Yay, GUNS!

[iNow]

Here we go again. Yay, GUNS!

 

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/08/breaking-shooting-at-temple-in-oak-creek-wis-/1#.UB6mbLSe5SQ

 

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is reporting that multiple people, an undetermined number between 8 and 20, have been injured in a shooting incident at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., just south of Milwaukee.

 

The shooting took place around 12 p.m. ET at the Sikh Temple

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/05/13130110-several-people-reported-shot-at-sikh-temple-outside-milwaukee?lite

 

At least four people were reported shot Sunday morning at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., according to local media.

 

NBC station WTMJ of nearby Milwaukee said an officer was among the wounded.

 

Oak Creek police, the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department and other law enforcement agencies have responded, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported.

Witnesses told WTMJ that someone opened fire inside the temple.

 

A witness told officers the shooter was a white male, with a heavy build, bald head and wearing a sleeveless T-shirt, Oak Creek Patch reported.

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought (and I have to admit that I haven't looked carefully through all 6 pages of the discussion, so I may have missed where this was answered before)

 

The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

and seems to be based on a false premise i.e. that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Many places don't have a militia, but have a reasonably free state.

Equally, many places have more militias than they know what to do with, but are not free.

 

Since that amendment is technically wrong, shouldn't it be removed anyway?

[waitforufo]

So what would effective gun control look like in the USA? Would it require confiscation of guns or at least certain classes of guns? Should semi automatic rifles be banned and confiscated. Would the speed at which a gun can fire rounds matter? Double actions revolvers can fire rounds faster than automatic handguns. Should only single action revolvers be legal? Cartridge capacity was once limited to 10 rounds. Is that too many? Should we require that personally owned guns be held a armories or gun clubs?

 

In the Colorado case the shooter purchased his weapons from national retailers like Bass Pro Shop. I’m sure they ran him through the national background check system. So he didn’t come up with mental problems or violence crimes or he would not have been able to purchase guns. Should we make people take a psychological exam within a short time, say 48 hours, before purchasing weapons. Once someone own guns should they have to periodically take psychological exams?

 

Should doctors be criminally punished for not reporting patients with suspected mental problems that may result in violence? If they don't make such reports what is the point of the instant background check system? Why would we let doctors undermine this system? What about doctor patient confidentiality? Would nutters even go to the doctor if such laws were passed?

 

If you are in favor of additional control measures in the USA, what is your favorite politician doing to strengthen gun control? Will you vote for that person if the answer is nothing?

[Moontanman]

I honestly don't think that guns laws are either at fault for this or could have prevented it. This man was both intelligent and insane, a very bad combination if you are looking to prevent a crime. Having no guns what so ever might have made it more difficult for him but things like pipe bombs and chemical weapons could have been used to randomly kill with out guns. he was quite capable of doing what he did with out guns... If indeed the argument is made he was imitating the movie in some way the argument is still valid since the bad guys in the Batman Movies use more than guns to spread havoc.

[john5746]

Well, the latest episode at the Empire State Building, where cops accidentally shot several bystanders, while killing an armed man from about 6 ft. - that provides yet more evidence that a bunch of armed people in a theatre doesn't make it safer.

[John Cuthber]

I honestly don't think that guns laws are either at fault for this or could have prevented it. This man was both intelligent and insane, a very bad combination if you are looking to prevent a crime. Having no guns what so ever might have made it more difficult for him but things like pipe bombs and chemical weapons could have been used to randomly kill with out guns. he was quite capable of doing what he did with out guns... If indeed the argument is made he was imitating the movie in some way the argument is still valid since the bad guys in the Batman Movies use more than guns to spread havoc.

That rather misses the point that (unlike practically anything else you can buy) a gun is designed to make killing people easy.

 

Why make it easy for nutters to kill lots of people?

 

As John points out, having more guns present doesn't make the situation better, even when they are in the hands of trained officers.

The idea that a cinema crowd would have done better is laughable.

[zapatos]

As John points out, having more guns present doesn't make the situation better, even when they are in the hands of trained officers.

I don't believe you have the evidence to make that claim. I can easily point to situations where more guns present does make the situation better.

[iNow]

This is a semantic quibble. Sometimes having more guns helps. Sometimes having more guns does not help. The comment that they don't necessarily make us safer is in direct response to the claim that they do... the claim that having more guns prevents these types of situations from occurring.

[zapatos]

This is a semantic quibble. Sometimes having more guns helps. Sometimes having more guns does not help. The comment that they don't necessarily make us safer is in direct response to the claim that they do... the claim that having more guns prevents these types of situations from occurring.

He didn't say 'they don't necessarily make us safer'. He said 'having more guns present doesn't make the situation better. That is more than a semantic quibble. It is the difference between 'it does happen' and 'it doesn't happen'.

If he misspoke then I withdraw my comment.

Edited August 28, 2012 by zapatos

[swansont]

Just a thought (and I have to admit that I haven't looked carefully through all 6 pages of the discussion, so I may have missed where this was answered before)

 

The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

and seems to be based on a false premise i.e. that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Many places don't have a militia, but have a reasonably free state.

Equally, many places have more militias than they know what to do with, but are not free.

 

Since that amendment is technically wrong, shouldn't it be removed anyway?

I think it was true when it was written, right on the tails of an armed overthrow of a government, and arguably the Arab spring (esp Libya) shows it has some merit even today, in the right context. But in a country that has embraced the rule of law and peaceful changes of regime for a few hundred years, it's probably less true.

[John Cuthber]

I don't believe you have the evidence to make that claim. I can easily point to situations where more guns present does make the situation better.

I can point to any number of situations where all sorts of things happened.

However I will point to the one near the Empire State Building where a bunch of properly trained people killed innocent bystanders and say that it strongly suggests that , if the patrons of the cinema had been armed there is every chance that they would have killed bystanders too. And, since the guy was wearing body armour, it's a long way from certain that he would have been included among an even worse death toll.

 

OK so I should have put the word "always" in my sentence, but that sort of thing is often taken as read.

 

Presumably, if one of your family had been shot by a police officer you wouldn't mind.

Otherwise, you have to accept that, from the point of view of the victims of the stray shots, it would have been better if those shots hadn't been fired. Many guns gave rise to a worse situation than 1 gun.

 

Also, I invite you to consider the limiting case where the number of guns was zero.

I think the death toll would have been markedly reduced.

Personally I think fewer dead people is an improvement.

 

BTW, now with added irony perhaps you might want to actually answer this (rather than miss it)

 

That rather misses the point that (unlike practically anything else you can buy) a gun is designed to make killing people easy.

 

Why make it easy for nutters to kill lots of people?

 

Re the constitution.

That was then : this is now.

Perhaps it should be amended to "A well regulated Militia (aided by the French , the presence of the Atlantic ocean making supply lines rather weak and the fact that the commander in chief of the opposition had lost his marbles) , being necessary to the security of a free State, (where "free" doesn't include Blacks, women, poor people or the natives) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (as long as they can afford them- that way we maintain a plutocracy), shall not be infringed.

 

 

Was there no armed militia before the Arab spring? Did the sudden presence of arms lead to the uprising?

 

Or was there something else.

Edited August 28, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

I think it was true when it was written, right on the tails of an armed overthrow of a government, and arguably the Arab spring (esp Libya) shows it has some merit even today, in the right context. But in a country that has embraced the rule of law and peaceful changes of regime for a few hundred years, it's probably less true.

I don't really want to start a whole new thread on conjecture alone, but how difficult do you think it would be to arrange for martial law to be declared over citizen unrest in the US? Since the country seems split down the middle right now, suppose Romney wins this fall and Ryan's budget causes feathers to fly. How difficult would it be to use the Patriot Act, coupled with Homeland Security and influence with privately held news outlets to spin up a conspiracy against the government that requires mass detentions and use of force against citizens? Rule of law isn't as much use to those who're labeled outside of it.

 

I used to think we'd never be lied to by our president to start wars, and I never thought no-bid, multi-billion dollar contracts would be awarded to a VP's former company in such an obvious conflict of interest. There are lots of other things that we never thought would happen, until they did. I hate the thought of keeping guns on the chance we may need to protect ourselves from those who might use our government insidiously, but I'm not filled with confidence that it could never happen.

[swansont]

I don't really want to start a whole new thread on conjecture alone, but how difficult do you think it would be to arrange for martial law to be declared over citizen unrest in the US? Since the country seems split down the middle right now, suppose Romney wins this fall and Ryan's budget causes feathers to fly. How difficult would it be to use the Patriot Act, coupled with Homeland Security and influence with privately held news outlets to spin up a conspiracy against the government that requires mass detentions and use of force against citizens? Rule of law isn't as much use to those who're labeled outside of it.

 

I used to think we'd never be lied to by our president to start wars, and I never thought no-bid, multi-billion dollar contracts would be awarded to a VP's former company in such an obvious conflict of interest. There are lots of other things that we never thought would happen, until they did. I hate the thought of keeping guns on the chance we may need to protect ourselves from those who might use our government insidiously, but I'm not filled with confidence that it could never happen.

But we haven't done so, and we still have the ability to make changes via the ballot box. Rhetoric aside, we haven't had any actual wholesale suspending or overturning of constitutional rights. There is a disturbing trend but it's also true that the system takes time to shake these things out.

 

Was there no armed militia before the Arab spring? Did the sudden presence of arms lead to the uprising?

I think you have to look at it from the other end. Would you have any uprisings if the people could not arm themselves? Would these things have happened sooner if the people had this ability to a greater extent?

[John Cuthber]

I have not been keeping a close eye on events in the Arab spring- perhaps I should have.

But I'm fairly sure I have seen pictures of "rebels" with rather advanced weapons like APCs.

I presume that they got these because people in the regular army decided to side with the populous rather than the authorities (and well done to them for doing so).

The ordinary citizens don't have anything like the armaments that the government's forces have: but they took them on anyway. That's not a matter of having guns- it's a matter of having no choice. I think what happened was not anything to do with the number of guns on either side. They had just "had enough".

 

 

Seriously, there are a few people in the US with heavy weapons but they wouldn't stand a cat in hell's chance against the armed forces so the idea of an "armed uprising" against Obama or Romney is a non- starter. If the army sided with the people then the people's guns wouldn't be needed. If they sided with the government then the people's guns would be irrelevant.

 

Taking away the few tanks and RPGs in private hands really doesn't make a jot of difference to the effect of an "armed militia" would have in the US.

But it does keep them out of the hands of loonies (well, apart from the nutters in the army- but at least there's some hope that they will get spotted before they go postal).

 

Anyone who watched men in black knows what the reply to "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!" would be. (though, rather unsportingly- the alien didn't wait for his fingers to cool)

[zapatos]

I can point to any number of situations where all sorts of things happened.

Right, and that's my point. We can both point to situations where extra guns are better and worse to have around. The way you said it was that more guns did not make the situation better. If you meant to say that in some instances the situation is not better, then I agree.

 

However I will point to the one near the Empire State Building where a bunch of properly trained people killed innocent bystanders and say that it strongly suggests that , if the patrons of the cinema had been armed there is every chance that they would have killed bystanders too. And, since the guy was wearing body armour, it's a long way from certain that he would have been included among an even worse death toll.

According to the news reports I read the properly trained people killed NO innocent bystanders; only the person who had just murdered someone and was pointing his gun at the police. Since your premise is wrong I don't think it can be used to support your conclusion.

 

OK so I should have put the word "always" in my sentence, but that sort of thing is often taken as read.

Understood. I wanted to call it out though because it was misleading.

 

Presumably, if one of your family had been shot by a police officer you wouldn't mind.

Otherwise, you have to accept that, from the point of view of the victims of the stray shots, it would have been better if those shots hadn't been fired. Many guns gave rise to a worse situation than 1 gun.

Again, I don't think you have the data to support this conclusion. A man with a gun just killed someone on the streets of New York indicating he was not too concerned with the safety of others. He then threatened police with that gun. Given that the result of additional guns on the scene resulted in only one more death (that of the gunman) and no bystanders (although they were wounded, mostly by bullet fragments), a reasonable argument can be made that more guns on the scene saved lives.

 

Also, I invite you to consider the limiting case where the number of guns was zero.

I think the death toll would have been markedly reduced.

Personally I think fewer dead people is an improvement.

Zero guns would have been perfect. You are counting the shooter as not having a gun too, right?

 

BTW, now with added irony perhaps you might want to actually answer this (rather than miss it)

That rather misses the point that (unlike practically anything else you can buy) a gun is designed to make killing people easy.

I don't understand your 'added irony' point or your 'rather than miss it' point. Are you suggesting if I want to address one comment you make in a post that I must address all comments you make?

 

Why make it easy for nutters to kill lots of people?

Ok... I agree that is not a good idea.

 

Re the constitution.

That was then : this is now.

Perhaps it should be amended to "A well regulated Militia (aided by the French , the presence of the Atlantic ocean making supply lines rather weak and the fact that the commander in chief of the opposition had lost his marbles) , being necessary to the security of a free State, (where "free" doesn't include Blacks, women, poor people or the natives) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (as long as they can afford them- that way we maintain a plutocracy), shall not be infringed.

Did someone from the US treat you badly? I notice that you rarely pass up the opportunity to subtly (or not so subtly) put down the US, its people, history, cutoms, etc. On behalf of all Americans, I would like to apologize for whatever it is we did to annoy you.

[John Cuthber]

Right, and that's my point. We can both point to situations where extra guns are better and worse to have around. The way you said it was that more guns did not make the situation better. If you meant to say that in some instances the situation is not better, then I agree.

 

 

According to the news reports I read the properly trained people killed NO innocent bystanders; only the person who had just murdered someone and was pointing his gun at the police. Since your premise is wrong I don't think it can be used to support your conclusion.

 

 

Understood. I wanted to call it out though because it was misleading.

 

 

Again, I don't think you have the data to support this conclusion. A man with a gun just killed someone on the streets of New York indicating he was not too concerned with the safety of others. He then threatened police with that gun. Given that the result of additional guns on the scene resulted in only one more death (that of the gunman) and no bystanders (although they were wounded, mostly by bullet fragments), a reasonable argument can be made that more guns on the scene saved lives.

 

 

Zero guns would have been perfect. You are counting the shooter as not having a gun too, right?

 

 

I don't understand your 'added irony' point or your 'rather than miss it' point. Are you suggesting if I want to address one comment you make in a post that I must address all comments you make?

 

 

Ok... I agree that is not a good idea.

 

 

Did someone from the US treat you badly? I notice that you rarely pass up the opportunity to subtly (or not so subtly) put down the US, its people, history, cutoms, etc. On behalf of all Americans, I would like to apologize for whatever it is we did to annoy you.

 

OK, I misheard or misunderstood the news coverage of the shooting (or maybe the initial reports I heard were wrong).

I accept that the bystanders were not killed- but getting shot (even if it's a ricochet) doesn't generally improve your day.

Having rules that would prevent the shooter getting a gun would be a great step forward.

That premise is exactly the idea I was on about when I asked why anyone wants to make it easy for people to get guns.

If it was (sufficiently) difficult then we wouldn't have this thread.

Anything that doesn't address that question misses that point.

The rest is window dressing.

 

And no, as far as I recall nobody either in, or from the US has done me personally any harm.

I was just pointing out that the circumstances of the original constitution (and its subsequent amendments) no longer apply so it might be time to look at it again.

They did it with the 18th amendment, and they un-did it again with the 21st.

Why not revisit the 2nd?

[Iggy]

Just a thought (and I have to admit that I haven't looked carefully through all 6 pages of the discussion, so I may have missed where this was answered before)

 

The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

and seems to be based on a false premise i.e. that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Many places don't have a militia, but have a reasonably free state.

Equally, many places have more militias than they know what to do with, but are not free.

 

Since that amendment is technically wrong, shouldn't it be removed anyway?

 

I was just pointing out that the circumstances of the original constitution (and its subsequent amendments) no longer apply so it might be time to look at it again.

 

The US supreme court looked at the issue you raised in 2008 and ruled that the right isn't contingent on the prefatory phrase about a militia. They interpret it as an individual right 'of the people' just as valid now for self protection as it was then for militias protecting state authority from federalists.

 

Having rules that would prevent the shooter getting a gun would be a great step forward.

That premise is exactly the idea I was on about when I asked why anyone wants to make it easy for people to get guns.

If it was (sufficiently) difficult then we wouldn't have this thread.

If the government makes it sufficiently difficult to buy a printing press or to publish things on the internet then there is no right to free speech.

 

A right can't be so limited that one class of people end up capable and another class incapable. The English bill of rights included a right to bear arms because King James II tried to outlaw Protestant firearm ownership while arming Catholics. The point of a constitutional right has to be limiting the government's ability to accomplish something like that even if a majority of the people support it.

[Bill Angel]

Startling choice of ad displayed by the Christian Science Monitor

 

Startling choice of ad displayed in the online edition of the Christian Science Monitor

I went to read an article on my cellphone this morning titled "Israel strikes Gaza after exchange of air strikes Sunday". This article appeared in the online edition of the Christian Science Monitor. The Google program that selects ads to display along with this article picked one supplying information to individuals interested in carrying a concealed firearm. If I were so interested, and clicked on the advertisement, then some revenue would go to the Christian Science Monitor.

Is the idea here that as an American living in Baltimore (and I have an Android phone, so Google has collected a lot of information about me) who is interested in reading about violence in the Middle East, I would also be interested in purchasing and carrying a concealed firearm?

[zapatos]

Is the idea here that as an American living in Baltimore (and I have an Android phone, so Google has collected a lot of information about me) who is interested in reading about violence in the Middle East, I would also be interested in purchasing and carrying a concealed firearm?

Yep, that's how it works (although there may also be other parameters involved besides 'Baltimore', 'American', etc.). While it is possible they made a mistake here, companies are very sophisticated about getting their ads in front of the proper audience.

[Moontanman]

Yep, that's how it works (although there may also be other parameters involved besides 'Baltimore', 'American', etc.). While it is possible they made a mistake here, companies are very sophisticated about getting their ads in front of the proper audience.

 

 

I think it's creepy, this stuff inspires a fear similar to the book 1984 in me... We currently have the technology to monitor anyone via wifi type connections, all they need is pinhole cam or 12 installed in appliances and privacy becomes a sick joke of a long forgotten era...

[zapatos]

I think it's creepy, this stuff inspires a fear similar to the book 1984 in me... We currently have the technology to monitor anyone via wifi type connections, all they need is pinhole cam or 12 installed in appliances and privacy becomes a sick joke of a long forgotten era...

I look at the ads as pretty harmless but it certainly points out how at risk we are to those with nefarious purposes in mind.

[Anders Hoveland]

What about in Mexico? Guns are virtually illegal there, yet there is still plenty of gun violence. How do all those Mexican criminals get all those automatic guns that are even illegal in the USA ?

 

Unlike what many members seem to think in this forum, more government regulation is not the solution to all of our social problems.

I believe that gun ownership is a right, not merely a privilege, and there is a good reason the founders of the United States were unable to obtain ratification of the Constitution without first ammending it to include "the right to bear arms". If certain "liberal" cities want to make all sorts of crazy gun regulations though, I don't have a problem. I generally support the idea of like-minded people coming together to form a community where they can live under whatever type of laws they want.

 

Many of the gun control freaks also have no idea what things are actually like in rural areas, where it is just not practical or feasible to be entirely reliant on a professional police force for protection.

 

Yes, there will occasionally be deranged gun men going on shooting sprees. But this is just a fact of life we are going to have to accept. It is not worth sacrificing our freedom for. I don't really have a problem with making automatic guns illegal though.

[iNow]

Define "gun."

 

The situation gets a bit fuzzy when you try to argue that weapons built to be used in theaters of war should be allowed in LA or NYC, or if you try to suggest that shoulder mounted grenade launchers and armor piercing bullets are needed to hunt for dinner or to protect your apartment.

Edited October 21, 2012 by iNow

[Anders Hoveland]

if you try to suggest that shoulder mounted grenade launchers and armor piercing bullets are needed to hunt for dinner or to protect your apartment.

 

I would support armor-piercing shoulder mounted rocket launchers, provided they were designed to minimise scrapnel (so they would not be very effective against people) and provided that they were not sold containing any explosives.

 

One of the arguments for gun ownership is preventing the government from monopolising the means of force, and thus securing liberty against potential tyranny in the future. Allowing armor-piercing rocket launchers - even ones that did not actually contain the explosives - would go a long way towards that aim. If, hypothetically, the citizens ever had to defend themselves from a government that took away all their freedom, they could always make the explosives to put inside the rocket launcher. But at the same time, for a terrorist that wanted to kill innocent civilians, such a designed rocket launcher would be a very ineffective way to deliver the explosives he had managed to obtain - such a rocket launcher would be even less effective than a gun for such purposes.

 

My only real concern about such an idea would be that some red neck would try to fill his rocket launcher with some dangerously sensitive makeshift explosive and blow himself to bits.

But then again I am sure there are many people in this forum who believe it is the government's job to protect people from their own irresponsible actions.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[mooeypoo]

I would support armor-piercing shoulder mounted rocket launchers, provided they were designed to minimise scrapnel

But they're not designed for that. In fact, they're designed for maximum shrapnel and damage.

 

(so they would not be very effective against people)

 

... define "effective" ? They were meant to be used against Tanks, which would either make them ineffective against people because they're "overkill" or too effective against people because they'd live a red mist in their wake.

 

Do you forsee the need for individual civilians to shoot tanks anytime before the Zombie apocalypse?

 

and provided that they were not sold containing any explosives.

 

So if the explosives were sold on the side to be purchased in the next store, that solves the issue?

 

 

By what you're saying, these guns should be illegal. And yet your conclusion is that they shouldn't be..

Your logic is a bit choppy here.

 

~mooey