Gun Controll Glock 9

[Kalbear]

Secondly, the whole point, the whole REASON ownership of firearms is a RIGHT is so that fucktards can't ban whatever to make them feel safer with no link to reality. Is that really, on its face, a bad thing? That laws make sense when they ban things people own?

fairly certain that's a result of it being a right and not the reason for it. You are better at constitutional law but I don't remember the framers mentioning the "because there are many scared fucktards" clause.

Also, weren't you going to leave in disgust?

[Howdyphillip]

1. All you have to do is look at a profile to determine the board names anyone has used.

2. I know what you say it is and I know what it looks like.

But, enough of this unimportant stuff and time to focus on the all-important question of why there is a misspelling in the title of this thread.

Because I am too lazy to change it...

Plus, I find it highly appropriate that one can find the word troll right in the title.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, I'm saying people who say the President is a hypocrite for having security protecting him, his wife and his children and members of the Senate and Congress, and not every child in America, is full of it.

Unless I missed it, the President hasn't actually taken a public position on whether more armed guards in schools is a good idea or not. Par for the course, really. Of course, his kids would get Secret Service protection anyway, meaning that his kids attending a school that has an armed security staff for the entire school would still make him a hypocrite if he took a public position to the contrary.

But Raum Emanuel and Dick Gregory absolutely are hypocrites on this issue. Not for refusing to provide guards for every child, but for arguing so strongly against guns in schools that other children attend, while their own children attend schools with armed guards. If armed guards make their children safer in school, it should make other people's children safer as well. When was the last time the children of a mayor or members of the media were specifically targetted for shooting?

In any case, the real issue here isn't hypocrisy. It's the juvenile. simplistic aphorism that "guns don't make you safer", when the existence of things like Secret Service and guards in the schools of the elite (unless we assume they're all idiots) disproves it on a daily basis.

And sorry, but the argument that "they are more likely to be targeted" doesn't prove your point, because even if true, it would be irrelevant unless the presence of those armed guards actually does make those kids safer. The only difference between those kids and the children of the rest of us is that (so the argument goes) their kids are more likely to be targeted. But that's just an economic efficiency argument, not a matter of whether it actually works.

[Shryke]

Secondly, the whole point, the whole REASON ownership of firearms is a RIGHT is so that fucktards can't ban whatever to make them feel safer with no link to reality. Is that really, on its face, a bad thing? That laws make sense when they ban things people own?

I thought it was to have a militia or something.

Your reasoning is strange here though. Why does this apply only to guns? There's tons of things people do or want to ban to "make them feel safer with no link to reality" but very few get the "rights" treatment.

[Shryke]

Unless I missed it, the President hasn't actually taken a public position on whether more armed guards in schools is a good idea or not. Par for the course, really. Of course, his kids would get Secret Service protection anyway, meaning that his kids attending a school that has an armed security staff for the entire school would still make him a hypocrite if he took a public position to the contrary.

But Raum Emanuel and Dick Gregory absolutely are hypocrites on this issue. Not for refusing to provide guards for every child, but for arguing so strongly against guns in schools that other children attend, while their own children attend schools with armed guards. If armed guards make their children safer in school, it should make other people's children safer as well. When was the last time the children of a mayor or members of the media were specifically targetted for shooting?

Depends where you go. Many countries, it happens all the time.

In the US, there's generally a "better safe then sorry" approach to the whole thing.

In any case, the real issue here isn't hypocrisy. It's the juvenile. simplistic aphorism that "guns don't make you safer", when the existence of things like Secret Service and guards in the schools of the elite (unless we assume they're all idiots) disproves it on a daily basis.

No it doesn't. Like many things, it's a matter of who has the guns. For everyday people or people as a group, no, guns don't make you safer. This is pretty well established statistically.

All the things you mention show is that guns in the hands of specific people in specific jobs can make people safer, which is a far different statement from "guns make you safer".

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And didn't someone in the last thread post the fact that 30,000 schools in the US already have armed security at their buildings? Doesn't that mean a hell of a lot more children than just the children of congressmen and senators are protected?

Quite right. Which makes the faux outrage about having armed security in schools, as if it is some unheard of, shocking new idea, all the more transparant. Particularly when coming from politicians and members of the media who are well aware of that fact. Doesn't make them any less hypocritical though. They're just demanding that the other 2/3rds of schools not have guards, while sending their own kids to schools that do.

The argument from opponents seems to be -- to the extent they'll actually articulate one -- is that guns in schools "make kids less safe" because it presents an even bigger danger. That is stated as if it is some inarguable tautology, but exactly how it makes them supposedly less safe is rather conveniently overlooked. Which isn't surprising given the lack of evidence of injuries/accidents/mistaken shootings from the 30,000 schools that already have such guards. Because that's your case study right there. If you want to look at where it has been tried, and look at the accidental shooting rates, you've had a laboratory in 1/3 of schools that don't support the conclusion.

[CloudFlare]

But Raum Emanuel and Dick Gregory absolutely are hypocrites on this issue. Not for refusing to provide guards for every child, but for arguing so strongly against guns in schools that other children attend, while their own children attend schools with armed guards. If armed guards make their children safer in school, it should make other people's children safer as well. When was the last time the children of a mayor or members of the media were specifically targetted for shooting?

If the Chicago police blog Second City Cop is right, not only due Rahm's kids have armed security at school, they are chaffered to the UoC Lab School* by armed CPD officers.

Edit: Rahm being questioned in 2011 about whether or not he was sending his kids to a private school.

*Where the Obama kids went to school, before going to Sidwell and Friends in DC. Because their SS detail would have caused too much disruption at a DC Hellmouth public school.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

I think it's pretty frightening that an advanced western nation would need armed guards in all these places. Fair enough for airports and senior politicians, maybe powerstations. But office buildings? Sports stadiums? Are armed guards really standard procedure for these places in the US?

Well I don't know about it being standard procedure. My office building doesn't have armed guards (I think it costs extra) and Yankee Stadium doesn't have them either but there are enough police around on game day that there is no need for them.

[MercenaryChef]

so long as the school guards all dress as hoth stormtroopers I am completely in.

[IheartTesla]

Which isn't surprising given the lack of evidence of injuries/accidents/mistaken shootings from the 30,000 schools that already have such guards. Because that's your case study right there. If you want to look at where it has been tried, and look at the accidental shooting rates, you've had a laboratory in 1/3 of schools that don't support the conclusion.

To actually make a case for armed guards in schools, you would have to show that firearm related crime before and after the guards shows a perceptible difference. Otherwise it doesnt make them more safe either, and if it doesnt then its just wasted money.

I guess I dont understand the issue since 1/3 of the public schools already have armed guards, and it appears to me that the choice is left entirely up to schools whether they want to or not. Exactly as it should be where the government doesnt interfere with your decisions on what makes you safer.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Exactly as it should be where the government doesnt interfere with your decisions on what makes you safer.

/thread

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

To actually make a case for armed guards in schools, you would have to show that firearm related crime before and after the guards shows a perceptible difference. Otherwise it doesnt make them more safe either, and if it doesnt then its just wasted money.

Mass school shootings are very rare -- though incredibly tragic when they occur -- so you have too few data points to really make a standard statistical argument either way. But statistics are not the only basis for constructing an argument. If they were, we'd never do anything new because there wouldn't be any data ahead of time showing that it works. But apart from common sense, and the general recognition that it takes someone armed to stop someone armed, we do have evidence that armed guards in other public places have limited the damage from shooters, including the very recent theater shooting in which an armed guard shot a guy who was firing shots in the lobby of a theater, and stopped him before he could injure more people.

The monetary issue you raise really is the key in some sense. The schools that have guards tend to be the larger schools, and also are more likely to be high schools where the risk of violence/crime from students rather than random shooters is higher. A lot of districts can't afford to hire another full-time employee at every school in their district.

I guess I dont understand the issue since 1/3 of the public schools already have armed guards, and it appears to me that the choice is left entirely up to schools whether they want to or not. Exactly as it should be where the government doesnt interfere with your decisions on what makes you safer.

Public schools are government, and controlled by state law and elected Boards of Education. Whatever policies they have are policies set by the government, which is exactly why the issue is being raised and debated now. Citizens trying to convince their government to alter policies.

In any case, this (1/3 of schools with guards, 2/3 not) appears to be a distinction driven largely by economics, because even within a smaller district, larger schools and high schools are more likely to have armed guards than smaller schools or schools with younger kids. And one common objection I've read to expanding that is that there simply isn't money to put a full-time guard in every school, which is sort of the point you're raising.

And that brings us to the proposal to permit screened and licensed staff to have a weapon, because that really takes the economic cost issue off the table since the staff member is full-time anyway. It's a potential solution for those districts that cannot afford a full-time guard in every school. Now, for those who argue that this is a more dangerous solution than having a cop or security guard, I question the factual basis for that. Weapons safety and competency are not rocket science, and as Tormund has pointed out, civilians who use weapons in such circumstances have a lower rate of injuring bystanders than do police. And we're not talking about arming every staff member, or arming anyone who doesn't want to be armed. But just as one example, the feds have had a "Troops to Teachers" program that has placed (as of 2009) over 12,000 military vets as teachers in schools. Assuming these vets are screened, trained, and certified, why shouldn't they be permitted to maintain a secure weapon on premises if necessary to protect kids? Cost isn't an issue, so what is the downside?

http://www.proudtoserveagain.com/

http://www.teacherso...ps-to-teachers/

I'll point out that there Utah and Kansas already have concealed carry laws that do not have a school exclusion. In other words, any teacher in those states with a concealed carry permit is permitted to bring their weapon to school, and some assuredly do. If you want to go the libertarian route, that is the example of government "not really interfering with your decisions." Heard about any gun accidents or deaths from this? Me neither. And frankly, I think a properly screened, trained, and certified staff member, who is required to keep a trigger lock on the weapon (I'd prefer kept in locked gun case as well), is likely to have a better safety record than a full-time cop or security guards who carry their weapons without trigger guards. And for those who are concerned about "militarizing" our schools, I'd suggest that a teacher who does not carry their weapon on their person is much less "militaristic" than uniformed cops carrying a weapon on their hip.

[Kouran]

I think it's pretty frightening that an advanced western nation would need armed guards in all these places. Fair enough for airports and senior politicians, maybe powerstations. But office buildings? Sports stadiums? Are armed guards really standard procedure for these places in the US?

Oh you mean like the thousands of polizei I saw in München during Okteoberfest who were carrying H&K MP5's? I dont see the US having submachine gun carrying cops on every street corner like I saw in Germany, which is arguably one of the most progressive and free western democracies. Oh golly gee willikers I guess if its good enough for them it should be ok to have armed guards around everywhere in the US to no?

[Guest Raidne]

Having thought this over a bit more, I think the most important thing that needs to be accomplished before we can have a productive national discussion on gun control is the elimination of the phrase "assault weapon." Now that I finally have a Senator and Representative, I believe I will write them ask them to insist on the elimination of the phrase "assault weapon" as a precondition to any participation in any conversation on gun control.

For one, it's a rhetorical trick designed, intended even, to trick people who don't know very much about guns into uncritically supporting the bill because they think it bans military-grade weapons. It's use is in bad faith. And it's not the only bad faith tactic:

Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.

Doesn't it piss you off when someone tries to pull that kind of shit on you no matter what their intent is?

I think the vast majority of the American public supports bans on civilian ownership of machine guns, battle rifles, assault rifles - essentially all fully automatic weapons. The focus on the assault rifle is somewhat misplaced, IMO - if I had to choose between my crazy-ass neighbor owning an M-16 (http://en.wikipedia....y2003-12-17.jpg) or an M2 Browning machine gun (http://en.wikipedia...._-_24th_MEU.jpg), I'm going to have a preference for not dealing with the weapon that is capable of taking down low-flying aircraft.

Just saying.

So, first, the weapons covered by the former and proposed "Assault Weapons Ban" (AWB) are not assault rifles, which is, essentially, a lighter-weight fully automatic weapon - stopping power was traded off for portability. So the focus on "assault" is perplexing to people for two reasons: (1) the AWB does not apply to assault rifles and (2) assault rifles are probably not going to win the award for "most terrifying-looking automatic weapon."

And, in any case, all of these weapons are illegal.

What the ban on these weapons evinces is a concern with (1) rate of fire, (2) cartridge power, and/or (3) ammo capacity. If we enacted gun control restrictions with those concerns in mind, we might be getting somewhere. But we won't be getting there until we stop this ridiculousness of talking about "assault weapons."

But, in any case, here's why this bill is going down, hard:

Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

and...

Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

Alienability (the right to sell) has been a feature of property rights since the Middle Ages.

So, if you own a weapon that falls underneath this bill (not to easy to say, as the bill would ban all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines that have a "grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip" - whatever the fuck that means), you have to register and pay a tax of $200/weapon, and, if you don't want to do that, you can't sell it or give it away to anyone but the government.

Okay, let's say the government bans V6 engines (or, to make it a better analogy, "any vehicle with an engine that has the characteristics of or functions like a V6 engine"). They say that if you already own one, you must pay a tax of $1000/year on your car. And you can't sell it or give it away. You have to pay the tax or forfeit it over to the government.

Sound fair? Sound likely to stand up in Court? Sound like something that should stand up in Court?

The bill is (1) a taking without just compensation, (2) void for vagueness, and (3) fails rational basis review. Please, please, please, even if you don't care at all about the uneven cost to be borne by certain private citizens who made legal purchases with no benefit, don't waste this much tax-payer money on a bill that is, on its face, not a good faith effort to pass constitutional muster.

As a starting point, just strip it down to the ammo capacity stuff and pass that instead. Sound good?

[Kouran]

El Oh El mother fucking failboat:

http://spectator.org...ing-to-their-gu

I guess liberals who cling to their guns are just fucking special little snow flakes.

Liberals Who Cling to Their Guns

By AARON GOLDSTEIN on 12.27.12 @ 6:08AM

Next thing we’ll learn is that they’re big on designer guns.

Few things animate the ire of liberals more than the right to bear arms. Liberals loathe the Second Amendment and when horrific tragedies like the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut rear their ugly head, they are quick on the draw to call for more gun control. But just don’t ask liberals to practice what they preach.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California is readying legislation to re-introduce a ban on assault weapons. Yet, as Mark Levin pointed out, Feinstein owned a concealed firearm. She said, “If somebody tries to take me out I’m going to take them with me.”

When NRA President Wayne LaPierre called for armed guards to be placed in schools late last week, an irate David Gregory derided the idea during his interrogation of LaPierre on Meet the Press. Yet Gregory’s children attend the same school in Washington, D.C. as President Obama’s daughters. And yes, Sidwell Friends, a Quaker school, employs armed guards.

Of course, such sentiments are hardly new amongst liberalism’s leading lights. Back in 1981, the late Washington Post columnist Carl Rowan argued that anyone who wasn’t a law enforcement officer who committed a crime with a handgun should be sent to prison for ten years without parole. However, in 1988, Rowan would run afoul of the law when he shot and wounded an intruder at his D.C. home with an unregistered .22 caliber pistol. Well, Rowan didn’t acquire a badge in the intervening seven years.

So why is it liberals abhor the right to bear arms unless it concerns their right to bear arms? Why is it liberals ridicule the idea of an armed guard protecting the children of others but don’t give it a second thought when it comes to the protection of their own families? Because liberals believe that if only the world was as wonderful as they are there would be no problems. They see themselves as being in possession of enlightened, progressive virtue and that gun laws should be used to keep arms out of the hands of uncivilized, uncouth conservatives or anyone else who has the temerity not to share their worldview. It is the same sort of thinking that allows liberals to own SUVs, send their children to private schools, and obtain waivers from Obamacare without batting an eyelash.

On a personal note, I do not own a gun nor do I plan to purchase one. Nevertheless, I respect the rights of other Americans to make their own choices when it comes to protecting themselves and their families. I say this because I know most Americans are not Jared Lee Loughner, James Eagan Holmes, Wade Michael Page, or Adam Lanza. As such, the federal government and the mainstream media should not treat us as if we are.

With this in mind, I do not begrudge Senator Feinstein for carrying a concealed weapon to protect herself against those who had threatened her life. Nor do I begrudge David Gregory for sending his children to a school that employs armed guards. Nor, for that matter, do I begrudge Carl Rowan for brandishing a weapon when he found an intruder on his property all those years ago. But I do quarrel with Feinstein depriving other law abiding Americans of the right to defend themselves. I do quarrel with Gregory mocking the NRA for trying to protect all schoolchildren, not just those whose families can afford to send them to Sidwell. I also quarrel with Rowan for suggesting Americans who possess firearms should go to jail when he did not go to jail after he breached the law. Above all else, I object to liberals, living or dead, who engage in a policy of “do as I say, not as I do.”

So the next time you hear a liberal call for yet more gun control or decry a proposal from the NRA, there’s a good chance that liberal either owns a gun or has seen to it that his children are protected by, as LaPierre put it, “a good guy with a gun.” If liberals are honest with themselves they would tell you that they too cling to their guns.

[Guest Raidne]

I appreciate the sentiment, but find it difficult to limit hypocrisy to liberals given the "nobody but my daughter gets an abortion because she has a very bright future ahead of her" and "all gay people are going to hell, except me because I ask forgiveness for fucking strangers in airport bathroom and using escort services" Republicans.

In other words, I was with you for the first three paragraphs and then...just barf. Really. Fucking shame, that, really. It was a really great argument for three paragraphs impressively, swiftly, and irreparably rendered unto fail by the next three. First three paragraphs + last paragraph = good point. Article as is = noteworthy instance of poisoning your own well.

[Kouran]

Oh fooey Raidne, the article points out justly that you cant talk out both sides of your mouth, you being the figurative you not the literal you.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

As a starting point, just strip it down to the ammo capacity stuff and pass that instead. Sound good?

Yup. But that's clearly not going to happen.

I'd also point out that her bill apparently includes semi-automatic pistols that have more than a 10 round magazine. That's...rather broad.

The one nice thing about her bill is that it is refreshingly honest, at least in one sense. Gun rights folks are constantly attacked for their "paranoia" in believing that registration may serve as a prelude to some form of confiscation -- including punitive taxation. Feinstein is considerate in bundling all that stuff together. Register your semi-automatic pistols, "assault weapons", slingshots, whatever. Pay a fine now, don't transfer your weapons, and we'll take them from your family when you die. So perhaps this will put the "opposition to registration is based on paranoia" theme to bed.

I actually like/respect Feinstein as much as I respect any Democrat not named Panetta or Lieberman. She's pretty smart, and usually focused more on solutions than just posturing. But this bill has absolutely zero chance of passing even the Democrat-controlled Senate on an vote, much less the House. So it is just posturing instead of seeking something that might be attainable, and that's disappointing.

And all this, to address mass shoootings that are supposedly statistical anomolies that we shouldn't get worked up about.....

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Oh fooey Raidne, the article points out justly that you cant talk out both sides of your mouth, you being the figurative you not the literal you.

Yeah, the hypocrisy on this particular issue by the "limousine liberal" set in particular has always been pretty pronounced. I forgot about the Rowan incident, but I lived in the area at that time and that was big news. I remember a bunch of us laughing our asses off at this vociferous opponent of gun rights having an illegal gun and shooting an intruder. It's completely fair to point that out because it really does cast doubt on whether they are giving honest opinions, or simply self-serving opinions in the sense that it is best for them if only they, and not others, have guns.

I appreciate the sentiment, but find it difficult to limit hypocrisy to liberals given the "nobody but my daughter gets an abortion because she has a very bright future ahead of her" and "all gay people are going to hell, except me because I ask forgiveness for fucking strangers in airport bathroom and using escort services" Republicans.

Plenty of conservative hypocrites on other issues, most notably sexual ones. But since conservative hypocrisy on sexual issues routinely gets brought up in such discussions, it seems perfectly appropriate to bring up the particular point of liberal hypocrisy on gun issues given that this is a gun thread.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

NM