Guns in America

[IlliniDave]

Many such policies are and/or have been in place. It's not hard to extrapolate from arguments to expand them further where it is headed, although extrapolation is not necessary given the fairly vocal faction who just blurt it out that they want guns prohibited. And strawmen, deception, and hyperbole are shamelessly employed by both sides. Humans are primarily emotional creatures and when emotional chords are struck logic is drowned out by louder impassioned voices that throw it out the window.

[Kriegsspiel]

@Kreigsspeil

So now the story is that four deputies stayed put and didn't enter when it mattered, apparently if true they waited until the municipal police showed up and by then it was too late.

I'm not a police officer but I've worked with and been around a lot of them. I find it very hard to believe that four of them hid behind their cars while kids were being shot. They must have been following their departments policy or they didn't have one regarding school shootings which led to confusion. The alternative is that they were scared and stayed put, which I find very hard to entertain, but I don't know. I do know that cops follow orders though.

Here's what Israel said:

Sheriff Scott Israel said that, to his knowledge, deputies followed protocol and did not wait for specialized teams to arrive before going into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. But he said that details over the office’s response remained unclear.

“That’s exactly what we’re examining,” Sheriff Israel said, noting that active shooter protocols require confronting suspects as quickly as possible. “You don’t wait for SWAT, you get in, and you push toward the shooter.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/us/p ... oting.html

Hiding, or taking up defensive positions during an active shooter scenario, seems more like the actions of rent-a-cop security guards than police officers. I'm thankful that I wouldn't have to rely on that kind of farce if there was an active shooter in my apartment building.

I don't trust this Sheriff Israel dude. All of his actions are leading me to believe he is projecting here. He's hiding something in my opinion.

Just another series of failures in this massacre.

"If you have a lone wolf assassin that’s committed to commit great carnage and killing people, there’s really nothing you can do about it."
- Sheriff Israel, Oct 2017

Some would call this excellent pre-emptive sandbagging. Personally, I think he's right. With our current levels of technology and societal complexity, there are just too many ways to rain some chaos.

[Riggerjack]

In these gun arguments it seems like a strawman is always set up, though probably not intentionally. Policy changes that realistically could happen are things like longer waiting periods to buy, limits on magazine size, better background checks and limits on who can own, etc. Instead the people who like guns bring up confiscation of all guns and how people will hoard guns and manufacture them. Sure, a ban is a possibility but it is so unlikely that I mostly see bringing it up as a tactic to avoid discussing policies that actually might be implemented.

Well, if you read back through what I have written, just in this thread, you will see I have addressed this issue from both ends, minimal change, maximal change. Neither is a strawman. Both ways have been tried. Results are in. Effectiveness guaged. Success measured.

And that is why I talk about it. It's not like we don't know exactly what will happen when changes to the rules are made. They don't stop or slow down gun crime. Limit the hi cap magazines, someone will buy up a half million extras, and ensure decades or more supply at massive profits, as gun grabbers guarantee his monopoly. Add more wait time, etc, ok. All you are doing is inconveniencing those 98% of gun owners who aren't a problem.

Because gun grabbers have an agenda. It involves getting as many guns out of civilian hands as they can. This is their unquestionable good deed. They aren't interested in disarming criminals, except as a minor secondary effect. There is no plan to disarm criminals. They don't want to cut gun crime, they just think they will feel safer, if I (and people like me) don't have a gun.

Before I get labeled as a "gun grabber" (not helpful terminology for having a discussion), note that I have plenty of experience with and mostly like guns, though I don't feel I need any in my life right now.

I use the terms gun grabbers and gun nuts, not because they are flattering, but because they are not. I'm very specifically not using the terms each group would prefer, to make clear that I am not acting as a shill for either group. I reserve gun grabbers for the people who are interested in more gun control, and too ignorant or self centered to care about the actual effects of the changes made in their names. And gun nuts for people, like me, who are familiar enough with the issues to have looked into all of this, and desensitized to the horrors of gun violence to still support gun rights.

And that's what it is, desensitized. If I could get rid of all my guns, and end violence forever, I would have to do that. No question, no qualms. The secondary effects of guns are absolutely not justified at the price of the primary cost of the violence. However, that primary cost is not optional. There has always been, and always will be violence. Giving up my tools to deal with it doesn't stop it. There has never been a plan or an attempt at removing the gun threat from criminals, and every gun control measure proposed would have a net zero effect on the crimes people talk about gun control to address.

So, if you want me to call you a gun grabber, feel free to propose exactly the same, ineffectual solutions they do. If, like most Americans, you fit in the undecided 60-80% with I'm happy to discuss any options. Why they work, or don't. If on the other hand, you are just offended by my terminology, please, go back and re-read what I posted.

I'm sure I said something more worthy of offence than gun grabbers or gun nuts.

[Jason]

Watching videos of galvanized teenagers eviscerating politicians over NRA affiliations has led me to realize how the NRA's intransigence on this matter has led their opponents into trenching out a basic straw man argument that could potentially be to their own detriment. It's like blaming liquor companies for drunk driving fatalities, and subsequently identifying the type of liquor i.e. beer, wine, vodka that is responsible for the most deaths and saying "At least stop selling that type of liquor." If I was the NRA (which I am not) I would make some type of concession and then just sit back and wait for the next mass shooting in order to say "Told you so."

This "musket" argument is reductionist as it equates technology with principle. It's an ad absurdum argument. However, the school shooting survivors, using this narrative, are now becoming the corollary to breast cancer survivors within the entire cancer survivor community. Eight million people die of cancer each year but only 40K from breast cancer but this specific segment fought and lobbied and got their pink ribbons due to associative factors. The school shooting contingent's influence will rise in a disproportionate measure to their place in the overall argument/problem using this simplistic narrative. If any concessions are made directly on their account, my guess is (pardon the pun) it will backfire as their single bullet theory (pardon the pun again) will not change a damn thing.

[Riggerjack]

If I was the NRA (which I am not) I would make some type of concession and then just sit back and wait for the next mass shooting in order to say "Told you so."

A sound strategy. Unfortunately, it has been tried. Up until '94, the NRA was like any other lobbying group. You pays your money, and you take your chances. And there were concessions made. DC basically banned all civilian arms. Illinois required permits for all firearms, then stopped issuing permits. Etc.

But then, in '94 we passed the Brady bills and the assault weapons ban. Congressmen who took our money, decided gun control was better for their careers than gun rights, and strategies and tactics changed. Instead of giving money to each congressman with a hand out, the money was used anywhere the race was close, and someone took the money, and screwed us. This is that scary NRA that won't compromise. We limit the careers of congressmen who take our money and lie to our faces. We don't hand out money for wanting a seat, we give money where it will make a difference. And to be clear, some of those seats are and have been blue forever. You have to be right about guns, not be on the right team.

So we did what you say. And we are standing back "saying I told you so", and have been. But the problem is that it is hard to teach history in this country, that doesn't value history as much as others. It's harder to point out over and over the effects of gun control, than it is to scream about the need for it in the aftermath of a catastrophe. And the people sensitized to the issue by that catastrophe are not much interested in the history or long term changes. They just want to do something to stop this from happening.

Both sides want to stop it from happening. But one side is willing to look at how it works, and conclude that none of the proposed solutions will work, see all of history, and the other just wants to do SOMETHING.

I'm not a fan of the "just do something" thought process. Especially not when all the proposed "somethings" have been tried and failed to produce the promised results.

Which leaves us where we are. Inflexible. Uncompromising. Stuck. But this isn't us being especially hard headed. There would be some resistance to any new, good, gun control idea that could possibly work from gun owners. But we can be reasoned with.

This hasn't been an issue just because there are no new, workable solutions being offered. every idea being pushed has been tried before. And we know where that road goes. And the destination doesn't match the road signs.

[Riggerjack]

This hasn't been an issue just because there are no new, workable solutions being offered. every idea being pushed has been tried before. And we know where that road goes. And the destination doesn't match the road signs.

Let me back up a bit from that statement.

There are no new, workable solutions being proposed as gun control.

But our issues are broader than that. We abandoned mental health in the 80-90's. Closed down the asylums, as the disasters they were. But we didn't replace them with something better. If you want to remove guns from those with mental problems, addressing it from the mental health side is easy. Everyone wants to help keep guns and crazy separate. The only resistance the gun lobby would show is making sure the new law isn't step one of a 2 stage process, where step 2 is to label gun owners as crazy, then take their guns. This may sound paranoid, but it matches the history of gun grabbers.

But the problem with that is we aren't very good at mental health. It's an incredibly nuanced, complicated subject. There are already lots of gray areas of rights suspension and interpretation of capability. Nothing that screams "do something, anything!" the way mass shootings do. Add in a party affiliation between gun grabbers and mental health advocates, and I'm not expecting any new progress from here any time, soon.

I imagine there are other avenues to approach this. School reform, so maybe we don't have marginalized angry young men looking for a catastrophe, or fewer, anyway. Maybe others I haven't thought of.

But all the resistance against the "just do SOMETHING" proposals comes from trying it before, and not liking the results.

[Jason]

The kid voted most likely to shoot up the school did just that and it appears a new gemeration is going to bark until they get a bone thrown at them. If their parents won’t or are too ignorant to teach them, I guess they will have to learn the hard way. Those who fail to learn...

[BRUTE]

Both sides want to stop it from happening. But one side is willing to look at how it works, and conclude that none of the proposed solutions will work, see all of history, and the other just wants to do SOMETHING.

brute believes Trump is actually quite good at abusing the "just do SOMETHING, ANYTHING" crowd. since they are reacting to whatever is on the news cycle, but don't care about efficacy, the proper response is to do pretty much anything at the right time, something that sounds kinda right but will have no actual effect (positive or negative). "something" will have happened, and the reactionary crowd will have forgotten 3 weeks later.

for example, the bump stock ban is such a thing. nobody cares about bump stocks, or even full-auto in general, really. full auto is not a useful tool to any marksman, its only legitimate function is to lay down suppressing fire in combat. it's expensive and inaccurate. hobbyist marksmen and hunters and home defenders don't lay down suppressive fire because they typically don't have to contend with snipers and don't have a squad ready to move while they shoot. thus Trump can let himself be negotiated down from "lift age to 21, ban bump stocks" to "ban bump stocks" by the NRA types, ban something that nobody uses or cares about. then he can claim that he did "SOMETHING, ANYTHING" (which is true) without having to care that it will have zero effect in solving the actual problem or piss off too many gun owners.

[jacob]

@brute - Oi! A direct attack on my dictionary. This shall not stand!

I do know the difference between a machine gun and a submachine gun or whatever. However, I don't think it helps the conversation to get bogged down in technical definitions when solving problems(*) because, as you note, it's a very effective way to appear to be doing something while in reality it's doing nothing. However, arguing technicalities violates the principle of charity, so lets leave the technical definitions and diversions to the lawyers and the gun-nerds or nuts. When laymen and lawyers say machine gun they mean anything that's capable of putting out lots of rounds at high rates somewhat far down the range. Whether that's a machine gun, a submachine gun, a bump-stock, or a hundred bolt actions wired together in some Rube Goldberg contraption is a matter for the lawyers.

Accepting this, we also don't have to waste time arguing whether the legal definition of a machine gun (=more than 1 round fired for each trigger pull) also covers bump stocks which technically is one pull=one shot, but in practice is one push=rapid shots. See link below for mechanical details.

(*) If indeed it is a problem. Personally, I don't think it's a problem: See my first post in this thread for why I think so.

Same goes for military/tactical issues. Indeed, squad tactics have changed to a point where the idea is to lay down large amounts of suppressing fire in the general direction of some enemy while the marksmen "figure something out". The weapons are spec'ed for that ... or maybe it's the other way around; that since those are the weapons, these are the tactics that naturally derive. Anyway, the idea of suppressing enemy snipers hiding somewhere in the bushes also works for "suppressing" a field of people standing close together in plain view at a rock-concert a few hundred meters away.

Same point with "assault weapons". The general "end" of an assault weapon (whatever the definition) is a weapon that can consistently hit and keep hitting targets beyond 40 yards because the capacity is high enough. Those are the qualities you'd want if you want to storm a trench our outgun someone with a handgun or a shotgun (important point for home defense(+), police, or SWAT teams). If the weapon can't do that, you'd be stupid to bring it. However, assault capability "means" are not necessary for deer or duck hunting though. OTOH, I think everybody now realizes that quantity beats quality when it comes to people-who-shoot-back killing. There's a reason why law enforcement and military switched from reliable revolvers to pistols.

(+) Not in the city though. Here you'd want rounds that don't affect the nearest 10 blocks down the street. Using a rifle around here (the nearest house is <10ft away on both sides) would fit the Cipolla definition of stupid.

What the gun-grabbers, to borrow RJ's term, are saying is that those ends (putting many lethal rounds into many different people in a short amount of time) should be harder to achieve regardless of what the technical means and definitions of doing so are. This is likely because they rely on police/SWAT to provide those services being close by in urban areas. In rural counties where such services are 20+ minutes away, you might like to provide those services yourself ... just like you might like to provide other services on your own like snow plowing, fire fighting, bear fighting, CPR, or catastrophic bleeding services. This also makes sense.

Therefore, I agree with Trump and so think that this is something that should be solved at the state or more accurately at the county level (to dispense with the rural/urban division which naturally makes sense because distance/density). This way, people can weigh their love of shooting against the risk of the rare mass shooting or just move out if they don't agree with the local politics. A few years ago I actually looked into getting some arms and even had everything picked out (Mossberg500 and Ruger Redhawk---I can give you model numbers too) but ultimately decided that the ROI (risk-adjusted and all) in my (suburban) neighborhood wasn't worth it at all, so I didn't bother acquiring. Around here, the ROI of fleeing and calling the cops at the first sign of trouble >>> standing my ground and dealing with the outcome whether it's the mortuary, the hospital, and/or the courtroom.

PS: For those who don't know how or can't infer how a bump stock works, here's a good vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IOZ-5Nk5k
PPS: The reason why almost all people buy bump stocks is to experience the "yay/wow/fuckin'a"-moment shown at 4:15.

[BRUTE]

When laymen and lawyers say machine gun they mean anything that's capable of putting out lots of rounds at high rates somewhat far down the range. Whether that's a machine gun, a submachine gun, a bump-stock, or a hundred bolt actions wired together in some Rube Goldberg contraption is a matter for the lawyers.

Accepting this...

brute does not accept. while in a well-intentioned discussion he could give the benefit of the etymological doubt, the anti-gun team has clearly weaponized (haha) misdefinitions to evoke greater emotional responses.

saying "machine gun" instead of "submachine gun", saying "assault rifle" or "semi-automatic rifle" instead of "it's just a fucking rifle, they're all semi-automatic" repeatedly, especially if the true difference is known to the speaker, can only be considered a deliberate attempt at misdirection or scaring humans who don't know better.

brute could argue about the technical points Dear Leader jacob is wrong about with regards to the assaultness of assault rifles, revolvers, and pistols, but he won't, because that's not the point.

the point is that the point in this discussion where one side can assume good intentions upon incorrect usage of a definition is long past. saying "machine gun" or "assault rifle" is like saying "pro-life" - it's not an innocent word, it's politically motivated, and therefore has to be pointed out.

edit:

brute just realized that, of course, not all rifles are semi-automatic. there are plenty of bolt-action rifles out there, and some lever-action rifles. but, pretty much all pistols and revolvers these days are semi-automatic. so it's really not such a useful term to distinguish what should be banned, it just sounds scary.

[Sclass]

and revolvers these days are semi-automatic. so it's really not such a useful term to distinguish what should be banned, it just sounds scary.

WTH? You had me at submachine gun.

[Jason]

Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym. Those who can't teach gym, get guns.

[Gilberto de Piento]

it's just a fucking rifle, they're all semi-automatic

Clearly you have not been deer hunting with old guys. There's a lot of bolt action still out there in use.

BRUTE is now disqualified from talking about firearms.

[Riggerjack]

I have to agree with BRUTE, about the political points, and Jacob about how little terms matter. So to me, whether it is an innocent mistake, or is one more way to manipulate the public, has everything to do with the knowledge level of the speaker. If you don't know anything about guns, I don't care what words you use, I don't have an expectation that you should understand the terms you use.

But if one is actively endorsing a policy, and consistently use the wrong terms, in consistent ways, that's not a mistake.

[Riggerjack]

It occurs to me that I have spouted off about the statistics, but provided no links to backup what I am saying.

Honestly, while I call myself a gun nut, other than moving them around, I haven't touched a gun in a few years. I haven't looked into any of this since before Sandy Hook. And since I'm posting from my phone, I didn't have any of my links saved. Just as well, half are dead now... but in looking, I found this just facts site.

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

And they are a gun rights site, but they do a very good job of citing sources, and putting in notes. I dug through it last night, and the only flaw I spotted was they talked about some surveys done in the 90's that weren't as unambiguous as they are presented. Also, it seems I was wrong about the CDC and federal research. There has been lots that I didn't look into recently. The site refers to some of it. I'll dig around and see what the CDC had to say, and compare that to what just facts reports for a feeling of how much spin is there.

This is a great site for general overview of gun rights/control stats:

* Under federal law:
It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for the following people to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition:
someone convicted of or under indictment for a felony punishable by more than one year in prison, someone convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in prison, a fugitive from justice, an unlawful user of any controlled substance, someone who has been ruled as mentally defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, someone dishonorably discharged from the military, someone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, someone subject to certain restraining orders, or someone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.[77] [78] [79] [80]
It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison to sell or transfer any firearm or ammunition to someone while “knowing” or having “reasonable cause to believe” this person falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above.[81] [82]
It is illegal to “engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms” without a federal license to do so.[83] [84] [85]
It is illegal for any federally licensed firearms business to sell or transfer any firearm without first conducting a background check to see if the buyer/recipient falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above.[86] [87]
It is illegal for anyone except a federally licensed firearms business to sell, buy, trade, or transfer a firearm across state lines.[88]
* Under federal law, private individuals are not required to a conduct a background check before selling or transferring a firearm to someone who lives in the same state, but it is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for a private individual to sell or transfer a firearm while “knowing” or having “reasonable cause to believe” that the recipient falls into one of the prohibited categories above.[89] [90]
* Some states such as California require background checks for all firearms transactions, including those conducted between private individuals.[91] [92] [93]

Note that is the law today. No new regulations are needed on firearms restrictions. Every state has other laws not listed there. Many localities have even more restrictions.

[ThisDinosaur]

@ffj
You called it, man. That guy is a tool.

@Riggerjack
It's illegal to "knowingly" sell to prohibited individuals, but I wonder if there is a way to make it the responsibility of the seller to know.

[Campitor]

@Riggerjack
It's illegal to "knowingly" sell to prohibited individuals, but I wonder if there is a way to make it the responsibility of the seller to know.

Yes - make them run background checks like everyone else.

[Riggerjack]

@Riggerjack
It's illegal to "knowingly" sell to prohibited individuals, but I wonder if there is a way to make it the responsibility of the seller to know.

As campitor said, requiring background checks at the state level can work, if you are concerned about that. If you read my link, it shows:

* A 2004 study of state prisoners who possessed guns during crimes for which they were jailed found that the guns were obtained from the following sources:

40.0% through an illegal/street source
37.4% through family or friends
7.3% at a retail store
2.6% at a pawnshop
0.8% at a gun show
0.6% at a flea market.[122]
* A study of crimes committed with firearms in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 2008 showed that 18% of the perpetrators lawfully owned the gun, and 79% were not legal gun owners.[123]

So 77.4% bypassed background checks by finding someone willing to risk a 10 year sentence, 9.9% went through the background check, and 1.4% went through gun shows and flee markets. The last 1.4%, some went through checks, some didn't.

As much noise as we hear about the gun show loophole, you would assume all guns used by criminals come through there, not 0.8%. In Washington state, the organization that runs our main guns shows, Washington Arms Collectors, has required a background check for membership, and at renewal each year. Selling a firearm to a non-member is punished by a lifetime ban from the club, no appeal.

See, these guys are gun nuts, and nobody is more serious about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. I have been to gun shows in a few states, and while many will allow you in with no background check, none would allow purchase without one. Yeah, the state may not require it, but once background checks became easy and fast, (Brady bill 94, thanks grabbers) gun show promoters were quick to provide them. All pawnshops that buy or sell firearms will have an FFL, and do background checks.

Of course, now we (Washington state) have a required background check for private purchases. Which is a bit of a pain in the butt. The only guys I'm interested in buying guns from are guys I know, and have known for decades. But if I want to buy a gun from a friend, I have to meet him at an FFL with the gun. Conduct the paperwork, pay the fee, ($15 last time plus 10% sales tax) come back 3 days later and pick up the gun. If I pass the background check. I have so far.

I get it, you think tougher rules will slow down these scary shootings. I assume you just don't know how many rules are already out there, and that is why you are suggesting solutions that have already been implimented.

The guys shooting up schools are young, angry, outsiders. They haven't been through our justice system, or they would have real grievances. How do you filter for these guys? Most have no record, and no mental health history that would throw up flags.

The guy in FL was voted most likely to shoot up a school. Think about that. We know how to spot these guys. It was done in advance, by kids. And there were 39 referrals to law enforcement about this guy. Maybe, if we really cared about this issue, we would follow up on that.

But I expect we will ignore that, and focus on the super scary stuff like gun show loopholes and black guns.

[Toska2]

Im going to group "mass shootings" as mental illness.

How are we dealing with other forms?
Opiod addictions have treatment centers.
Alcoholics have group therapy.
Hug not Drugs campaigns.
Gambling & suicide hot lines.

In those cases we deal with the individual. The policies being thrown around are about the item. The debate, imo, more about ideology than facts, as others stated.

I wonder why the classmates didn't include the shooter?

A side thought. Wouldnt smaller schools foster a closer knit bonds between classmates? Not in a "friends" way but "I know your name and you're in two of my classes".

[Riggerjack]

Good point. And I would like to point out just how effective out-lawing drugs has been, as a drug prevention measure.

As to smaller schools, that was my first thought. In the smaller schools that I attended, there was far less social stratification. But the cruelty was just as present. I remember one kid got cornered, stripped, stuffed folded into a trash can, and walked out to the fifty yardline during half-time, where he was left, struggling to knock over the trashcan, crawl out, and walk off the field, carrying the can. He was a decent guy, but he had been the dedicated subject of bullying, from the same bullies, since elementary school. He's one of the people who graduated and never looked back, so I don't know what happened to him.

I think of him when I think of school shootings. He never did anything to give the impression that he would, but just all the crap he went through, that never stopped, that came from the same people, year after year. I had it rough as a kid, but I at least knew every shitty situation was temporary. No matter how bad, it would be different in a few months or a year. Now that the school shooting template is out there, I don't know how to stop kids dealing with this kind of regular abuse at school from choosing it.

It would be nice to think antibullying measures would fix this, but the evidence points the other way.

Since I can't see a way to separate the bullied kids from the guns, I think our best hope lies in stopping the abuse in school. But that would require throwing out the industrial schooling model, and starting fresh.

Which is just so much more work, than just calling for a gun bans, and going back to watching TV.