically most likely to kill you or your loved ones? Do you doubt that in the rest of the western world guns are not needed for a large percentage of those Cato reported cases?

If you don't want to trust that data, your call. But don't be surprised if a majority of the USA catches on at one point.

[The Progressive]

By the way, the other day I realized that I was going to need to buy a new clothes dryer, and I happened to note whether my current dryer is gas or electric. Am I an "obsessive clothes dryer nut"? After that, I tried to calculate whether I wanted a 6 cubic foot or 7 cubic foot capacity, so I guess I am pretty far gone if so.

I don't know about other people but if you're trying to compare guns to clothes-dryers, then to me you're already way off the deep end.

[Larry of the Lawn]

As a lawyer, explain to me your interpretation of 'bearing arms' as it is referenced in the Bill of Rights.

Do you think the founding fathers envisioned semi-auto hand guns and sawed-off shot guns as the arms they mention? Personally, I think they were only considering contemporary firearms.

The guys that wrote the constitution also owned slaves (some of them), didn't allow women to vote (all of them), and determined how many representatives a state got using a formula that counted slaves as a percentage of a human. I don't give a fuck what they thought about the level of firearm technology they were considering.

edit: i realize the basic premise of my post is not logically sound

[Guest Raidne]

You do make a great point here that specifics matter if legislation are to be passed based on what is realistically achievable at the time. I concede that Senator Feinstein's proposal to ban all semiautomatic rifles would be a good starting point.

(1) Feinstein proposed a ban on "assault weapons." These have been defined variously.

(2) As defined in the past, "assault weapons" included some handguns, not just rifles.

(3) Senator Feinstein specifically proposed a ban on feeding devices that have a capacity of more than 10 bullets.

(4) The bill she is proposing specifically exempts over 900 specific weapons

(5) "Legislation" is, grammatically, singular, not plural.

She will propose the actual bill in January.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

When my parents were dating or maybe newlyweds (not sure) they were at the movies one evening and someone pulled a knife on my mother. My father who was a personal court officer for a criminal court judge drew his gun on the guy and the would be assailant thought better of what he was doing and ran off before things got out of hand. And to change his shorts. Someone may have been hurt had he not been carrying.