UC Davis - "Inside Gun Shows" [Archive]

Tim James

09-22-2009, 07:53 AM

My thoughts centered around how disappointed I was that the gun show culture does not seem to self-police or self-regulate itself and weed out people peddling hate and fear based on race, religion, etc.This is pretty much how normal social human beings work. They shun and ignore awkward, hateful, and bizarre people, and understand that engaging them only gives them attention.

On the other hand, some people, like busybody Christians or liberal bloggers, make it their life's work to ensure that no one in the world ever has a hurtful thought.

To each their own, but of course I'm in the former category so you're welcome to try to show me how wrong and awful that is. :)

Err.. I'd better stop thinking about this thread before I begin reflecting on observations about how individuals react when they discover a well-established social subculture. AAAHHHH!!!

Matthew Gallant

09-22-2009, 07:57 AM

a well-established social subculture
Save yourself some carpal tunnel and just type "cult".

Tim James

09-22-2009, 07:59 AM

Save yourself some carpal tunnel and just type "cult".I just started playing Age of Wonders Shadow Magic the other day, so I'm pretty sure the nerves in my wrist are screwed now anyway.

ElGuapo

09-22-2009, 08:02 AM

Save yourself some carpal tunnel and just type "cult".

So anime conventions are a cult? Harry Potter fans are a cult? Trekkies? People who run marathons?

Linoleum

09-22-2009, 08:08 AM

We never expected the grognards to overthrow the government, but damned if they didn't know how to repel an armored counterattack on D.C.

Mordrak

09-22-2009, 08:14 AM

Err.. I'd better stop thinking about this thread before I begin reflecting on observations about how individuals react when they discover a well-established social subculture. AAAHHHH!!!

In a world where an insular well established subculture and can kill 3000 people and bring down two buildings, it's probably a pretty good idea to keep tabs on what hurtful thoughts those subcultures are having.

Blackadar

09-22-2009, 08:21 AM

Reaaaaaally. I'm thinking the term "violent crime" might be stretched a bit there. Also, yay us! We're buying more guns but homicides are way down.

H.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm

Houngan

09-22-2009, 08:31 AM

Ah, it includes "robbery" as a violent crime, that would explain it.

H.

ReptileHouse

09-22-2009, 08:39 AM

Ah, it includes "robbery" as a violent crime, that would explain it.

That's normal for crime statistics, isn't it?

milo

09-22-2009, 09:02 AM

In a world where an insular well established subculture and can kill 3000 people and bring down two buildings, it's probably a pretty good idea to keep tabs on what hurtful thoughts those subcultures are having.

3.2 buildings.

Matthew Gallant

09-22-2009, 09:08 AM

So anime conventions are a cult? Harry Potter fans are a cult? Trekkies? People who run marathons?
There's a spectrum between enjoying and having abject reverence for a work of fiction or some ritualized behavior. At some point you stop being a hobbyist and become a cultist.

Jason McCullough

09-22-2009, 09:24 AM

ATF rents table space at gun shows (1-3). This is not common, and it is a lonely job.

Heh.

They aren't cultists; they have little (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult) that qualifies. "Obsessively paranoid" is probably a better description for the ones piling up weapons for the great race war. I don't know what percentage that is.

notatiger

09-22-2009, 11:16 AM

So anime conventions are a cult? Harry Potter fans are a cult? Trekkies? People who run marathons?

People who run a lot of marathons should definitely be considered cultists. Have you ever listened to runners? They are worse than Jehovah's Witnesses!

Houngan

09-22-2009, 12:03 PM

That's normal for crime statistics, isn't it?

Got me. I wouldn't think that all of the robberies were violent in the sense of someone having damage done to them, but maybe they were.

H.

LesJarvis

09-22-2009, 12:05 PM

Robberies by definition involve violence or intimidation. If those factors aren't present it's something else (e.g. burglary, etc.)

Houngan

09-22-2009, 01:38 PM

Robberies by definition involve violence or intimidation. If those factors aren't present it's something else (e.g. burglary, etc.)

Well yes, but those are different things. (See: that godawful gun control thread about the protesters with rifles)

H.

bago

09-22-2009, 01:54 PM

Reaaaaaally. I'm thinking the term "violent crime" might be stretched a bit there. Also, yay us! We're buying more guns but homicides are way down.

H.

I would be very interested in your definition of a non-violent crime committed with a weapon. Would it be something like signing a fraudulent check using the barrel of a pistol?

Houngan

09-22-2009, 02:04 PM

?? You go into a store, point a gun at someone, and they give you money. There's a threat of violence, but no actual violence, right?

H.

edit: Oh fuck, it's bago again. Can we just skip ahead to the crazy?

ReptileHouse

09-22-2009, 02:09 PM

?? You go into a store, point a gun at someone, and they give you money. There's a threat of violence, but no actual violence, right?
That's still counted as a violent crime. The threat is sufficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime

That said, you're right, there's also interesting questions drilling down from there into how many of those involve more than just the threat. That's not what's being talked about when people quote numbers about "violent crime" though.

Houngan

09-22-2009, 02:15 PM

That's still counted as a violent crime. The threat is sufficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime

That said, you're right, there's also interesting questions drilling down from there into how many of those involve more than just the threat. That's not what's being talked about when people quote numbers about "violent crime" though.

Right, we established that above, but there's been no actual violence. We're strictly arguing word definitions here, and the first five I looked up all require action for there to be "violence."

To be clear for the more . . . emotional folks that have joined the thread, I'm not saying that armed robbery shouldn't be counted as a violent crime. I don't care, it's a demographic thing that does not affect me. I was just curious as to WHAT was being counted, then curious as to whether real violence was committed. We have yet to establish if the robberies involved in the quoted numbers had actual violence committed, or just the threat.

H.

Hugin

09-22-2009, 02:21 PM

Got me. I wouldn't think that all of the robberies were violent in the sense of someone having damage done to them, but maybe they were.

H.

Violent crime includes any crime which is enabled by a threat of violence, even if a violent act is never committed. So waving a gun or a knife in someone's face to get them to comply is a violent crime even if you never lay a finger on them

LesJarvis

09-22-2009, 02:22 PM

Hugin, stop being so emotional.

Houngan

09-22-2009, 02:37 PM

Violent crime includes any crime which is enabled by a threat of violence, even if a violent act is never committed. So waving a gun or a knife in someone's face to get them to comply is a violent crime even if you never lay a finger on them

Okay, got it. We have established that violent crimes, the statistic, includes threats of violence, rather than actual violence. Although it does raise interesting questions about where that line is drawn, since you can make a threat of violence without breaking the law. Pointing a gun at someone is pretty binary, but what about if I run up and snatch a purse, then puff out my chest and glare at the woman for a second before running away? Waggle my fist at her? Throw a glove at her feet? Point at a nearby car, then her, then pantomime breaking into the car, hotwiring it, and running her over while talking on her cellphone that has become my cellphone?

I'm pretty sure the cops would be there by then, but am I now a violent offender?

H.

CheesyPoof

09-22-2009, 02:46 PM

Okay, got it. We have established that violent crimes, the statistic, includes threats of violence, rather than actual violence. Although it does raise interesting questions about where that line is drawn, since you can make a threat of violence without breaking the law. Pointing a gun at someone is pretty binary, but what about if I run up and snatch a purse, then puff out my chest and glare at the woman for a second before running away? Waggle my fist at her? Throw a glove at her feet? Point at a nearby car, then her, then pantomime breaking into the car, hotwiring it, and running her over while talking on her cellphone that has become my cellphone?

I'm pretty sure the cops would be there by then, but am I now a violent offender?

H.
If you pass a note at a bank but don't have a bomb or gun, you'll still be considered a violet offender.

You example is too silly since you set it up so that the threat occurs after the robbery. It's a strawman of sorts.

Disconnected

09-22-2009, 03:05 PM

We're strictly arguing word definitions here, and the first five I looked up all require action for there to be "violence."

I see you didn't use Dictionary.com

Do I have some sort of point? Yeah, a little bit, I think. It's a two-fold sort of point. Firstly that your distinction is yours alone. Secondly that if one actually could tell the difference between empty and serious threats with any degree of accuracy, nobody would make empty threats.

Incidentally, if I had to choose between being held at gunpoint and taking a beating, I'd choose the latter every time. Because I have tried both. Maybe that will tell you something about the degree of violence one feels subjected to.

Houngan

09-22-2009, 03:13 PM

I see you didn't use Dictionary.com

Do I have some sort of point? Yeah, a little bit, I think. It's a two-fold sort of point. Firstly that your distinction is yours alone. Secondly that if one actually could tell the difference between empty and serious threats with any degree of accuracy, nobody would make empty threats.

Incidentally, if I had to choose between being held at gunpoint and taking a beating, I'd choose the latter every time. Because I have tried both. Maybe that will tell you something about the degree of violence one feels subjected to.

I wasn't being disingenious, I just googled the definition and all that I read specified projection of force, not the threat of it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=violence+definition&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g2g-m8

And I'm really, really, really not trying to make a point or have an argument. Really. I was just curious about the statistic, and have since answered what the number included.

But I do not think that the threat of violence and violence are the same thing, on a strict semantic level. By definition, in fact. I don't even know what point you think I'm trying to prove, but it seems to be the same as "anticipation of sex" and "fucking." They're not the same.

H.

Hanzii

09-22-2009, 03:17 PM

Skipping to the crazy without help, I see.

Houngan

09-22-2009, 03:18 PM

If you pass a note at a bank but don't have a bomb or gun, you'll still be considered a violet offender.

.

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1897990&postcount=17

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1898150&postcount=19

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1898196&postcount=22

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1898201&postcount=23

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1898236&postcount=26

Houngan

09-22-2009, 03:20 PM

Skipping to the crazy without help, I see.

Really? Threatening to punch someone is the same as punching them? Can someone calmly explain your side of this?

H.

Linoleum

09-22-2009, 03:21 PM

Threatening to give them a saucy wink results in aggravated sexual assault charges.

Matthew Gallant

09-22-2009, 04:11 PM

The legal term for it is "Assault by Offer" and it is, legally, considered assault. The part where it actually happens is where "Battery" comes in.

Andrew Mayer

09-22-2009, 05:18 PM

This is like hanging out at my High School lunch table all over again.

Now you guys should threaten to hit each other and yell "I'm assaulting you!" until the bell rings for the next class.

bago

09-22-2009, 05:35 PM

Skipping to the crazy without help, I see.

I'd like to think I was the crazy catalyst.

jeffd

09-22-2009, 05:57 PM

Really? Threatening to punch someone is the same as punching them? Can someone calmly explain your side of this?

H.

Houngan: The word "violent" in the phrase "Violent Crime" is a technical term. That means its does not necessarily map to the dictionary definition of "violent" any more than the term "Color" when used in reference to quarks maps to the dictionary definition of "color."

Dave47

09-22-2009, 07:26 PM

Really? Threatening to punch someone is the same as punching them? Can someone calmly explain your side of this?

H.
The conversation wasn't originally about "violent crimes." It was about "violent crimes with guns" or, more technically "nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes." Understanding this distinction neutralizes your questions about "What happens if you puff out your chest during a robbery while otherwise behaving in a non-threatening manner?" At least, I assume it neutralizes the questions, because crimes committed with guns carry the threat of violence.

Your assertion that robberies with firearms that don't result in people being shot are "nonviolent" is linguistically defensible, but it does not comport with the technical definition of the term as used for decades by law enforcement and the law. While it's not clear if it was your intent, your posts seem to imply that such crimes are not very important in the grand scheme of things, and this implication is probably why people are crapping all over your posts.

Hugin

09-22-2009, 08:44 PM

But I do not think that the threat of violence and violence are the same thing, on a strict semantic level. By definition, in fact. I don't even know what point you think I'm trying to prove, but it seems to be the same as "anticipation of sex" and "fucking." They're not the same.

H.

The law pays a great deal of attention to this because it knows criminals would try "I'm not touching you I'm not touching you" type behavior to circumvent the letter of the law. For example, the threat of violence if a person does not submit to sex counts as coercion, even if no violence or restraint is used.

You also know about the classic law school thought experiment about attempted murder? You shoot a hated rival as they lay in bed asleep. But your hated rival actually had a heart attack and died before you got there. You still can be charged with attempted murder. The law cares a lot about intent, even if technically the act didn't or couldn't happen.

Also, as a practical matter, having a gun pointed at you (that is, a credible threat of death or severe injury, pain, etc) is psychologically violent as hell. Even if you don't get shot, someone has inflicted trauma on your person. The law also cares about emotional pain and psychological damage.

Houngan

09-22-2009, 09:37 PM

The conversation wasn't originally about "violent crimes." It was about "violent crimes with guns" or, more technically "nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes." Understanding this distinction neutralizes your questions about "What happens if you puff out your chest during a robbery while otherwise behaving in a non-threatening manner?" At least, I assume it neutralizes the questions, because crimes committed with guns carry the threat of violence.

Your assertion that robberies with firearms that don't result in people being shot are "nonviolent" is linguistically defensible, but it does not comport with the technical definition of the term as used for decades by law enforcement and the law. While it's not clear if it was your intent, your posts seem to imply that such crimes are not very important in the grand scheme of things, and this implication is probably why people are crapping all over your posts.

I'm with you on all that, and I swear that wasn't what I was implying. My entire chain of thought in this thread was:

1. 360,000 violent crimes? That's too many. (here I'm thinking actual violence committed is necessary)
2. Asking "What does that include?"
3. Getting the response "robberies"
4. Asking "robberies in general, or only ones where someone was hurt?"
5. Any robbery with a gun, regardless of outcome.
6. Ah, I see, thanks.
7. Step 5 ten more times
8. Bago'd

I was never suggesting that pointing a gun at someone isn't a terrible thing. If you did it to me, and I had the means to kill you, I would. It's that bad, and should be illegal with a harsh penalty. But I just didn't think that linguistically the threat of violence could be called violence. It's just not the same thing.

There's an ugly trend of stereotyping anyone who isn't raveningly against guns as some kind of "guns are the greatest thing in the world" fetishist. I was just talking about the law and semantics, FFS. Did someone actually think I was defending armed robbers because they had a precious, precious gun?

H.

Houngan

09-22-2009, 09:43 PM

Also, as a practical matter, having a gun pointed at you (that is, a credible threat of death or severe injury, pain, etc) is psychologically violent as hell. Even if you don't get shot, someone has inflicted trauma on your person. The law also cares about emotional pain and psychological damage.

Granted, and I agree in that circumstance. However, the general line of reasoning presents a slippery-slope argument. That's why I made the attempted humorous post about threatening a woman you had just robbed, the line gets fuzzy once the gun is out of the picture. I'm overly sensitive to things that other people shrug off, and vice-versa. I think ultimately the threat has to lead to real physical violence as a line in the sand. I can claim psychological damage over a number of innocent everyday acts, like shitty drivers, cellphone abusers, people driving with five kids stuffed into a car with no seatbelts or carseats, etc. Of course this is less than it would be to have a gun pointed at me in malice, but it's there. It's a hard question where the amount of psychological damage (a fuzzy concept in itself) is sufficient to litigate and regulate.

H.

Stepsongrapes

09-22-2009, 09:51 PM

I can claim psychological damage over a number of innocent everyday acts, like shitty drivers, cellphone abusers, people driving with five kids stuffed into a car with no seatbelts or carseats, etc.

You can not claim psychological damage with INTENT to cause said damage.

You seriously think that if someone intentionally comes barreling at you with a car, but swerves away at the last second, no harm no foul?

The law punishes the INTENT to cause harm, whether physical or psychological, when coupled with an act that makes that intent manifest.

Seriously, I suggest walking away from this issue or sitting down hard to think about it. Your inability to grasp why anything short of actual physical contact can still be bad act makes you sound borderline psychopathic. I mean that in a clinic sense.

You keep repeating that you don't mean to imply some hardline of actual physical harm is required, but then you go off an explicitly say just that.

I think ultimately the threat has to lead to real physical violence as a line in the sand.

ElGuapo

09-22-2009, 09:58 PM

I think if I pointed a gun in your face and threatened to shoot you, that you would feel violated. Threatening someone with a gun IS violence.

Houngan

09-22-2009, 10:07 PM

I think if I pointed a gun in your face and threatened to shoot you, that you would feel violated. Threatening someone with a gun IS violence.

Again, it would be terrible, but I don't think it meets the criteria for the word. JUST THE WORD.

Maybe this will defuse: I agree that it is as bad, or worse, than other things that are commonly called violence. For instance, it is worse than slapping someone, or punching them in the face once. It may not be as bad as handing out a thorough beating, I don't know. Ask Dick Cheney.

I see what the issue is now, you folks thought I was trying to downplay the severity of being threatened with a gun. I'm not. It's WAAAY up there, somewhere around trying to drive someone off of the road. It is hideously dangerous and should be punished, 'kay?

But, please just google the same phrase "violence definition" and read the definitions. They are all about the actual action, and that's all I was saying. Lose the subtext. It was just a linguistic issue, I promise. Violence is a noun, so something has to exist.

H.

jeffd

09-22-2009, 11:13 PM

foogla

09-22-2009, 11:37 PM

You're a smart guy. Why is it you are objecting to the use of the word "violence" in this strictly technical, legal sense?

the violent crimes stats get too high

BADUMM TSSS

bago

09-23-2009, 01:07 AM

Still looking for a description of a non-violent gun crime.

MattKeil

09-23-2009, 01:19 AM

But, please just google the same phrase "violence definition" and read the definitions. They are all about the actual action, and that's all I was saying. Lose the subtext. It was just a linguistic issue, I promise. Violence is a noun, so something has to exist.

violence:
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

violent:
1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity

Etymologically speaking:

violence:
from Latin violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violate).

violate:
2 : to do harm to the person or especially the chastity of

harm:
1 : physical or mental damage

Violence thus is an instance of extreme force or activity directly related to violation, which is defined as physical or mental damage to a person, which includes terrorization via threat of being shot by a firearm.

Nice try, Sundance.

Ryan A

09-23-2009, 05:29 AM

I'm curious if either of our resident gun nuts even bothered to read the excellent article that VegasRobb linked before swooping in to argue the meaning of the word violence.

Robert Sharp

09-23-2009, 05:48 AM

The violence issue seems to be a total side point, unrelated to the article (which was too long, so I didn't read it). Qt3 threads rarely lead to tangents like this, but that's apparently what happened this time.

Which ones are our resident gun nuts, just so I know? I honestly don't pay enough attention to the gun threads to be familiar with their history.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 06:35 AM

Etymologically speaking:

Violence thus is an instance of extreme force or activity directly related to violation, which is defined as physical or mental damage to a person, which includes terrorization via threat of being shot by a firearm.

Nice try, Sundance.

Jesus, can we lose the all the fagdance aggression, Butch? I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE SOME KIND OF PRO-GUN POINT HERE.

As to the actual discussion, you didn't make it to non-physical until you went to the etymology of the word "Harm." So you kinda proved my point. Your quoted definition of violence flows from an "procedure" or "treatment", both of which are concrete nouns of something existing or an action being taken. Since "treatment" was modified by "violent", you went to that definition, which is "extreme force or sudden intense activity ", both of which are actions, not threats. I can't point a gun at you with extreme force or intense activity, unless I've tied another gun to the end of it and am spinning them like nunchuks.

So, yes, after the third level of etymological depth in one citation, you found mental damage. Did I track back the origins of the word looking for any possible definition that would include mental damage in a psychic revelation that everyone would freak out about this? No, internet win for you.

H.

p.s. Bago, go away.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 06:40 AM

You're a smart guy. Why is it you are objecting to the use of the word "violence" in this strictly technical, legal sense?

And I'm not objecting to it, I was confused by it, and thus the discussion about its meaning. Statistics are made by statisticians, and they can include whatever they want, it's no skin off my back.

An exactly similar discussion would be a statistic that said the average high schooler has ten sexual partners by the age of eighteen. I would be very suspicious of that number, read the article, then wonder what they're considering "sexual partners" to include. Somebody would point out that it includes oral sex and handjobs, and I would then know why the number was so large and perhaps post about why I thought that was too broad a definition of "sexual."

And then the Qt3 truth squad would descend on me because they think I'm a child molester.

H.

CheesyPoof

09-23-2009, 06:49 AM

Granted, and I agree in that circumstance. However, the general line of reasoning presents a slippery-slope argument. That's why I made the attempted humorous post about threatening a woman you had just robbed, the line gets fuzzy once the gun is out of the picture. I'm overly sensitive to things that other people shrug off, and vice-versa. I think ultimately the threat has to lead to real physical violence as a line in the sand. I can claim psychological damage over a number of innocent everyday acts, like shitty drivers, cellphone abusers, people driving with five kids stuffed into a car with no seatbelts or carseats, etc. Of course this is less than it would be to have a gun pointed at me in malice, but it's there. It's a hard question where the amount of psychological damage (a fuzzy concept in itself) is sufficient to litigate and regulate.

H.

My point, which I'm pretty sure you didn't get since you posted all those links, is that the threat of violence doesn't need to be backed up with a physical object. Passing a note to a bank teller saying you have a gun/bomb/knife, when you don't, is treated the same as if you took it out.

Perhaps there's too much a focus on a gun being the implement of violence in this discussion, because knives, baseball bats, crowbars are all objects that can be used for a violent act.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 06:53 AM

I posted those links because I didn't want to be a dick and say "You just repeated the same thing five other people have said."

The legal side was established about two posts after I asked, but for some reason people keep saying it. Stop.

H.

CheesyPoof

09-23-2009, 06:54 AM

Who's on first?

Hanzii

09-23-2009, 07:00 AM

Oral sex and handjobs aren't sexual encounters now?
I like where this is going.

Tell me your stance on staying a virgin by only doing anal.

"Try not to suck any dicks on the way to the parking lot"

Houngan

09-23-2009, 07:04 AM

Oral sex and handjobs aren't sexual encounters now?
I like where this is going.

Tell me your stance on staying a virgin by only doing anal.

"Try not to suck any dicks on the way to the parking lot"

Christ Hanzii, it was an example, not a statement of position. Are you that fucking dense?

H.

Hanzii

09-23-2009, 07:10 AM

Christ Hanzii, it was an example, not a statement of position. Are you that fucking dense?

H.

But it was a great analogy for your position.

We use that definition of violence in statistics because it is violence.
Removing those instances from the statistics would make just as much sense as removing handjobs and oral sex from a sexual-partners statistic.

ElGuapo

09-23-2009, 07:21 AM

Houngan

09-23-2009, 07:21 AM

But it was a great analogy for your position.

We use that definition of violence in statistics because it is violence.
Removing those instances from the statistics would make just as much sense as removing handjobs and oral sex from a sexual-partners statistic.

And for the seventh time, I DON'T CARE. IT'S FINE. STATISTICS CAN INCLUDE WHATEVER THEY WANT TO INCLUDE. PROCESSED CHEESE FOOD IS NOT CHEESE, BUT I DON'T CARE IF YOU PUT IT IN THE CHEESE SECTION.

But the general definition of "violence" is an active one.

an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); "he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in

exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse ...

Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence. 2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior

Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt.

Extreme force; Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering

Jesus fucking christ, can't you people do anything without bringing in fifty levels of emotional baggage? I said I googled it, and there are the definitions that come up from google. Every one speaks of action, not threatening or intent. If you want to lobby to have the word "violence" include "threat of violence," then we're back to talking about degrees, which we have also addressed.

Personally, I don't include "threat of violence" in "violence." Nor will I. It's not a question of how bad or invasive making a threat is, it's just that it is imprecise. If someone threatens me, I'm not going to say "I'm the victim of violence!" I'm going to say, "I've been threatened!" And just to clarify, this has nothing to do with how the law is interpreted or statistics gathered. We get that.

H.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 07:24 AM

OK, Hougan, if this is truly just a definition/semantical argument, here is my logic:

Google define:violence (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+violence&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10)

The first definition, from princeton.edu:

"An act of aggression"

I think you could safely argue that pointing a gun at someone is an act of aggression, therefore violent, therefore a violent crime. If you come up to me on the street and ask me for money, it's not a crime. If you tell me to give you money or you will come to my house later and attack me, that's a crime. If you present a gun or weapon and threaten me with it, that's a violent crime. Even if you cock your fist in the air and threaten to hit me unless I give you money, that's a violent crime, called assault (and if you hit me, it's battery). It's the immediate and real threat, the act of aggression, that makes it a crime.

I see your point, "an act" can also include the "act" of threatening, which could be categorized as aggressive. I tend to skew towards "an act" being "an action" more in the physical action sense, rather than acting in a certain way. Since a threat act is directly referring to a following physical act, I find the layer of abstraction confusing when using these particular words.

Yay, somebody had a calm, reasoned post about this. Thank you.

H.

ElGuapo

09-23-2009, 07:34 AM

Houngan

09-23-2009, 07:38 AM

Futhermore, I don't just think showing a gun to someone, say if it's in your waistband, or a holster, is a violent crime. It's an asshole thing to do, it's posturing, and it's menacing, and it might be a crime (some kind of threat or incitement) but it's not violent. Actually pulling the gun out and aiming it at someone, that's where it crosses the line to violent.

IANAL, but that's my common sense definition.

I would agree so far as the law is concerned, although I'm not sure if pointing the gun at them without demands would be a violent crime. It may just fall under "brandishing," which I think is a misdemeanor.

From what others have posted, you need a crime first, then the gun adds the "violent" modifier. Like you said, IANAL.

Also, I would tend to disagree that showing a gun in an aggressive manner is substantially different than pointing a gun at someone. Pointing should add a "wanton endangerment" to the charges, but the underlying threat is equal, "I'm going to shoot you."

H.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 07:44 AM

Kool Moe Dee

09-23-2009, 07:54 AM

at which time my coworker pepper-sprayed him. After he drove off, the guy recovered and started following him.

Was your coworker driving a garbage truck? I can't imagine somebody being pepper sprayed and then having time to get back to their car and track down someone driving faster than 5 MPH.

Kraaze

09-23-2009, 08:21 AM

WarrenM

09-23-2009, 08:24 AM

Your co-worker keeps pepper spray and a pistol in the car? Where do you live, FFS?

ElGuapo

09-23-2009, 08:28 AM

I've had this sort of thing happen to me more than once. The pepper spray was an un-necessary escalation probably. The pistol definitely.

You're kidding me. This guy was aggressive enough to get out of his car, then super aggressive enough to not learn his lesson and follow the guy who sprayed him even further? The dude was clearly a foul tempered, aggressive asshole.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 08:28 AM

He's an ex-MP in the Marines, so he's a bit more prepared than the average bear.

H.

Kraaze

09-23-2009, 08:35 AM

You're kidding me. This guy was aggressive enough to get out of his car, then super aggressive enough to not learn his lesson and follow the guy who sprayed him even further? The dude was clearly a foul tempered, aggressive asshole.

I'm not kidding. One aggressive asshole just isn't a threat to a person inside a car unless the aggressive asshole pulls a gun.

Just roll up the window, lock the door, and laugh at the road rager. Opening the window/door to engage them with something like pepper spray is a bad idea because if they did have a weapon and are quicker on the draw than the sprayer (or the spraycan is defective) then they have been presented an avenue to physically attack.

If they keep following after that incident, the cell phone is the solution and not the pistol. The pistol is just inviting the wrong kind of escalation.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 08:50 AM

Clarification: His window may have already been down, I'm not sure. Let's not add variables!

H.

Kyle Wilson

09-23-2009, 08:58 AM

If you pass a note at a bank but don't have a bomb or gun, you'll still be considered a violet offender.

Less than a page in, and already the discussion has degenerated into purple prose.

Kraaze

09-23-2009, 09:12 AM

Clarification: His window may have already been down, I'm not sure. Let's not add variables!

H.

A person who has time to prep and deploy a weapon (pepper spray, pistol, etc) is a person who could have used that time to roll up the windows and lock the doors.

I don't think adding any confusion by pointing out that the person had a clear choice between an open-window/open-door situation that involved use of a weapon and a closed-window/closed-door situation that likely wouldn't have. Choosing to go straight for violence was a poor choice.

Hanzii

09-23-2009, 09:15 AM

And for the seventh time, I DON'T CARE. IT'S FINE. STATISTICS CAN INCLUDE WHATEVER THEY WANT TO INCLUDE. PROCESSED CHEESE FOOD IS NOT CHEESE, BUT I DON'T CARE IF YOU PUT IT IN THE CHEESE SECTION.

You're the one arguing in all caps and with false analogues (Processed cheese is not cheese, threathening somebody with a gun is a violent crime) and yet you accuse us of being emotional.

But I guess you're right, I have no idea why redifining language is so important to you, if you claim that you don't care about violent crime statistics at all.
Perhaps you are just a bad linguist.

Hugin

09-23-2009, 09:17 AM

Personally, I don't include "threat of violence" in "violence." Nor will I. It's not a question of how bad or invasive making a threat is, it's just that it is imprecise. If someone threatens me, I'm not going to say "I'm the victim of violence!" I'm going to say, "I've been threatened!" And just to clarify, this has nothing to do with how the law is interpreted or statistics gathered. We get that.

H.

That's fine. Just stop talking about statisticians making up or including things arbitrarily. They aren't. "Violent crime" is a legal term well understood by cops, lawyers, judges, and the FBI and they're applying it correctly. It's not like "cheese" vs "cheesy food product" or whatever at all.

You are likely more interested in how many shootings occur during the commission of a crime, or how many acts of battery (vs assault), etc., ie, legal terms that specify physical damaging actions took place.

Stepsongrapes

09-23-2009, 10:10 AM

Oh, I just remembered an interesting situation. A coworker of mine cut somebody off in traffic. At the next light, the guy got out of his car and approached him (in an aggressive manner,) at which time my coworker pepper-sprayed him. After he drove off, the guy recovered and started following him. My coworker pulled into a parking lot, the guy followed and got out of his car again, and my coworker held up a cellphone and a pistol. The guy went away.

So, groupthink, give me a legal/moral/emotional breakdown of that chain of events.

H.

While I'm not really in the mood for an issue-spotting exercise, I'm unclear as to your point with this anecdote. Are you claiming that:

1) This was, on both sides, a completely "non-violent" set of events?

2) That society should not find any of the acts involved punishable or worthy of deterrence?

Frankly, I think your example establishes EXACTLY why even acts without physical harm can be bad and should not be tolerated.

On issue spotting, your example presents a number of criminal acts, a number of justified acts that would otherwise be criminal, and a number of torts.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 10:23 AM

You're the one arguing in all caps and with false analogues (Processed cheese is not cheese, threathening somebody with a gun is a violent crime) and yet you accuse us of being emotional.

But I guess you're right, I have no idea why redifining language is so important to you, if you claim that you don't care about violent crime statistics at all.
Perhaps you are just a bad linguist.

Man, you ARE dense. I'm not arguing anything in caps, I'm pleading with you to realize what I'm NOT arguing in caps. I USE CAPS BECAUSE YOU AREN'T GETTING THE POINT.

Look, the discussion finally rolled around to what I wanted originally, that is a semantic discussion of the word violence. It's merely interesting, not important or emotional, for me. the legal definition doesn't concern me at all, and I acknowledged that eight times (and counting.)

Tell you what, why don't you come up with a sentence that you think is the polar opposite of what I'm trying to say, and I'll go ahead and repeat it back, so you can win.

H.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 10:27 AM

While I'm not really in the mood for an issue-spotting exercise, I'm unclear as to your point with this anecdote. Are you claiming that:

1) This was, on both sides, a completely "non-violent" set of events?

2) That society should not find any of the acts involved punishable or worthy of deterrence?

Frankly, I think your example establishes EXACTLY why even acts without physical harm can be bad and should not be tolerated.

On issue spotting, your example presents a number of criminal acts, a number of justified acts that would otherwise be criminal, and a number of torts.

None of the above. We had gotten to an interesting point about parsing events, ElG and I, and I thought this would be a good example of a multilayered event that we can examine. How many fucking times must I say I'm not making some broad point here?

This is what's wrong with the internet, everyone projects their own hangups onto everything they see, and can't imagine that other people don't care about the same things.

H.

Stepsongrapes

09-23-2009, 10:33 AM

This is what's wrong with the internet, everyone projects their own hangups onto everything they see, and can't imagine that other people don't care about the same things.
H.

I'd propose an alternate theory- what you're thinking in your head isn't what people are reading.

When a dozen people think you're advocating something that you think you're not, it could be that the dozen people are all projecting, or it could be that your communication of the point isn't the best.

But, feel free to blame it on the interwebz.

StGabe

09-23-2009, 10:34 AM

If they keep following after that incident, the cell phone is the solution and not the pistol. The pistol is just inviting the wrong kind of escalation.

Pretty much.

People like guns because they give them a feeling of strength and control even when there are other, better options. Guns as a means of personal defense are like doctors who overprescribe meds and procedures. Ultimately the recipient is the same or possibly worse off but they're following a course that feels more proactive and thus it better assuages their insecurities.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 10:36 AM

That's fine. Just stop talking about statisticians making up or including things arbitrarily. They aren't. "Violent crime" is a legal term well understood by cops, lawyers, judges, and the FBI and they're applying it correctly. It's not like "cheese" vs "cheesy food product" or whatever at all.

You are likely more interested in how many shootings occur during the commission of a crime, or how many acts of battery (vs assault), etc., ie, legal terms that specify physical damaging actions took place.

Because I have to be trying to prove my opinion, right? That's the only possible reason to ever open your mouth, to try and convince people of something.

As for statisticians, go ahead and quote me where I said they are making things up.

H.

frank austin

09-23-2009, 10:37 AM

People like guns because they give them a feeling of strength and control even when there are other, better options. Guns as a means of personal defense are like doctors who overprescribe meds and procedures. Ultimately the recipient is the same or possibly worse off but they're following a course that feels more proactive and thus it better assuages their insecurities.

Oh now you've gone and done it.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 10:42 AM

I'd propose an alternate theory- what you're thinking in your head isn't what people are reading.

When a dozen people think you're advocating something that you think you're not, it could be that the dozen people are all projecting, or it could be that your communication of the point isn't the best.

But, feel free to blame it on the interwebz.

Even though I've written the exact opposite nine times now? How much more communication do you require? Do I need to get Tom to put in in the ad space at the top of the forum?

So now that I've said, nine times, that I'm not arguing the idea that pointing a gun at someone isn't a violent crime, when it is by definition of "violent crime", you apparently think I'm just lying.

My only argument, if it can even be called that, is that referring to a threat of violence as violence (outside of the legal definition, thank you very much) dilutes the meaning of the word. Just read what ElG and I were talking about, that's the conversation I wanted to have. He made a single good point that has swayed me more in my definition of the world than all the emo strawmen in this thread combined.

By redefining a threat as "an act of aggression" then it can arguably become violence, contrary to my definition. See? That's interesting, informed, and OMG might cause me to change my mind on the subject after a bit more discussion. If we can just have said discussion without wading through a river of tears and breast-beating.

H.

Matthew Gallant

09-23-2009, 10:52 AM

This has turned into a Violence Fight (http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?game_id=10321), so allow me to be the first to point a finger and say, "Sammy you!"

Hugin

09-23-2009, 12:23 PM

Even though I've written the exact opposite nine times now? How much more communication do you require? Do I need to get Tom to put in in the ad space at the top of the forum?

So now that I've said, nine times, that I'm not arguing the idea that pointing a gun at someone isn't a violent crime, when it is by definition of "violent crime", you apparently think I'm just lying.

My only argument, if it can even be called that, is that referring to a threat of violence as violence (outside of the legal definition, thank you very much) dilutes the meaning of the word. Just read what ElG and I were talking about, that's the conversation I wanted to have. He made a single good point that has swayed me more in my definition of the world than all the emo strawmen in this thread combined.

By redefining a threat as "an act of aggression" then it can arguably become violence, contrary to my definition. See? That's interesting, informed, and OMG might cause me to change my mind on the subject after a bit more discussion. If we can just have said discussion without wading through a river of tears and breast-beating.

H.

You seem to think the people who are arguing with you in this thread are more upset than they are. You've mentioned emotional baggage and breast beating and rivers of tears... we just disagree with you. We're not upset about it.

Anyway, I'm still a little confused as to how people's understanding of the legal meaning of "violent" dilutes their definition of violent in non-legal terms.

It's like acknowledging "old" in terms of NFL running backs will suddenly make us think 33 year old computer programmers should be thinking about retirement.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 12:37 PM

You seem to think the people who are arguing with you in this thread are more upset than they are. You've mentioned emotional baggage and breast beating and rivers of tears... we just disagree with you. We're not upset about it.

Anyway, I'm still a little confused as to how people's understanding of the legal meaning of "violent" dilutes their definition of violent in non-legal terms.

It's like acknowledging "old" in terms of NFL running backs will suddenly make us think 33 year old computer programmers should be thinking about retirement.

The legal meaning has nothing to do with the current conversation. It was asked and answered relating to the OP, and because I found it curious, that's when I brought up the whole meaning of the word thing. And I guess that's where everyone got derailed, they couldn't see that I wasn't referring back to the original study at all.

The question with which I am currently concerned is this: Is threatening someone with violence an act that can appropriately be called "violence" in and of itself? I'm arguing no, ElG is arguing yes. That the legal term "violent crime" does indeed include it has nothing to do with the current conversation, asked/answered in the first few posts.

H.

Hugin

09-23-2009, 12:55 PM

The question with which I am currently concerned is this: Is threatening someone with violence an act that can appropriately be called "violence" in and of itself? I'm arguing no, ElG is arguing yes.

H.

I'm arguing yes. Sufficiently dire threats can cause severe stress and psychological trauma, and they can compel people to take real actions against their own self interest, and thus suffer harm.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 01:05 PM

Are you arguing that it is a bad thing and should be illegal, with which I agree, or that it should be added to the dictionary as an alternate definition of the word "violence," with which I disagree?

"Students were the victims of bomb violence today at a local high school."

Does that sound like kids were blown up, or like there was a bomb threat called in? To me it sounds like they were blown up. I'm asking honestly and hoping we can just keep this in the linguistic realm.

I would use a different term, is all.

Ergo

09-23-2009, 01:08 PM

Ah, arguments over semantics. It's what the internet was made for.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 01:11 PM

Ah, arguments over semantics. It's what the internet was made for.

To be fair, I did say:

But I do not think that the threat of violence and violence are the same thing, on a strict semantic level.

Maybe I was front-pedaling.

H.

Drastic

09-23-2009, 01:31 PM

Still looking for a description of a non-violent gun crime.
You pay a hooker to lick your unloaded Glock in a sultry manner.

(Probably because you're in charge of EA marketing.)

bago

09-23-2009, 02:10 PM

You pay a hooker to lick your unloaded Glock in a sultry manner.

(Probably because you're in charge of EA marketing.)

That's just modeling. Since I've asked that question though, I'm now also starting to wonder what a non-sexual hand-job is.

Houngan

09-23-2009, 02:17 PM

That's just modeling. Since I've asked that question though, I'm now also starting to wonder what a non-sexual hand-job is.

A non-sexual hand job? That's silly, where'd you get that idea?

Now, whether or not the typical interpretation of the statement "a person has had X number of sexual partners" would include everyone who has ever touched their genitals rather than had actual intercourse, that's an interesting question.

Reading comprehension is hard when you're wearing all that eyeliner and trying to see through your bangs, eh?

H.

Hugin

09-23-2009, 02:21 PM

A non-sexual hand job? That's silly, where'd you get that idea?

Now, whether or not the typical interpretation of the statement "a person has had X number of sexual partners" would include everyone who has ever touched their genitals rather than had actual intercourse, that's an interesting question.

Reading comprehension is hard when you're wearing all that eyeliner and trying to see through your bangs, eh?

H.

I think if another human being handles your genitals and you get an orgasm out of it they're a sexual partner.

Drastic

09-23-2009, 02:21 PM

That's just modeling.
Oh, you ACORN cut-ups!

Houngan

09-23-2009, 02:22 PM

I think if another human being handles your genitals and you get an orgasm out of it they're a sexual partner.

Okay.

H.

Kraaze

09-23-2009, 02:53 PM

I think if another human being handles your genitals and you get an orgasm out of it they're a sexual partner.

Way to set the bar high. Now I have to lower my count for bragging purposes.

Meany :(

Ryan A

09-23-2009, 03:31 PM

Which ones are our resident gun nuts, just so I know? I honestly don't pay enough attention to the gun threads to be familiar with their history.

In case the hysterics, ALL CAPS POSTING, multiple posts in a row, and unprovoked (at least in this thread) personal attacks haven't made it obvious by now, Houngan was one of the nuts I was referring to.

Anti-Bunny

09-23-2009, 07:10 PM

Still looking for a description of a non-violent gun crime.

Smuggling, illegally modifying, straw purchase, illegal possession without brandishing, etc.

Calistas

09-24-2009, 01:48 AM

Someone let me know if this returns to the OP? I thought it was interesting, thanks for the linkage.

Houngan

09-24-2009, 04:52 AM

In case the hysterics, ALL CAPS POSTING, multiple posts in a row, and unprovoked (at least in this thread) personal attacks haven't made it obvious by now, Houngan was one of the nuts I was referring to.

How so? I'll admit, I'm a nut when it comes to people constantly misrepresenting what I'm saying and purposefully misreading posts, but I've hardly talked about guns in this thread at all.

H.

Ryan A

09-24-2009, 05:07 AM

Houngan

09-24-2009, 05:24 AM

That's my complaint, Houngan. I got the feeling that the arguments in this thread are over whatever it is people imagined the linked article was about, instead of its actual content, which is a shame because it was an interesting article that I was hoping would foment some interesting discussion and debate rather than the semantic pissing match this thread turned into.

Then make your point and start the conversation. I didn't care that much about the article, because I already know how gun shows work and what goes on at them. You might be surprised at my thoughts on the subject.

I pretty specifically said, many times, that I was purposefully derailing the thread because I found the various uses of "violence" interesting. You're gonna have to learn to cope with that. At the very least throw out a "quit shitting up the gun show thread" post, which would have been justified.

H.

Anti-Bunny

09-24-2009, 08:40 AM

Someone let me know if this returns to the OP? I thought it was interesting, thanks for the linkage.

It's a pretty weak paper funded by anti-groups with the specific goal of supporting more gun control. The guy flat out says, in the paper itself, that gun shows account for a very tiny portion of the illegal guns out there, so it kind of falls flat when you look at the numbers. Also apparently he got his facts wrong on at least one instance, saying that buying long guns from a private seller in California is illegal without forms/paper work/waiting period, which is just not the case..

But I haven't finished reading it yet, I'll give it a proper thrashing later.

CLWheeljack

09-24-2009, 09:31 AM

That's just modeling. Since I've asked that question though, I'm now also starting to wonder what a non-sexual hand-job is.

Well, in theory, if you did have, say, a medical condition that required you to ejaculate (for sperm donation, or something else), and supposing that you were physically incapable of it yourself, so another person, say a nurse (regular nurse, not sexy nurse) performed it...

I mean, I guess you'd still enjoy it in a sexual way...but what if you were, say, paralyzed from the waist down, so you couldn't actually feel it, but were still physically responsive? (paralyzed rather than, say, comatose, to avoid questions of consent)

You can remove almost all the sexual context from the situation, but is the activity itself inherently sexual? Hmm...

notatiger

09-24-2009, 12:39 PM

Then make your point and start the conversation. I didn't care that much about the article, because I already know how gun shows work and what goes on at them. You might be surprised at my thoughts on the subject.

If you don't care much for the original article, why did you come into this thread? To pointlessly quibble about the meaning of the word violence for 3 pages? Why don't you tell us your thoughts about gun shows, that would be more interesting.

I bought two books at a gun show, How to Pick Locks and How To Disappear Completely and Never Be Found. Pretty fun, although I have never put them to use.

Houngan

09-24-2009, 12:46 PM

Again, to be fair, I was quoting a statistic from the article, and wanted to quibble about 3 posts' worth. Naive in a thread related to firearms, I know. The three pages are just me trying to straighten out all the wild misunderstandings of what I was talking about.

Re: Gun Shows. They should be allowed, but there should be an official presence there to do NCIS checks on buyers. If the gun shop can do it, then a gun show can do it.

H.

Anti-Bunny

09-24-2009, 02:37 PM

Re: Gun Shows. They should be allowed, but there should be an official presence there to do NCIS checks on buyers. If the gun shop can do it, then a gun show can do it.

I'm not sure I understand this statement 100%, as I have seen that NCIS is required if you buy from a dealer at a gun show, but not from a private seller.. And many states require it for private sellers, as well. Are you arguing on background checks for ALL gun transfers, of any kind, (including at a gunshow)?

Kraaze

09-24-2009, 02:38 PM

Anti-Bunny

09-24-2009, 02:53 PM

It would certainly be a step in the right direction.

A step in the right direction towards what? Less guns in the hands of felons, or just making it harder to buy guns legally? Because it's not going to have much effect on the former.

Besides, this sort of legislation simply does not conform to strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) of laws pertaining to the second amendment. Even if the court systems think there is a rational basis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review) for this law, that is not enough to past muster and it would be struck down like most of the other laws that are being challenged lately.

You're just going to have to rewrite the constitution or get a new SCOTUS lineup.

Kraaze

09-24-2009, 02:57 PM

A step in the right direction towards what? Less guns in the hands of felons, or just making it harder to buy guns legally?

The latter.

Houngan

09-24-2009, 03:04 PM

I'm not sure I understand this statement 100%, as I have seen that NCIS is required if you buy from a dealer at a gun show, but not from a private seller.. And many states require it for private sellers, as well. Are you arguing on background checks for ALL gun transfers, of any kind, (including at a gunshow)?

It's a fuzzy area, I grant you, and I don't want private sales/transfers to be prohibited, simply because in order to do so, you would have to establish a registry and punishment for people who possess or don't possess the correct guns according to the government.

I would like to see gun shows move to an FFL-only format. I didn't realize that proper FFLs still had to do a check at gun shows if they were selling from their private collections; if that's the case, then never mind my earlier post.

The great thing about the type of people we are worried about is that they tend to associate with others in their same situation, as we all do, and collectively they are considerably more restricted in their ability as a subset of the population to buy guns, per the current laws. Folks like me aren't going to sell to a stranger, simply because I don't want to put a gun in the hands of someone about whom I know nothing. So the best bet for felons to obtain a gun from a stranger is a gun show or theft.

It doesn't happen nearly as much as the antis make out, but there certainly exists the opportunity, with little benefit for the law-abiding. (have you been to a gun show recently? Absolute crap.) With the internet you can find all sorts of private sales, which if interstate must pass through an FFL, thus satisfying the "background" aspect.

So the gun show, to me, is a thing of the past, really. Pay $20 in parking and admission so you can pay 20% more than an internet sale, no thanks. I'd like to see them go away of their own accord, or tighten down, so that they are no longer fodder for the left against the 2nd.

H.

Anti-Bunny

09-24-2009, 03:04 PM

The latter.

Well, at least you're honest about wanting to use "reasonable" gun control laws to discourage law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights, rather than being concerned with criminals.

Houngan

09-24-2009, 03:09 PM

Well, at least you're honest about wanting to use "reasonable" gun control laws to discourage law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights, rather than being concerned with criminals.

Oh, and to clarify, I don't want the NCIS checks legislated, I want the gun shows to do some self-regulation. Being a competitive shooter, I'm all too aware of how the wrong sort (go read glocktalk.com) make the right sort (go read brianenos.com) look.

H.

Tim James

09-24-2009, 03:18 PM

So the best bet for felons to obtain a gun from a stranger is a gun show or theft.The logic may be true that felons collectively struggle to buy guns, but they seem to acquire them, so the best bet is probably still to get one from people they associate with. Once there is a large enough volume out there you don't have to worry as much about dipping into strangers' supplies. It's just a counterpoint, I don't know the stats.

Oh, and to clarify, I don't want the NCIS checks legislated, I want the gun shows to do some self-regulation. Being a competitive shooter, I'm all too aware of how the wrong sort (go read glocktalk.com) make the right sort (go read brianenos.com) look.Back to self-regulation: it's probably a smart idea to look good to image-crazed FUD types but remember we are dealing with people who organize trade shows in the municipal auditorium. Seems like they'd be on par with used car salesmen in terms of not really giving a shit. For gun owners themselves, see my first post. Not saying this is right, just that it's going to take more than asking why.

I'd like some mandatory Health & Safety checks on that beef jerky for sale though.

Houngan

09-24-2009, 03:55 PM

Tim,

Very true, and especially here in the US. The genie is so far out of the bottle tactics to decrease availability are wishful thinking at best. We'll kill ourselves off environmentally way before the supply of guns dries up, and that's of course discounting the fact that it's pretty damned easy to make a gun these days, what with CNC machines, if you want to extend "supply" to the farcical limit. Nobody bothers because getting a factory-made gun is so easy, but if you had the magic wand, and I don't consider a "your odds of being a victim are less now" as an acceptable solution.

Kraaze

09-24-2009, 04:29 PM

Well, at least you're honest about wanting to use reasonable gun control laws to discourage extremely misguided but technically law-abiding citizens from exercising their inadvisably granted rights, rather than being concerned with exclusively criminals.

Fixed that for you.

Houngan

09-24-2009, 04:45 PM

Fixed that for you.

You're suggesting that "extremely misguided individuals" are discouraged by a background check that, by your own parameters, they will pass? Have you watched CNN since . . . it started?

Also, I love the phrase "inadvisably given rights." If a Right is subject to judgement of its worth by you, it's no right at all. C'mon LaRouche, why don't you lay out your own individual Constitution, and then the conversation can get really interesting.

H.

Kraaze

09-24-2009, 04:56 PM

You're suggesting that "extremely misguided individuals" are discouraged by a background check that, by your own parameters, they will pass? Have you watched CNN since . . . it started?

Not at all. I was just suggesting that anything that increases the difficulty of acquiring a gun is a (small) step in the right direction.

Also, I love the phrase "inadvisably given rights." If a Right is subject to judgement of its worth by you, it's no right at all.

The right to be armed and dangerous to your fellow citizens isn't a natural right. It was thrown in the constitution for some reasons that seemed good at the time but have been rendered obsolete by changed circumstances.

Houngan

09-24-2009, 04:59 PM

The right to be armed and dangerous to your fellow citizens isn't a natural right. It was thrown in the constitution for some reasons that seemed good at the time but have been rendered obsolete by changed circumstances.

Okeydoke, now you get to say what ARE natural rights. After all, sufferage and the end of slavery were also thrown into the Constitution by the same method.

Now, I realize that I'm being a dick here, and you're having to fight the uphill battle, because now you're on the wrong side of the Constitution. So, if you want to back up and perhaps discuss things a bit more in depth than "any gun law is a good law" then I'll back off of pointing out the constitutional conundrums.

H.

Anti-Bunny

09-24-2009, 05:02 PM

Not at all. I was just suggesting that anything that increases the difficulty of acquiring a guIt was thrown in the constitution for some reasons that seemed good at the time but have been rendered obsolete by changed circumstances.

Well that's why the constitutional amendment process exists. Trying to subvert the rule of law and the written constitution is dishonest at best and dangerous to the principle of the rule of law at worst. Or is it only ok to try and ignore and work around inconvenient parts of the constitution when YOU do it?

Kraaze

09-24-2009, 05:02 PM

Okeydoke, now you get to say what ARE natural rights. After all, sufferage and the end of slavery were also thrown into the Constitution by the same method.

Now, I realize that I'm being a dick here, and you're having to fight the uphill battle, because now you're on the wrong side of the Constitution. So, if you want to back up and perhaps discuss things a bit more in depth than "any gun law is a good law" then I'll back off of pointing out the constitutional conundrums.

H.

I don't worship at the altar of the founding fathers, so I'm not particularly scared of being branded a heretic for pointing out that the constitution is not perfect and infallible. There's an amendment process for a reason, and mistakes like the "right" to bear arms are a prime example of that reason.

Anti-Bunny

09-24-2009, 05:10 PM

I don't worship at the altar of the founding fathers, so I'm not particularly scared of being branded a heretic for pointing out that the constitution is not perfect and infallible. There's an amendment process for a reason, and mistakes like the "right" to bear arms are a prime example of that reason.

Nothing in that position leads logically to "let's pass laws infringing on a constitutional right anyway" The entire point of HAVING constitutional protection is that you don't get to pick and choose. You can amend via the amendment process, but you cannot legislate away those rights. That's the whole point of a constitution.

Houngan

09-24-2009, 05:17 PM

I don't worship at the altar of the founding fathers, so I'm not particularly scared of being branded a heretic for pointing out that the constitution is not perfect and infallible. There's an amendment process for a reason, and mistakes like the "right" to bear arms are a prime example of that reason.

Right, but you're effectively saying, "My worldview, which I'm not going to share with you, is obviously the correct one and you're all idiots."

LaRouche, douche.

H.

p.s. and by the LaRouche comparison, I'm not saying that you agree with him, but that you have some obscure agenda that defies explanation (by you) or description (by others.)

Jason McCullough

09-24-2009, 08:44 PM

Christ almighty I go offline for 24 hours installing Windows 7 AND YOU'RE STILL AT IT.

LEAVE HUONGAN ALONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNE

Tim James

09-24-2009, 08:46 PM

There's no denying that checkpoint saves were an inadvisably given right to game developers.

ElGuapo

09-25-2009, 08:12 AM

Who needs guns when you have boxing glove arrows?

Houngan

09-25-2009, 08:25 AM

There really should be a waiting period for the net arrows, though. Won't somebody think of the dolphins?!

H.

Kraaze

09-25-2009, 08:34 AM

Nothing in that position leads logically to "let's pass laws infringing on a constitutional right anyway" The entire point of HAVING constitutional protection is that you don't get to pick and choose. You can amend via the amendment process, but you cannot legislate away those rights. That's the whole point of a constitution.

Were you responding to the right person? I agree with everything you said, and don't see anything in my posts in this thread to the contrary.

Kraaze

09-25-2009, 08:36 AM

Right, but you're effectively saying, "My worldview, which I'm not going to share with you, is obviously the correct one and you're all idiots."

I thought my position was pretty clear. In case it wasn't:

There's no defensible reason for citizens of a civilized society to have murder tools. None.

Houngan

09-25-2009, 08:49 AM

Okay, we'll just fundamentally disagree and move on, then. I believe in the right to defend yourself and your loved ones within reasonable parameters, one of which is that somebody doesn't get to attack me and dominate me just because they gone to the gym more and took some boxing lessons.

Also, "murder tools?" Cuts a pretty broad swath, doesn't it?

H.

nlanza

09-25-2009, 08:53 AM

There's no defensible reason for citizens of a civilized society to have murder tools. None.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31oYcNyQaZL._SS400_.jpg

Or is that more of a zombie defense tool?

Kraaze

09-25-2009, 09:11 AM

I believe in the right to defend yourself and your loved ones within reasonable parameters

Me too, and the best way to defend them is to make sure our society doesn't have any guns floating around.

one of which is that somebody doesn't get to attack me and dominate me just because they gone to the gym more and took some boxing lessons.

I'd prefer someone going to the gym and taking boxing lessons and physically dominating me via fisticuffs over someone getting shot to death.

Also, "murder tools?" Cuts a pretty broad swath, doesn't it?

Any tool that has killing people as the primary purpose isn't something we should have in the hands of civilians.

salwon

09-25-2009, 09:47 AM

Me too, and the best way to defend them is to make sure our society doesn't have any guns floating around.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rFrI2UmxtBM/R88NF0caZzI/AAAAAAAAAVg/7U2bgw1_2rU/s400/UnicornRainbow.jpg

Houngan

09-25-2009, 09:49 AM

Me too, and the best way to defend them is to make sure our society doesn't have any guns floating around.

I'd prefer someone going to the gym and taking boxing lessons and physically dominating me via fisticuffs over someone getting shot to death.

Any tool that has killing people as the primary purpose isn't something we should have in the hands of civilians.

Could you just google the past threads on all this? It's a well-trodden field both on the internet and at Qt3. Helpful search phrases:

"only criminals will have guns"
"guns are only good for killing"

Kraaze

09-25-2009, 09:49 AM

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rFrI2UmxtBM/R88NF0caZzI/AAAAAAAAAVg/7U2bgw1_2rU/s400/UnicornRainbow.jpg

I don't count unicorns as murder tools.

Houngan

09-25-2009, 09:50 AM

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rFrI2UmxtBM/R88NF0caZzI/AAAAAAAAAVg/7U2bgw1_2rU/s400/UnicornRainbow.jpg

Careful where you point that horn, mister!

H.

Kraaze

09-25-2009, 09:50 AM

Could you just google the past threads on all this? It's a well-trodden field both on the internet and at Qt3. Helpful search phrases:

"only criminals will have guns"
"guns are only good for killing"

Oh I know I won't convince a gun nut because they think it is axiomatic that they will be "dominated" if they don't have their precious precious murder tools. Just wanted to make sure the sane perspective had its representation in this thread is all.

Houngan

09-25-2009, 09:58 AM

It's tough being a nut, especially when all the sane folks deign to point it out. As I type through the froth dripping from my maddened lips, I'm reminded of my extremely conservative friend who calls everyone left of center "socialist" "radical" "ultraliberal" or just plain "communist." To calibrate, he thinks Jon Stewart is a "radical leftist." So you're in good company with the name-calling and hyperbole.

But seriously, say you outlawed all guns. What's next? There's about 280,000,000 firearms in the US right now, what's your next step?

H.

Soapyfrog

09-25-2009, 10:26 AM

Houngan

09-25-2009, 10:32 AM

The idea has merit, look at the prices on full auto weapons since they stopped the manufacture but still allow ownership. You'd price guns out of the criminal's (and poor folk's) hands quickly.

H.

Edit: Criminals, that is, with the exception of organized crime. You'd be giving birth to a Japanese/Chinese crime system with the downside of starting with a LOT of guns for them to control.

ElGuapo

09-25-2009, 01:26 PM

Oh I know I won't convince a gun nut because they think it is axiomatic that they will be "dominated" if they don't have their precious precious murder tools. Just wanted to make sure the sane perspective had its representation in this thread is all.

Kraaze, let me ask you this. If you had lived in 1200 AD, would you have owned a sword? Or some other weapon? Or would you argue that only the noblemen should have swords, us common folk shouldn't be defending homes and land in the first place. That's why the king raises armies, by gum!

I see a gun as just the modern weapon, like the sword used to be. You leave it in a safe place, in case. They are also fun to shoot at ranges. Do you really think either of those things makes someone a gun nut? I personally wouldn't walk around carrying one because where I live and travel is pretty safe.

Do you think that every citizen of Switzerland is a gun nut? They all own guns.

Frankly you're coming off a little krazy here.

Kraaze

09-25-2009, 01:39 PM

Kraaze, let me ask you this. If you had lived in 1200 AD, would you have owned a sword? Or some other weapon? Or would you argue that only the noblemen should have swords, us common folk shouldn't be defending homes and land in the first place. That's why the king raises armies, by gum!

I would have had a +5 vorpal sword AND been a nobleman. Possibly an emperor of some sort.

I see a gun as just the modern weapon, like the sword used to be. You leave it in a safe place, in case. They are also fun to shoot at ranges. Do you really think either of those things makes someone a gun nut? I personally wouldn't walk around carrying one because where I live and travel is pretty safe.

Do you think that every citizen of Switzerland is a gun nut? They all own guns.

Frankly you're coming off a little krazy here.

Where did I accuse everyone who owned a gun of being a gun nut? There's a lot of twitchy people in this thread and they are unloading the whole clip on strawmen.

Kraaze

09-25-2009, 01:42 PM

But seriously, say you outlawed all guns. What's next? There's about 280,000,000 firearms in the US right now, what's your next step?

H.

Well if you are going to be all serious, this thread is going to be a lot more boring.

The answer to 280M guns in circulation is patience. Forbid people to repair, resell, or inherit them. Do let people sell them back to the government to be destroyed at any time with no questions asked. Wait twenty years and the 280M number is going to be a lot more manageable.

Jason McCullough

09-25-2009, 01:44 PM

I'd be more confused how you're going to do that against the wishes of the public. The support for that sort of thing is broad but it's very shallow.

Kraaze

09-25-2009, 01:47 PM

I'd be more confused how you're going to do that against the wishes of the public. The support for that sort of thing is broad but it's very shallow.

All my suggestions are completely impractical in that sense. I was talking about what we should do, not what we will do. I don't think even a a plague of Va Tech/Columbine incidents would convince Americans to give up their guns.

Anti-Bunny

09-25-2009, 03:01 PM

Were you responding to the right person? I agree with everything you said, and don't see anything in my posts in this thread to the contrary.

Except for when you said it was a 'step in the right direction'. Trying to circumvent the constitution when it's inconvenient isn't the sane course for politicians of a constitutional republic.

Hugin

09-25-2009, 04:13 PM

Well I would make illegal to manufacture, import, or sell firearms commerically, however I would allow regulated trading between private individuals. Then I would seize and destroy all weapons used in criminal offenses.

In about 200 years maybe we'd have the gun situation somewhat under control.

The key is to cut the firearm supply off at the source.

Sounds like a recipe for lots of gun smuggling and crude basement workshop gun manufacture.

To put it another way: you're talking about something that a lot of people passionately want, available from multiple sources around the world, and made of materials commonly found in other applications. How is outlawing certain assemblages of metal, plastic and wood going to work markedly better than outlawing drugs?

RyanMichael

09-25-2009, 06:05 PM

Well I would make illegal to manufacture, import, or sell firearms commerically, however I would allow regulated trading between private individuals. Then I would seize and destroy all weapons used in criminal offenses.

In about 200 years maybe we'd have the gun situation somewhat under control.

The key is to cut the firearm supply off at the source.

That worked really well with drug prohibition!

So the US bans guns, what stops China from manufacturing them and then gangs smuggling them in on the black market?

Are you people this naive, really? It's sad.

Kraaze

09-25-2009, 06:09 PM

Kraaze

09-25-2009, 06:11 PM

That worked really well with drug prohibition!

So the US bans guns, what stops China from manufacturing them and then gangs smuggling them in on the black market?

Are you people this naive, really? It's sad.

Gun smuggling will never be as profitable or safe as drug smuggling.

Anti-Bunny

09-25-2009, 06:18 PM

Keep fighting the good fight against that strawman. A few more rounds and you might get a TKO.

Your post was a clear indication of a knockout.

MikeSofaer

09-26-2009, 12:14 AM

There's no defensible reason for citizens of a civilized society to have murder tools.
Do you live in a civilized society?

Peter Frazier

09-26-2009, 12:27 AM

Australia managed to put in gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre. It is possible for a nation to give up its guns. Just not the USA.

Lizard_King

09-26-2009, 02:28 AM

Australia managed to put in gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre. It is possible for a nation to give up its guns. Just not the USA.

Australia overall has a different approach to the flexibility surrounding individual rights. In general, ours have to restricted more covertly and/or with a greater panic driving them, whereas you all seem to have no ingrained allergic reaction beyond mild internet displeasure at times. I also doubt guns ever shared the sort of rights status they have for years here.

Houngan

09-26-2009, 05:08 PM

Australia managed to put in gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre. It is possible for a nation to give up its guns. Just not the USA.

I see Kraaze has retreated to "I know you are, but what am I." It's not that we have these discussions, it's that they never really change.

As for Australia, they did put in gun laws, but they did NOT give up guns. They just made them harder to own. http://www.ipsc.org.au/

I've got a friend who is one of the better revolver shooters on the planet that came from Australia, and I assure you he is 100x more dangerous than an average person with anything short of an explosive. In 2003, 25% of Australian homes had firearms.

And that's really my main beef, not that there isn't an argument that can and should be had about firearms, but that the "left" side of the argument is so damned ignorant about the facts. When you come into a thread calling everyone gun nuts and saying that the only reason people own guns is because they want to murder someone, you sound like Glenn Beck channeling Imhofe on Global Warming. Read the goddamned literature and come up with a real argument, and we'll give you the respect you want.

H.

Hugin

09-26-2009, 06:43 PM

And that's really my main beef, not that there isn't an argument that can and should be had about firearms, but that the "left" side of the argument is so damned ignorant about the facts.

H.

Enh, the "right" can be goofy about facts in this debate as well. The level of paranoia and insecurity I've seen over the years can get pretty sad.

Dave47

09-26-2009, 06:47 PM

Except for when you said it was a 'step in the right direction'. Trying to circumvent the constitution when it's inconvenient isn't the sane course for politicians of a constitutional republic.
The problem with this sort of rhetoric is that the notion that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms is not that firmly established. Heller probably would have been decided differently if Gore had been elected in 2000. That doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of the Court's decision, but it demonstrates how silly it is to equate a disagreement over a difficult Constitutional issue with an attempt to undermine American democracy.

Anti-Bunny

09-26-2009, 07:04 PM

The problem with this sort of rhetoric is that the notion that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms is not that firmly established. Heller probably would have been decided differently if Gore had been elected in 2000. That doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of the Court's decision, but it demonstrates how silly it is to equate a disagreement over a difficult Constitutional issue with an attempt to undermine American democracy.

No, disagreement over constitutional interpretation isn't trying to undermine American democracy.

Knowing and admitting (as several posters in this thread have) that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, but still arguing that because "times have changed" laws can be passed without first amending the constitution does undermine the the principles of our democracy.

Soapyfrog

09-27-2009, 10:05 AM

Personally I think the 2nd amendment has been interpreted wrong. The english of it seems clear to me that it is context of a well-regulated militia.

Also, since it does not specify what type of arms, there is a lot that can be argued over!

For example, it would be more reasonable if it were more like switzerland, and all members of the militia were permitted to have an assault rifle, but that other weapon types like handguns were more tightly regulated (or hopefully even totally illegal).

Kraaze

09-27-2009, 10:08 AM

I see Kraaze has retreated to "I know you are, but what am I." It's not that we have these discussions, it's that they never really change.

Hardly. I'm not going to jump through hoops to defend positions I haven't taken.

You and AB both seem to read a ton of shit into what I post that isn't in any way actually there. This discussion is repetitive and lacking in progress because those responding to me seem to be using some rote defense to a memorized list of points regardless of what I actually say.

Anti-Bunny

09-27-2009, 11:09 AM

This discussion is repetitive and lacking in progress because those responding to me seem to be using some rote defense to a memorized list of points regardless of what I actually say.

It's true, I memorized most of the constitution.

frank austin

09-27-2009, 11:48 AM

Enh, the "right" can be goofy about facts in this debate as well. The level of paranoia and insecurity I've seen over the years can get pretty sad.

It's worth pointing out that the goofy bullshit coming from the left in this argument causes a lot of the goofy bullshit coming from the right, or at the very least acts as a direct confirmation of said paranoia:

Leftist: "Guns are evil murder tools that need to be banned!"
Rightist: "The left is coming for our guns!"

or,

Rightist: "They want to take our guns!"
Leftist: "They're right, let's take their guns!"

Unless you're talking about something different, but I think that specifically, the case of gun-owner paranoia and insecurity over the ownership of their firearms is well-founded in the rhetoric of the left wing. For every constitutionalist nutjob who buries an AK in their backyard, there's a sandal-wearing Prius driver who wants to take it from him. For everyone who believes that the founding fathers never would have allowed an assault weapon in the homes of their citizens, there's someone who believes that if assault rifles had been the weapons of the time, the founding fathers would have wanted one in every grown man's hands to help keep the power of government in check.

I'm someone who identifies with neither exclusively left or right wing politics, and I find myself constantly mystified by both extremes in the gun ownership debate. I don't think that the US government is particularly adept at regulating the ownership of weapons, and I think that most of the problems relating to firearm violence in this country are cultural and not legal in origin.

When I approach the situation from an individual standpoint, I am a person of upstanding legal and moral character who should be able to own any sort of projectile delivery system I damned well want to, because I've never given any indication that I couldn't be trusted with such a thing. Now, I realize that this isn't a practical position for a government to implement. From a societal standpoint, I understand adapting the legal structure to fit the cultural issues that a country faces. However, I think that in order to do so, you need to have very well-reasoned arguments to form the foundation of the laws.

This is where I lose identification with the more heavy-handed gun control crowd. I have never heard a satisfying logical reason that a citizen shouldn't be able to own a semi-automatic assault rifle as opposed to a semi-automatic .22lr plinker. Backers of heavy-handed gun control legislation always degenerate into very, very fuzzy logic and talking points about "killing power" and "weapons designed for the battlefield" (every firearm ever has roots in battlefield design, from the muzzle-loaders of our precious "well-regulated militia" to the .50 caliber rifles the media loves to portray as anti-aircraft guns) or similar nonsense. The .22lr round that most "youth", plinking rifles, and handguns come chambered for can be an extremely deadly round because it doesn't always pass out of the body of it's target, instead bouncing around inside and causing more damage than an exit wound could. The AWB that is so often discussed is full of feature-based legislation that uses aesthetic characteristics to distinguish between what should or shouldn't be a legal weapon. This sort of thinking is ludicrous to me, and not the strong foundation for any legislation.

In any society that cares for the liberty of it's citizens, there should always be a burden of proof on the restriction of those liberties. I have had this gun control conversation dozens upon dozens of times, and I have never met an argument that lived up to my standard of that burden. It has always shocked and surprised me that the left, traditionally so concerned with the civil liberties of the people, takes a very opposing standpoint when it comes to firearm ownership, and that the right, responsible in modern years for some of the most horrifying trampling of those same liberties, defends it. I want nothing to do with either one of those "wings", but you will still only be able to take my guns from my cold, dead hands.

Jason McCullough

09-27-2009, 12:34 PM

I have had this gun control conversation dozens upon dozens of times, and I have never met an argument that lived up to my standard of that burden. It has always shocked and surprised me that the left, traditionally so concerned with the civil liberties of the people, takes a very opposing standpoint when it comes to firearm ownership, and that the right, responsible in modern years for some of the most horrifying trampling of those same liberties, defends it. I want nothing to do with either one of those "wings", but you will still only be able to take my guns from my cold, dead hands.

It's rarely discussed, but the reason liberals don't take a civil liberties bent on guns is that they're almost exclusively the obsession of rich, white, racist men, and have historically mostly been used to suppress everything we believe in, not to fight for it in this "rising up against the oppressors" myth. Violence inherently favors organized, existing power. This explains a lot of the mystery of demographic opinions on guns.

I personally think if we had another country's gun regulation system the murder rate would be somewhat lower, but not amazingly so, because American culture is obsessed with violent conflict resolution. I also think the personal right to gun ownership interpretation of the Constitution is on very shaky legal originalist ground, but hey, I'm not an originalist, so what do I care? Go on with the guns.

So the net effect is "not a big deal" combined with "Jesus christ I don't trust the gun nuts for a second." I don't think this applies to anyone on this board now that Cleve's gone, but hey, you guys are the rational leading edge of gun lovers. You don't bother me; it's those creepy Glenn Beck lovers.

Lizard_King

09-27-2009, 12:51 PM

It's rarely discussed, but the reason liberals don't take a civil liberties bent on guns is that they're almost exclusively the obsession of rich, white, racist men, and have historically mostly been used to suppress everything we believe in, not to fight for it in this "rising up against the oppressors" myth. Violence inherently favors organized, existing power.

That's not true on many levels. Rosa and Ray Parks (http://www.blackvoices.com/black_news/opinion/canvas_directory/columnist?id=20051025164809990001)* are one example of how instruments of violence are erased from the histories of successful civil rights movements, likely in response to agendas similar to yours. Simply because rich, racist whites were often successful at keeping others unarmed (see 1639 (http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_laws_VA.htm) in the timeline, since I had that timeline handy for another thread) does not make it exclusively a tool they could implement.

Whether it's Jim Crow or Nuremberg, majority discriminators are well aware of the dangers of asymmetrical conflict with an armed populace, even a minority, and there's a reason that John Brown went after the guns first (and that reason has nothing to do with the myth about his madness).

Don't get me wrong, I understand why the general US leftist sentiment for erring on the side of individual liberties stops short of guns. It's an ugly thing to have to acknowledge, and it conflicts directly with many other ideals that are much easier to defend. But I don't believe that view has the historical soundness you suggest.

*on an unrelated note, it's amazing how one c grade actor (Ray Park in GIJOE) or some fucking song (Rosa Parks n' Gunz or some shit) can completely fuck up public access to non-academic sources via google.

RyanMichael

09-27-2009, 12:52 PM

It's rarely discussed, but the reason liberals don't take a civil liberties bent on guns is that they're almost exclusively the obsession of rich, white, racist men, and have historically mostly been used to suppress everything we believe in, not to fight for it in this "rising up against the oppressors" myth. Violence inherently favors organized, existing power. This explains a lot of the mystery of demographic opinions on guns.

Oh please. Some of the first gun control laws were racist attempts to prevent black people from defending themselves against lynch mobs. (http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm)

"BUT BUT BUT Michael Moore said the NRA is racist!"

The NRA was founded in 1871 -- by act of the New York Legislature, at request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866. It technically became an "illegal" organization with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871.

The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan was dealt a serious blow.

Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.

After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.

The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.

During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.I realize it's a little premature to break out in defense of (at least on a historical basis) the NRA, but when you start calling white gun owners racist it's inevitable to bring up that little bit you picked up from Bowling.

And check this guy out:
He's so white, he's black! (http://www.metrotimes.com/culture/story.asp?id=13488)

Jason McCullough

09-27-2009, 12:57 PM

I've had this discussion plenty of times before; don't bother trying to convince me that the history of weaponry is actually that of freedom. Frank was asking me an explanation, I gave him one.

Lizard_King

09-27-2009, 12:58 PM

I've had this discussion plenty of times before; don't bother trying to convince me that weapons are actually tools of freedom.

OK, I won't. Please stop bothering in the opposite direction.

frank austin

09-27-2009, 01:04 PM

It's rarely discussed, but the reason liberals don't take a civil liberties bent on guns is that they're almost exclusively the obsession of rich, white, racist men, and have historically mostly been used to suppress everything we believe in, not to fight for it in this "rising up against the oppressors" myth. Violence inherently favors organized, existing power. This explains a lot of the mystery of demographic opinions on guns.

Interesting perspective, thanks for that. I agree wholeheartedly that in (very) modern historical context, the firearm has been used more as a tool of oppression and more often by the existing powers that be than by the common main fighting against tyrants, but I don't think that it's nearly so exclusive to such a small demographic of douchebags.

I do think that liberals & the left like to associate the two things because of groups like the NRA and the Glen Beck crowd that are so easily connected to the firearm enthusiast community. From the perspective of someone who likes guns, a lot, I will say that wanting to keep them can make for some really strange bedfellows. I don't want to align myself with that world, but I find myself constantly being put in that group by the other side of the debate. I despise that. I'm not trying to say that's what you're doing here, but I do think it's an extension of modern conditions rather than a reflection of true historical context.

I personally think if we had another country's gun regulation system the murder rate would be somewhat lower, but not amazingly so, because American culture is obsessed with violent conflict resolution. I also think the personal right to gun ownership interpretation of the Constitution is on very shaky legal originalist ground, but hey, I'm not an originalist, so what do I care? Go on with the guns.

So the net effect is "not a big deal" combined with "Jesus christ I don't trust the gun nuts for a second." I don't think this applies to anyone on this board now that Cleve's gone, but hey, you guys are the rational leading edge of gun lovers. You don't bother me; it's those creepy Glenn Beck lovers.

If I'm ever going to find common ground with leftists over gun control, it's here. I shudder when I see pictures of NRA rallies without a single brown folk in the entire crowd. I don't like those people either, but I agree with them that I should be able to have a fucking AR-15 in every room of my house if I want to.

Houngan

09-27-2009, 07:18 PM

I agree, but now we come back to "err on the side of . . ." that is a necessary evil in a democracy where "all men are created equal."

There's really not a single right in the constitution that we all don't secretly wish was limited to a certain group, like voting, guns, free speech, etc. I know a bunch of monocles just popped out, but if you can withdraw yourself from the hyperbolic black hole of internet argument I just dangled myself over, cast the first stone if you've never said "dammit, it's a shame that guy can vote."

But to preserve freedoms that are deserved by most, we have to allow them for all, otherwise we would be mired in cutting and re-cutting the line ad infinitum.

Dammit, we all know the house next door is a crack house, the cops should just bust into the place, screw the warrant!

This guy can't even read and beats his wife who won't turn his dumb ass into the cops, but he can have a gun?

This guy thinks the President is the antichrist, but his vote carries as much weight as mine?

etc. etc. I'm horrified at some of the conversations I hear at the range, but in truth these people are the most law-abiding folks you can find. They should lose the vote before their guns.

H.

Jason McCullough

09-27-2009, 09:49 PM

To clarify a bit, I don't expect the crackpot minority of gun enthusiasts to commit crimes. I expect them to overthrow the government and shoot me and all of my friends.

Houngan

09-27-2009, 10:20 PM

To clarify a bit, I don't expect the crackpot minority of gun enthusiasts to commit crimes. I expect them to overthrow the government and shoot me and all of my friends.

Well, obviously. I recommend a trucker hat sans irony.

H.

Saiban

09-27-2009, 10:39 PM

To clarify a bit, I don't expect the crackpot minority of gun enthusiasts to commit crimes. I expect them to overthrow the government and shoot me and all of my friends.

You expect that, and you think you're the reasonable one in this? O-kay...

bago

09-28-2009, 12:42 AM

You expect that, and you think you're the reasonable one in this? O-kay...

No No Idea (http://kdka.com/local/officers.shot.Stanton.2.975820.html) why he might be worried.

No Idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_massacre) at all.

MikeSofaer

09-28-2009, 01:09 AM

I'm not sure that scales, bago.

bago

09-28-2009, 09:00 AM

I'm not sure that scales, bago.

Oklahoma City didn't exactly scale either, but that sure didn't stop them from trying.

Anti-Bunny

09-28-2009, 10:23 AM

Oklahoma City didn't exactly scale either, but that sure didn't stop them from trying.

What's amazing to me is how much the gun debate has changed on quarter to three over the years. It wasn't really that long ago when when gun control supporters were considered the 'sober' side of this argument.

Kraaze

09-28-2009, 10:45 AM

bago

09-28-2009, 10:49 AM

What's amazing to me is how much the gun debate has changed on quarter to three over the years. It wasn't really that long ago when when gun control supporters were considered the 'sober' side of this argument.

He says during the week that a bomber was stopped (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/24/terror.indictment/) by monitoring the purchasing of bombing equipment.

Anti-Bunny

09-28-2009, 11:00 AM

He says during the week that a bomber was stopped (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/24/terror.indictment/) by monitoring the purchasing of bombing equipment.

Do you even know what position you are arguing, anymore?

Jason McCullough

09-28-2009, 11:03 AM

You expect that, and you think you're the reasonable one in this? O-kay...

Expect is the wrong word; "I can plausibly envision it" is probably more accurate. It's not like the nuts are going to just rise up one day, but given a severe enough trauma (a nuke going off in DC) I'd rate it highly likely.

What's amazing to me is how much the gun debate has changed on quarter to three over the years.

Well, personally I found new information. You can adjust for everything - gun ownership rates, inequality, multi-racial locations, population density - and Americans still blow away each other at a really high rate compared to elsewhere. The most plausible explanation of that is that violent conflict resolution is perfectly acceptable in our culture for whatever reason, like how suicide rates are really high in Japan for culturally-specific reasons. Which makes way more sense, when you think about it; it's not like US violent death is a recent development.

Plus, getting our asses thoroughly politically kicked in the 2000 to 2006 period spawned a lot of introspection on the left.

Saiban

09-28-2009, 11:24 AM

Plus, getting our asses thoroughly politically kicked in the 2000 to 2006 period spawned a lot of introspection on the left.

Well, at least one good thing has come of surrendering the country to the extremist Right for 6 years, I guess!

Lets hope that it did the trick, any way. I'm not looking forward to the mid-term elections, and a disturbingly large percentage of Democrats are still way too fond of uninhibited exercise of government authority and power.

Jason McCullough

09-28-2009, 11:33 AM

If Obama gets health care through it can't turn out that badly. If he fucks it up by wussing out there's no telling how bad it'll be.

frank austin

09-28-2009, 12:10 PM

Seriously, what the fuck is going on over on that last page? No more of that, please.

Tim James

09-28-2009, 01:23 PM

Do you even know what position you are arguing, anymore?Fear, uncertainty, doubt.

I'm not being snarky, judgmental, or even dismissing the idea that there could be a reasonable argument for gun control. That's simply been the typical position for the last 5 years or so that I've observed the issue closely.

We've all got our own machine we fear and lash out against, I suppose.

MikeSofaer

09-28-2009, 02:44 PM

Oklahoma City didn't exactly scale either, but that sure didn't stop them from trying.
Scaling problems don't stop you from trying to scale, just from scaling. This attack architecture can't scale, even if the attackers want it to.

The bomber you linked was caught, yes, but he wasn't prevented from bombing anyone, he was prevented from blowing his own idiot hand off in his bathroom sink.

Anti-Bunny

09-28-2009, 03:34 PM

Fear, uncertainty, doubt.

Actually, I think I get it now.

"Tim McVeigh and friends were anti-gun control," and "Tim McVeigh and friends did horrible things" therefore "being anti-gun control makes you like Tim McVeigh".. which is basically Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy with an American flavor.

I still don't understand what that has to do with trying to make explosives out of hairspray.. Explosives aren't even considered arms.

shift6

09-28-2009, 04:50 PM

All my suggestions are completely impractical in that sense. I was talking about what we should do, not what we will do. I don't think even a a plague of Va Tech/Columbine incidents would convince Americans to give up their guns.
Then perhaps a better way to frame the discussion (when it's genuinely attempted) is not "given an ideal starting point, what should we do" but "given current reality, what should we do now?" So in that sense: given that there are so many guns, that American culture is very pro-gun, and all the other stuff, now what do you think we should do? I mean this as a genuine question.

Actually, I think I get it now.

"Tim McVeigh and friends were anti-gun control," and "Tim McVeigh and friends did horrible things" therefore "being anti-gun control makes you like Tim McVeigh".. which is basically Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy with an American flavor.

I still don't understand what that has to do with trying to make explosives out of hairspray.. Explosives aren't even considered arms.
You have to consider the source. I don't know if anyone really takes bago seriously anymore in any threads. The times he is serious and really could add value (coding and dance/house/rave music come to my mind), his general pattern is a one-liner, possibly not even a full sentence, from which we are supposed to understand a complete thought.

This is not meant as a personal attack on him, but as a statement of my perception of others' perception of his posts. If there's anything this forum doesn't need, it is less clarity. :)

Houngan

09-28-2009, 09:17 PM

Then perhaps a better way to frame the discussion (when it's genuinely attempted) is not "given an ideal starting point, what should we do" but "given current reality, what should we do now?" So in that sense: given that there are so many guns, that American culture is very pro-gun, and all the other stuff, now what do you think we should do? I mean this as a genuine question.

You have to consider the source. I don't know if anyone really takes bago seriously anymore in any threads. The times he is serious and really could add value (coding and dance/house/rave music come to my mind), his general pattern is a one-liner, possibly not even a full sentence, from which we are supposed to understand a complete thought.

This is not meant as a personal attack on him, but as a statement of my perception of others' perception of his posts. If there's anything this forum doesn't need, it is less clarity. :)

Perspicacious. I hope everyone understands that all of my posts are "genie out of the bottle" modified. It would be logically fallacious to say that without guns the homicide rate would be the same, it obviously would drop. Current reality is what we have to work with, though.

H.

Kraaze

09-29-2009, 08:59 AM

Tim James

09-29-2009, 09:22 AM

What we should do is what I actually did. Challenge the prevailing view. Make it clear that their are definitely some people of the opinion that the current laws and attitudes on the acceptability of gun ownership are in fact morally troublesome.That's fine, but I don't think you took an honest look at the morality of preventing the weak from defending themselves with an equalizing tool against violent criminals. Perhaps you have already reflected on it and came to a conclusion elsewhere.

I'll go ahead and put words in your mouth and say this sentiment usually touches on the "percentages" worldview that many people have about self-defense and crime, where a 10% reduction in crime or 20% reduction in the results (death vs. great bodily harm) is worth the trade of the hypothetical situation where a weak person is unable to defend himself. The latter is mostly dismissed as FUD by the anti-gun crowd but I think it lines up philosophically with similar beliefs, such as the foundation of a modern justice system where letting 10 guilty men free is better than convicting an innocent man. These are emotional justifications for a moral viewpoint but still valid in my opinion.

The other interesting thing to note is that you suggested that "anything that increases the difficulty of acquiring a gun is a (small) step in the right direction" which lessens your moral stand since it sweeps the innocent in with the bad guys. Again, that's fine, it just makes your position weaker if you want to bring it into the realm of morally troublesome ideals. That could be why I've rarely seen this tactic used compared to the rational/percentages argument (as well as general FUD, of course).

Kraaze

09-29-2009, 10:07 AM

That's fine, but I don't think you took an honest look at the morality of preventing the weak from defending themselves with an equalizing tool against violent criminals. Perhaps you have already reflected on it and came to a conclusion elsewhere.

People have differing innate abilities and no tool can change that. It's an irrelevant red herring. Taking away guns prevents weak victims from resisting strong criminals and weak criminals from victimizing strong citizens equally.

Houngan

09-29-2009, 10:32 AM

People have differing innate abilities and no tool can change that. It's an irrelevant red herring. Taking away guns prevents weak victims from resisting strong criminals and weak criminals from victimizing strong citizens equally.

Ah, but that is a predator/prey relationship, and since we value all people equally, goes against your point. If there were equal numbers of weak victims and weak predators, you'd have something, but there are many more victims.

H.

Tim James

09-29-2009, 10:53 AM

Ah, but that is a predator/prey relationship, and since we value all people equally, goes against your point.That's a good way to look at it but at the same time weakens the moral viewpoint when I implied most people would be more upset at a weak person being prevented from using an effective tool to stop an imminent violent crime compared to another ten people being shot even at random. (It may be emotional/irrational but seems to be foundational to most worldviews on justice, though again that doesn't mean it is right.)

However, if you value everyone equally without context, the percentages worldview does have some standing, which is probably why it receives the most support. I guess the problem there is the easy practical regulations brought up by those types lean even more toward harming the weak law-abiding victim rather than any type of criminal. That makes sense, and neatly explains why they seem so distasteful to most of us but also why people keep pushing them.

shift6

09-29-2009, 01:21 PM

What we should do is what I actually did. Challenge the prevailing view. Make it clear that their are definitely some people of the opinion that the current laws and attitudes on the acceptability of gun ownership are in fact morally troublesome.
Fair enough. As a thought experiment, let's say that TV and radio and newspapers and blahgs are now covered with articles informing the public that there are definitely people who find current gun ownership laws morally troublesome.

Great. Now what? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I really want to know your thoughts. Given the current state of reality plus the one hypothetical of thoroughly educating the public on some peoples' opinions, what would be your next step in implimenting your views?

Disconnected

09-29-2009, 02:43 PM

Then perhaps a better way to frame the discussion (when it's genuinely attempted) is not "given an ideal starting point, what should we do" but "given current reality, what should we do now?" So in that sense: given that there are so many guns, that American culture is very pro-gun, and all the other stuff, now what do you think we should do? I mean this as a genuine question.

Universal single-payer healthcare, an amendment to your constitution guaranteeing all citizens a place to live and a job, or if no jobs are available, job training and a social security check you can actually live on. And that check has to include children. Essentially, I don't think you need gun control, I think you need a functional welfare system.

I mean, people usually don't assault each other, especially not with lethal weapons, if they feel they have a choice. And the few that do arguably would regardless of the availability of firearms.

shift6

09-29-2009, 02:49 PM

I agree. My understanding is that quite alot of study has gone into the matter and has shown conclusively that with better economic times crime goes down. This is the kind of constructive suggestion that I was hoping a "let's ignore the fantasy starting-point of the USA without guns" thread would uncover.

arctangent

09-29-2009, 03:16 PM

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/prop.gif

Anti-Bunny

09-29-2009, 03:21 PM

Yeah. Violent crime in the US in 2008 is at the lowest level (per person) ever recorded. (454.5 homicide, aggravated assaults, and forcible rapes per 100,000 people)

Anti-Bunny

10-08-2009, 08:47 AM

The LA Times, who are typically sympathetic to Gun Control laws, has an interesting piece up. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-guns6-2009oct06,0,6190425.story)
If you support measures to reduce gun violence, as this page does, it's tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren't bound by the 2nd Amendment. The problem is that allowing states (and cities) to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others.

Landmark civil liberties decisions spanning eight decades were possible only because the justices concluded that key protections of the Bill of Rights applied to the states, because those rights were "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment....

This is no time for the court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

Of course, the SCOTUS has been 'picking and choosing' for a while, but never mind that.....!

Tim James

10-08-2009, 09:07 AM

I'm very surprised. When I saw this Chicago case in the news I went back to my cynical thinking on how conservatives get states' rights religion when minorities are involved and liberals do the same for extra restrictions on gun rights. (The irony of course is that back in the day these were one in the same.)

Their logic in that first paragraph doesn't have much supporting evidence. As you said the Supreme Court has no problem picking and choosing, and I haven't heard anything to make me think they would start letting states curb established civil rights so much that we're back in the 50s.

The logic in the second paragraph about incorporation makes sense if you believe in the 14th Amendment, especially given language like this from the Dred Scott (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393) era:

[If blacks were considered "citizens"] it would give to persons of the negro race ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

I suppose centralization trumps all for the LA Times, though, and maybe they hope that when the decision making is concentrated to one place it'd easier to ram through unconstitutional restrictions?

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other any more since I've been taking a break from gun law for a while. Still curious to see what happens and what the implications are. Oh, and what will be interesting is how this fits in with Montana's attempt to take back jurisdiction from BATFE for arms manufactured and used exclusively in-state. Will they simply centralize all decisions in D.C. or allow states to go beyond federal law in the name of individual rights? It's similar to the bottom-up push for medical marijuana and gay marriage.

Dave47

10-08-2009, 10:54 AM

The LA Times, who are typically sympathetic to Gun Control laws, has an interesting piece up. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-guns6-2009oct06,0,6190425.story)

Of course, the SCOTUS has been 'picking and choosing' for a while, but never mind that.....!
It's not even hypocritical of them to "pick and choose." The Court has never claimed that the 14th Amendment incorporates the entirety of the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment is an excellent example (along with the little-mentioned 10th) of a Constitutional provision that wouldn't make much sense if applied to the states.

While I support the concept of National gun control, I think the most intellectually honest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment makes this a state issue. Illinois can ban guns if they want, but they cannot do anything about Iowa's gun laws.

Tim James

10-08-2009, 11:24 AM

It's not even hypocritical of them to "pick and choose." The Court has never claimed that the 14th Amendment incorporates the entirety of the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment is an excellent example (along with the little-mentioned 10th) of a Constitutional provision that wouldn't make much sense if applied to the states.

While I support the concept of National gun control, I think the most intellectually honest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment makes this a state issue. Illinois can ban guns if they want, but they cannot do anything about Iowa's gun laws.I was very confused by this post until I realized you were arguing under the widely-discredited state militia interpretation.

Since I am rusty, your post did make me do a little reading and Wikipedia reminded me that there hasn't been a 2nd amendment incorporation case since the 19th century, when the courts were still populated by open racists. What's neat is that if you stretch it a bit, the D.C. and Chicago cases are situations with high crime involving minorities whom the cities would like to keep disarmed. It would be a zinger if the Court reacted against the racism from those 19th century incorporation cases and that ended up being the impetus to force stronger gun rights top-down, rather than any rednecks from the NRA who want to shoot machineguns, for example.

I need to stop now before I get too far into it. Lots of work to do today!

Dave47

10-08-2009, 12:43 PM

I was very confused by this post until I realized you were arguing under the widely-discredited state militia interpretation.

Since I am rusty, your post did make me do a little reading and Wikipedia reminded me that there hasn't been a 2nd amendment incorporation case since the 19th century, when the courts were still populated by open racists. What's neat is that if you stretch it a bit, the D.C. and Chicago cases are situations with high crime involving minorities whom the cities would like to keep disarmed. It would be a zinger if the Court reacted against the racism from those 19th century incorporation cases and that ended up being the impetus to force stronger gun rights top-down, rather than any rednecks from the NRA who want to shoot machineguns, for example.

I need to stop now before I get too far into it. Lots of work to do today!
It's a sad truth that most of our nation's Supreme Court decisions come from a Court that contained open racists. While I think that fact should serve as a strong reminder why precedent should not be regarded as God's Law, that fact doesn't mean that everything the Court has ever said is illegitimate, or should be ignored.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the "widely-discredited state militia interpretation," since there are many 2nd Amendment interpretations, and most of them make mention of the militia. But you're obliquely accusing me of being ignorant, or at least misinformed. If you're going to do that, you really ought to provide some more information that a stream-of-consciousness rant about race and firearms.

Anti-Bunny

10-08-2009, 01:05 PM

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the "widely-discredited state militia interpretation,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

While, I'm sure there ARE many interpretations that might say that... even the minority opinions in Heller admitted that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms. The "2nd Amendment only restricts the power of the federal government to disarm the state governments' forces" interpretation has been pretty thoroughly trashed in both legal scholarship and in court, now.

Dave47

10-08-2009, 02:24 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

While, I'm sure there ARE many interpretations that might say that... even the minority opinions in Heller admitted that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms. The "2nd Amendment only restricts the power of the federal government to disarm the state governments' forces" interpretation has been pretty thoroughly trashed in both legal scholarship and in court, now.
If you're arguing that the 5-4 majority in Heller trashed that interpretation, you may be right. But you're grossly distorting the dissent in Heller, as well as the state of pre-Heller legal though. Even the link you posted contradicts your arugment:

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional.

Tim James

10-08-2009, 02:41 PM

It's all cloudy now, but yeah, I think Stevens was the one holdout and A-B didn't make that clear. There's another thread on QT3 I believe that goes into it. The new thing here is that surprising editorial on the Chicago case.

And sorry if I was condescending earlier, I literally had to read your post 5 times before I figured out what you were getting at and was kind of flabbergasted the whole time. Not that there's anything wrong with a different legal opinion, just that I'm out of the loop so it's been a while since I've run into that stated as matter-of-fact.

Anti-Bunny

10-08-2009, 03:10 PM

Tim is right, it's been a while since I've read the Heller briefs/etc, but still Stevens' argument were hopelessly flawed if not intellectually dishonest.

Stevens agreed that there was a "right of the people", but that it was a right 'limited to the context of serving within a state militia' (and therefore irrelevant). That's not really a right of the people at all. The modern military cannot possibly be comprised of all people for a variety of reasons. Stevens ignores the original meaning of "militia," which is "the segment of the population capable of using firearms". Which at the time of the founding was held to be "all free men between the ages of 16 and 60" to paraphrase one of the dudes who wrote the amendment. Also, Stevens relies heavily on a really shady linguistic argument that "bear arms" means "to serve in the military".

Did the other three dissenting justices agree with him? Impossible to know since the two dissents use different arguments, and all four justices joined both dissents. (I guess they're more interested with result than argument.) And frankly, their use of "stare decisis (http://www.constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm)" is an intellectually dishonest cop-out in constitutional matters. If it's constitutional, then it's constitutional and therefore doesn't need to be overturned. If it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional and MUST be overturned no matter what. Either way, that it's a long-standing precedent is not relevant to the question of "what does the constitution say?" As I've said before, if the constitution is wrong and the right to bare arms doesn't fit with our society, then there is an amendment process for that.

ReptileHouse

10-08-2009, 03:26 PM

if the constitution is wrong and the right to bare arms doesn't fit with our society, then there is an amendment process for that.

Totally agree. There's a very interesting debate that can be had there. I wish we (broader societal "we," not just forum folks here) would spend more time having that discussion.

Anti-Bunny

10-08-2009, 03:49 PM

bare arms
Damnit, I keep doing that.

Soapyfrog

10-09-2009, 06:57 AM

Damnit, I keep doing that.
It's ok... you don't like sleeves, we understand!

Kraaze

10-09-2009, 07:05 AM

In other news, it seems guns are a cheaper alternative to divorce! (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/gun.soccer.mom.dead/index.html)

Anti-Bunny

10-09-2009, 07:31 AM

In other news, it seems guns are a cheaper alternative to divorce! (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/gun.soccer.mom.dead/index.html)

Yes.. I'm sure this person weighed the cost/benefit ratio of the material costs of a murder suicide with the legal liabilities of a divorce.

Bravo, Kraaze. Bago would be proud.

Kraaze

10-09-2009, 07:33 AM

Yes.. I'm sure this person weighed the cost/benefit ratio of the material costs of a murder suicide with the legal liabilities of a divorce.

Bravo, Kraaze. Bago would be proud.

Settle down, Beavis.

Anti-Bunny

10-09-2009, 07:35 AM

Settle down, Beavis.

Okay.

Matthew Gallant

10-09-2009, 07:57 AM

How did she get shot she had a gun

Eric P

10-09-2009, 08:07 AM

frankly i'm surprised they had marital difficulties as an armed home is a polite home

Houngan

10-09-2009, 08:13 AM

What's with the anti-gun folks and punctuation? Are you just so excited to mock a murder/suicide that you can't be bothered?

H.

Jason McCullough

10-09-2009, 08:16 AM

funnier with broken not english

Eric P

10-09-2009, 08:32 AM

What's with the anti-gun folks and punctuation? Are you just so excited to mock a murder/suicide that you can't be bothered?

H.

i'm not mocking murder suicide, i'm mocking gun advocates.

Houngan

10-09-2009, 08:36 AM

i'm not mocking murder suicide, i'm mocking gun advocates.

And so excited by the possibilities that now you can't be bothered to press the Shift key.

But yeah, you're mocking a gun advocate that either murdered or was murdered by her husband. You: 1.

H.

Eric P

10-09-2009, 08:40 AM

And so excited by the possibilities that now you can't be bothered to press the Shift key.

But yeah, you're mocking a gun advocate that either murdered or was murdered by her husband. You: 1.

H.
that is exactly what i did

Anti-Bunny

10-09-2009, 11:21 AM

It's sad that gun control advocates, when faced with the lowest violence rates ever recorded coupled with an increasing legal availability of guns, have been forced to go full retard.

Jason McCullough

10-09-2009, 11:32 AM

Huongan, the reason people who aren't gun enthusiasts think this is funny is violent murder suicides is the living stereotype of what's creepy about gun nuts to us - live by the gun, die by the gun. Having a gun around makes it far more likely you'll successfully kill yourself on impulse.

Houngan

10-09-2009, 11:34 AM

people who aren't gun enthusiasts think this is funny is violent murder suicides

I'll just leave that one out there. Remind me next time a rape is mentioned to crow about how having a gun would have helped prevent it. Oh wait, I have a soul.

H.

Jason McCullough

10-09-2009, 11:43 AM

Anti-Bunny

10-09-2009, 11:44 AM

Oh give me a break, mr. huffy guy. If a crusader who spent all their time insisting rape cases were faked were themselves raped that'd be funny too.

Just curious.. Would it have been more funny if she murdered her children, also? Or is it better that they are left as orphans?

Kraaze

10-09-2009, 11:47 AM

Just curious.. Would it have been more funny if she murdered her children, also? Or is it better that they are left as orphans?

No, it's not funny at all. It's completely tragic. And it's even more tragic that Americans don't see how those poor children could still have parents today if America had sane gun control laws.

Anti-Bunny

10-09-2009, 12:15 PM

No, it's not funny at all. It's completely tragic.
Then I guess we shouldn't make any divorce/gun jokes about it or use it to push our own personal ideology.

Kraaze

10-09-2009, 12:21 PM

Then I guess we shouldn't make any divorce/gun jokes about it or use it to push our own personal ideology.

Says the guy who just played the "think of the children!" card.

Anti-Bunny

10-09-2009, 12:24 PM

Says the guy who just played the "think of the children!" card.

Uh, no. That was you. (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1921207&postcount=228)

My card was the 'your jokes are not funny' card.

Houngan

10-09-2009, 12:28 PM

Oh give me a break, Mr. Suddenly No Sense of Humor guy. It's the ideological irony that does it. I feel bad for her husband, but not even remotely for her. It'd be as if Steve Irwin actually got killed by sticking his hand down a crocodile's throat.

Right. We jump on people around here for mocking semi-bad people who die of natural causes (Novak, among others) but anyone who owns a gun is apparently fair game. Where do you put atheists on the list? I seem to remember a lot of classy verbiage when Madeline Murray O'Hare was murdered.

In short, you're in good company. Keep it up.

H.

Jason McCullough

10-09-2009, 12:32 PM

We did? I don't think I posted about it, but I thought Novak dying was awesome, because he was a terrible person who consistently used his power for bad ends. The thread looks mostly venomous (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=54297&page=4).

Just curious.. Would it have been more funny if she murdered her children, also? Or is it better that they are left as orphans?

Nah, ideally it'd just be a suicide. The husband is a buzzkill, and kids would be more so.

This probably summarizes (http://www.urbanarchipelago.com/) a far more cynical than me version:

To red-state voters, to the rural voters, residents of small, dying towns, and soulless sprawling exburbs, we say this: Fuck off. Your issues are no longer our issues. We're going to battle our bleeding-heart instincts and ignore pangs of misplaced empathy. We will no longer concern ourselves with a health care crisis that disproportionately impacts rural areas. Instead we will work toward winning health care one blue state at a time.

When it comes to the environment, our new policy is this: Let the heartland live with the consequences of handing the national government to the rape-and-pillage party. The only time urbanists should concern themselves with the environment is when we are impacted--directly, not spiritually (the depressing awareness that there is no unspoiled wilderness out there doesn't count). Air pollution, for instance: We should be aggressive. If coal is to be burned, it has to be burned as cleanly as possible so as not to foul the air we all have to breathe. But if West Virginia wants to elect politicians who allow mining companies to lop off the tops off mountains and dump the waste into valleys and streams, thus causing floods that destroy the homes of the yokels who vote for those politicians, it no longer matters to us. Fuck the mountains in West Virginia--send us the power generated by cleanly burned coal, you rubes, and be sure to wear lifejackets to bed.

Wal-Mart is a rapacious corporation that pays sub-poverty-level wages, offers health benefits to its employees that are so expensive few can afford them, and destroys small towns and rural jobs. Liberals in big cities who have never seen the inside of a Wal-Mart spend a lot of time worrying about the impact Wal-Mart is having on the heartland. No more. We will do what we can to keep Wal-Mart out of our cities and, if at all possible, out of our states. We will pass laws mandating a living wage for full-time work, upping the minimum wage for part-time work, and requiring large corporations to either offer health benefits or pay into state- or city-run funds to provide health care for uninsured workers. That will reform Wal-Mart in our blue cities and states or, better yet, keep Wal-Mart out entirely. And when we see something on the front page of the national section of the New York Times about the damage Wal-Mart is doing to the heartland, we will turn the page. Wal-Mart is not an urban issue.

Neither is gun control. Our new position: We'll fight to keep guns off the streets of our cities, but the more guns lying around out there in the heartland, the better. Most cities have strong gun-control laws--laws that are, of course, undermined by the fact that our cities aren't walled. Yet. But why should liberals in cities fund organizations that attempt, to take one example, to get trigger locks onto the handguns of NRA members out there in red states? If red-state dads aren't concerned enough about their own children to put trigger locks on their own guns, it's not our problem. If a kid in a red state finds his daddy's handgun and blows his head off, we'll feel terrible (we're like that), but we'll try to look on the bright side: At least he won't grow up to vote like his dad.

I never actually agreed with him, but I can't blame him for going down that route.

.....but anyone who owns a gun is apparently fair game

Nah, just gun nuts who expect anything but derision for the predictable downsides of their hobby.

Houngan

10-09-2009, 12:39 PM

Ohhhkay. Apparently you do think you're in good company. Yowza.

H.

arctangent

10-09-2009, 01:05 PM

Anti-Bunny

10-09-2009, 01:12 PM

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault (http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1)

Short answer:On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.
Ah, that.

Shorter answer: "did not control for any variables"

Slightly longer: "effect size is inside their margin of error"

Volokh did a pretty good report on it here (http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns-did-not-protect-those-who-possessed-them-from-being-shot-in-an-assault/) and what's wrong with using the study to draw the conclusion that "guns don't protect you"

Another, less kind summary here (http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2009/10/can-this-study-possibly-be-as-stupid-as-it-sounds.html).

unbongwah

10-09-2009, 01:39 PM

Kyle Wilson

10-09-2009, 01:41 PM

Oh give me a break, Mr. Suddenly No Sense of Humor guy. It's the ideological irony that does it. I feel bad for her husband, but not even remotely for her.

Do you have any evidence that she was the murderer, rather than her husband? There certainly isn't any in the linked article. In fact it says that "Meleanie Hain was contemplating getting a 'stay-away order.'"

Houngan

10-09-2009, 01:45 PM

While I agree citing a report with such a limited sample size (under 1,400 people in a single city) and attempting to draw broad conclusions is flawed, attempting to refute a statistical study with unsubstantiated hypotheticals - "What if the people who had guns lived in more dangerous areas and were more likely to be attacked? What if some respondents were lying liars?" - doesn't strike me as being particularly intellectually rigorous, either.

The second point, yes, the lying is impossible to control for in a limited questionnaire, but the first point, likelihood of attack, is acknowleged both in the original paper and the rebuttal. It's a truthful tautology, dangerous people live in dangerous neighborhoods because dangerous neighborhoods are full of dangerous people.

All gun crime statistics are driven by gang activity, it makes up half of the entire sample. Thus you could make many errors of causality like "black people are more likely to murder someone" or "being poor makes you a killer" or "living in a city causes you to be shot more often" when it's really just the skew from a few localities. Namely gun-control-happy California and gun-happy Pennsylvania, which should expose why a broad statement doesn't necessarily apply to the legislative causality of crime.

H.

Jason McCullough

10-09-2009, 01:48 PM

Do you have any evidence that she was the murderer, rather than her husband? There certainly isn't any in the linked article. In fact it says that "Meleanie Hain was contemplating getting a 'stay-away order.'"

Ooh, didn't realize that. That would make it just sad, yes.

Kraaze

10-09-2009, 02:38 PM

The news is now saying that Melanie Hain was shot by her husband who then shot himself.

What a shame. She may still be alive today if she'd only had a gun free household.

Anti-Bunny

10-09-2009, 03:05 PM

Apparently she has been concerned about her violent husband for a while, which had a lot to do with her interest in buying and carrying a gun in the first place. She had joined the Pensilvania Firearms Association (http://forum.pafoa.org/members/shefearsnothing/) since. (Personally I think open carry is a really creepy thing to do at a kids soccer game or in most situations, but whatever.) Anyway, the point of the story is instead of leaving the abusive husband, she stayed with him because she was afraid of him. The lesson here is pretty clear, I think, and it doesn't have to do with gun control because the guy probably could've strangled her with his bare hands if he wanted to.

Jupiter Jones

10-09-2009, 05:26 PM

My dad used to take my brother and I to gun shows back in the 80's. He always liked guns, but most of the time he visited the shows to buy authentic Civil War artifacts. He actually amassed quite a collection before the Civil War hit the mainstream in the early 90's.

Anyway, the early 80's shows had a very "museum" feel to them. There were some crazy people for sure, but also a lot of Vietnam vets. For the most part they were like swap meets with an emphasis on military surplus stuff. My brother and I bought lots of military patches and even bought some Atari 2600 games in 1983. My dad always had jovial conversation with the guys selling Civil War stuff, and everything seemed pretty cool.

Jump to about 1993/1994. By that point the "crazy" people seemed to have taken over. There were lots of t-shirts and signs about how Clinton was going to steal all the guns. Most of the memorabilia dealers were gone, and ones that were there were hostile. I recall my dad almost getting punched by some white-trash a-hole while he was looking at Civil War items, because the guy did not like the way my dad was dressed (like a 68 year-old suburban engineer). Lots of "Ruby Ridge" and "New World Order" material there too. It certainly seemed like what had appeared to be a relatively harmless historical artifact themed swap meet in the past had, in effect, become the breeding ground for domestic terrorism. It was the last time we ever went to on of those things.

Stepsongrapes

10-09-2009, 05:35 PM

The lesson here is pretty clear, I think, and it doesn't have to do with gun control because the guy probably could've strangled her with his bare hands if he wanted to.

Actually, I think the lesson also involves (anecdotally, admittedly) that carrying a gun around to your soccer games ISN'T going to provide you with security. Particularly if you were trying to protect yourself against a crazy husband (as you postulate).

In other words, it does speak to the issue of whether guns provide the self-defense value that people think they do. I agree that this story is essentially neutral on the "keeping guns is a risk" side of the equation. Crazy husbands will find some other way to kill their wives.

Anti-Bunny

10-09-2009, 06:07 PM

You guys aren't going to rest until this is pigeon-holed into a teachable lesson for your own ideology, are you?

Yes, I'll agree that you can't defend yourself with a gun when you're not carrying it, are sitting at a computer using video chat in an instant messenger (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/meleanie_hain.html), and you've let your potential attacker get behind you while you're not paying attention.

Wait, are we still arguing about the merits of carrying a gun for self defense and using this woman's death "anecdotally" as evidence that it doesn't help? Really?

The woman willfully lived with a homicidal maniac.

No, only buying a gun was not the proper course of action.

Buying a gun, moving out and getting a court restraining order would be. And yes, I did put buying a gun first because you want to have your gun in your possession (not just bought and sitting in the gun shop waiting for the waiting period to expire) before you file. Some states have domestic violence/restraining order exemptions that let you bypass the waiting period, but chances are you don't live there.