Yay, GUNS!

[ydoaPs]

There have been photos recently spreading on facebook about the recent shooting during the Batman premier. These people are suggesting that it wouldn't have been nearly as bad if someone in the crowd had a gun. Not only do I disagree with this premise, but I think it is insanely ridiculous. Discharging a firearm into a crowded room is extremely dangerous even when trained professionals in ideal conditions. To think that untrained civilians could have safely stopped the tragedy while under a cloud of teargas is insane and dangerously so.

 

Now, moving from the specific to the general case, I found this article citing studies showing the obvious conclusions that more guns means more gun violence and more strict gun laws mean fewer shooting deaths.

 

Thoughts?

[iNow]

Don't forget to mention how there was a smoke bomb or tear gas that he'd opened that made it difficult to see in that theater. Also, don't forget to mention that he was wearing full body armor.

 

Anyway... I agree with your premise. Having more guns results in more gun violence. Sure, some of these people are jacked in the head and would find other ways to commit crimes like this even if they didn't have guns, but it would at least be harder for them to do so and likely discourage more from doing it.

 

What I've seen on FB are comments that essentially strawman my position, or the position of liberals. People say, "Having more gun laws won't make these incidents stop, so you're stupid for wanting more gun laws." I also see comments like, "Since when do criminals follow laws? Why do you think more laws would prevent them from engaging in these criminal acts?"

 

The point is that we can make it harder for people, and reduce the number of times these events occur. They will still occur. Yes, but we should make it as difficult as possible. Nobody is trying to take away all your guns. We're trying to find reasonable measures that would make it much more difficult for guns to get into the wrong hands, or to do so untracked.

 

We already have limitations on providing guns to felons, or to people with mental illnesses, or to folks convicted of other crimes, drug-related or otherwise. I can't understand why so many conservatives see this as an either/or issue and suggest that there are absolutely no ways to put smart limits on this, or better tracking. We all know people will always find a way to do heinous things if they are inclined to do so, whether or not they have guns. We also know that gun violence will still occur even if we put better regulations in place, but that's not a reason not to make the situation better than it is today, to find ways to minimize these types of events, and to make killing sprees like this as hard as possible to execute.

 

More guns in the hands of more people wouldn't help, especially in last week's theater killings. The place was flooded with gas and smoke, the guy was wearing full body armor, and even fully trained police that came in with their assault rifles, shotguns, and pistols struggled to take him down. Adding another shooter in the 8th row would just result in more people unnecessarily dead, IMO.

[ydoaPs]

Nobody is trying to take away all your guns. We're trying to find reasonable measures that would make it much more difficult for guns to get into the wrong hands, or to do so untracked.

 

We already have limitations on providing guns to felons, or to people with mental illnesses, or to folks convicted of other crimes, drug-related or otherwise. I can't understand why so many conservatives see this as an either/or issue and suggest that there are absolutely no ways to put smart limits on this, or better tracking.

 

Yes, people seem to jump from advocation of restrictions immediately to breaking in and taking all guns. What if we treated guns like cars:

 

 

I see nothing unreasonable there.

[Phi for All]

Hunting guns will probably keep getting exclusions, and I'm OK with that as long as restrictions are in place and registry is mandatory. I don't consider assault rifles to be hunting guns.

 

The biggest argument for guns, self-defense, can easily be shown as false in study after study. But the argument about only criminals having guns is a very visceral and potent one. And you have the fear factor over the last decade of terrorism making even non-gun owners think we shouldn't give them up completely.

 

The other argument you hear is part of the constitutional argument, that we should have guns in case we need to take the country back from bad government. I can't think of any way that private owners of guns could possibly stand up against the military if an aggressive government decides to declare martial law. At that point, anyone who isn't a duly appointed law-enforcement officer or a member of the military is going to be fired on if they insist on toting their guns around. This also gives the aggressive government justification for using the military on civilians. As long as we have a non-biased media who isn't in the pocket of government or special business interest groups, I'm sure any overly aggressive government would be immediately chastised for using deadly force against its own citizens.

 

I suppose the best reason to keep the gun laws the way they are is so prisons can continue to be privatized. Money is made from selling the guns, maintaining the ammunition and then you get to have an inmate that brings in prison revenue for life. Hmmmm, maybe we should abolish the death penalty....

[ydoaPs]

The biggest argument for guns, self-defense, can easily be shown as false in study after study.

 

Are you talking about the one saying you are 43 times more likely to kill a loved one or yourself than to kill an intruder?

 

 

Hmmmm, maybe we should abolish the death penalty....

 

Well, it's not like it works anyway.

[Phi for All]

Are you talking about the one saying you are 43 times more likely to kill a loved one or yourself than to kill an intruder?

The links you gave were quite enlightening. I also found it interesting that overall gun ownership is declining while more and more people are saying our guns laws should either remain the same or be even less restrictive.

 

Well, it's not like it works anyway.

And hasn't for a long time. I'd be willing to bet that as more prisons are privatized, the publicly funded prisons will house only the costliest, most violent criminals, and the private prisons will take everyone else. And that's when you're going to see lobbying against the death penalty by previously right-wing elements. Killing your inventory is bad for business, after all.

[mooeypoo]

 

I see nothing unreasonable there.

 

Agreed. I'm not against people owning guns, I just don't think it's unreasonable to make sure they know how to use them properly.

 

By the way, even if someone HAD a gun inside the theater, the attacker had a complete bullet-resistent tactical suite, including a helmet, goggles and gas mask.

 

A gun wouldn't do much to stop this, even if there was one.

 

The biggest argument for guns, self-defense, can easily be shown as false in study after study. But the argument about only criminals having guns is a very visceral and potent one. And you have the fear factor over the last decade of terrorism making even non-gun owners think we shouldn't give them up completely.

 

Actually, I'd like to see those studies. Guns can be used for self defense, but the ONLY case they can be, is if the people who own them know what they are doing. "This is the trigger, just aim and pull the trigger" is not knowing what they're doing.

 

I have no problem with people owning a gun for self defense.

 

That said, if the purpose is self defense, there's absolutely NO reason for anyone to have an assault rifle. Those are not meant for self defense, and they're not designed for self defense; they're designed to storm buildings or attack. They're usually not very effective short-range, and they are not as accurate as they should be. The bullet speeds also mean that there are rarely "minor" wounds from them. Getting hit means a really bad exit wound.

 

I don't see any valid reason why anyone should own one, honestly, especially when it's relatively so easy to get.

 

There's a reason why soldiers repeatedly learn how to shoot these (and other) guns -- when something bad happens, your thinking cap is usually off. You panic (even if you think you won't) you get scared (even if you think you won't) and you do things out of instinct.

 

Soldiers train so that their instincts are effective -- if you know the gun and its operation and how to effectively use it inside out then you will have much better odds of responding correctly when something happens.

 

Training is key, *especially* with assault rifles that are about 100 times more dangerous and hard to operate PROPERLY than hand guns.

 

I don't see why *police* should have them normally (S.W.A.T, maybe, in some cases, but not police) so I really don't see why individuals should either. Want to defend yourself? Get a good hand gun and learn how to use it. Want a rifle? Get a shotgun or hunting gun and learn how to use it.

If you get an AR-15 or MK-45 or M-16, I don't see how you can claim it's for self defense.

 

That's my 2 cents.

 

~mooey

 

Oh, also, I don't think this is the full scope of the problem, but I do think it's definitely part of it:

 

 

[john5746]

These people are suggesting that it wouldn't have been nearly as bad if someone in the crowd had a gun.

 

He would have shot the boy wearing the hoodie.

 

Its really sad, some people just seem to think the Wild West is the best possible world.

[ydoaPs]

Oh, also, I don't think this is the full scope of the problem, but I do think it's definitely part of it:

 

 

That is a good point. The very same people who want every crazy person to have a gun are the same people who want to keep the crazy people from getting help. How often are the perpetrators of violent crimes mentally ill and have no access to help? I'd like to see some numbers on that.

 

edit: It seems that nearly 20% of violent offenders are in some way mentally ill.

Edited July 23, 2012 by ydoaPs

[swansont]

Yes, people seem to jump from advocation of restrictions immediately to breaking in and taking all guns. What if we treated guns like cars:

 

The liability insurance should scale with the number of bullets you can fire in some arbitrary time frame, say, 10 seconds, (or perhaps normalized to the time it takes to reload a muzzle-loading rifle, for a truly proper context)

———

 

If you truly believe the second amendment means no restrictions, then you have to argue that anyone and everyone should have access to grenades and rocket launchers and bazookas and tanks and jet fighters with sidewinder missiles and drones with hellfires, and nukes. They are all arms, and your right to bear them shall not be infringed. But once you agree that maybe letting John Q. Public have a nuke or even a drone with a hellfire isn't such a great idea, then you've agreed that there is a line. Then it's a matter of deciding where to draw it.

 

Now, the thing is, there's also that pesky phrase about a well-regulated militia. The framers of the constitution didn't have to put it in there, but they did. It means something.

 

That is a good point. The very same people who want every crazy person to have a gun are the same people who want to keep the crazy people from getting help.

 

Or letting you have access to health care after you've been shot.

[ydoaPs]

If you truly believe the second amendment means no restrictions

 

It's kinda hard to argue that with the "well-regulated" bit in there.

[Moontanman]

I can't support a law that would result in civilians never having guns, I have kept hand guns for home defense, yes I live someplace where home invasions happen, not often, but often enough. Around here having a gun in the home has prevented home invasions from being successful but I have decided to take a stance against hand guns and things like assault rifles. Hand guns are just too dangerous in an emergency, you really have to be good with one to use it when your adrenaline is running high. I keep a pump shotgun, short barrel, to use indoors. I can make sure the shot is small enough not to kill someone a mile away if I shoot and hit a wall instead of the intruder.

 

I do know people with "lots" of guns, collectors they call themselves, some do not even keep ammunition for many of their guns, most of them are very safe and worry me not at all. Sadly a handful have guns even though they shouldn't be allowed to own a sling shot.

 

I have seen civilians exchange gun fire over silly crap that any sane person could have avoided easily. Nothing like having to dive under cars as two jackasses exchange pistol vs assault rifle fire in your apartment parking lot because they were drunk and one cut the other off in traffic....

 

Hand guns I can see being very hard to buy and requiring extensive training to own, assault rifles would seem to be a no brainer, but in my state obtaining a gun is difficult. They do a thorough back ground search and i am pretty sure there is a limit on the numbers of guns you can have with out a special permit.

 

More to the point I don't see how someone in the theater crowd having a gun could have made any difference what so ever, I doubt it would have been a factor even if this person knew others had guns, once crazy comes to roost all bets are over. But I can see how someone who wanted to inflict mass casualties could easily do so with out guns, this particular guy seemed quite good at making bombs as well. several small pipe bombs thrown into the theater would have been just as effective.

 

The bottom line is crazy happens and if we want to be sure no individual opens fire on innocents we need to ban all guns.... Then of course we will be subjects of the criminal element and have to rely on the police being nearby to call in the coroner to pick up the bodies of the innocent. The police most certainly will not be there in time to help and would be just as useless as having a hand gun in a smoke filled room....

 

I honestly don't see how banning guns would take guns away from criminals, only honest people... I know that's a cliche but it's difficult not see as logically true...

 

To be even handed here cops have gone nuts as well and shot innocent people, as have military personnel, this guy was obviously nuts and his obsession with buying guns should have raised a flag or two IMHO....

 

 

Edited for content, I switched words....

Edited July 23, 2012 by Moontanman

[mooeypoo]

It's kinda hard to argue that with the "well-regulated" bit in there.

 

This is something I don't quite understand: there are quite a number of rights people inherently have in the constitution that do have restrictions. I would claim those are (mostly) valid restrictions for the purpose of living together in a society, but regardless, there ARE restrictions.

 

For instance, the First Amendment is freedom of speech. Thats one of the freedom laws that distinguishes the USA from many other countries in terms of personal rights. It's awesome.

And yet, while freedom of speech exists as an inherent right in the constitution, it DOES have limitations. You cannot, for example, freely say anything you want and ruin my good name; I can sue you for that. You cannot lie in a courtroom. You cannot lie to the police. You cannot incite violence.

 

 

Why are there restrictions? Because societies long realized that while personal freedom is essential, mutual and beneficial social coexistent is also essential. We make these rules so we can live together in social constructs and get along. We can disagree on the amount of restrictions (like, say, The Patriot Act, which in my opinion is a step too far) but there's no question restrictions DO exist.

 

So I don't quite understand why people seem to take the gun issue to the extreme and say that not only do people have a right to bear arms, but that there should be zero restriction or oversight on it.

 

I don't see this argument as strictly a "pro" or "anti" gun control. There *is* a middle ground and there are grey areas. This might stem out of my own personal confusion with this issue, but I get a lot of "but it's in the constitution!!" answers when I suggest we put some restrictions on the right. What does that have to do with anything?

 

Having some restrictions on your right to bear arms does not negate your right to bear arms. It just adds security to the people who live near you, and to your security as someone who may live next to another arm bearer.

 

~mooey

[Phi for All]

Actually, I'd like to see those studies. Guns can be used for self defense, but the ONLY case they can be, is if the people who own them know what they are doing. "This is the trigger, just aim and pull the trigger" is not knowing what they're doing.

That's just it, I'll bet the majority of gun owners have not had any kind of formal training or certification. I'd even go further and say that most guns are not kept properly safeguarded against children. I've heard people say that having a gun under lock and key is worthless when you have an intruder in your house.

 

Part of the problem with a lot of the studies is that it's hard to say whether having a gun actually saved a life, while killing someone with a gun definitely results in death. Do you know for sure that an intruder has murder on his mind?

 

Many gun owners say they don't care, that their property is worth defending with lethal force because they and their families are in harm's way. I'd be interested in the statistics showing how many unarmed intruders were shot because they had someone's stuff in their hands when they got caught.

 

It's a tough call. I would never want to risk killing someone just for stealing my stuff. On the other hand, I'd defend my life and my family's lives by any means if I knew we were in danger of losing them from armed intruders. I have guns I've trained with, but they're locked up, I don't keep them where I could get to them if I heard a bump in the night.

[ecoli]

Yes, people seem to jump from advocation of restrictions immediately to breaking in and taking all guns. What if we treated guns like cars:

 

 

I see nothing unreasonable there.

 

Its not about what seems reasonable, its about what is constitutionally permissible. You want to change the constitution to restrict gun rights? Pass a new amendment. That would be perfectly reasonable.

[Phi for All]

Its not about what seems reasonable, its about what is constitutionally permissible. You want to change the constitution to restrict gun rights? Pass a new amendment. That would be perfectly reasonable.

I don't think it would require an amendment. "Bearing arms" and "well-regulated" could easily be intended as a requirement for responsible, trained ownership, similar to the what we require for cars. The founding fathers didn't write "have guns", they wrote "bear arms".

[iNow]

We already restrict gun rights. We don't let felons have them. We don't let mentally handicapped people have them. We don't let you into federal buildings with them. We don't let you into many businesses with them. We don't let people have hellfire missiles. We don't let people have tanks. We don't let lots of things. The restrictions are already there, so your point is either naive or misplaced or a bit of both. As noted above, it's a question about which restrictions make sense and are well focused versus which restrictions are unnecessarily overbearing and obtrusive toward our constitutionally protected rights.

 

We have a right to free speech, but that has restrictions. We have a right to many things, but those have restrictions, too. Why are you asking for a completely different and either/or approach be taken in context of weaponry?

 

*cross posted w/Phi

[mooeypoo]

Its not about what seems reasonable, its about what is constitutionally permissible. You want to change the constitution to restrict gun rights? Pass a new amendment. That would be perfectly reasonable.

 

Read my post above. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms, it doesn't mean we can't put some wise restrictions. The constitution also gives you the right for free speech, and we have (mostly) wise restrictions on that too. It's not an "either/or" right, it's a right with some safeties. That's not against the constitution.

[A Tripolation]

Are you talking about the one saying you are 43 times more likely to kill a loved one or yourself than to kill an intruder?

 

Here, we see a marvelous example of how your study is biased.

 

Is the study actually *saying* that people who get a gun out in self-defense actually end up shooting their loved one instead of the invader? No? Precisely. Because that's insanity.

 

Or, is your study dishonestly looking at homes, then looking at the number of gun accidents (most of which are children accidentally shooting themselves or a cleaning gone wrong), and then comparing that number to the number of cases in which a gun stopped a home intruder?

 

The simple fact is that there is no way you can say that having a gun in your home *while dealing with a home intruder problem* results in your family members being *more* at risk. That is a shameless spin, ydoaPs.

 

I readily admit that there are far too many gun accidents and that no one should really have need of an assault rifle, but don't present your argument in such deceitful ways.

 

By the way, even if someone HAD a gun inside the theater, the attacker had a complete bullet-resistent tactical suite, including a helmet, goggles and gas mask.

 

I was unaware that we were able to produce helmets that could stop high-caliber bullets (.32+) from penetrating the visor. He would still have been vulnerable to a well-placed head shot. Am I mistaken in this?

 

And, no, I'm not saying that in the midst of chaos and tear gas that there would've been a clear shot, I'm just saying he was not at all as impervious as everyone describes.

 

And nor is everyone that would carry a gun in public a bumbling fool that has no idea how to shoot. Many of us are quite good marksmen with decades of experience. While I'm sure accuracy deteriorates under live fire, I don't think it would be the "randomly shooting bullets everywhere palooza" that I see being described in this thread.

 

I have guns I've trained with, but they're locked up, I don't keep them where I could get to them if I heard a bump in the night.

 

This may be off-topic, but I've never understood this. It completely defeats the purpose of owning a gun for self defense. Do you really have the 2 or 3 minutes it takes to unlock your safe during an emergency? Is it not better to keep the gun somewhere out of the way and still accessible?

[john5746]

I think its obvious that we already have regulations on arms and that we can and should enact more without messing with the constitution.

 

However, I do think we need an amendment that basically says bearing arms is a privilege that brings great power and thus has great responsibility and great punishment if that responsibility isn't met. This privilege is for personal protection or sport and not to engage in war against your government. If the people need to fight an armed conflict against their government, their only chance is to either confiscate army property or acquire the aid of a foreign power. So, guns are no longer needed if this was ever the intent.

 

While we are at it, would also be nice to add another amendment that states that the founding fathers were not gods, but flawed men. These men had no idea what challenges would be faced in the future, so reading this document with only their intentions in mind would be like trying to get our morality from men who lived 2000 years ago. It would be sheer stupidity.

 

But, more likely to get an anti-gay marriage amendment before we get anything like the above.

 

This incident makes me wonder how they are able to catch terrorist plots in this country. I guess we have been lucky that they try to take action that requires communication within a group? I mean if they ever just start going rogue like this guy, well...batman help us, batman help us all.

[swansont]

Its not about what seems reasonable, its about what is constitutionally permissible. You want to change the constitution to restrict gun rights? Pass a new amendment. That would be perfectly reasonable.

 

The second amendment doesn't say "guns", it say "arms". We already accept a restriction on arms that we can bear. I don't think a new amendment is necessary.

[Bill Angel]

But will tougher gun laws actually have an impact on the situation in the United States?

At one time alcoholic beverages were illegal, but such laws proved to be ineffective.

It's obviously against the law to be in this country illegally, but our country has a serious problem with illegal immigrants. It's against the law to use marijuana, but such proscriptions don't affect people's behavior. And I'm certain other examples could be added to the list.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The simple fact is that there is no way you can say that having a gun in your home *while dealing with a home intruder problem* results in your family members being *more* at risk. That is a shameless spin, ydoaPs.

I think you've missed the meaning of his post. If you own a gun, you are very unlikely to ever experience a home invasion, and even less likely to have to shoot an invader. You are substantially more likely to experience domestic violence using that gun. It's not a question of bad aim during the home invasion; it's a question of whether the home invasion would ever happen.

 

This may be off-topic, but I've never understood this. It completely defeats the purpose of owning a gun for self defense. Do you really have the 2 or 3 minutes it takes to unlock your safe during an emergency? Is it not better to keep the gun somewhere out of the way and still accessible?

There exist quick-opening nightstand safes and such just for this purpose. There are even gun safes designed to be easily opened in seconds in the dark.

[iNow]

But will tougher gun laws actually have an impact on the situation in the United States?

Very likely, yes. Try to remember our police officers deal with gun shootings every day, and it's not just incidents like at the theater last week or with Congresswoman Giffords last year. People are being shot and killed and rushed to hospitals each day in essentially each city, and I think it's myopic to suggest that smarter, more focused gun laws would not have an impact on that. I say this as a supporter of gun rights and as a gun owner myself.

 

At one time alcoholic beverages were illegal, but such laws proved to be ineffective.

While I understand your point, you need to note that prohibition absolutely had an effect on the number of people drinking, when they did so, and where. Again, this is not an either/or question. We're not seeking to completely eliminate gun violence. We're seeking to make it as difficult as possible to execute and to reduce the likelihood of it happening.

 

It's obviously against the law to be in this country illegally, but our country has a serious problem with illegal immigrants.

But the laws we DO have keep a lot MORE people from coming in. Also, you should note that lately there has been net emigration from the US (at least with respect to Mexico), not immigration.

 

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/27/zakaria-are-mexicans-giving-up-on-u-s/

[john5746]

I was unaware that we were able to produce helmets that could stop high-caliber bullets (.32+) from penetrating the visor. He would still have been vulnerable to a well-placed head shot. Am I mistaken in this?

 

And, no, I'm not saying that in the midst of chaos and tear gas that there would've been a clear shot, I'm just saying he was not at all as impervious as everyone describes.

 

And nor is everyone that would carry a gun in public a bumbling fool that has no idea how to shoot. Many of us are quite good marksmen with decades of experience. While I'm sure accuracy deteriorates under live fire, I don't think it would be the "randomly shooting bullets everywhere palooza" that I see being described in this thread.

 

Let's imagine for a minute that this guy had absolutely no protection and there was great lighting in the room. So, I assume you think that everyone would be safer if only you were there with your gun to take him out? You would be correct, I think. However, that is just one incident. For you or someone like you to just happen to be there with a gun, would result in numerous people in every movie with guns.

 

Not everyone would be as well trained, as level headed or as careful as you. Accidents would happen here and there. Arguments would escalate into severe problems. I have been to many movies without ever having someone come in with guns blazing. But, I have seen fights and arguments and people trip, etc. So, I'd rather continue having movies primarily gun-free.