Inevitable Obama election hits firearms retailers

[Tim James]

Just curious if anyone has tried to buy any guns lately that are prime targets for another Assault Weapons Ban. I am hearing lots of anecdotal evidence that those parts and guns are flying off the shelves. On the other hand, I picked up an AR-15 lower receiver (the only part that actually has to be transferred) at a gun show recently for pretty cheap, with plenty available.

I special-ordered the upper assembly a few weeks ago for 3-gun competition. I noticed just the upper was a hundred bucks more than typical prices a year ago. Unfortunately they are backordered in the barrel I need because of demand. Apparently the chromers that handle this are even busier than they are! Hard to ramp up work in that field due to environmental regulations and because it is such nasty work.

I still think most of it is just the madness of crowds. The Democrats aren't dumb enough to push this first-term like with Clinton, and Obama is smart enough to shift focus to pressing issues the first few years. I'm level-headed enough to realize that a sea change in D.C. isn't going to ruin my life, but I want my rifle for Christmas, darn it! In any case, I'm stuck in the middle of the crowd, whether I like it or not.

Anyone heard of other industries that are directly feeling the heat from the election of our new centralized government fathers?

[Funkula]

I'm just going to be optimistic and agree with you that the reason people are stocking up on guns is that they think their buying options will be restricted.

[VegasRobb]

I have some friends who are ordering certain types of guns and certain type of gun accessories because they are worried that they will not be able to purchase them if Obama wins the election and gets into office.

I just tell them to thank the viral marketers on their message boards for doing such a great job.

[Tim James]

I don't think anyone is stocking up for a revolution, just enthusiasts and sport shooters that knew how annoying it was to work around the arbitrary restrictions from the last AWB. It was only 4 years ago, after all. I wasn't a hobbyist at that point, so maybe I'd have more of a fire under my ass if I had lived through it.

And I doubt the industry is sophisticated enough for viral marketers. :) They are probably running at 110% capacity anyway.

[Funkula]

I don't think anyone is stocking up for a revolution,

Change that to "significant numbers" rather than "anyone" and I agree. I do think we will see a resurgence of the militia wackos that have been mostly quiet for the last eight years though. But skyrocketing firearms sales are not an encouraging metric for someone hoping for a minimum of paramilitary activity.

[Tim James]

Change that to "significant numbers" rather than "anyone" and I agree. I do think we will see a resurgence of the militia wackos that have been mostly quiet for the last eight years though. But skyrocketing firearms sales are not an encouraging metric for someone hoping for a minimum of paramilitary activity.You'll be fine. If something does happen, we moderate enthusiasts will shoot the wackos for you.

Though we might hear more about them just because the blogs will have to dig deeper to find something to be upset about! :)

I may have mentioned this, but one thing I do think will go down in price is ammunition. Hopefully Obama will reduce active troop levels quickly and there will be more supply for consumers. The struggling global economy should mean lower prices on raw materials like copper, brass, and lead.

[Pogue Mahone]

I have always depended on the kindness of moderate enthusiasts.

[Houngan]

Prices have gone up on most things, magazines in particular. I bought 10 mags about six months ago for $16, the cheapest now is $23. Ammunition and bullets have skyrocketed due to metal rates and the war, however.

H.

[Tim James]

What kind of magazines? I was surprised to see AR-15 P-MAGs and USGI mags still hovering around $15, though supply is low. That may have gone up, but it's cheap enough for me to buy a bunch.

[Lh'owon]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Stag2wi.jpg

What exactly do people want these for? Shooting at the range? I'm genuinely curious – seems like a lot of firepower for your average citizen.

Out of interest what's the limit on what sort of guns you can own? Could you own a SAW or similar?

[LesJarvis]

Some people find it fun to shoot powerful guns, and I can appreciate the sentiment even if I'm not among them. I used to be more in favor of gun restrictions, but I've moderated my position to the point where I'd just like them to be well regulated and registered. A lot of pro-gun people still view that as an untenable situation, of course.

[Lh'owon]

Some people find it fun to shoot powerful guns, and I can appreciate the sentiment even if I'm not among them. I used to be more in favor of gun restrictions, but I've moderated my position to the point where I'd just like them to be well regulated and registered. A lot of pro-gun people still view that as an untenable situation, of course.

Sure, I can see that. Although I can't help feeling there's more to it than that – theoretically you could allow people to shoot powerful guns without allowing them free ownership. I'm not arguing either way, mind ;)

[Rimbo]

The primary reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment is, should the government forget that it exists to serve them, that the people will have the means of absolute last resort available to them to deal with the problem.

That's what it's about.

[Qenan]

That may have made sense in the 1780s. Now it's a joke.

[Rimbo]

http://planetross.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/the_big_lebowski___jeff_bridges1.jpg

well, that's just, like, your opinion, man

[Lh'owon]

You have to admit though, it is a joke.

Also could someone answer this?

Out of interest what's the limit on what sort of guns you can own? Could you own a SAW or similar?

[Rimbo]

it's only a joke because i can't afford an abrams m1a2 and they won't sell me one

[Houngan]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Stag2wi.jpg

What exactly do people want these for? Shooting at the range? I'm genuinely curious – seems like a lot of firepower for your average citizen.

Out of interest what's the limit on what sort of guns you can own? Could you own a SAW or similar?

Seems like, but isn't. This point gets made ad infinitum, but those are just military styled weapons that are at the bottom of the power curve. It's not a question of power, the dinkiest firearm is plenty to kill people, which is what we're concerned about.

I honestly believe that if you remove the slippery slope, then 99% of people are going to have a cutoff in a similar area on the "deadliness" line. That point will fall south of fully automatic weapons, but far north of "hunting" (the most powerful and plentiful rifles by orders of magnitude) weapons.

Further, any of you tick turds* could have a friggin' SAW at fifty yards and I'd still burn your ass down with a lousy revolver before you scratched me. Ain't the arrow, it's the Indian.

H.

p.s. For non-ironic (really!) non-chest-thumping anecdotal evidence, check out the FBI massacre in Florida. Those bad guys practiced with their handguns, all the time, and killed the most FBI agents in history. Versus the full-auto robbers that everyone has seen in the video from California, who managed to kill zero police officers despite having immense firepower.

p.p.s. *Except Lizard King.

[Tim James]

What exactly do people want these for? Shooting at the range? I'm genuinely curious – seems like a lot of firepower for your average citizen.Nah, it's really a pretty wimpy gun. People are only scared of them because they look evil and can carry a lot of rounds.

Some use them for target shooting or killing varmints. Other people brag about them to piss off the ignorant, just like any social group does in the political sphere. A few are just wannabes that think they are tough and the gun will sit in a safe for the rest of its life. Mostly, though, guys get addicted to them like they do with any male hobby -- high-end stereo, performance cars, sports. There's an enormous industry that specializes in accessories and gear and there's a huge community that help trip the same neurons as videogames or politics or anything else that has exploded since around the time the Internet became popular.

I want one because it's light and easy to shoot -- both for new shooters and myself when I'm out doing something like this (http://www.doublealpha.biz/shop/images/multigun_bennie7.wmv), only a lot slower. :)

Out of interest what's the limit on what sort of guns you can own? Could you own a SAW or similar?Yes, but don't look for urban youth to be shooting up your neighborhood with them anytime soon. The supply has been arbitrarily limited and they probably run about 50 grand, if any are even available to consumers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[merryprankster]

I voted Obama and I really dislike guns on at personal level (they just seem dangerous to me), but if Obama wastes his time on gun control I'll be pretty dissapointed. I admit to being pretty liberal, but I hate things like censorship and gun control, this is a free country after all.

[Tim James]

p.s. For non-ironic (really!) non-chest-thumping anecdotal evidence, check out the FBI massacre in Florida. Those bad guys practiced with their handguns, all the time, and killed the most FBI agents in history. Versus the full-auto robbers that everyone has seen in the video from California, who managed to kill zero police officers despite having immense firepower.I'm sure you'd agree that those two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout) are freaks of nature and the FBI bungled that situation to the point of incompetence! Amazing story to read, by the way.

Anyway, are there other industries feeling the pressure of the election out there?

[Drastic]

I think the best approach to "assault weapon" control was approached all backwards the last time around. Just banning guns that looked more scary than other guns was the wrong approach.

Instead, a Congressional panel should have determined a baseline minimum scary-looking factor that all firearms would be required to have. Guns that didn't look that scary would have to have angry-looking spiky bits and such added on to them, until they looked scary enough. That way, they'd all look scary, and the problem would be solved.

[merryprankster]

I wonder what the coerlation between Pro life and pro gun control is? I tend to think of gun control as a liberal thing and pro life as a conservitive thing, if that is the case there is some serious hipocracy going on on both sides (not a life/death thing, but more of a why limit some rights and not others thing).

[Tim James]

Good Lord, don't bring abortion into the thread.

[Drastic]

Actually, the abortion thing does blow a giant hole in my argument, and I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. All abortions are inherently pretty scary-looking, well above the baseline, and it's still an issue. Back to the drawing board.

[Aeon221]

I'd be perfectly willing to add some scary spiky things to my rifle. I'll see what I can do!

Good Lord, don't bring abortion into the thread.

This thread needs some RU-486 before it births another monster!

[Ryan A]

Further, any of you tick turds* could have a friggin' SAW at fifty yards and I'd still burn your ass down with a lousy revolver before you scratched me. Ain't the arrow, it's the Indian.

I bet your side suto is really powerful too.

[Houngan]

I bet your side suto is really powerful too.

You wound me, sir. There is no firearm, nor explosive, equal to the mighty suto of side.

H.

Edit: suto de lado, for our Southern friends.

[TheWombat]

Years ago, when I did a lot of target shooting, I had a CAR-15 and a HK-91. Really loved the CAR; the HK was too freakin' big and heavy (7.62 rounds are HEAVY). I sold everything in grad school when I was broke but I wish I had kept my CAR-15.

[Lh'owon]

Seems like, but isn't. This point gets made ad infinitum, but those are just military styled weapons that are at the bottom of the power curve. It's not a question of power, the dinkiest firearm is plenty to kill people, which is what we're concerned about.

Thanks for the clarification, shows how little I know about firearms! I just saw the M16 / M4 Carbine look and assumed they were of a similar breed :)

However I don't think your example of the Florida shootout supports your claim that it isn't a question of power. Reading the wikipedia page suggests one of the main conclusions drawn was that the FBI could have done with more powerful weapons – I think it fair to assume that criminals would similarly benefit, and inversely be hindered by lesser power.

But of course you are right that ability plays a huge role.

Further, any of you tick turds* could have a friggin' SAW at fifty yards and I'd still burn your ass down with a lousy revolver before you scratched me. Ain't the arrow, it's the Indian.

Well yes, I wouldn't know how to disengage the safety so I think a baseball bat would suffice. ;)

[Houngan]

Well yes, I wouldn't know how to disengage the safety so I think a baseball bat would suffice. ;)

You realize sir, that I take my baseball bats very seriously. (note location)

H.

[Lizard_King]

(gun pics)
What exactly do people want these for? Shooting at the range? I'm genuinely curious – seems like a lot of firepower for your average citizen.


I own a semiautomatic version of the AR15 in an M4 style. I only use it at the range, usually teaching people without military experience basic riflery. It's a very decent starter weapon with negligible recoil that gives very satisfying results for beginners, and I enjoy pretending that I'm keeping the skills I've developed over my time in the military.

I think starting with rifles makes a lot more sense than with handguns, but that's all dependent on what the person is looking for.

For the record, the AR15 is chambered in 5.56 usually, which is essentially a high velocity, accurate .22. It is what I would call a moderate amount of firepower, and as Houngan says, only in the right hands.

Out of interest what's the limit on what sort of guns you can own? Could you own a SAW or similar?
A saw is an open bolt, fully automatic weapon by its design. As such, you could procure a special license for it, but it involves an extensive screening, full gun registration for all of your guns, and a good chunk of money (all coordinated as painfully as possible by the ATF and local law enforcement). So most civilians will only come across it from people who offer it at a range or a special event, and will never know the particularly dismal misery of the m249 experience firsthand. Let's just say the expertise: effectiveness ratio would be pretty shocking if it was being closely tracked.

I understand the skepticism about the 2nd amendment as it is in many ways anachronistic. However, the biggest problem for its relevance is that it failed to evolve the concept of militias as the balance of power between federal and state governments shifted irrevocably in favor of the former. I would argue that few civilians that pay attention to current events have much difficulty understanding just how big of a problem even a marginally run insurgency can create for a modern military. I would expect those problems to be significantly worse with a ferocious gun culture and the issue of deploying against your own people.

In addition, I think it's impossible to gauge the real world effectiveness of America's military on its home ground. It is my contention that the backbone of technology, logistics, and infrastructure that makes it so overwhelming when deployed would be extremely vulnerable at home. That gets especially interesting when you consider the number of civilians that the Department of Defense relies on, many of whom are independent contractors. All very cost effective or something (I have my doubts about the primary rationale that is repeated over and over again), but something of a question mark when it comes to domestic repression.

This is not to say I endorse the madness of a bunch of hillbillies running around in fatigues bitching about how the black helicopters of the UN must be stopped at all cost. I'm just trying to make it clear that in raw military terms, I don't believe the issue is half as open and shut as people make it out to be.

[Anti-Bunny]

What exactly do people want these for? Shooting at the range? I'm genuinely curious – seems like a lot of firepower for your average citizen.

Yeah. They are realistically for ranges or for law enforcement, only. Using an Assault Rifle for self defense is a good way to end up with a murder charge, no matter how it went down. No attorney on earth can save you when the prosecutor holds up an evil black gun and points you out as the killer, regardless of the circumstances. gg appeal to emotion.

Out of interest what's the limit on what sort of guns you can own? Could you own a SAW or similar?

Sure. The government allows you to try an obtain a license to get one. But chances are good you either live in an area where the SAW is illegal to own, or the hassle to get one is so ridiculous you HAVE to be a beardo in fatigues in order to really want to jump thru all those hoops.

[Tim James]

You don't technically need a license, just jump through a bunch of tax and regulatory hoops.

By the way, here's a SAW for $38k (http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=14116&query=retrieval).

[salwon]

As one whose heart bleeds fairly liberally, I don't give a shit how many guns someone wants to own. Does Obama even have an opinion here? He almost never brought it up that I can remember.

[Anti-Bunny]

You don't technically need a license, just jump through a bunch of tax and regulatory hoops.

Well, okay, you don't need a license, you need a tax stamp.. but whatever, it's a lot of work for very overpriced way of putting holes in paper.

[Tim James]

Does Obama even have an opinion here? He almost never brought it up that I can remember.Aside from a few votes and coming from an extremely anti-gun region: no, he doesn't, and that's my point. There's a little bit of a hivemind going on out there that it is inevitable anti-gun legislation will get passed, and market prices have reacted.

To the hivemind's credit, it is most likely the vocal anti-gun members of Congress that will make the push. It's up to Obama to keep them on track to important issues. I'm not exactly sure how he'd veto a new AWB that landed on his desk, so he has to nip it in the bud early. I don't think that's even likely to happen either; Pelosi's old enough to remember '94.

[Funkula]

My understanding of Heller was that it basically settles the issue in conservatives' favor, no exceptions. Also remember that Obama praised the decision when it was made. I really think concerns about the gun-friendliness of an Obama administration should be pretty mild.

Of course, I'm pretty pro-gun myself (though I don't own any, I don't want to restrict others' choices), so I may just be projecting my position onto my preferred candidate in the absence of a strong sign one way or the other.

[Papageno]

Yeah, honestly speaking, gun control is the least of our problems, and is a really good way for Democrats to rile up/antagonize potential allies that vote on that single issue. It's just not worth the political capital expenditure, considering the other huge issues facing us like getting a decent health care financing system in place.

[RSofaer]

I don't think that the opinion of anyone else here as to the importance of second amendment rights as a last-ditch mechanism for resisting the govt. carries as much weight as Lizard_King's. Sorry, Lh'owon.

[Damien Neil]

As one whose heart bleeds fairly liberally, I don't give a shit how many guns someone wants to own. Does Obama even have an opinion here? He almost never brought it up that I can remember.

Last speech I heard in which he addressed the issue, some time back, he basically said that he gets that the concerns of people living in cities with high homicide rates are not the same as those of people living in the backwoods who go hunting on a regular basis. Which struck me as sanely noncommittal. I'll be surprised if he pushes anything significant related to firearms.

[Brad Grenz]

it's only a joke because i can't afford an abrams m1a2 and they won't sell me one

Well, obviously in a general revolt you'd hope at least some of the military would break with you. And once there's enough chaos some gunrunners'll show up with all the Chinese made, Soviet designed RPGs you'll ever need!

Also, read the comic DMZ. It presents a red versus blue state civil war which results in Manhattan becoming a demilitarized zone between the opposing armies.

Also: WOLVERINES!!!

All they had was some hunting rifles, a shot gun and a couple horses to begin with! Imagine how effective they could have been had they started with a basement full of guns of every shape and size!

[Erlend Grefsrud]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Stag2wi.jpg

What exactly do people want these for? Shooting at the range? I'm genuinely curious – seems like a lot of firepower for your average citizen.

Out of interest what's the limit on what sort of guns you can own? Could you own a SAW or similar?
Firing an assault rifle is quite different from firing a hunting rifle. They usually fire lower-calibre bullets, are easier to handle and more maneuverable than hunting rifles. It's been a while since I fired anything, so I might be pulling this out of my ass, but it also seemed to me that assault rifles have less recoil than hunting rifles.

I've never maintained a hunting rifle, so I wouldn't know about that, but the only assault rifle I've got extensive experience with, the AG3, was literally five minutes of oiling and cleaning after rough use.

[Hanacker]

That may have made sense in the 1780s. Now it's a joke.

A joke that a militia will need to come into conflict with the US military or a joke that they'll be able to do anything against them? If it's the latter, I'm probably going to agree with Lizard_King. It's at least debatable, which would render it not a joke.

[Brad Grenz]

Wait, is it the same joke that the liberals like to forward around to eachother about the blue states seceding from "Jesus Land"? Because I think precedent teaches us that such a division would not be peaceful.

[salwon]

Originally Posted by Rimbo
it's only a joke because i can't afford an abrams m1a2 and they won't sell me one

Don't worry, you can probably get a T72 on the cheap. I hear some Somalians just came into a few...

[Rimbo]

fuck that shit

i want to be able to fire on the move accurately

[Funkula]

What gun would be best for an insurgency that adopts bunny-hopping as a battlefield tactic?

[Lh'owon]

A joke that a militia will need to come into conflict with the US military or a joke that they'll be able to do anything against them? If it's the latter, I'm probably going to agree with Lizard_King. It's at least debatable, which would render it not a joke.

It's a joke to think any sort of organized, nationwide, armed rebellion could take place that would wage open warfare against the government. As this election has shown it's hard enough to bring people together for a peaceful cause let alone one where you expect them to shoot people. And who exactly would you be shooting? The police? All I know is that it would be a bloodbath.

Peaceful (yet forceful) protest is always the better option. How about a million protesters in Washington? People will probably die, but thousands are guaranteed to die in an uprising.

[Tim James]

It's a joke to think any sort of organized, nationwide, armed rebellion could take place that would wage open warfare against the government.What if that's an effect of the very ideas you think are a joke? :)

It's way too soon after the 20th century, where governments killed hundreds of millions of people, to be tossing out the option for a last resort. I know you think college kids with tape over their mouths, lying in front of the Kremlin could have brought Stalin down in his prime, but let's bring it up again next century, just to be safe, okay?

Anyway, this is a stupid tangent.

[Rimbo]

It's a joke to think any sort of organized, nationwide, armed rebellion could take place that would wage open warfare against the government.

I know. It's utterly ridiculous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) that people would think such a thing could ever occur.

[salwon]

I know. It's utterly ridiculous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) that people would think such a thing could ever occur.


ESPECIALLY in America!

[extarbags]

I know. It's utterly ridiculous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) that people would think such a thing could ever occur.

Yeah, that's totally apt.

[tiohn]

Is this where we sign up for the private army?

[Miramon]

Yeah. They are realistically for ranges or for law enforcement, only. Using an Assault Rifle for self defense is a good way to end up with a murder charge, no matter how it went down. No attorney on earth can save you when the prosecutor holds up an evil black gun and points you out as the killer, regardless of the circumstances. gg appeal to emotion

Well, I sure hope that scumbag who emptied an AK through his front door at a trick-or-treater the other day gets life in prison, for what it's worth.

[Lh'owon]

What if that's an effect of the very ideas you think are a joke? :)

It's way too soon after the 20th century, where governments killed hundreds of millions of people, to be tossing out the option for a last resort. I know you think college kids with tape over their mouths, lying in front of the Kremlin could have brought Stalin down in his prime, but let's bring it up again next century, just to be safe, okay?

Anyway, this is a stupid tangent.

I was thinking of a situation in America, not Communist Russia where shooting (on the spot or later) protesters would be the norm. And I suppose an armed rebellion in Soviet Russia would have worked so well! Stalin was known for being forgiving to his enemies.

But I agree, stupid tangent.

I know. It's utterly ridiculous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) that people would think such a thing could ever occur.

Yes Rimbo, eleven states seceding is exactly the same as a civilian rebellion against a totalitarian government.

[Rimbo]

So you're saying we have to choose only certain kinds of civil wars to discuss, and other kinds of civil wars don't apply?

[Lh'owon]

So you're saying we have to choose only certain kinds of civil wars to discuss, and other kinds of civil wars don't apply?

A civil war is a war between a state and domestic political actors that are in control of some part of the territory claimed by the state. It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale.

I'm absolutely saying that, because having entire states secede means there's a whole industry, infrastructure and governmental system to back you up. How on earth is that relevant to individual gun ownership being necessary to prevent a corrupt government? If you own eleven states I don't think gun supply is going to be non-existent just because civilians aren't packing.

There is a massive difference between an armed rebellion and a full-blown civil war.

[Anti-Bunny]

Well, I sure hope that scumbag who emptied an AK through his front door at a trick-or-treater the other day gets life in prison, for what it's worth.

It's not worth much, because no one sane would disagree with you. Seriously, is this some kind of argument against AKs? Ban them or people will shoot you thru their front door for knocking?

[corsair]

I'm in California - whatever restrictive laws Obama could get through congress on firearms, California already has been there and done that. Besides - what in the world would I do with an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine? Shoot zombies? There are better target shooters and hunting rifles out there.

[Anti-Bunny]

I'm in California - whatever restrictive laws Obama could get through congress on firearms, California already has been there and done that. Besides - what in the world would I do with an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine? Shoot zombies? There are better target shooters and hunting rifles out there.
You could use it to shoot rioting homophobes.

And 100 round mags are iffy and prone to fail. Go with the 30rd mags.

[hong]

You could use it to shoot rioting homophobes.


I read that as "shoot rioting homophones".

[Lizard_King]

It's a joke to think any sort of organized, nationwide, armed rebellion could take place that would wage open warfare against the government. As this election has shown it's hard enough to bring people together for a peaceful cause let alone one where you expect them to shoot people. And who exactly would you be shooting? The police? All I know is that it would be a bloodbath.

Peaceful (yet forceful) protest is always the better option. How about a million protesters in Washington? People will probably die, but thousands are guaranteed to die in an uprising.

It's not a joke in the vast stretches of the world where conflicts that can be boiled down in many cases to the classic issues of haves and have nots drove many to decide that, in fact, it is time for blood to be shed. I am not advocating it or suggesting it would be a fun or efficient decision in the case of the United States. I'm not in any way implying it is a likely outcome in the near future...generally speaking the rule of law and basic apathy as a result of most needs being met (relative to the whole world) have a strong hold here.

What I am saying is that even a poorly organized, badly led insurgency with shitty equipment can get a lot done against a first rate modern military that is nevertheless trapped in the paradigm of nation states. All an insurgency needs is a reason to exist. Once that is taken care of, the vast amounts of weapons in civilian hands, the uniquely civilian driven nature of our military, and the possibilities created by such a powerful yet needy military machine being fought against on its home turf are filled with compelling science fiction plots.

The number of people actually getting stuff done in the Iraqi occupation against Americans and each other is actually quite small...it does not take many to bring the giant to a sitting position if not actually his knees. All you need is a clear understanding of your enemy's goals, how to manipulate them most effectively in keeping with a prolonged stalemate that favors you, and then let a smattering of guns and testosterone driven youths do the heavy lifting. I think Mao was one of the most articulate of 4th generation war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare)* proponents, and what he said has never held more resonance than it does now. The biggest innovation is that his third stage (upgrading to conventional warfare when the opponent has been weakened) has been made largely obsolete, and the most fascinating thing about this is how uneducated (I mean that literally) military leaders in all kinds of places and situations arrive at the same conclusions largely independently, and are able to market it to their people with great effect.

Anyway, it's a lot more complicated than that, and I'm mostly repeating myself in different words because I'm hoping that will clarify the disagreement we are actually having versus the one you seem to think you are having.


*the label of 4th generation war is very appropriate for American/European canonical military history, and inadequate for any kind of holistic survey of military strategy. But I like it anyway.
Firing an assault rifle is quite different from firing a hunting rifle. They usually fire lower-calibre bullets, are easier to handle and more maneuverable than hunting rifles. It's been a while since I fired anything, so I might be pulling this out of my ass, but it also seemed to me that assault rifles have less recoil than hunting rifles.

I've never maintained a hunting rifle, so I wouldn't know about that, but the only assault rifle I've got extensive experience with, the AG3, was literally five minutes of oiling and cleaning after rough use.
Your impressions seem accurate to me. Assault rifles are designed to be idiot proof as a general rule across the globe; in that sense the US messed it up with the M16 and its variants by introducing a generally higher performance weapon with a greater cost/maintenance/training tradeoff when ours was still largely a conscript military (hence the horror stories from Vietnam about the reliability). Worked out fine once we went full volunteer, for the most part, although there's still an unseemly amount of bitching about one of the least problematic parts of our arsenal from armchair generals.

[salwon]

I read that as "shoot rioting homophones".


Damn, there's to! And two, too!

[unbongwah]

Gun Sales Thriving in Uncertain Times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/26/AR2008102602505.html)

[Tim James]

Besides - what in the world would I do with an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine? Shoot zombies? There are better target shooters and hunting rifles out there.Actually, no. It's a pretty damn good introductory rifle for all sorts of things. It only sounds scary because some anti-gun advocates attached the word "assault" to the semi-automatic version of the military rifle.
Gun Sales Thriving in Uncertain TimesErr, I just realized how dumb my thread title is. Retailers are doing good business but very busy; the election is hitting consumers with high prices and long delays!

[Houngan]

Just to add to the gun wanking, the AR platform is now the long-range platform of choice, as well as the 90% most common platform in competitive shooting. It's come a long way, baby.

H.

[Samurai]

The election most definitely has hit firearm sellers. I've stopped by two different gun shows in the past few months and each one was filled with retailers pushing politically incorrect rifles, telling customers to buy now while they can. The firearm forums I visit are all saying that gun stores have been utterly swamped since the election, I'm sure there is panic buying going on.

For what its worth, I bought my first AR 15 this past summer partly in anticipation of this election. The rifle really is a fantastic introductory platform and I can see why it has become so popular with sport shooters. If I find the money, I hope to get a 9mm or an M1A early next year.

[Anti-Bunny]

From http://www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
Well, there you go. Buy your AR now.

Also, as I've said before repeatedly, the gun show 'loop hole' is bullshit.

[peterb]

All I want to know is: is there a place in this country for me, an extreme left-wing liberal, yellow-dog Democrat, who is on the liberal side of just about every single issue out there ... but who still thinks that taking a fully automatic Thompson submachine gun into a national forest and emptying an entire drum clip into a paper target is possibly the most fun you can have while sober?

In other words, answering the question asked early in this thread: hell, yes some of us really do want to have weapons like these so we can use them at firing ranges. They are 16 kinds of awesome!

[Jason McCullough]

Also, as I've said before repeatedly, the gun show 'loop hole' is bullshit.

How so?

[Houngan]

How so?

In one sense, a gun show is just a big flea market, and like flea markets, is no more heavily regulated than a yard sale. So the slippery slope applies that if you regulate gun shows, you are de facto regulating all private sales of firearms in any situation.

On the other hand, they are a good place to get a gun without the necessary credentials or legal standing.

H.

[Anti-Bunny]

What Houngan said. You can't buy from a dealer at a gunshow without all the normal background checks/etc and even buying from individuals without a background check is already illegal in most states. In the end, very few gun crimes are committed with gunshow guns (Less then 1%), so it's simply an issue to grandstand on without any real merit.

[Jason McCullough]

Interesting. Where do the guns used to commit crimes come from? Stolen? Foreign?

[Anti-Bunny]

Interesting. Where do the guns used to commit crimes come from? Stolen? Foreign?

Stolen, straw purchases or buying (nearly always stolen guns) from an unlicensed dealer.

In short, criminals get guns by breaking the laws that already exist.

[Tim James]

All I want to know is: is there a place in this country for me, an extreme left-wing liberal, yellow-dog Democrat, who is on the liberal side of just about every single issue out there ... but who still thinks that taking a fully automatic Thompson submachine gun into a national forest and emptying an entire drum clip into a paper target is possibly the most fun you can have while sober?www.progunprogressive.com

[Anti-Bunny]

There are also politically neutral gun blogs (being less preachy is always nice..)
The Firearm Blog (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/) is one I like.

[Machfive]

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Fucking bullshit pandering. Yes, those drug dealers LOVE those hard-to-conceal semi-automatic military rifles, because they're so great for close-quarters urban combat and spray-and-pray drive-bys.

Except the fact they don't, and they aren't, and these so-called 'assault rifles' aren't what street criminals are packing, and any measure to limit their availability smacks of a complete ignorance of crime and its trappings.

[wildpokerman]

So we're headed to the most economically uncertain time in decades, it's right after the world has undergone an increasing gap between rich and poor and we're injecting a big pile of guns into the mix. What could go wrong here?

http://rosenblumtv.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/french-revolution-2.jpg

[Machfive]

and we're injecting a big pile of guns into the mix.[/img]

Who's injecting what, where? Did Far Cry 2's 'the Jackal' show up and dump a bunch of surplus weapons into the arms of low-level drug dealers or something?

Anyone who talks shit about lowering crime and mentions "gun violence" instead of "drug violence" as the root cause and the issue which is most important to deal with doesn't truly understand the issue or is too much of a pussy to address it.

[Jason McCullough]

Stolen, straw purchases or buying (nearly always stolen guns) from an unlicensed dealer.

In short, criminals get guns by breaking the laws that already exist.

Interesting. This (http://books.google.com/books?id=o6gBg1kF-AYC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=guns+used+to+commit+crimes&source=web&ots=YNWd2NKVpo&sig=bi7qH8tKqKVopdD1cytXgBLcTBU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA5,M1) cropped up searching around and appears to discuss the sourcing issue. I had no idea the stolen/resale thing was so frequent - 500,000 guns a year? Wow. The pre-brady estimate that 15% of guns were purchased is interesting; I wonder what the marginal effectiveness of that has been in reducing access. 70 has an estimate of 2% purchase at gun shows/flea markets.

On the note of full auto, 2% of criminals having those is a little disturbing (page 71).

[Brad Grenz]

That's a function of your willful ignorance.

[Lizard_King]

On the note of full auto, 2% of criminals having those is a little disturbing (page 71).

Why? They're useless to most people in most settings. Unless you're claiming that the ability to conduct close quarters combat after years of training or marginally effective short range suppression is a vital tool in the criminal arsenal...

Just take everything that sounds "disturbing" or scary and set it aside. Odds are it's a negligible factor, or simply a policy tactic designed to herd the gun ignorant into thinking something is being done about crime.

[Machfive]

On the note of full auto, 2% of criminals having those is a little disturbing (page 71).

And I can guarantee you that 99% of that 2% is either in the narcotics trade or in organized crime, both of which make a majority of their filthy lucre by providing products and services (drugs, gambling, prostitution) which could be decriminalized, regulated (and by golly, taxed!), thereby greatly reduce their impact or put them out of business entirely.

Mandatory plug for the DRCnet, donate today! (http://stopthedrugwar.org/)

[Houngan]

I think I've said this before, but the unique thing about a dangerous criminal is the willingness to kill, not the possession of a tool to do so. Address the societal reasons why someone who isn't mentally defective would choose to do that, and you'll make an impact. Not by removing one gun out of 300,000,000 in the country today.

H.

[Anti-Bunny]

By the way, if anyone is actually seriously considering getting an AR, Brownells has a really great set of videos on their website on how to build one from the many standardized parts.
http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/GunTech/NewsletterArchive.aspx?x=v&p=0&t=1&i=1103

It involves all the geekiness of mixing and choosing computer parts on newegg, so it's a fun project.

[Jason McCullough]

Why? They're useless to most people in most settings. Unless you're claiming that the ability to conduct close quarters combat after years of training or marginally effective short range suppression is a vital tool in the criminal arsenal...

Just take everything that sounds "disturbing" or scary and set it aside. Odds are it's a negligible factor, or simply a policy tactic designed to herd the gun ignorant into thinking something is being done about crime.

Simmer down already, note I didn't say anything about a response? I'm just surprised even 2% of criminals manage to get their hands on 'em.

[Andrew Mayer]

The incredible and instant defensiveness on display convinces me that we need to do something about it.

[Anti-Bunny]

On the note of full auto, 2% of criminals having those is a little disturbing (page 71).

The book's statistics are a little confusing, because it seems to conflict with BJS's more current statistics.. Additionally, according to the BJS studies on the government website:
A) 2% of guns used in crimes are "assault weapons" (as defined by the NY ban), not 'full auto'.
B) Of that 2%, almost all of them were actually pistols.
C) Additionally, of the book's 'full auto' statistic, it makes no distinction between automatic weapons and semi-auto weapons modified to be fully auto.

I'm going to have to chalk this up for the author not knowing the difference between an assault rifle and a 'full auto', which is sadly common.

[shift6]

It's all the same when you've got sales forecasts to meet.

[Anti-Bunny]

It's all the same when you've got sales forecasts to meet.

If you mean that it doesn't matter to gunshops whether what they are selling is legal or not: Hahahahahaha.. You've never met or talked to a gunshop worker before.

[shift6]

No I mean that when an author is trying to sell copy he will mix-and-match any terms and statistics he needs to make his shit sound better.

Also: I'm extremely pro-firearms (check my QT3 history).

[Tim James]

Simmer down already, note I didn't say anything about a response? I'm just surprised even 2% of criminals manage to get their hands on 'em.AB's already commented on this statistic, but my guess is that if any low-level thug or redneck felon has a full-auto weapon, he probably modified it himself to work that way. I can't comment on how easy that is because the ATF does a really good job of suppressing the information.

I doubt private auto weapon sales will be affected by the election. They are their own little market.

[Anti-Bunny]

And this is why I stopped going to the range a long time ago:
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5081/ammunitionpriceincreaseyn1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/ammunitionpriceincreaseyn1.jpg/1/w350.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img517/ammunitionpriceincreaseyn1.jpg/1/)

That plus the only range being 1+ hour away, so gas prices didn't help either. This probably has more to do with the war and the ridiculous price of brass, these days. But, I can't wait to see what those prices will be at in three months.

[Tim James]

Bring those troops home, Obama!

[Lizard_King]

Simmer down already, note I didn't say anything about a response? I'm just surprised even 2% of criminals manage to get their hands on 'em.

Simmer down from what? That's my normal mode of conversation. 2% is a pretty low number, and an unimportant one when you take what I said into account, federal crime statistics, and what A-B laid out for you. I was just reinforcing why I believe these issues keep coming up. We could have a middle ground on gun policy that more people would be comfortable with, but unless you're like Andrew Mayer and get off simply on annoying gun owners, it's got to begin with setting aside the methods and goals of the wildly unsuccessful antigun lobby as it stands now. And one of the big ones there is the whole "full auto/assault rifle" scary guns angle.

[Houngan]

No way it's 2%, that has to be a blanket "assault weapon" number as AB cited. Considering a functional full auto weapon has a minimum price of $10,000 on the legit market, you think a low level crack dealer isn't going to sell the silly thing and buy a pistol? Sheeit.

H.

[Anti-Bunny]

From http://www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

Looks like his staff took this page down. Obama and Biden have had a change of heart and changed their gungrabbing ways? (probably not).

[docvego]

Looks like his staff took this page down. Obama and Biden have had a change of heart and changed their gungrabbing ways? (probably not).


All the agenda subpages have been removed.

[Marged]

Stolen, straw purchases or buying (nearly always stolen guns) from an unlicensed dealer.

In short, criminals get guns by breaking the laws that already exist.

Right... but the enforcement of those laws is kneecapped by the Tiahrt amendment. And it was endlessly frustrating as a resident of Philadelphia watching gun violence get absolutely out of hand while the PA legislature balked at passing a bill requiring that lost and stolen guns be reported.

Obama takes the line that the right to guns is a constitutional right, like the right to property. Just because it's a right doesn't mean that it can't be regulated. Property is regulated by local municipalities, by planning and zoning boards, for instance. In his view, guns can be treated similarly without infringing on the constitutional right.

[Tim James]

Right... but the enforcement of those laws is kneecapped by the Tiahrt amendment. And it was endlessly frustrating as a resident of Philadelphia watching gun violence get absolutely out of hand while the PA legislature balked at passing a bill requiring that lost and stolen guns be reported.

Obama takes the line that the right to guns is a constitutional right, like the right to property. Just because it's a right doesn't mean that it can't be regulated. Property is regulated by local municipalities, by planning and zoning boards, for instance. In his view, guns can be treated similarly without infringing on the constitutional right.It's often tricky to think of the right to bear arms as similar to property or driving a car or something. I'm not going to launch into a tirade about it, but the issue is more subtle than a shoot-from-the-hip "common sense" analysis often provides.

It's also dangerous to become too narrowly focused on one or two federal regulations that will magically solve all violent crime. In the Tiahrt Amendment case, you have to balance streamlined criminal investigations with creating thousands of miniature BATFE branches around the nation (whose occasionally corrupt and unjust actions would make an ACLU member shit himself).

Crime and punishment are complicated issues. What really ought to be done is the gun-grabbing groups like Brady should sit down with the individual rights groups like Gun Owners of America and talk about ways that all violence and accidental deaths could be reduced. For example, Brady could push for firearms education in public schools and GOA could run a campaign to shame gun owners into locking up their firearms or helping police by reporting stolen guns. Unfortunately you'll never see a win-win on this issue other than a weak compromise by NRA, but it would be nice if anti-gunners would go the extra mile to think about some of the tricky FUD and if rights advocates did a better job empathizing with violent crime and doing something about it (at least outside of personal security, of course!).

In any case, this is why retailers are slammed and prices are going up.

[Tim James]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/index.html) finally picked up the story. Basically the same anecdotes and reasoning from firearms enthusiasts and Obama supporters that you'll find in this thread. (Ironically, they didn't poll the criminal community to see if they were worried about "assault weapons" being "taken off the street" -- wonder why...)

They do get one thing wrong, and that's to imply it matters what Obama's "priorities" are. The real problem is a gun-grabbing shrew in Congress proposing some legislation that plops down on his desk with no impetus from Obama himself. He's most likely going to just sign and spin, though I believe Bush would've gladly done the same in exchange for continued Iraq funding compromises.

And even that all depends on whether Democrats in Congress try to go their own way or just listen to what their ruler says. What is everyone's feel on that? In the near term, will Pelosi and the gang defer to him almost completely or try for a power grab? Given how lazy they were from 2006-present, I'm going to guess the former.

[Anti-Bunny]

Right... but the enforcement of those laws is kneecapped by the Tiahrt amendment. And it was endlessly frustrating as a resident of Philadelphia watching gun violence get absolutely out of hand while the PA legislature balked at passing a bill requiring that lost and stolen guns be reported.

Obama takes the line that the right to guns is a constitutional right, like the right to property. Just because it's a right doesn't mean that it can't be regulated. Property is regulated by local municipalities, by planning and zoning boards, for instance. In his view, guns can be treated similarly without infringing on the constitutional right.

Requiring gun owners to report stolen guns might be unconstitutional via the 5th Amendment in states with contributory homicide laws. Keeping records of gun owners is probably not unconstitutional but I definitely oppose it, local governments have repeatedly shown they cannot be trusted with this (even when ordered to shred background checks after 60 days, Police Departments have a habit of 'forgetting' to). Demands to produce/inspect guns on demand, such as for licensing and regulation, probably WOULD be unconstitutional via the 4th Amendment.

[Marged]

I'm glad to see that paranoia is winning out over pragmatic responses to an epidemic of gun violence. Really though, what would you do about the fact that in my city, more people were murdered (http://www.keystonepolitics.com/story/regional-news/philadelphia/city-death-philadelphia-murder-rate-highest-nearly-20-years) than days in the year. So really, Anti-Bunny, what solution do you propose for that problem? How would you get North Philly to be Slappers Only?

[Anti-Bunny]

I'm glad to see that paranoia is winning out over pragmatic responses to an epidemic of gun violence. Really though, what would you do about the fact that in my city, more people were murdered (http://www.keystonepolitics.com/story/regional-news/philadelphia/city-death-philadelphia-murder-rate-highest-nearly-20-years) than days in the year. So really, Anti-Bunny, what solution do you propose for that problem? How would you get North Philly to be Slappers Only?

As mentioned above, going after legit gun owners is not going to help anything except waste the PD's time. If Philly wants a solid plan to turn it around: Down grade minor drug offenses to misdemeanors so they're not tying up the courts, hire more prosecutors, hire more cops.. and train them better in actual police work and community relations, not bullshit paramilitary SWAT stuff.

[Anti-Bunny]

And by the way.. It's a little weird to call me 'paranoid' when I'm actually quoting Obama's stated agenda.

[extarbags]

As mentioned above, going after legit gun owners is not going to help anything except waste the PD's time. If Philly wants a solid plan to turn it around: Down grade minor drug offenses to misdemeanors so they're not tying up the courts,

Yeah, that's relevant in some way.

hire more prosecutors, hire more cops.. and train them better in actual police work and community relations, not bullshit paramilitary SWAT stuff.

Oh man... hire more cops! Dude, why didn't we think of that before? If we can just quadruple the police budget and improve their community relations skills instead of their (extremely prominent here in Philadelphia, which was recently moved to Arizona, apparently) paramilitary SWAT activities, we're sure to beat that nagging murder problem! This is definitely a better solution than limiting people to purchasing a scant one handgun per month, as proposed by those fascists in city hall, right?

The only thing that might make it an even better solution is if we also repealed the income tax and minimum wage.

[extarbags]

Requiring gun owners to report stolen guns might be unconstitutional via the 5th Amendment in states with contributory homicide laws.

Such as which states, for example?

Keeping records of gun owners is probably not unconstitutional but I definitely oppose it, local governments have repeatedly shown they cannot be trusted with this (even when ordered to shred background checks after 60 days, Police Departments have a habit of 'forgetting' to).

Yeah, it's a conspiracy among gun nut cops to keep tabs on gun nut civilians, not at all a side effect of inefficient bureaucracy. Also, how is not shredding records when they're supposed to evidence that a department can't be trusted with records that they aren't even supposed to shred ever?

Demands to produce/inspect guns on demand, such as for licensing and regulation, probably WOULD be unconstitutional via the 4th Amendment.

This is just bizarre.

[Anti-Bunny]

Yeah, that's relevant in some way.



Oh man... hire more cops! Dude, why didn't we think of that before? If we can just quadruple the police budget and improve their community relations skills instead of their (extremely prominent here in Philadelphia, which was recently moved to Arizona, apparently) paramilitary SWAT activities, we're sure to beat that nagging murder problem! This is definitely a better solution than limiting people to purchasing a scant one handgun per month, as proposed by those fascists in city hall, right?

The only thing that might make it an even better solution is if we also repealed the income tax and minimum wage.

VOTE RON PAUL

[peterb]

And this is why I stopped going to the range a long time ago:
(Summary: "Ammo is expensive")


I know it's not the same, but have you considered shooting a .22? .22 ammo is, effectively, free. And Ruger has some really nice precision target shooting models.

[tiohn]

Oddly, I have been wondering what to look at in a .22 pistol for target shooting. The Ruger MkIIIs and Browning Buckmarks look nice, but seem a bit pricey.

Actually, I'll take this to the Hardware forum.

[Anti-Bunny]

I know it's not the same, but have you considered shooting a .22? .22 ammo is, effectively, free. And Ruger has some really nice precision target shooting models.

Actually, I have been thinking about getting a P22 for a while, but to be honest I think I'm just not really into guns enough to want to spend the money on another one. I do hear a lot of good things about Ruger, though.

[Tim James]

The best reason to get a .22 relates tangentially to this thread: they are really nice for introducing new shooters to guns to help with some of the FUD. Plus, they make any novice a winner. Works even better if you get a .22 rifle.

[Tim James]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1318968,obama-gun-sales-up-120808.article)

I'm kidding because I think things will be fine for a while (though if Congressional Democrats are dumb enough to try another AWB then I doubt he'd kick it out of the Oval Office). However, I did like this one:

Obama answered "yes" in 1996 to a questionnaire from an Illinois group on whether he supported a handgun ban. But he later said a staffer filled out that answer and he did not support a ban.How can we trust this man if he didn't monitor his staff over a decade ago?? RON PAUL BITCHES!

Peter Hamm's quote is a knee-slapper, but only if you follow this issue enough to know how inept the Brady Campaign is.

We think [these buyers rushing out to get more firearms] are people who already have more than enough guns at their homes to protect themselves and are buying more.OH I'M SWOONING AT THE THOUGHT!

[Wallapuctus]

Well, they need to arm their neighbors. When the apocalypse comes and they go down in a blaze of glory in the first hour, their homes will be valuable ammo caches for the plucky survivors making their way across the wastes.

When you play Left 4 Dead, aren't you so glad when you get to the house of That Guy and your character yells, "Weapons here!"

[Houngan]

I'm kidding because I think things will be fine for a while (though if Congressional Democrats are dumb enough to try another AWB then I doubt he'd kick it out of the Oval Office). However, I did like this one:



I like how you used the word "if" there:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257

H.

[Tim James]

Okay, they try every year but I don't think it gets out of committee. You know what I mean! :)

[Aeon221]

As mentioned above, going after legit gun owners is not going to help anything except waste the PD's time. If Philly wants a solid plan to turn it around: Down grade minor drug offenses to misdemeanors so they're not tying up the courts, hire more prosecutors, hire more cops.. and train them better in actual police work and community relations, not bullshit paramilitary SWAT stuff.

Having just spent a couple days in jail in Atlanta (on a bullshit charge that I don't want to talk about, but no not drugs), yeah this would help. There were so many drug offenders in there that I didn't get processed until I had been there a day.

And since you don't get a phone call til you've been processed, it meant nobody had a clue where I was.

Getting rid of the drug offenders, most of whom had a small amount of pot, by writing them a ticket and telling them to go home would have cut my processing time by like two thirds. And Atlanta isn't exactly a drug Mecca.

[Tim James]

Having just spent a couple days in jail in Atlanta (on a bullshit charge that I don't want to talk about, but no not drugs), yeah this would help. There were so many drug offenders in there that I didn't get processed until I had been there a day.

And since you don't get a phone call til you've been processed, it meant nobody had a clue where I was.

Getting rid of the drug offenders, most of whom had a small amount of pot, by writing them a ticket and telling them to go home would have cut my processing time by like two thirds. And Atlanta isn't exactly a drug Mecca.Good God, man. Glad you made it through all that nonsense.

[Houngan]

And Atlanta isn't exactly a drug Mecca.

Little known fact: Atlanta is a drug mecca. I learned this twenty minutes ago from Forbes, apparently it is the gateway of choice for narcotraffic from Central and South America.

H.

[salwon]

Little known fact: Atlanta is a drug mecca. I learned this twenty minutes ago from Forbes, apparently it is the gateway of choice for narcotraffic from Central and South America.

H.


Doesn't it have one of the highest murder rates in the country?

I guess the 8th. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate)

[Soapyfrog]

It's amazing to me the trouble that the right to bear arms has caused for the United States as a whole, something that bleeds over into Canada in the form of weapons smuggled to gangs here.

And the firearms manufacturers have made out like bandits. One can easily why there is such a powerful anti-gun control lobby even though it is in the best interests of the general population to control firearms.

[Houngan]

It's amazing to me the trouble that the right to bear arms has caused for the United States as a whole, something that bleeds over into Canada in the form of weapons smuggled to gangs here.

And the firearms manufacturers have made out like bandits. One can easily why there is such a powerful anti-gun control lobby even though it is in the best interests of the general population to control firearms.

Naw, it's the Declaration of Independence, with that "life, liberty" thing that is causing so much trouble. See, our liberty bleeds over into your gangs and they pursue their happiness by robbing people. We almost got rid of the whole thing with Bush, but I'm afraid it's here to stay now.

You really should try a police state, just go door-to-door and disarm everyone, then lock the borders. It's the only way to restore your Utopia.

H.

[Tim James]

That's actually just Mexico's gangs (with its tough gun laws) coming to the US (where all the money is) and shoving the queue up to Canada! :)

[Lunch of Kong]

Woah. It's almost $25 for a 50-count box of 5.7x28mm ammo. Has that ammo always been this pricey?

[Soapyfrog]

I know, instead lets just let everyone own atomic bombs.

[Tim James]

I know, instead lets just let everyone own atomic bombs.You cut me off in traffic for the last time, Mrs. Johnson!!

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2007-02/nuclear-bomb-badger.jpg

Educate thyself.

[Houngan]

Woah. It's almost $25 for a 50-count box of 5.7x28mm ammo. Has that ammo always been this pricey?

All ammo is through the roof, plain old 9mm is in the $12/50 range.

H.

[Houngan]

I know, instead lets just let everyone own atomic bombs.

OMG your gay LOl. Looser.

Try harder.

H.

[Lizard_King]

Woah. It's almost $25 for a 50-count box of 5.7x28mm ammo. Has that ammo always been this pricey?

450$ for 1000rds of match grade 5.56. It's brutal these days.

[Lum]

There are some specials running.

http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/43920/ew1.jpg
http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/43920/ew2.jpg

[Lh'owon]

For a terrible second there I thought that wasn't a photoshop.

[Funkula]

That's pretty great. Reminds me of the Ammu-Nation ads in GTA.

[Houngan]

Jesus, that's hilarious. "Oh man look at that thing."

H.

[Papageno]

450$ for 1000rds of match grade 5.56. It's brutal these days.

My brother, a gun enthusiast, complains about the high ammo prices all the time. Of course, wars will tend to drive those prices up.

[bago]

goddam that ad got serifs.

[Lum]

It's originally from Something Awful and yes, it got serifs.

[Soapyfrog]

OMG your gay LOl. Looser.

Seems I hit some sort of nerve. Either that or a rich vein of untapped stupidity. Maybe it's both!

[Tim James]

Seems I hit some sort of nerve. Either that or a rich vein of untapped stupidity. Maybe it's both!Houngan is in a tree right now and can't respond directly, but I'm pretty sure you tapped into his need to compensate for a small penis with firearms, hence his reaction.

[Anti-Bunny]

The constitution clearly states I have a right to bear uranium-235.

For duck hunting!

[Lizard_King]

Houngan is in a tree right now and can't respond directly, but I'm pretty sure you tapped into his need to compensate for a small penis with firearms, hence his reaction.

Actually, he's just responding to arguments in kind. I can understand why you'd have trouble figuring that out.

[Soapyfrog]

I'm sorry but it's a perfectly reasonable position to tie lack of arms control to many social and legal problems including high crime rate, high murder rate, and illegal weapons trade to neighbouring countries. There is plenty of evidence for it. It's also reasonable to point out that having such a large number of weapons in circulation has no noticeable benefit to society, but massive beenfit to the weapons manufacturers who form the backbone of the gun lobby.

You may not agree with that but it does not merit a fecal slinging reply.

[Funkula]

OK, but the shitslinging was in response to your third-rate Bob the Angry Flower ripoff about private nuclear weapons.

[Lizard_King]

OK, but the shitslinging was in response to your third-rate Bob the Angry Flower ripoff about private nuclear weapons.
The original post he opened with was nothing to write home about, either. The nuclear bomb spin really was when it all went off the rails, that's for sure.
It's amazing to me the trouble that the right to bear arms has caused for the United States as a whole, something that bleeds over into Canada in the form of weapons smuggled to gangs here.

And the firearms manufacturers have made out like bandits. One can easily why there is such a powerful anti-gun control lobby even though it is in the best interests of the general population to control firearms.
Connecting all of those disparate elements as a direct set of consequences of the right to bear arms in and of itself (without any of the nuance that makes this a controversy in the first place) is precisely why gun control gets nowhere. If the emphasis of the majority of antigun advocacy was on dealing with illegal firearms, smuggling, and actual misbehavior on the part of the gun industry with respect to both of those it would be an entirely different argument. Instead, we end up with caricatures of leftist stereotypes along these lines, meaning they will once again be aghast at those American barbarians who refuse to support right thinking people of their ilk in sufficient numbers to make their kind of difference.

It's not "amazing" to you anymore than central issues at the core of the identities of other nations are to me. You came in here to start some passive aggressive shit, and now it's getting tossed back at you. If you have some specifics you want to address, that's a different story. Right now, you're like the back cover summary of a Michael Moore video. That's not good, by the way.

I'm sorry but it's a perfectly reasonable position to tie lack of arms control to many social and legal problems including high crime rate, high murder rate, and illegal weapons trade to neighbouring countries. There is plenty of evidence for it. It's also reasonable to point out that having such a large number of weapons in circulation has no noticeable benefit to society, but massive beenfit to the weapons manufacturers who form the backbone of the gun lobby.

You may not agree with that but it does not merit a fecal slinging reply.
I don't agree. I think the Canadian protests too much.

[Huzurdaddi]

I don't agree.

Ok, I'm interested. What does the literature say about this? I'm not a gun nut nor an anti-gun crusader so I haven't done any research on the topic. My natural intuition is that more guns means more gun deaths and more violent deaths. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. The 1st hit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States) from google seems to support that intuition, but to be truthful these statistics don't mean that much without some analysis (although the US does have a real truck load of guns deaths vs. other G7 nations).

Oh and no papers from the Cato institute or their ilk, thnx!

[Funkula]

Incidentally, could anyone tell me what that thing is in the gun ad, right hand column, third one down? That is one bizarre-looking gun.

[Lizard_King]

Ok, I'm interested. What does the literature say about this? I'm not a gun nut nor an anti-gun crusader so I haven't done any research on the topic. My natural intuition is that more guns means more gun deaths and more violent deaths. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. The 1st hit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States) from google seems to support that intuition, but to be truthful these statistics don't mean that much without some analysis (although the US does have a real truck load of guns deaths vs. other G7 nations).
The contrasting position is not one founded on the number of guns in absolute terms. The distinction lies between the impact of legal gun ownership by otherwise law abiding citizens within existing American laws and the impact of guns outside of that framework. The pro-gun position is generally mischaracterized as one that does not differentiate between the two: in fact, most gun advocacy groups could be described as supporting more effective enforcement of existing laws without compromising the rights they are supposed to respect. For instance, the data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#Statistics) on concealed carry is remarkably supportive of the gun rights position, in my opinion. That does not mean I reflexively espouse the more guns/less crime position at the extreme end of the pro gun movement, but that I believe it is a more complicated issue than simply guns=crime with a lot of ethical and statistical nuances.

You may argue that a concern about crime and support for gun ownership as it stands in the US are fundamentally incompatible, as better antigun promoters have done by targeting their arguments carefully. However, I don't think that conflating correlative suppositions with causal ones is a productive direction for the discussion, which is what I believe you are doing by dealing with crime statistics in absolute terms relative to legal gun ownership. Soapyfrog's position as presented thus far could be described as an extreme caricature of that.

[bago]

It's a loader hopper for packing your own shotgun shells.

[deccan]

It's a loader hopper for packing your own shotgun shells.

I think he means the one that works on darker targets. I'd like to know too!

[Matthew Gallant]

That would be the Kel-Tec PLR-16 pistol.

[Houngan]

I think he means the one that works on darker targets. I'd like to know too!

It's a .223 by Keltec, as Gallant said. Think of a very inexpensive cut-down rifle. Strange niche, but some people enjoy them.

Also, thanks everyone for pointing out the argumentative flow, it always turns into a fagdance when you have to try and explain your own posts.

H.

[Soapyfrog]

The original post he opened with was nothing to write home about, either. The nuclear bomb spin really was when it all went off the rails, that's for sure.
I was responding to Houngan blabbing about how he's form the land of the free and the home of the brave or some chauvanistic nonsense, like you can't live in a free country if you can't own an assault rifle. Zzz. There was nothing wrong with my original post, however you like to characterize it, and it disheartens me still that our own gun problems in Canada are linked so closely to yours.

You do not agree with my assertion that the 2nd amendment has been the root cause of endless trouble in the US. I'll agree with you that it is central to the American national identity but it did not have to be so. Even worse, this attitude that gun ownership should not be regulated, or regulated only minimally is probably directly responsible for the proliferation of illegal weapons. Freer gun ownership = more illegal guns in the hands of bad guys.

Lastly there is actually a problem even with legally own firearms, though less of a concern than illegal ones. Sometimes people get angry/insane and use their legally owned guns to end the lives of innocent people, and sometimes people accidentally shoot themselves/others. So that sucks too.

In summary, people want free ownership of guns so that they can defend themselves, but this security is illusory as the US a higher gun crime rate and a fantastically higher gun murder rate than any other 1st world country (Canada being the best match for comparison).

[Lizard_King]

I was responding to Houngan blabbing about how he's form the land of the free and the home of the brave or some chauvanistic nonsense, like you can't live in a free country if you can't own an assault rifle. Zzz. There was nothing wrong with my original post, however you like to characterize it, and it disheartens me still that our own gun problems in Canada are linked so closely to yours.
Believe me, if we could dig a moat between the two countries, I'd be all for it. Ideally with a wall, as well, just so I don't have to hear you bitch.

He wasn't blabbing out of turn, I'm telling you that's exactly what your post sounds like to Americans who care about gun rights. If you're venting rather than looking for a discussion, that's one thing. Just don't expect it to go unchallenged, and don't expect that many people to be all that interested in the discussion, either. It's been beaten into the ground on this very forum so many times it's almost tragic to see you walk in and trample all over the occasional truce that arises.

There are simply fundamentally different approaches to what constitutes a reasonable right to self defense. On top of that, there are people that just don't like/fear guns, and will seek rationalizations for legislating that dislike over and over again without admitting their focus. I'm thinking that's where you're coming from. Those of us that firmly err on the side of allowing law abiding citizens to do it with guns are a LOT more into our side of the argument than the opposition. We are not going anywhere as far as America is concerned, and Obama was wise not to make that a central feature in his campaign.

You do not agree with my assertion that the 2nd amendment has been the root cause of endless trouble in the US. I'll agree with you that it is central to the American national identity but it did not have to be so. Even worse, this attitude that gun ownership should not be regulated, or regulated only minimally is probably directly responsible for the proliferation of illegal weapons. Freer gun ownership = more illegal guns in the hands of bad guys.

Your inferences continue to be problematic and unsupported by evidence. Whether you like it or not, the American gun attitude is exactly the opposite of what you wish it to be, and you can either find compromise based arguments or continue to be a marginalized part of the discourse. That's fine, just realize that few on the other side are going to be willing to take you more seriously than Houngan did.

Lastly there is actually a problem even with legally own firearms, though less of a concern than illegal ones. Sometimes people get angry/insane and use their legally owned guns to end the lives of innocent people, and sometimes people accidentally shoot themselves/others. So that sucks too.
Sometimes people stab each other, and sometimes they run each other over. Your argument sucks because it is inherently absurd in its implications. "Sometimes" based judgments make for shitty precedents.

In summary, people want free ownership of guns so that they can defend themselves, but this security is illusory as the US a higher gun crime rate and a fantastically higher gun murder rate than any other 1st world country (Canada being the best match for comparison).
People don't murder because guns are available. It certainly makes the process easier once the decision is made, but the core problems that afflict America would be dealt with far more effectively by a constructive approach that address, say, our ludicrous war on drugs, our educational and economic imbalances, or any of a thousand other approaches. Few are politically viable, but even the Democratic party has managed to grasp just how unworkable the sort of gun position you advocate is in American politics.

Also, Canada is a terrible match for comparison. Being geographically near is a poor substitute for relevance. You might as well argue that Mexico or Cuba is a useful comparison. The one place that I firmly believe in American exceptionalism is when it comes to our criminal statistics and their diverse origins. No other country has quite the blend of factors and wildly divergent outcomes we have. States with incredibly loose gun laws smash restrictive states when it comes crime stats, and once again geography + gun policy is not a magical combination of elements that can be taken on its own.

[Soapyfrog]

Just don't expect it to go unchallenged
Challenge away, just don't be Hounganesque about it.

On top of that, there are people that just don't like/fear guns, and will seek rationalizations for legislating that dislike over and over again without admitting their focus. I'm thinking that's where you're coming from.
I suspect actually that those who love their guns will fight to defend their gun rights in spite of what is good for society, backed by big bucks of the gun lobby for whom they generate so much juicy revenue.

Your inferences continue to be problematic and unsupported by evidence. Whether you like it or not, the American gun attitude is exactly the opposite of what you wish it to be, and you can either find compromise based arguments or continue to be a marginalized part of the discourse. That's fine, just realize that few on the other side are going to be willing to take you more seriously than Houngan did.
The compromise is to regulate gun ownership and limit the more destructive/concealable types of weapons. Without regulation, weapons will continue to freely flow into the hands of the bad guys. The handgun statistics are particularly telling in this regard. More handguns is correlated to more crime. If people were only allowed to own hunting rifles, for example, and the vast proportion of handguns already in circulation could somehow be eliminated, it's pretty much a lock that violent crime would drop off. Well IMHO anyway.

Sometimes people stab each other, and sometimes they run each other over. Your argument sucks because it is inherently absurd in its implications. "Sometimes" based judgments make for shitty precedents.
Stabbing is actually super hard compared to shooting. Running people over is even less practical. Giving people a practical and easy way to kill each other is a ticket to more violence and death, as is borne out by statistics in comparable 1st world nations. Anyway this is a much smaller subset of the actual problem.

People don't murder because guns are available. It certainly makes the process easier once the decision is made, but the core problems that afflict America would be dealt with far more effectively by a constructive approach that address, say, our ludicrous war on drugs, our educational and economic imbalances, or any of a thousand other approaches. Few are politically viable, but even the Democratic party has managed to grasp just how unworkable the sort of gun position you advocate is in American politics.
I actually agree with you, but that doesn't mean discussion should be dimissed with hoots of derision. I think that the reason why better gun control is "unworkable" in the US is because people have been sold by the gun lobby and the media that they need guns to protect themselves even though the protection afforded by owning a gun is illusory.

Also, Canada is a terrible match for comparison.
It's a great match for comparison. Culturally it is quite close and it has Federally mandated gun-control to contrast against the US Federally mandated right to bear arms.

States with incredibly loose gun laws smash restrictive states when it comes crime stats, and once again geography + gun policy is not a magical combination of elements that can be taken on its own.
The relevance of these smashing statistics is limited as States do not control their borders so guns flow freely where they will. Again the bulk of the problem is ILLEGAL guns falling into bad peoples' hands, made easy by the near total lack of proper regulation. Also I would bet the states with the least gun control are also the least urbanized and thus probably have a lower crime rate just on the basis of less dense populations. I could be wrong of course so I'll let you blast me with some stats.

[Huzurdaddi]

However, I don't think that conflating correlative suppositions with causal ones is a productive direction for the discussion, which is what I believe you are doing by dealing with crime statistics in absolute terms relative to legal gun ownership.

Of course it is, that is the nature of science. You observe some natural phenomena: in this case that the number of gun deaths in the US is bizarrely out of wack with that other other G7 nations. You then propose a hypothesis: in this case the natural intuition that more guns means more gun deaths. Then you construct some experiment, or in the social sciences you start doing some numerical method like regression analysis to prove or disprove the hypothesis. I'm not about to do the last part since that is heavy lifting so I asked to be linked to papers. That seems pretty sound. Hopefully Jason or Skedastic will come by with a link to some papers.


For instance, the data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#Statistics) on concealed carry is remarkably supportive of the gun rights position, in my opinion.

?? We'll have to disagree that this is supportive of gun rights. I hope someone links some decent papers.

[frank austin]

As someone recently introduced to firearms as a hobby, I'm kind of upset to see this trend. I also live in CA, where it's notoriously difficult to get anything black rifle related. Off-list lowers have tripled in price in many places, bringing the price of a complete AR way out of my range.

On one hand, I want to buy as much stuff as I can on the off chance that Obama follows through on his position to make the AWB permanent (http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/), but on the other I don't want to participate in what seems like a completely unnecessary price hike.

[Tim James]

Hopefully Jason or Skedastic will come by with a link to some papers...?? We'll have to disagree that this is supportive of gun rights. I hope someone links some decent papers.Hopefully Jason will come by with some neutral, objective papers [muffled laughter] that just happen to prove your point, as if individual rights are subject to a little data mining by researchers. There is always gunfacs.info for some fun tidbits with references, but I've long since stopped trying to fight this issue on the Internet. Crime is a complicated thing, and I wish both gun control groups and rights advocates would stop looking up their asses for papers and statistics and work together on some fundamental things that might help reduce violent deaths without compromising the now-kooky idea of individual rights and responsibilities.

[Tim James]

As someone recently introduced to firearms as a hobby, I'm kind of upset to see this trend. I also live in CA, where it's notoriously difficult to get anything black rifle related. Off-list lowers have tripled in price in many places, bringing the price of a complete AR way out of my range.

On one hand, I want to buy as much stuff as I can on the off chance that Obama follows through on his position to make the AWB permanent (http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/), but on the other I don't want to participate in what seems like a completely unnecessary price hike.I understand where you're coming from, and it was one of the original reasons I made this thread. I just want to buy an AR-15 for 3-gun competition, but it's chaos out there. I have a few friends that recently made some purchases unrelated to Obama's election and had the same experience. I really hope it dies down, maybe in about a year when I have more disposable income. :)

[Lunch of Kong]

What's an assault rifle? Are these the things delinquent youths are using to increase crime in my neighborhood?

[Tim James]

I just checked his link. That's the first time I've seen him take a position other than "common sense measures." So it's pretty clear he would sign an AWB, which certainly "disrespects" Second Amendment rights in a way that even a liberal freshman puke constitutional law student could understand. Not to mention the obvious that it stands on top of the mountain of retarded, ineffective laws that make people feel good that something is being done by their fathers in D.C.

Still, Bush said the same thing (I think he would've done anything for Iraq, Congressional Democrats just didn't realize it), and since Obama is not totally stupid, perhaps behind the scenes he will ask Congress to table the issue to his second term.

Or maybe the crazy rednecks are right! :)

[frank austin]

I understand where you're coming from, and it was one of the original reasons I made this thread. I just want to buy an AR-15 for 3-gun competition, but it's chaos out there. I have a few friends that recently made some purchases unrelated to Obama's election and had the same experience. I really hope it dies down, maybe in about a year when I have more disposable income. :)

This is exactly why I wanted to buy an AR. I just started shooting, and 3-gun competitions look crazy fun. For those of you who have never seen them, check out this "zombie" stage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xt4SONuwys) of a 3-gun contest in Texas. They also had a "jailbreak" stage and a "wounded" stage, which is pretty sweet. Basically it's a competition where you have to use a pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle. Military-style rifles are far superior for this sort of thing, and those of us who don't own one are weeping into our wallets right now.

I think I'm going to try to save up for a Sig 556, but who knows how much they'll be in California by the time I can afford it? It's the carrot on a stick I probably won't ever be able to reach at this point.

[Tim James]

Honestly if you've never done 3-gun, I'd just grab the cheapest, most basic AR-15 you can find in California. If you get addicted you'll want something semi-custom, and if you lose interest you won't be out much money. A Sig 556 is cool but seems like in that middle no-mans land for 3-gun in terms of price. :)

If you want an optic keep that in mind, some people like the flat top uppers. I don't know what kind of ranges you'd see in 3-gun near Oakland, but in Florida we don't see anything over 100 yards. Other than that you don't need too much more gear, just get out there and have fun.

[Houngan]

I was responding to Houngan blabbing about how he's form the land of the free and the home of the brave or some chauvanistic nonsense, like you can't live in a free country if you can't own an assault rifle.


Look, douche, I understand that you think you're scoring big points by referencing me in all of your posts, congrats. As best I can determine, you're pretty new to the internet and more stringent discussion forums in particular, so it can be excused that you use two-decade-old cliche argument techniques, but don't get so huffy because I pointed them out. First post, you made a ridiculously simplistic statement, which I pointed out with a bit of sarcasm. Second post, you trotted out a strawman so frayed from use it's hay dust at this point, which I pointed out with my own cliche of misspelled internet insults. Before you pull a muscle, please note that of everyone who is reading this thread, you're the only one who didn't get it.

Now I see that you're backpedaling with LK and trying to actually discuss this like a big boy. Again, congrats. However, I'd appreciate it if you left me out of it, I just wandered in to point out that you're a dumbass. This is protected by Amendment 7 of the internet bill of rights.

H.

[Houngan]

This is exactly why I wanted to buy an AR. I just started shooting, and 3-gun competitions look crazy fun. For those of you who have never seen them, check out this "zombie" stage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xt4SONuwys) of a 3-gun contest in Texas. They also had a "jailbreak" stage and a "wounded" stage, which is pretty sweet. Basically it's a competition where you have to use a pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle. Military-style rifles are far superior for this sort of thing, and those of us who don't own one are weeping into our wallets right now.

I think I'm going to try to save up for a Sig 556, but who knows how much they'll be in California by the time I can afford it? It's the carrot on a stick I probably won't ever be able to reach at this point.


I'm not sure about FFL transfers into California, but the clearinghouse for all things competition is brianenos.com. You have to register to see the Classifieds, and don't be offended if nobody wants to deal with you until you've been around a while, but there is no other game in town for information on every single aspect of competition shooting. Plus you can buy all the uppers, rails, optics, etc. you can stand for good prices from people who only sell top-quality gear.


H.

[Tim James]

This is protected by Amendment 7 of the internet bill of rights.Three ways to flame. One amendment.

[frank austin]

The problem with living in California is that I can't buy a pre-made AR unless a store has assembled it as such. We have to have a fixed magazine, fixed being defined as "unable to remove without use of a tool" and it has to be 10 rounds. As you can imagine, the AR portions of our 3-gun competitions aren't very fun.

Even the cheapest AR-15 I can buy is going to be over a grand at this point. Once I get up into that range, I figure I might as well buy something fancy.

[Houngan]

What about face-to-face? Can that be done in CA?

H.

[frank austin]

What about face-to-face? Can that be done in CA?

H.

Yeah, we have private party transfers. Subject to all of the same requirements as anything else, with a 10-day waiting period, background check, and the weapon still has to meet all of the state laws.

[Tim James]

I just did some searching. Looks like people use the M1A, Mini-14, a Kel-Tec, maybe a FAL. Mini-14 or Kel-Tec would probably be something cheap to get started with.

I would definitely attend a few matches and talk to people there before you buy anything.

Sucks that your options for competition are so limited, but at least you're safer from rampant gun violence.

[Soapyfrog]

First post, you made a ridiculously simplistic statement
Yeah I'm sorry I didn't immediately write a 6 page dissertation on the subject, including all possible nuance and weighing the pros and cons.

Thanks for your brilliant contribution to the discussion.

Anyway, pro gun-control does not equate to pro gun-elimination. It's legal to own guns in Canada, and I think our laws are pretty good (although the gun registry was a debacle). It's just the retarded number of illegal weapons coming across the border from you guys that causes the serious trouble.

And I don't even think "assault weapons" are even one tenth the problem handguns are.

[Lizard_King]

I suspect actually that those who love their guns will fight to defend their gun rights in spite of what is good for society, backed by big bucks of the gun lobby for whom they generate so much juicy revenue.
And the __________ conspiracy will continue to back antigun activists and support them in attacking my right to defend myself, my home, and the people I care about in the manner I see fit that my country has chosen to rank right behind freedom of speech and conscience in terms of its importance. I left the blank because I don't really care for that line of reasoning, fill it in with whatever you assume my paranoid delusions include.


The compromise is to regulate gun ownership and limit the more destructive/concealable types of weapons. Without regulation, weapons will continue to freely flow into the hands of the bad guys. The handgun statistics are particularly telling in this regard. More handguns is correlated to more crime. If people were only allowed to own hunting rifles, for example, and the vast proportion of handguns already in circulation could somehow be eliminated, it's pretty much a lock that violent crime would drop off. Well IMHO anyway.
You freely switch between things that there is no evidence for (if the vast number of handguns that are legally owned directly affected crime statistics, we'd be knee deep in the dead, and we can go back and forth on such broken interpretations of numbers all day...I know from experience) and conjectures which you know are only "somehow" feasible, right after flying pigs knock a unicorn off the front steps of the Capitol building. If you want do discuss compromises, the primary constraint is what is politically possible or likely in the US. If you want to discuss your pipe dreams, that's a different conversation that I find even less interesting.


Stabbing is actually super hard compared to shooting. Running people over is even less practical. Giving people a practical and easy way to kill each other is a ticket to more violence and death, as is borne out by statistics in comparable 1st world nations. Anyway this is a much smaller subset of the actual problem.
Actually, it's really not much of a problem at all. Which was my point to begin with. It is precisely the ease of use and effectiveness that makes it the preferred tool for self defense. The correct response is to tackle the demand for murder tools rather than the presumed sources, which will always shift to accommodate (see: drugs). In a country with over 230 million guns or so in private hands, the cat is out of the bag. That's a lot of cold dead hands, so when you're ready to visit earth again and talk about policy, let me know.


I actually agree with you, but that doesn't mean discussion should be dimissed with hoots of derision. I think that the reason why better gun control is "unworkable" in the US is because people have been sold by the gun lobby and the media that they need guns to protect themselves even though the protection afforded by owning a gun is illusory.
It's not illusory for me. I know exactly how much protection effective gun possession can afford me, and am absolutely confident that your statement is a product of the same fundamentally divided approach to self defense that I described earlier. We're not going to agree on that, and I'll go ahead and add that claiming your opponents in a debate are automatically corporate brainwashed zombies is a stupid tack to adopt. *I* think that you're full of shit in your analysis of causality, and projecting your personal values on people that want no part of them, but I try not to express it that way (just this once) until you make it the logical counterpoint. See what I mean?


It's a great match for comparison. Culturally it is quite close and it has Federally mandated gun-control to contrast against the US Federally mandated right to bear arms.

The relevance of these smashing statistics is limited as States do not control their borders so guns flow freely where they will. Again the bulk of the problem is ILLEGAL guns falling into bad peoples' hands, made easy by the near total lack of proper regulation. Also I would bet the states with the least gun control are also the least urbanized and thus probably have a lower crime rate just on the basis of less dense populations.
So why does your population density argument not apply to Canada? Shouldn't it protect you from your scary American Gun Lobby Gangs? In addition, why are you only able to extrapolate from that assumption where it is beneficial to your argument, and not generally? Obviously the biggest difference between Vermont and Washington DC is not the gun law: that cuts both ways.


I could be wrong of course so I'll let you blast me with some stats.
No thanks. I'm not so much trying to convince you as illustrate why, in fact, there is opposition to what you advocate in the clearest possible terms. The idea being that you can at least stop wringing your hands about the why and get back to me when you have some reality based alternatives to offer or specific points to discuss. Otherwise, it's a pointless quagmire of data.

Of course it is, that is the nature of science. You observe some natural phenomena: in this case that the number of gun deaths in the US is bizarrely out of wack with that other other G7 nations. You then propose a hypothesis: in this case the natural intuition that more guns means more gun deaths. Then you construct some experiment, or in the social sciences you start doing some numerical method like regression analysis to prove or disprove the hypothesis. I'm not about to do the last part since that is heavy lifting so I asked to be linked to papers. That seems pretty sound. Hopefully Jason or Skedastic will come by with a link to some papers.
Please, don't bore me further with your pedantry. Mine is a fundamentally rights and precedent based argument, so I am perfectly comfortable with where I stand. If you can't be bothered to find the statistics, I certainly don't care enough to. Not because I don't care about the subject, but I know attrition based argument tactics when I see them.

?? We'll have to disagree that this is supportive of gun rights. I hope someone links some decent papers.
Some (but not all) states publish statistics indicating how many people acquire permits to carry concealed weapons, and their demographics. Reported permit-holders are predominantly male. For example, while over 60,000 women were licensed in Florida as of June 2007[update], 85% of permit holders were male in that state.[45] The number of permit-holders has been growing. Michigan, for example, reported more than 40,000 applications in a one year period.[46] Florida has issued over 1.2 million permits since adopting the law, and has had more than 400,000 currently-licensed permit holders as of June 2007[update].[47]

Distribution by age is generally proportionate to the overall state adult population. In Florida, 26% of permit-holders are in the 21–35 age group, 36% are 36–50, 27% are 51–65, and 11% are over age 65. The numbers of permit revocations are small. North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law.[48]

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason.[49]
Yeah, wow, I can't believe someone would read that and conclude it is supportive of gun rights. WHAT KIND OF CRAZY TALK IS THAT?

If your point is that Wikipedia is not a valid source of data for an internet argument, that's fine. I used it summarize a pretty noncontroversial data point in response to a similarly linked data nugget on wiki, and that seems fair game to me. Go ahead and ?? away, feigning a lack of comprehension in lieu of an actual argument has always been one of my favorite internet behaviors to observe.

[Houngan]

Yeah, we have private party transfers. Subject to all of the same requirements as anything else, with a 10-day waiting period, background check, and the weapon still has to meet all of the state laws.

Ah, that's a different beast. Around here, you just shows up and pays up, and it's yours.

H.

[Soapyfrog]

And the __________ conspiracy will continue to back antigun activists and support them in attacking my right to defend myself, my home, and the people I care about in the manner I see fit that my country has chosen to rank right behind freedom of speech and conscience in terms of its importance. I left the blank because I don't really care for that line of reasoning, fill it in with whatever you assume my paranoid delusions include.
There is no conspiracy, gun manufacturers actively lobby against any measure of gun control, as one would only expect.

For pro-gun control sadly there is really no money in that. If you believed there is a conspiracy to remove your gun rights that goes beyond just what ordinary people want then I would indeed think you were being paranoid.

and conjectures which you know are only "somehow" feasible, right after flying pigs knock a unicorn off the front steps of the Capitol building. If you want do discuss compromises, the primary constraint is what is politically possible or likely in the US. If you want to discuss your pipe dreams, that's a different conversation that I find even less interesting.
I don't know for sure what is feasible in the US. I guess you are telling me that proper gun control is simply impossible and no one should even try.

In a country with over 230 million guns or so in private hands, the cat is out of the bag.
Maybe more apropos "the genie is out of the bottle" and maybe you are correct but I would hope not.

So why does your population density argument not apply to Canada? Shouldn't it protect you from your scary American Gun Lobby Gangs? In addition, why are you only able to extrapolate from that assumption where it is beneficial to your argument, and not generally? Obviously the biggest difference between Vermont and Washington DC is not the gun law: that cuts both ways.
Canada has cities that can reasonably be compared to American cities. On the other hand Washington DC does not compare well to Vermont in the same way that Toronto does not compare well with, say, Manitoba. Population denisty is undeniably a factor in crime rates that you should try to normalize for when making comparisons.

No thanks. I'm not so much trying to convince you as illustrate why, in fact, there is opposition to what you advocate in the clearest possible terms. The idea being that you can at least stop wringing your hands about the why and get back to me when you have some reality based alternatives to offer or specific points to discuss. Otherwise, it's a pointless quagmire of data.
Well let me ask you why you think there are so many illegal firearms floating about and why gun crime rates are so high in the US compared with any other 1st world nation? Because from here it seems clear that the correlation with unregulated gun ownership is actually implying the causation: there is no practical barrier in the US to criminals acquiring weapons.

[Houngan]

Yeah, we have private party transfers. Subject to all of the same requirements as anything else, with a 10-day waiting period, background check, and the weapon still has to meet all of the state laws.

I asked folks who know:

You can find the laws here: http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/index.html

There is a good forum for Ca info here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php
(they have a nice flowchart to ID "assault weapons": http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)

Do some reading about OLL (off list lowers).

I have heard that the 2009 Ca multi-gun is going to have a "Ca legal" division.

[Lizard_King]

I don't know for sure what is feasible in the US. I guess you are telling me that proper gun control is simply impossible and no one should even try.
If proper gun control is defined as "what Canada has done", then yes, it's impossible.


Canada has cities that can reasonably be compared to American cities. On the other hand Washington DC does not compare well to Vermont in the same way that Toronto does not compare well with, say, Manitoba. Population denisty is undeniably a factor in crime rates that you should try to normalize for when making comparisons.
I agree it's a factor, and I think it's combined with enough other significant factors to make such normalization the tactic of choice of ideologues on both sides.

Well let me ask you why you think there are so many illegal firearms floating about and why gun crime rates are so high in the US compared with any other 1st world nation? Because from here it seems clear that the correlation with unregulated gun ownership is actually implying the causation: there is no practical barrier in the US to criminals acquiring weapons.
Our gun ownership isn't unregulated. Existing regulations just aren't well or consistently enforced. There is plenty of room for reform in that capacity, but none so long as it is being driven by people with prohibition or some variation of it as their goal.

Why is drug use so common despite prohibition? Because the root of the issue is not being addressed by current policy. Same thing goes for crime based gun policy in terms of most of what is presented by gun control advocates.

[Funkula]

What's an assault rifle? Are these the things delinquent youths are using to increase crime in my neighborhood?

I believe you're thinking of skateboards, or perhaps baggy pants. It's a common mistake.

[TheWombat]

I don't shoot any more--sold my weapons (I still miss my CAR-15, HK-91, PPK, and custom Combat Commander, sniff sniff) in graduate school years ago--but enjoyed it when I did. I had a carry permit (in Georgia) for a while but let it lapse as I didn't really want to deal with that and had no real desire to carry outside of the house. I definitely understand why folks want to own firearms...and I understand why folks do not, for a variety of reasons as well.

But this discussion seems a bit surreal--does anyone really think that you can wave some sort of magic wand and poof! hundreds of millions of weapons vanish to fairy land or something? As noted above, the cat is out of the bag/genie out of the bottle/whatever metaphor you want. Whether or not one thinks that, if we had a miracle machine or something, the total elimination of firearms would be a good thing or a bad thing, it ain't gonna happen. So what's left is to try and make sure as few people as possible use firearms in bad ways.

I think harsh punishments for using guns in criminal activity, basic regulatory and record-keeping procedures that don't harm law-abiding citizens, and most importantly the development of a culture of respect for firearms and knowledge about what they can and cannot do for you, in terms of safety and security, might be our best hope. I really think that more than the availability of guns its the attitudes some--many?--have about guns that is the problem. Far too many people treat weapons with a cavalier attitude, don't seem to appreciate the finality of using them, and are way too casual about the possiblity of using deadly force. Those are cultural problems, and hard to address.

One reason why I chose to sell my weapons (and there are many times I kick myself, especially for my little CAR-15) was that in the South, where I was at the time, many of the ranges I'd visit were filled with, shall we say, individuals who were hardly poster children for responsible gun ownership. One too many firing ranges filled with (literally) KKK-types shooting at racist targets and idiots with more money than sense blowing through hundreds of dollars of 9mm with their Uzis (and sometimes actually hitting what they aimed at) got a bit wearying. That, and the cost of ammo :)

But it's a waste of breath to get all starry-eyed about some sort of magical bannishment of firearms. Even if it was possible, I am far from convinced it would even be for the best. After all, Sam Colt did make men equal, after a fashion....

[Marged]

I don't think anyone is interested in the total abolishment of all weapons. All I personally want to see is some coherent, effective public policy aimed at making city streets safer. I would be interested in hearing from all comers, but I gotta say, I know you gun guys love "creating a culture of respect for guns" as a policy recommendation but I don't think it really passes the laugh test. Stop throwing up your hands or worrying about slippery slopes and start figuring out what would actually work, on the ground, to reduce gun violence. Reducing the number of handguns in circulation strikes me as one option. If that is such an affront to you all, then figure out something that would work better and give evidence.

[extarbags]

But this discussion seems a bit surreal--does anyone really think that you can wave some sort of magic wand and poof! hundreds of millions of weapons vanish to fairy land or something?

Uh, yes. Wait, what are you saying, that that's not the case?

I think harsh punishments for using guns in criminal activity, basic regulatory and record-keeping procedures that don't harm law-abiding citizens, and most importantly the development of a culture of respect for firearms and knowledge about what they can and cannot do for you, in terms of safety and security, might be our best hope.

Oh, yeah? You think that's our best hope, huh? Because, you know, we already do have pretty harsh punishment for using guns for criminal activity, and our "culture of respect for firearms" is the reason we have to have this utterly ridiculous debate in the first place.

So how are those working out so far, would you say? Pretty good? Or do we just have to give them another couple of hundred years before they finally pay off?

[frank austin]

I asked folks who know:

You can find the laws here: http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/index.html

There is a good forum for Ca info here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php
(they have a nice flowchart to ID "assault weapons": http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)

Do some reading about OLL (off list lowers).

I have heard that the 2009 Ca multi-gun is going to have a "Ca legal" division.

Yeah, I know a fair amount about the OLL stuff. I'm permanently banned from calguns, though. The owner is a nutjob, and really just wants the place to be the biggest echo chamber of conservative christianity on the internet. He told me I was "insulting his faith" or something once, because I explained politely to someone that quoting journalistic sources from all-christian news sites wasn't really balanced. But I digress.

Tim: I was thinking about a Mini-14 as something cheap to get started, but "only accurate rifles are interesting", as the saying goes, and most of the reading I've done about the Mini-14 suggests it may be a less-than-interesting rifle. I'll probably just keep saving pennies in the meantime, and get a nice M1A or build an AR when the jar's full enough.

[Lizard_King]

Oh, yeah? You think that's our best hope, huh? Because, you know, we already do have pretty harsh punishment for using guns for criminal activity, and our "culture of respect for firearms" is the reason we have to have this utterly ridiculous debate in the first place.

So how are those working out so far, would you say? Pretty good? Or do we just have to give them another couple of hundred years before they finally pay off?
Well, just like freedom of speech providing you with a venue for your opinions, there are downsides to everything. For the record, this is what US-leaked violence really looks like (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7772771.stm). That's probably the gun lobby's fault, too, right?

[extarbags]

For the record, this is what US-leaked violence really looks like (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7772771.stm). That's probably the gun lobby's fault, too, right?

What do you mean "US-leaked," and what does that have to do with this discussion? Worst strawman evar?

[frank austin]

The problem with laughing off "cultural" changes is that this really is a cultural problem. Other countries have similar gun ownership numbers to the US and lack the ridiculous murder/suicide rates that plague us. Guns and gun ownership aren't the problem in and of themselves, or else this wouldn't be the case.

[TheWombat]

Chill, dawg. You know what I mean--I agree there's way too much fetishism and ill-considered adulation about guns (gun porn, as some call it) and way too much lusting after ideas of firepower. That sort of thing does indeed, as you correctly imply, make for big problems.

By "respect" I guess I mean respect for the evil that weapons can do when iimproperly used, and awareness that guns do not make you cool, they don't give you style, they don't make your maleness more prominent; they are tools that have dire consequences when misused. And yes we already have harsh punishments for gun crimes; I think those should stay, and the message going out should emphasize that using a gun in a crime is a Real Bad Thing. Sure, it won't have that much affect but it's worth something I think.

My beef with the gun lobby (manufacturers, enthusiasts, the whole shebang) is that inadvertently or not they, collectively, often contribute to this creation of a gun image that is not helpful to society. Just as the sometimes over the top attacks on gun ownership from the other side don't help things, the "cold dead fingers" rhetoric and cowboy imagery doesn't help from that side, either.

I also don't purport to have a solution. Perhaps you have a workable one?

Uh, yes. Wait, what are you saying, that that's not the case?



Oh, yeah? You think that's our best hope, huh? Because, you know, we already do have pretty harsh punishment for using guns for criminal activity, and our "culture of respect for firearms" is the reason we have to have this utterly ridiculous debate in the first place.

So how are those working out so far, would you say? Pretty good? Or do we just have to give them another couple of hundred years before they finally pay off?

[TheWombat]

The problem with laughing off "cultural" changes is that this really is a cultural problem. Other countries have similar gun ownership numbers to the US and lack the ridiculous murder/suicide rates that plague us. Guns and gun ownership aren't the problem in and of themselves, or else this wouldn't be the case.

Bingo. And this is why it's so hard to deal with. Culture issues are easy to see and hard to "fix," if anyone can figure out what "fixing" it means.

[Marged]

Other countries have similar gun ownership numbers to the US and lack the ridiculous murder/suicide rates that plague us.

Citation please.

[extarbags]

Yeah, I boggled at that too. But even if that's the case, big deal? I mean, sure, we have a cultural problem here that leads to too many dickwads abusing guns. Yes, it's incredibly difficult if not impossible to fix. That doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and go "Welp, it's a cultural problem, too tough, I guess we're stuck with it!" We have to look at other ways to solve or reduce the problem, even if they don't address the underlying cultural sickness. The answer isn't going to be one thing, and it isn't going to be easy, but if we can effectively reduce the availability of guns across the board, I don't see how that can fail to help at least somewhat.

[Houngan]

Yeah, I know a fair amount about the OLL stuff. I'm permanently banned from calguns, though. The owner is a nutjob, and really just wants the place to be the biggest echo chamber of conservative christianity on the internet. He told me I was "insulting his faith" or something once, because I explained politely to someone that quoting journalistic sources from all-christian news sites wasn't really balanced. But I digress.

Tim: I was thinking about a Mini-14 as something cheap to get started, but "only accurate rifles are interesting", as the saying goes, and most of the reading I've done about the Mini-14 suggests it may be a less-than-interesting rifle. I'll probably just keep saving pennies in the meantime, and get a nice M1A or build an AR when the jar's full enough.

Mini-14s are great little guns, but like ARs and most every other firearm made, they aren't ideal from the factory. While the AR is certainly the platform of choice, don't think that you can't make a Mini perform with some trigger work and perhaps a new barrel. The big question is how far out do you intend to shoot? Inside 200 yards, any rifle that goes bang will do the job for USPSA 3-gun. Inside 500, you can get a Mini to perform, but the cost goes up a lot. Outside, you probably want an AR, or you're going to get frustrated.

H.

[Anti-Bunny]

Anyway, pro gun-control does not equate to pro gun-elimination. It's legal to own guns in Canada, and I think our laws are pretty good (although the gun registry was a debacle). It's just the retarded number of illegal weapons coming across the border from you guys that causes the serious trouble.
Their laws are a travesty, and the "It's all guns coming over the border" excuse is a common one when restrictive regions find out their laws didn't work. Their politicians and law enforcement types are lying through their teeth about it too. Most weapons used in crime in Canada are... gasp... from Canada

I know you aren't saying this, but I especially don't buy the crap that the US is responsible for Mexico's gun violence. You can get a REAL AK-47 in Mexico or up from Columbia and other Central and S. American countries for less than it costs to get a semi-auto one here. Even a semi-auto that 'fell off the truck' in the US is going to be way more expensive then a full-auto in Mexico.

[Eric T Cheng]

The CBC programme, The Fifth Estate, did a documentary called Firestar .45 (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/firestar/index.html), which traced the four year history of a small handgun from an US gunshop in 1997 to its use in the accidental shooting of a six-year-old Michael James by a playmate.

[Eric T Cheng]

Most weapons used in crime in Canada are... gasp... from Canada

I seriously doubt that. Canada has VERY strict gun control laws.

Most of the homicides in Toronto and Vancouver that involves guns are often than not gang-related. And it would be safe to say that gang members aren't lawfully abiding citizens who are registered gun owners.

From this Canoe article (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2008/07/03/6057306-cp.html) about illegal guns coming into Canada from the US:

Ontario government figures indicate about 70 per cent of the crime guns seized in that province came illegally from the United States.

[Anti-Bunny]

It's a lie, as I said. They don't know where the guns came from if they're unregistered. What they mean by 70% are unregistered.

[Tim James]

We have to look at other ways to solve or reduce the problem, even if they don't address the underlying cultural sickness.Hacking at the leaves exerts a lot of energy and feels like something is getting done, but you don't make any real progress without going after the root. The answer isn't going to be one thing, and it isn't going to be easy, but if we can effectively reduce the availability of guns across the board, I don't see how that can fail to help at least somewhat.Gun-control types definitely have a top-down risk analysis perspective different than mine. I believe they would be more than happy to have a 5% reduction in violent crime if it meant total disregard for individual rights. On the other hand, I wouldn't "feel safer" at an individual, personal level, when a thug is in my face in a dark parking lot. Neither side talks about this, but it's probably a place to start.
From this Canoe article (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2008/07/03/6057306-cp.html) about illegal guns coming into Canada from the US:Following the law that you should believe the opposite of anything a central government says, that means about 30% of guns used in crimes came from America. That sounds reasonable.

[Tim James]

Citation please.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

That might work, though again I don't know why I bother posting these things to people that don't care to educate themselves on their own, nor do I think individual rights should be decided by data mining.

[Kool Moe Dee]

Following the law that you should believe the opposite of anything a central government says, that means about 30% of guns used in crimes came from America. That sounds reasonable.

So that's how you play Calvinball, huh?

[extarbags]

Hacking at the leaves exerts a lot of energy and feels like something is getting done, but you don't make any real progress without going after the root.

Yeah, if you're talking about trees. Seriously, he's not talking about going after the root. What he's saying is, "we need to get the root to really address this... but it's so far down. The problem is unsolvable. :("

On the other hand, I wouldn't "feel safer" at an individual, personal level, when a thug is in my face in a dark parking lot. Neither side talks about this, but it's probably a place to start.

Yeah, why doesn't anybody bring up ridiculous hypothetical about being cornered by a banber in a gun-free world? Aside from every single person on your side every single time it comes up, I guess.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

That might work, though again I don't know why I bother posting these things to people that don't care to educate themselves on their own, nor do I think individual rights should be decided by data mining.

Ooooooh burrrrrrnnnuh. Only you should maybe read links you post before you totally wicked ice burn someone next time; that chart lists exactly zero countries with gun ownership as high as that in the US, and only one (Norway) that fits the bill (i.e. gun ownership somewhat close to the US and homicide rate substantially lower). Sorry for not educating my own self!

[TheWombat]

Actually, I guess I do believe the problem is "too far down" to ever be solved. Throw up hands and give up? No, but how to direct our efforts? I sincerely believe that any efforts to curtain the general availability of guns in the United States will either be totally ineffective, or, if carried out to even minimal effectiveness, be so intrusive and yes oppressive (not just in terms of "taking away guns" but in overall restrictions, intrusions, and creation of repressive apparatus and procedures) that whatever results it might have will be overshadowed by the other costs.

I wish it weren't so. But a generation or so of trying everything under the sun short of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and having the Army round up everyone's guns or something hasn't really had much impact it seems. I am truly open to any concrete proposals on how to reduce gun violence, either at the local or the national level.

And while I do think it's largely a problem of culture, cultural problems, while tough, are not insoluble. We changed a culture of institutional racism, we're changing a culture of institutional sexism, and we perhaps can change a lot of the negative aspects of gun culture too. How? I'm not sure, but I think it can be done.

[MikeSofaer]

Are you trying to solve the problem of people getting hurt, or of people having guns?

[Tim James]

Are you trying to solve the problem of people getting hurt, or of people having guns?The aim of gun control types is to keep people from getting hurt. They're not sure how to do that, so they prefer to cast a wide net and try to "do something." It's pretty anti-intellectual, but it's easier to swallow when you've stereotyped gun owners or choose to live in areas with high crime rates.

extarbags, regarding the stats: see? That's why I should stop trying! Someone throws out a factoid, someone else asks for a citation, it inevitably sucks because no one has good data, and we're back to square one. I think square one was personal possession of nuclear weapons.

[EDIT] Almost forgot to address the point you missed about the personal violent crime example. I wasn't including it as a reason to support the individual right; it is brought up so much as you mentioned because gun owners analyze risk differently from gun grabbers. The issue goes nowhere because the two camps can't even understand and respect these basic differences in perspective. (I know, it's a lot of nuance from a mouth-breathing gun nut.)

Anyway, I didn't want the thread to be about solving violent crime once and for all (heh), just chatting about the stupid market reaction to Obama's election, which I maintain is unwarranted. We'll see if I'm wrong in a couple of years!

[Marged]

The aim of gun control types is to keep people from getting hurt. They're not sure how to do that, so they prefer to cast a wide net and try to "do something." It's pretty anti-intellectual, but it's easier to swallow when you've stereotyped gun owners or choose to live in areas with high crime rates.

Oh my god, so much offensive bullshit, so little time.

Objecting to violence and wanting to do something to maintain the basic level of peace required for a non-barbaric existence is not anti-intellectual. I'd say it's downright Hobbesian.

choose to live in areas with high crime rates.

Um, fuck you?

[extarbags]

extarbags, regarding the stats: see? That's why I should stop trying!

Because the stats don't back up your argument even a little bit?

[Tim James]

Objecting to violence and wanting to do something to maintain the basic level of peace required for a non-barbaric existence is not anti-intellectual.Of course, but then why do people immediately put their heads in the sand and loudly and desperately cling to ineffective and tired nonsense touted by the Brady Campaign or some other group?

It's okay, because I believe Obama will bring change to this issue.

[ReptileHouse]

Actually, I guess I do believe the problem is "too far down" to ever be solved. Throw up hands and give up? No, but how to direct our efforts? I sincerely believe that any efforts to curtain the general availability of guns in the United States will either be totally ineffective, or, if carried out to even minimal effectiveness, be so intrusive and yes oppressive (not just in terms of "taking away guns" but in overall restrictions, intrusions, and creation of repressive apparatus and procedures) that whatever results it might have will be overshadowed by the other costs.

I wish it weren't so. But a generation or so of trying everything under the sun short of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and having the Army round up everyone's guns or something hasn't really had much impact it seems. I am truly open to any concrete proposals on how to reduce gun violence, either at the local or the national level.

And while I do think it's largely a problem of culture, cultural problems, while tough, are not insoluble. We changed a culture of institutional racism, we're changing a culture of institutional sexism, and we perhaps can change a lot of the negative aspects of gun culture too. How? I'm not sure, but I think it can be done.

Pssstt... Bob.... you're being reasonable in a Politics forum in a gun control thread. You know that's just not done, right? I mean, serious, serious loss of intarwebby-points, there.

Joking aside, I pretty much agree with you here. It's a shitty problem, with shitty solutions all around.

There are many, many problems. There's no magic bullet (hah!) to solve them all. We *may* be able to make inroads on individual issues with targeted solutions. For example, gun street violence can be treated indirectly by social programs and coordinated law enforcement efforts that work (hopefully together) to minimize gang activity. Reduce the "need" for more firepower to fight rival gangs by reducing the overall gang activity. Do that by giving inner city kids real alternatives. Personally, I think that's a big enough problem to tackle all by itself without also trying to solve all sorts of other "gun problems" with the same solutions.

[Anti-Bunny]

Oh my god, so much offensive bullshit, so little time.

Objecting to violence and wanting to do something to maintain the basic level of peace required for a non-barbaric existence is not anti-intellectual.
You're right. Pretending that if you take no means to defend yourself you'll never be subjected to violence is NOT 'anti-intellectual'. It's just stupid. Which is why the gun control movement comes off as so unbelievably ridiculous to people willing to assume personal responsibility for themselves.

I'd say it's downright Hobbesian.
Yeah, great guy, that Hobbes. Hahahaha, are you for realz?

Um, fuck you?
Yeah, fuck those people that live in high crime areas who want to defend themselves. I'm speaking to you, Heller! What a macho, troublesome asshole that guy is! I bet he's racist, too. All gun nuts are, right?

[Soapyfrog]

It's a lie, as I said. They don't know where the guns came from if they're unregistered. What they mean by 70% are unregistered.
Are you in some state of denial? What they mean is that 70% of the weapons orginated in the US and arrived here illegally.

The reason why so many of the weapons are American is that there are many many obstacles to criminals getting their hands on guns purchased in Canada, but basically none in the US. So it's easier (and cheaper!) for criminals to smuggle weapons over the border than to try and obtain them here.

Customs sometimes catches these smuggling ops. I have no doubt, as with the drug trade, that they only catch a fraction of shipments.
Other countries have similar gun ownership numbers to the US and lack the ridiculous murder/suicide rates that plague us.
As pointed out this is isn't true and further does not address a) handgun ownership which is huge in the US but very low elsewhere and b) the mass of unregistered weapons floating around the population, which is where the problem is AT, so to speak.

It's a big problem and I don't think it's impossible to deal with, but as a first step figuring out a way to stop the easy flow of guns into criminal hands would be great. Sadly that probably means restricting legal buyers and strictly enforcing registration and reporting of lost/stolen weapons, and following up on that shit aggressively.

[Lh'owon]

You're right. Pretending that if you take no means to defend yourself you'll never be subjected to violence is NOT 'anti-intellectual'. It's just stupid. Which is why the gun control movement comes off as so unbelievably ridiculous to people willing to assume personal responsibility for themselves.

No one is arguing that, congrats on gunning down your own strawman.

And thanks for implying people who don't own a gun are in some way irresponsible. That'll help this argument along nicely.

[Lizard_King]

What do you mean "US-leaked," and what does that have to do with this discussion? Worst strawman evar?

Actually, (idiot), that would make perfect sense if you'd read the initial spur for this discussion. Which was the impact of US decisions on Canadian violent crime.

[Tim James]

Yeah, fuck those people that live in high crime areas who want to defend themselves. I'm speaking to you, Heller! What a macho, troublesome asshole that guy is! I bet he's racist, too. All gun nuts are, right?Well, I should apologize for the original comment. I was taking a cut at people who read about stuff in the newspaper and conclude we need to grab guns at the federal level. I empathize with people that live in bad areas and can't get out, which is why it's frustrating to see even an intelligent person like Obama waste his time on inconsequential side issues (in terms of violent crime) like assault weapons bans.

[Huzurdaddi]

Found what looks like a decent book on the subject (http://www.amazon.com/Evaluating-Gun-Policy-Effects-Violence/dp/0815753128), it's on my Amazon list now.

It's from Brookings, which at least in my book, means non-partisan. Hey, it's why I give them money!

[Machfive]

Yeah, fuck those people that live in high crime areas who want to defend themselves. I'm speaking to you, Heller! What a macho, troublesome asshole that guy is! I bet he's racist, too. All gun nuts are, right?

Gun control is racist! (http://metrotimes.com/culture/story.asp?id=13488)

His core belief is that gun laws target blacks. "Gun control in Detroit is racist to begin with. You heard of Dr. Sweet?" he asks, referring to the case of Ossian Sweet, a black physician who, with his family, was tried and eventually acquitted for shooting into a mob that attacked their home when they moved into an all-white neighborhood in 1925.

Soon after, the state passed stringent gun-control laws, known as Public Act 372 of 1927. Laney sees those laws aimed squarely at blacks, a reaction to the verdict. "After the Sweet case, the Michigan Legislature said we couldn't allow black people to have guns, and that's how Michigan gun laws come about. Gun control is race control. It has been that way to keep blacks in servitude." Another hero of his is Robert F. Williams, a 1960s advocate of armed self-defense for the black community and an inspiration to the Black Panthers.

[Lizard_King]

Found what looks like a decent book on the subject (http://www.amazon.com/Evaluating-Gun-Policy-Effects-Violence/dp/0815753128), it's on my Amazon list now.

It's from Brookings, which at least in my book, means non-partisan. Hey, it's why I give them money!

If it's any good, post a review. It seems interesting, but I have a lot on my plate right now for something that is so far from easy reading.

[Anti-Bunny]

No one is arguing that
Marged is.

thanks for implying people who don't own a gun are in some way irresponsible.
I didn't say or imply that they were irresponsible. Brady Campaign don't want to allow other people to take responsibility for their own safety.

And even then it's not total safety, just what the police are incapable of providing... And even in a total police state (not what we have yet) you know that the cops can't protect you if there's any sort of actual imminent physical threat. Police can only provide the threat of force which will arrive however long it takes them to arrive, presuming you can contact them.

That'll help this argument along nicely.
Yeah, you were a big help.

[Anti-Bunny]

If it's any good, post a review. It seems interesting, but I have a lot on my plate right now for something that is so far from easy reading.

FYI, the book is an attack on Lott and company.

Here's the ending SPOILER DON'T READ: Current Gun Control Laws Have Not Been Effective at reducing gun violence. We conclude that we therefore need more laws.

[Lh'owon]

Marged is.

I've read her past few posts and I'm not seeing that at all, but I'm not interested in arguing over someone else's opinion so I'm sure Marged can clarify.

I didn't say or imply that they were irresponsible. Brady Campaign don't want to allow other people to take responsibility for their own safety.

Okay I admit to jumping in here late and not being familiar with American lobby groups, but a cursory glance at Wikipedia suggests the Brady Campaign no longer advocates a total ban on personal gun ownership. But I suppose if you define allowing "other people to take responsibility for their own safety" as packing anywhere, anytime, then yea.

And even then it's not total safety, just what the police are incapable of providing... And even in a total police state (not what we have yet) you know that the cops can't protect you if there's any sort of actual imminent physical threat. Police can only provide the threat of force which will arrive however long it takes them to arrive, presuming you can contact them.

Well yea, no kidding. Having a gun can also get you killed. These are truisms, what's your point?

[Lizard_King]

FYI, the book is an attack on Lott and company.

I know that. But I don't think that's a bad thing. Lott was really irresponsible in the way he handled the issue by catalyzing the no compromise crowd with the illusion that statistics alone were going to prove their case.

Here's the ending SPOILER DON'T READ: Current Gun Control Laws Have Not Been Effective at reducing gun violence. We conclude that we therefore need more laws.
That would be my guess as well, but if it's well done I'd still be interested in reading it.

[Anti-Bunny]

Okay I admit to jumping in here late and not being familiar with American lobby groups, but a cursory glance at Wikipedia suggests the Brady Campaign no longer advocates a total ban on personal gun ownership. But I suppose if you define allowing "other people to take responsibility for their own safety" as packing anywhere, anytime, then yea.
I don't buy that the Brady Campaign don't want a total ban. It's no different then PETA wanting 'total animal liberation'.. It's a ridiculous thing to argue for and most would reject it, so: baby steps.

Well yea, no kidding. Having a gun can also get you killed. These are truisms, what's your point?
Eh? Having a chainsaw can get you killed. Driving a car can get you killed. In other words, a gun doesn't jump out of the case and murder you in the night.. Taking basic common sense precautions negates most of the danger of accidentally killing yourself with your own gun.

[extarbags]

I've read her past few posts and I'm not seeing that at all

Anti-Bunny is referring to posts that are no longer on the last page of the thread; by the laws of shoddy P&R posters, that means that she said whatever he says she said.

[Anti-Bunny]

Marged, if that's not what you meant, then I take it back. Can you explain your position? Would you agree with Hobbes' philosophy in this matter?

[Lh'owon]

Eh? Having a chainsaw can get you killed. Driving a car can get you killed. In other words, a gun doesn't jump out of the case and murder you in the night.. Taking basic common sense precautions negates most of the danger of accidentally killing yourself with your own gun.

I think you assume people who aren't pro-gun are going to have the stupidest arguments by default... I meant that in certain situation you might be killed for having a gun. For example if someone wants to steal it, or if it makes you a target in a firefight (which you might not have been if you weren't "taking responsibility"). I'm not using this as an argument for gun control, just saying your point about guns making you safer until the cops come isn't always true, and can even be fatal.

[Houngan]

I think you assume people who aren't pro-gun are going to have the stupidest arguments by default... I meant that in certain situation you might be killed for having a gun. For example if someone wants to steal it, or if it makes you a target in a firefight (which you might not have been if you weren't "taking responsibility"). I'm not using this as an argument for gun control, just saying your point about guns making you safer until the cops come isn't always true, and can even be fatal.

That's not a good point to make, however, because you haven't addressed relative effects. The example has already been made about seatbelts. There are situations where a seatbelt will either not help at all, or actually cause you to die. But without addressing the relative likelihood of this vs. their beneficial effect, you haven't said anything.

H.

[Lh'owon]

That's not a good point to make, however, because you haven't addressed relative effects. The example has already been made about seatbelts. There are situations where a seatbelt will either not help at all, or actually cause you to die. But without addressing the relative likelihood of this vs. their beneficial effect, you haven't said anything.

H.

I said I wasn't making it an argument for gun control for that very reason. My point was you weren't saying anything with your "increasing safety till police arrive" thing.

Although I find your seatbelt example to be a little weird – I can't imagine a crash high-impact enough to cause the seatbelt to kill you that wouldn't send you headfirst through the windshield and down the street (probably leaving something vital behind) when not wearing one.

[Houngan]

I said I wasn't making it an argument for gun control for that very reason. My point was you weren't saying anything with your "increasing safety till police arrive" thing.

Although I find your seatbelt example to be a little weird – I can't imagine a crash high-impact enough to cause the seatbelt to kill you that wouldn't send you headfirst through the windshield and down the street (probably leaving something vital behind) when not wearing one.

But it may trap you in the car while underwater. Or break your neck because you were wearing it improperly. Or snap a tall person's neck whereas the airbag would have save him. All far less likely than the seatbelt saving you, but there you go.

Reading back, I see the point you were making, so apologies there. It's a common tactic to argue that somehow guns can only cause harm by being used against you, or you shoot yourself in the head, or etc. etc. When the logical view suggests that these would be gross statistical outliers, just like the seatbelt failures.

H.

[Lh'owon]

But it may trap you in the car while underwater. Or break your neck because you were wearing it improperly. Or snap a tall person's neck whereas the airbag would have save him. All far less likely than the seatbelt saving you, but there you go.

I suppose, though wearing it improperly is kind of like shooting yourself in the head ;) At this point we'll need data to determine whether guns act as a 'seatbelt' (have a much greater chance of saving rather than harming you) and if not having a gun puts you in significantly more danger, etc. All of which is very hard to quantify as it borders on subjective in a lot of cases.

And sorry for directing the "increasing safety till police arrive" thing at you, I was confusing you with Anti-Bunny.

[Houngan]

And that's where it always breaks down. Not to point fingers at anyone, but for some reason there are never statistics that demonstrate the horrible danger of gun possession, and statistics that support the idea of gun protection are instantly laughed off, despite being pretty rigorous. I'm talking specifically about the various polls/surveys that show defensive handgun use (the vast majority of which is brandishing) in the high 100,000s to millions per year.

H.

[Lizard_King]

I think you assume people who aren't pro-gun are going to have the stupidest arguments by default... I meant that in certain situation you might be killed for having a gun. For example if someone wants to steal it, or if it makes you a target in a firefight (which you might not have been if you weren't "taking responsibility"). I'm not using this as an argument for gun control, just saying your point about guns making you safer until the cops come isn't always true, and can even be fatal.

It keeps coming back to that core difference in attitudes on self defense. Set aside the relative odds for a moment: some of us are willing to take that risk, unwilling to have others remove the opportunity from us, and extremely motivated to ensure that the status quo in the United States goes in only one direction as far as gun rights. Sure, there's plenty of middle ground that could be negotiated. But the polarization of the debate will require the weaker group to concede and return to a compromise position first. I don't see that happening, because the leadership of the antigun movement is primarily ideologically motivated, just as the most inflexible parts of the pro gun movement are. The statistics are just the battlefield between two incompatible (at the moment) political views.

[Lizard_King]

And that's where it always breaks down. Not to point fingers at anyone, but for some reason there are never statistics that demonstrate the horrible danger of gun possession, and statistics that support the idea of gun protection are instantly laughed off, despite being pretty rigorous. I'm talking specifically about the various polls/surveys that show defensive handgun use (the vast majority of which is brandishing) in the high 100,000s to millions per year.
And then we are at Lott and the irretrievable damage his "research" did to the cause. Brandishing data and the like (which may or may not have radically progressed since the last time I saw it) has been tarnished by his failure to observe scientific process and peer review. It's like what that other idiot (I forget his name) did to his field of study when published flawed research allegedly proving that the precedents for gun ownership in the US as we understand it now are a modern fiction.

[Lh'owon]

To step back from the whole debate for a moment, I find it kind of challenging to think about the issue from an American perspective. In New Zealand we actually have rather liberal gun laws (as evidenced here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand)) which focus more on vetting people than actually restricting ownership. Yet gun crime is extremely marginal here compared to the US, and certainly isn't the sort of thing you'd expect from a criminal. Recently there have been some depressing dairy robberies involving guns, and bank robbers often carry a weapon (often fake though), but otherwise...

Hell, our police don't even carry sidearms. Though naturally they do have access to weapons when necessary:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/images/778827.jpg

As for having a gun to protect yourself, that would probably be considered a bit weird by most people. Culture eh?

[Houngan]

Culture on both ends. Population density and a full spectrum of economic levels contribute greatly to the US' higher violent crime rate. That and the "war on drugs" which simultaneously disenfranchises the lower class while enabling peak violence among them.

H.

[Houngan]

And then we are at Lott and the irretrievable damage his "research" did to the cause. Brandishing data and the like (which may or may not have radically progressed since the last time I saw it) has been tarnished by his failure to observe scientific process and peer review. It's like what that other idiot (I forget his name) did to his field of study when published flawed research allegedly proving that the precedents for gun ownership in the US as we understand it now are a modern fiction.

Lott's main problem was that he never acknowledged the correlation/causality disconnect. The data he collected, while incomplete, certainly suggested a trend, but he then cherry-picked other datasets so that only supporting information made it into his argument. I still think he was onto something, albeit in the wrong direction. A culture that is known to be casually well-armed would seem to logically have lower person-on-person crime, but he bent too many things to fit CCW adoption and ultimately couldn't keep the card house up.

I am enthusiastic about the studies I mentioned, however, since we do have pretty hard numbers on violent gun crimes in this country, at least within a few percentage points or so.

H.

[Eric T Cheng]

Recently there have been some depressing dairy robberies involving guns...

(emphasis mine)

You guys milk your sheep too...?!

[Jason McCullough]

A culture that is known to be casually well-armed would seem to logically have lower person-on-person crime.....

Why I personally think the relationship is practically independent based on the enormous cross-country gaps in violence after adjusting for everything imaginable, you can easily create a large set of logical arguments here for virtually anything. A culture that is casually well-armed might be that way because they constantly get into fights and can't rely on authorities to defend them, for example. Counter-intuitive and irrational social science results are everywhere - rationally the poor suffer far more when they get pregnant out of wedlock or at an early age, yet they do so. Evangelicals supposedly lead the kind of lives and have the values that prevent them from getting pregnant as teenagers, yet they do it at a higher rate after you control for everything.

It's like what that other idiot (I forget his name) did to his field of study when published flawed research allegedly proving that the precedents for gun ownership in the US as we understand it now are a modern fiction.

Bellesiles (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=QHK&q=arming+america&btnG=Search). Oh, those were the days, where I learned to actually look up books online before buying them. A simple, neat, and completely wrong solution to the complex problem.

I know you aren't saying this, but I especially don't buy the crap that the US is responsible for Mexico's gun violence.

Well, most gun deaths in Mexico are from criminals, Mexico has lots of criminals because they have drug-running gangs everywhere, and they have gangs everywhere exist because of US drug demand. Maybe they'd be just as bloody in a different way but for the US criminal market, but I doubt it.

Hopefully Jason will come by with some neutral, objective papers [muffled laughter] that just happen to prove your point, as if individual rights are subject to a little data mining by researchers.

Things aren't immune to constraints from society just because they're called rights. The right to engage in pollution-causing commerce didn't stop the government from regulating said commerce once people figured out all the damage it was causing, because there's a collection of law and rights . It doesn't appear to be the case that guns are particularly damaging, and even if they were there's no necessary implications about how much or what kinds of regulations would be appropriate, but gun rights are no more inviolable than speech rights are.

[Lh'owon]

(emphasis mine)

You guys milk your sheep too...?!

We have some cows too.

EDIT: Oh, language barrier! Quote from wikipedia: "In New Zealand English a dairy means a corner convenience store, or Superette—and dairy factory is the term for what is elsewhere called a dairy."

[bago]

They'll milk anything that's isn't nailed down. And even some things that are. I think that was a video for nine inch nails.

[Tim James]

Things aren't immune to constraints from society just because they're called rights. The right to engage in pollution-causing commerce didn't stop the government from regulating said commerce once people figured out all the damage it was causing, because there's a collection of law and rights . It doesn't appear to be the case that guns are particularly damaging, and even if they were there's no necessary implications about how much or what kinds of regulations would be appropriate, but gun rights are no more inviolable than speech rights are.Agreed, which is why you don't hear me calling for an end to all gun regulations, just a healthy, heaping dose of skepticism at more of them due to data mining.

I'd also genuinely like to see at least our intelligent politicians have a minimum of awareness of the issue that goes beyond anti-gun talking points and hunting a couple decades ago with their grandpas. It seems like our esteemed leaders start out by talking about real problems, such as repeat violent felons acquiring guns, or urban thugs shooting themselves all the time... and then immediately move to unrelated nonsense like assault weapons bans. (I know everyone thinks policy outside their worldview is wrong, and I'm often guilty of this, but having a hyper-awareness of this issue helps me realize how clueless some politicians are about the new gun laws they're voting on!) People on here are starry-eyed about how smart Obama is on so many different issues, but a good chunk of his beliefs on gun rights (at least in the past decade) are just myth and FUD, as we've discussed here.

Again, the point of the thread is that I don't think that will matter for many years though.

[Soapyfrog]

Culture on both ends. Population density and a full spectrum of economic levels contribute greatly to the US' higher violent crime rate. That and the "war on drugs" which simultaneously disenfranchises the lower class while enabling peak violence among them.
Agreed actually, not allowing a chunk of the population to live in desperation and a cessation of the war on drugs would go a long way to reducing the crime rate.

[Houngan]

Agreed actually, not allowing a chunk of the population to live in desperation and a cessation of the war on drugs would go a long way to reducing the crime rate.

No, as you said earlier, it's just the guns. :)

See what happens when we're thoughtful?

H.

[Soapyfrog]

No, as you said earlier, it's just the guns. :)

I never said that, nor did I imply it.

[Anti-Bunny]

Things aren't immune to constraints from society just because they're called rights.No one said that the right to keep and bear arms should be immune from constraints. As I have said before, apply strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) to all extant gun control laws and we're good.
The right to engage in pollution-causing commerce didn't stop the government from regulating said commerce once people figured out all the damage it was causing, because there's a collection of law and rights .
Straw-man.
It doesn't appear to be the case that guns are particularly damaging, and even if they were there's no necessary implications about how much or what kinds of regulations would be appropriate, but gun rights are no more inviolable than speech rights are.
No one here has said they should be more inviolable than speech rights are. Where do you even get that idea? A right to self defense is equally as fundamental as a right to free speech, free association, etc.. All I am saying is that most of the gun control laws on the books would be struck down if subjected to strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny is the same standard used for ALL of our basic rights.

[Kraaze]

. All I am saying is that most of the gun control laws on the books would be struck down if subjected to strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny is the same standard used for ALL of our basic rights.

Nah, I think the gun laws can and do survive that kind of scrutiny. As would more restrictive ones.

[Anti-Bunny]

Nah, I think the gun laws can and do survive that kind of scrutiny. As would more restrictive ones.

Because of the Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) case, which has traditionally been used to sidestep strict scrutiny, current gun control laws have not been subjected to strict scrutiny (until Heller).

[Tim James]

Because of the Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) case, which has traditionally been used to sidestep strict scrutiny, current gun control laws have not been subjected to strict scrutiny (until Heller).I don't believe Heller made them subject to strict scrutiny, did they? I thought the Justices just talked about how the handgun ban wouldn't meet any level of scrutiny, but didn't say anything definitive for the future.

[Soapyfrog]

Your right to self defence does not include the right to use any and all means of self defence. So there is a line that must be drawn somewhere, right?

[Marged]

A right to self defense is equally as fundamental as a right to free speech, free association, etc..


This thread gives me hives but personally? I absolutely disagree with that statement. I don't think that we have a fundamental right to self defence - rather, I think we have a basic human right to security. I just don't think we have a fundamental right to provide that for ourselves. Part of living in a civil society is that we sacrifice some freedoms for the greater good (i.e., peace) and part of those sacrifices include everyone laying down their arms and the creation of a state with a monopoly on the use of force.

So yeah, here's how radical I am on this issue (and just so you can all stop putting words in my mouth):

I think the second amendment is no longer relevant.
I think sport hunters and gun enthusiasts should have to suck it up and lose their hobby. I'm a hobbyist too, and I know it hurts to lose something like that, but on the other hand no one ever died because of a sewing machine so I don't feel that badly.
I think the founding father's intention was to protect well regulated state militias, not your individual self defense.
I accept that I'm outside the mainstream on this issue and acknowledge the degree to which my dreams will never happen and in the meanwhile am interested in practical ways to reduce violence within this current framework - all violence, including state sponsored violence.
And thanks Tim, but there's nothing anti-intellectual about my approach, or my desire to "do something." While I'm not a public policy expert nor do I have the free time to become one, I would hope that any approach would be well supported by data from non-partisan sources. Guncite.com, by the way, doesn't count as a reliable source.

[Tim James]

Your right to self defence does not include the right to use any and all means of self defence. So there is a line that must be drawn somewhere, right?Yeah, if you're worried about people buying M1 tanks and nukes, then rest easy. "Arms" in the 2nd amendment has typically (especially lately) been interpreted to mean small arms that a typical infantry soldier would carry. Of course full auto is a whole other problem, but no one here is talking about stuff like that, just not additional regulations proposed out of FUD that have negligible influence on violent crime.

[Anti-Bunny]

I don't believe Heller made them subject to strict scrutiny, did they? I thought the Justices just talked about how the handgun ban wouldn't meet any level of scrutiny, but didn't say anything definitive for the future.

Correct. However..
If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.
Rational Basis review is the lowest/normal level of judicial review for laws. And regarding the minority opinion's argument for an "interest-balancing inquiry":
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach.
So, rational basis is out, that's out...strongly implies that they think Strict Scrutiny is appropriate, but a precedent is still needed.

Your right to self defence does not include the right to use any and all means of self defence. So there is a line that must be drawn somewhere, right?
There is a line drawn: citizens have a right to keep and bare arms. That much is settled by Heller, in so much as what 'arms' mean and what 'keep and bare' means.

[Jason McCullough]

No one here has said they should be more inviolable than speech rights are.

Tim was implying exactly that by scoffing at the concept of data mining to determine the downside of the implementation of a right. I mean, if the data showed that guns had downsides clearly we should ignore that, right?

[Anti-Bunny]

This thread gives me hives but personally? I absolutely disagree with that statement. I don't think that we have a fundamental right to self defence - rather, I think we have a basic human right to security. I just don't think we have a fundamental right to provide that for ourselves. Part of living in a civil society is that we sacrifice some freedoms for the greater good (i.e., peace) and part of those sacrifices include everyone laying down their arms and the creation of a state with a monopoly on the use of force.

So yeah, here's how radical I am on this issue (and just so you can all stop putting words in my mouth):

I think the second amendment is no longer relevant.
I think sport hunters and gun enthusiasts should have to suck it up and lose their hobby. I'm a hobbyist too, and I know it hurts to lose something like that, but on the other hand no one ever died because of a sewing machine so I don't feel that badly.
I think the founding father's intention was to protect well regulated state militias, not your individual self defense.
I accept that I'm outside the mainstream on this issue and acknowledge the degree to which my dreams will never happen and in the meanwhile am interested in practical ways to reduce violence within this current framework - all violence, including state sponsored violence.
And thanks Tim, but there's nothing anti-intellectual about my approach, or my desire to "do something." While I'm not a public policy expert nor do I have the free time to become one, I would hope that any approach would be well supported by data from non-partisan sources. Guncite.com, by the way, doesn't count as a reliable source.

Oh god, hahahaha. I guess that's a yes, you do agree with Thomas Hobbes.

[Tim James]

Tim was implying exactly that by scoffing at the concept of data mining to determine the downside of the implementation of a right. I mean, if the data showed that guns had downsides clearly we should ignore that, right?I already made a reply to you about that. Did you not like it?

If the data was so clear and scientific methods employed so sound that even cries of data mining could successfully be dismissed, then yes we should listen to it. That is not the case at present time. We haven't even reached the level of soundness that global warming has.

Or to put it a better way: I understand and accept that liberties may be restricted with great burden of proof. I'm not that radical. But I disagree that gun rights are priviliges given to us by the feds that should be locked down completely because of a few studies or 51% majority vote. You may have a different worldview, and that's okay.

[EDIT] And yes, Marged, we are basically discussing whether Obama will be "like you" or not. I don't believe he is dumb enough to ram through radical stuff like that and give the weak Republicans and excuse to take Congress again. We are not discussing whether we should revoke all gun restrictions tomorrow.

[Marged]

Oh god, hahahaha. I guess that's a yes, you do agree with Thomas Hobbes.

Not entirely and not in every way but yes, on some things? I think he's held up pretty well. Laugh away.

[Marged]

Anyone who thinks Obama is going to be working on anything other than the economy, health care reform, the environment, and the two wars is drunk. And in that case, they should not be waving around their guns that they just bought at atrocious mark-ups.