School Shooting

[moda0306]

Triple B,

While attacking my extreme example of a nuke, you skipped over my very reasonable example of a rocket launcher.

Nukes are difficult to build, in large part, because of worldwide regulations on the act of building them.  I mean, we built the first one in the 1940's... don't tell me that if given the opportunity, it couldn't have been made efficient by now.  However, I'll lay off the nukes, as it's obviously an extreme example and hindering the progress of the discussion... however I think it shows that when there is a united effort to limit the production and public access to something, it's VERY difficult to get.

So lets look at mines, rocket launchers, guns mounted to hummers, or apache helecopters... should they be legal to obtain freely?  If not, where do we draw the line?  What about assault rifles with grenade launchers attached?  Exploding-tip round 50 cals?

It'd be great if you drew the line for us... or your line...

[TripleB]

So lets look at mines, rocket launchers, guns mounted to hummers, or apache helecopters... should they be legal to obtain freely?  If not, where do we draw the line?  What about assault rifles with grenade launchers attached?  Exploding-tip round 50 cals?

It'd be great if you drew the line for us... or your line...

I have no line. Any and all lines are meaningless as I described in an earlier post. A bad guy will acquire things in spite of their legality or will find different ways to murder/commit crimes.

If someone wants to spend $20M on an Apache Helicopter and then go through years of training to learn to fly it, and then get a team of people involved to handle support, so that he can commit crimes, then I can assure he will use his $20M worth of resources and team to find a different way to commit crimes.

Exploding tip 50-cals? Please... do you imagine they will blow up schools and hospitals? They have a very small amount of payload in them for the purpose of assisting in blowing through an armored vehicle. At most you can squeeze one ounce of explosive into a 50BMG projectile.

A gun mounted to a hummer? Really, dude? What's to stop someone from mounting a semi-auto rifle to their jeep right now? Or buying a legal class 3 M60 belt-fed machine gun for $50k and mounting it to a jeep? You can do it right now, and I don't see people doing it.

A rocket launcher? How many rocket attacks do you think would happen if we legalized them? Presumably, there'd be rocket attacks in drug-gang related drive-by shootings... but only because of the government policies that make the drug trade profitable enough to justify using rocket launchers. However, those criminals currently use illegally converted full-auto rifles, so they don't care about the law anyway.

The problem with gun control advocates is that they have little understanding of firearms, and most have never even fired a gun in real life. They propose ridiculous ideas based on fantasies they've seen in movies and on TV.

Why are there no gun control advocates who have a lot of firearms experience? Because once someone gets experience with firearms and understands that a pistol gripped shotgun can't kill someone at 1/2 mile away, they understand how ridiculous gun control laws are.

Why do most people have a "line in the sand" and argue for "some"/"reasonable" gun control? Because they are afraid to look crazy by advocating a free-for-all like I have. I'm not worried about my appearance, but most are, so they say "OK OK, I agree people shouldn't own nuclear weapons or Attack Helicopters" when the reality is, as I explained above, people wouldn't misuse those anyway. Then once that "line" is drawn, it gradually gets pushed further and further ahead until there's no private gun ownership at all.

[Pointedstick]

with the possible exception of land mines and  "armed" Apache helicopters, most of the stuff you have listed is available! bought, sold and used by military arms and equipment collectors/enthusiasts....

drawing a line on a non problem is just confusing, what is the point?....

Simon is absolutely right. Even though they're all generally available for people willing to jump through some legal hoops, the fact is that almost nobody wants those things, let alone being able to afford them. Sure, I could afford a .50 M2… but I'd prefer a house.

[doodle]

Ok, so if there is no line....should there be a rigorous training and background check / waiting period to qualify for such weapons?

If a man is released from a mental institution after being "cured" from delusional and violent patterns of behavior, should he be subject to any process at all before he can buy an Ak-47 and 100 banana clips?

[TripleB]

Ok, so if there is no line....should there be a rigorous training and background check / waiting period to qualify for such weapons?

If a man is released from a mental institution after being "cured" from delusional and violent patterns of behavior, should he be subject to any process at all before he can buy an Ak-47 and 100 banana clips?

If the man is really "cured" then why prevent him from having a firearm? If he's not cured, then why release him? It seems like a fault of the mental institution moreso than of firearms laws.

What's considered "rigorous training"? I purport 99% of police officers are not "rigorously" trained in firearm use. Most police officers would agree. Who gets to decide what appropriate training is?

How would a training requirement negate someone from murdering their mother and stealing her guns, that she qualified through rigorous training to use?

The problem with training requirements is that they are subjective AND police officers are not rigorously trained. Most do not fire their guns except every 6 months as required by department policy. Many show up to the 6 month requal with non-functional firearms because they haven't looked at them for 6 months. Most don't carry firearms offduty.

Any kind of training requirement will eventually only be shifted such that it's unfeasible to be achieved by any private citizen and will be waived for sworn law enforcement officers.

Look at Arizona. They had a training requirement for a concealed carry permit. A few years back they eliminated the requirement and anyone can carry without a permit. How many innocent bystanders are killed each day in AZ by citizens with poor training shooting at a bad guy? Is there "blood in the street" as the antigunners at the time suggested would happen?

CT has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and that didn't prevent someone from murdering his mother, stealing her guns that she jumped through hoops to purchase, and using them criminally. No law will deter criminals because criminals don't obey the law, especially ones who are willing to kill their own mother. THAT is why all lines are total BS because they don't apply to criminals.

[Benko]

If a man is released from a mental institution after being "cured" from delusional and violent patterns of behavior,

Shall we point out to you who's policies allow/foster such releases?

[Peak2Trough]

I for one don't really understand the tyrannical government argument that gun advocates make.

That's most likely because you're 250 years removed from being under the thumb of an overseas, tyrannical government that facilitated that line of thinking.  The framers were, fortunately, prescient enough to realize people, and governments, never really change.

[doodle]

Triple B,

Should there be regulations concerning who gets to drive an automobile, or as long as you are tall enough to touch the gas pedals should you be allowed out on the roads? Who gets to decide? Maybe we should leave the decision to the 9 year old who just had a growth spurt or the 90 year old who can still hobble out to the car, though he can barely see.

[doodle]

I for one don't really understand the tyrannical government argument that gun advocates make.

That's most likely because you're 250 years removed from being under the thumb of an overseas, tyrannical government that facilitated that line of thinking.  The framers were, fortunately, prescient enough to realize people, and governments, never really change.

Yes, but I provided examples of where tyrannical governments were overthrown (relatively quickly) without the need for overwhelming firepower. It is kind of hard for a "government" to rule when the majority of citizens are out in the streets even though they might just be carrying rocks and sticks.

[Peak2Trough]

Yes, but I provided examples of where tyrannical governments were overthrown (relatively quickly) without the need for overwhelming firepower. It is kind of hard for a "government" to rule when the majority of citizens are out in the streets even though they might just be carrying rocks and sticks.

I can provide many more examples where heavy-handed governments mercilessly crushed nascent rebellions.  There are, in fact, countless examples of this.

In any case, the countries in the examples you provided don't have a constitutional amendment that the founders of the country thought was so critically important to the new union that it was listed immediately behind freedom of speech and religion.  Some of the best minds with vastly more tyrannical government experience than any of us can claim laid that foundation. 

I simply don't think it's reasonable for us to decry it so many years later with our relatively limited perspectives on the matter.

[RuralEngineer]

I for one don't really understand the tyrannical government argument that gun advocates make.

That's most likely because you're 250 years removed from being under the thumb of an overseas, tyrannical government that facilitated that line of thinking.  The framers were, fortunately, prescient enough to realize people, and governments, never really change.

Yes, but I provided examples of where tyrannical governments were overthrown (relatively quickly) without the need for overwhelming firepower. It is kind of hard for a "government" to rule when the majority of citizens are out in the streets even though they might just be carrying rocks and sticks.

You're seriously arguing that providing the citizenry with an effective means of fighting a tyrannical government is unnecessary as long as the people with "rocks and sticks" win before they're completely exterminated?

There goes the last shred of respect I had for your views. Your entire argument is simply brimming with fail.

[doodle]

That's most likely because you're 250 years removed from being under the thumb of an overseas, tyrannical government that facilitated that line of thinking.  The framers were, fortunately, prescient enough to realize people, and governments, never really change.

Yes, but I provided examples of where tyrannical governments were overthrown (relatively quickly) without the need for overwhelming firepower. It is kind of hard for a "government" to rule when the majority of citizens are out in the streets even though they might just be carrying rocks and sticks.

You're seriously arguing that providing the citizenry with an effective means of fighting a tyrannical government is unnecessary as long as the people with "rocks and sticks" win before they're completely exterminated?

There goes the last shred of respect I had for your views. Your entire argument is simply brimming with fail.

Yes, I am seriously arguing that.  The first thing to note is that overthrowing a democratically elected government is not like overthrowing a non-democratically elected government. With non-democracies, if you have enough people on your side, you can just all go on strike, protest, disrupt the economy, and make a whole pig’s breakfast of the thing in a few short weeks.

Its overthrowing the democratically elected government or one that enjoys widespread popular support where superior weapons would be necessary.

[moda0306]

Triple B,

There are PLENTY of gun enthusiasts who are gun control advocates.  Hell, I don't know if it makes me an enthusiast, but I have four guns and go trap shooting a LOT.  I don't know where you're getting that line.  And just as bad as people who know nothing about guns are those who know nothing but guns.  Many gun owners, because they'd know how to engineer an extended clip or turn a semi-auto into an auto, or can reload quickly, completely ignore certain aspects of human nature when it comes to crime.

Your assertion that there'd be no misuse of war weapons is asinine. Their main drawback is that they're not concealable, but that's only the case in a world where $hit like that is illegal.  Your whole "government can't/won't ever work" attitude colors every assertion you make.  Just because "someone" can figure it out doesn't mean anything when you look at the way people are influenced to make decisions on a macro-scale, when plenty of criminals and crazies simply give up due to lack of cheap, easy-to-get, effective weaponry.

Most crazies are too impulsive to spend a ton of time and money on commiting their atrocities (other than the super nutjob terrorist types), and most criminals are too stupid and short-sighted.  More or less, if you make things difficult, time consuming, or unnaturally expensive to get, they will often avoid doing it all together.

I think there was a time when you mentioned that an "uzi" on the black market costs like $15k or something, but if the market were open and free it would be 1/10th that (not trying to put words in your mouth... correct me if I'm wrong).  That's exactly the point!!  We KNOW we're not going to eliminate everyone's ability to get them, but this is about reducing the severity and frequency of these events.  I agree that creating "gun free zones" is a bit asinine.  I also think that allowing fully-auto long-clip assault rifles and uzis is going to cause far more atrocities than it's going to prevent.

I'll assert something that drives my view on gun control and concealed-carry: A lot of crimes that would've happened never happen because criminals lack the easy access to devastating weaponry (an uzi as opposed to a six-shooter), just as a lot of crimes that would've happened never happen as a result of a well-armed responsible gun-owning public.  I think we need to maximize both of those.  I'd like to see more, not less, responsible, level-headed citizens carrying, and less access to fully-auto, long clip guns.

Government CAN affect that.

[doodle]

You're seriously arguing that providing the citizenry with an effective means of fighting a tyrannical government is unnecessary as long as the people with "rocks and sticks" win before they're completely exterminated?

There goes the last shred of respect I had for your views. Your entire argument is simply brimming with fail.

Yes, I am seriously arguing that.  The first thing to note is that overthrowing a democratically elected government is not like overthrowing a non-democratically elected government. With non-democracies, if you have enough people on your side, you can just all go on strike, protest, disrupt the economy, and make a whole pig’s breakfast of the thing in a few short weeks.

Its overthrowing the democratically elected government or one that enjoys widespread popular support where superior weapons would be necessary.

a tyrant is a tyrant, democratically elected or not... makes no difference,
peoples right to defend themselves and their liberty with the use of force against a tyrant that uses force against them is inviolate, (democratically elected or not)
any tyrant or risk of future tyrant (which always exists) is one that requires superior weapons or having weapons.

people should certainly use any other means at there disposal but standing unarmed against and enemy that can and will kill you is foolish, and an argument so loopy i suspect you are posting it for a laugh... 

How do you define tyrant? I mean according to many republicans, Obama is a tyrant. What is to stop them from gunning down the IRS tax man when they come knocking on the door of their mansion for unpaid taxes? What could be more tyrannical than confiscating their wealth?

Libertarianism (like most dogma) is incapable of nuance. This debate on "common sense" regulations and limitations regarding weapons laws is once again drifting off into libertarian fantasyland. I think libertarianism works great on a micro level....its the larger and more complex macro level of society where I think its tenents begin to breakdown.

[TripleB]

Triple B,

Should there be regulations concerning who gets to drive an automobile, or as long as you are tall enough to touch the gas pedals should you be allowed out on the roads? Who gets to decide? Maybe we should leave the decision to the 9 year old who just had a growth spurt or the 90 year old who can still hobble out to the car, though he can barely see.

How well have government restrictions on driving worked out? 1 out of 4 drivers in Florida are uninsured and unlicensed. 25%. I'm not making that number up.

So while I am required to attend the DMV every few years with documents proving my residency (Because I might be a terrorist under the Patriot Act), 1 out of 2 people other than me (because I'm the 4th) aren't bothering and driving illegally.

The problem with all lines in the sand, even ones for driving are that they are arbitrary at best. Who's to say 17 is the best age? Couldn't there be a very mature 15 year old that could drive and a very immature 20 year old that shouldn't drive? It's ridiculous to apply a one-size-fit all regulation on anything.

[doodle]

If this is the definition of tyrant:

one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics—against his own people as well as others".

My guess is that.

1. If he is democractically elected.....he wont survive the next election.

2. If he tries to maintain power using extreme and cruel tactics against his own people, he will be overthrown in short order in a popular uprising.

[RuralEngineer]

Moda,

Couple things, the U.S. military no longer uses true full auto weapons for riflemen. The M16 and M4 are select fire capable of either semi-auto or three round burst. Full auto weapons have been shown to do nothing but waste ammo in most cases.

The Colorado theatre shooting would have been worse had the shooter NOT used a high capacity drum magazine, which is unreliable and jammed.

The idea that a full auto Uzi (chambered in 9mm pistol ammunition btw) would cause significantly more damage than a hunting rifle with a detachable magazine isn't necessarily true.

For the most part the differences in lethality between "assault weapons" and hunting firearms is overstated. An M1 garand with stripper clips is capable of incredible damage without a high capacity magazine.

[doodle]

Triple B,

Should there be regulations concerning who gets to drive an automobile, or as long as you are tall enough to touch the gas pedals should you be allowed out on the roads? Who gets to decide? Maybe we should leave the decision to the 9 year old who just had a growth spurt or the 90 year old who can still hobble out to the car, though he can barely see.

How well have government restrictions on driving worked out? 1 out of 4 drivers in Florida are uninsured and unlicensed. 25%. I'm not making that number up.

So while I am required to attend the DMV every few years with documents proving my residency (Because I might be a terrorist under the Patriot Act), 1 out of 2 people other than me (because I'm the 4th) aren't bothering and driving illegally.

The problem with all lines in the sand, even ones for driving are that they are arbitrary at best. Who's to say 17 is the best age? Couldn't there be a very mature 15 year old that could drive and a very immature 20 year old that shouldn't drive? It's ridiculous to apply a one-size-fit all regulation on anything.

You mean...Government regulations haven't worked out "perfectly" ....so the solution then is to abolish the government and all regulations. Why not let the kids decide when they can drive, bring a gun to school, smoke dope?

Sorry, we are off in libertarian fantasyland again. Dogma is the enemy of rational thought.

[TripleB]

You mean...Government regulations haven't worked out "perfectly" ....so the solution then is to abolish the government and all regulations. Why not let the kids decide when they can drive, bring a gun to school, smoke dope?

Sorry, we are off in libertarian fantasyland again. Dogma is the enemy of rational thought.

Government regulation hasn't worked out "perfectly" and never works at all because it can't possibly work. Government is coercion by force down the barrel of a gun. It never worked, never will work, and can't work.

Can anyone name even a single time when the government did something that actually worked? Even one time? I can't.

[doodle]

How do you define tyrant? I mean according to many republicans, Obama is a tyrant. What is to stop them from gunning down the IRS tax man when they come knocking on the door of their mansion for unpaid taxes? What could be more tyrannical than confiscating their wealth?

Libertarianism (like most dogma) is incapable of nuance. This debate on "common sense" regulations and limitations regarding weapons laws is once again drifting off into libertarian fantasyland. I think libertarianism works great on a micro level....its the larger and more complex macro level of society where I think its tenents begin to breakdown.

you are flitting from one argument to the next when each point you make is challenged, what happened to defending the idea unarmed citizens can defend against tyranny with their rocks sticks and numbers?

there is no point in arguing against your strawman and ad hominem attacks on libertarian ideas,  `if calling it fantasy, incapable of nuance and dogma is the best you can do its no wonder you find discussions with libertarians so frustrating,  you aren't debating or discusing you are tossing argumentative fallacy/insults and running ..

One of the themes of this thread was gun legislation....I find libertarians who advocate for no government regulation a bit unrealistic.

Regarding the rocks and sticks, I gave four recent examples where tyranical governments were overthrown by generally underarmed populace.

and when challenged on whether those people might have preferred to be armed or not killed for their cause or had a easier time of it if armed.... nothing....

[doodle]

You mean...Government regulations haven't worked out "perfectly" ....so the solution then is to abolish the government and all regulations. Why not let the kids decide when they can drive, bring a gun to school, smoke dope?

Sorry, we are off in libertarian fantasyland again. Dogma is the enemy of rational thought.

Government regulation hasn't worked out "perfectly" and never works at all because it can't possibly work. Government is coercion by force down the barrel of a gun. It never worked, never will work, and can't work.

Can anyone name even a single time when the government did something that actually worked? Even one time? I can't.

This is a perfect example of dogmatic extremism. How about the internet that we are using to communicate on at this moment? It was originally developed by government and then passed on to the private sector.

[Gumby]

Here we go...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/nyreg ... ntrol.html

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, said that we ought to forget gun control as a way to stanch criminal violence. It was hopeless, Senator Moynihan pointed out: even if the sale of new guns was totally forbidden, there were already enough guns in homes and private hands to last the country for 200 years... On the other hand, we have only a three-year supply of ammunition.”?

His solution: Increase the tax on bullets. He wouldn’t raise the tax on ammunition typically used for target shooting or hunting. But he proposed exorbitant taxes on hollow-tipped bullets designed to penetrate armor and cause devastating damage.

“Ten thousand percent,”? Mr. Moynihan said.

That would have made the tax on a 20-cartridge pack of those bullets $1,500. “Guns don’t kill people; bullets do,”? said Senator Moynihan, a Democrat who died in 2003.

Another sharp political mind, the comedian Chris Rock, argued that the price of bullets ought to be even higher than what the senator had suggested.

“If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders,”? he said during a routine

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/nyreg ... ntrol.html

Video: Chris Rock: "Bullet Control"

[MediumTex]

I find it interesting that the government is glossing over its own complete failure to provide public safety by arguing that in order to get the public safety that people crave in the wake of a tragedy, it will be necessary to give up one or two constitutional rights that actually allow people to provide themselves with micro-level personal safety in response to the government's failure to provide macro-level public safety to all of society.

In other words, the government is arguing that it failed because of a lack of sufficient power, and if it could just have a little more power it would be able to do a better job in arranging society in a more optimal way.

For some reason, that narrative sounds very familiar.

***

I always wonder with these mass shooting incidents how different it would be if some of the people being shot at had been able to return fire.

If you say that having more guns in society won't make it any safer, then what justifies the police in carrying weapons and beefing up their own arsenals substantially in recent decades?  As with all matters involving the use of force, what you typically find is that what the government thinks is good for all of society (i.e., restricted access to firearms) is somehow not good enough for the government itself.  Has anyone heard any proposals to restrict police departments' access to firearms?  I haven't.

While people sit around and ponder these topics, I just feel like a responsible citizen who chooses to exercise his constitutional right to protect himself ought to be allowed to do so.  As I said in the OP, one of the simple things that could be done to help prevent tragedies like this is to strive to make gun owners MORE responsible for securing their weapons, as opposed to talking about restricting their access to firearms.

Ironically, the only time I have ever seen a person get shot was at a gun show and the shooter was a police officer working security who was handling his weapon carelessly and it discharged accidentally and hit someone.  Looking back on this incident, I always thought that it was ironic that of the thousands of people carrying guns that day in the building, the person carrying a gun as a representative of the state was the only person who shot anyone.

While it would be little more than a giant make-work program for police officers and security guards, I do sort of like the idea of a "school marshals" program along the lines of the air marshal program where you basically pay someone to do nothing but sit around and make people feel safer.  It probably wouldn't prevent too many crimes, but it would make people feel safer without doing too much harm to our constitutional rights.

Crisis is truly the friend of the state.

[MediumTex]

I have now lived through a couple of different bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

You know what those "bans" did?  They triggered an artificial spike in demand for the banned items leading up to the effective date of the ban because people who wouldn't otherwise buy them felt the urge to buy them because they were afraid they wouldn't be available any longer.  In other words, the assault weapons and high capacity magazine bans caused a significant increase in the number of these items in society.

[Gumby]

Can anyone name even a single time when the government did something that actually worked? Even one time? I can't.

I can.

Public Libraries
The Internet (ARPANET)
The U.S. Armed Forces
Police and Criminal Justice System
The Interstate Highway System
Early Telephone Infrastructure
Early Railroad funding
Ban on Leaded Gasoline
Ban on DDT and PCBs
Cooperative Extension Service of the USDA
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Parks
Rural Electrification Administration
Human Genome Project
The GI Bill
Head Start
Anti-Discrimination Laws
National Weather Service