Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

[Anouleth]

I was being facetious, but I don't understand the logic of your statement. I most certainly do have a problem with the government putting restrictions on my toys. Video games are a good example.

And I'm guessing you have no problem with toys that contain hazardous levels of lead either, if you're okay with a toy as obviously dangerous as a gun (which also contains a hazardous level of lead hahaha).

And I suppose it is worth noting that recreation and responsibility are not mutually exclusive. Not being a hunter, I can only legally use my gun for recreational purposes, and as someone who doesn't actually want to shoot living creatures I am completely okay with that.

So, would you say it's acceptable to own anything at all if it's being used for recreational purposes?

By remorselessly murdering target paper. Some people prefer human silhouettes or images of shambling zombies, but I like having several standard targets on one sheet. That way I get to dedicate one target per gun I bring with me, and see which I was most accurate with. Usually that distinction goes to my dad's Smith and Wesson M&P Pro, though I now suspect that the Five-Seven will set the new standard.

You can't rent a gun? Seems like it would be cheaper.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Anouleth

[Esau of Isaac]

And I'm guessing you have no problem with toys that contain hazardous levels of lead either, if you're okay with a toy as obviously dangerous as a gun (which also contains a hazardous level of lead hahaha).

This isn't even an argument.

You can't rent a gun? Seems like it would be cheaper.

In the same way that renting a game is cheaper than owning it. I mean, if you only plan on using it once, or maybe even a few times depending on where you go. Aside from the cost people obviously as a general rule prefer to own things. It's no different with weapons.

[Original Alear]

You can't rent a gun? Seems like it would be cheaper.

Money can't buy happiness, but it sure can rent it!

Happiness is a warm gun

( bang bang shoot shoot )

Happiness is a warm gun, yes it is

(bang bang shoot shoot)

Edited January 13, 2013 by Mouse

[Duff Ostrich]

And I'm guessing you have no problem with toys that contain hazardous levels of lead either, if you're okay with a toy as obviously dangerous as a gun (which also contains a hazardous level of lead hahaha).

Yes I am okay with toddlers injesting gunmetal and getting lead poisoning.

So, would you say it's acceptable to own anything at all if it's being used for recreational purposes?

Including inter continental ballistic missiles and human slave labor!

...I feel like warping my standards to incompatible extremes doesn't accomplish much. No, not everything is acceptable in every scenario because context changes, and context is everything.

You can't rent a gun? Seems like it would be cheaper.

Esau of Isaac (I keep reading your name as "Eau de Isaac", I don't know why) answered this pretty well, but I have a bit to add.

I have certainly considered renting guns, though that is still an expensive option. For instance, I'm not interested enough in assault rifles to justify purchasing an AR-15, but I still want to know what all the fuss is about.

But I am a fan of handguns, and that includes revolvers and semi automatic pistols. It's obvious that you don't like guns, and that's your perogative, but I do want some guns in my home. My motivations are a mixture of practical and ideological. I would have probably waited a few more months to purchase the Five-Seven had there not been a prospective new bill on the table that might make the gun I want to get illegal for purchase. This would likely result in FN Herstal (the manufacturer) modifying it to meet the new, and I'd say unnecessarily neutered, standards set in place by the law. By preempting that law, I feel I am doing what I can as a citizen to express my displeasure at the government's attempts to tell me what to do, while also spending my money on something that I already wanted to begin with.

More important than all of that, however, is the security that a gun brings to a home. I (and many of the people here) may live in a racially segregated bubble of suburban prosperity, and so it can be easy to forget that the first and last line of defense for your house is yourself. Oh sure, police will come eventually, but that takes several minutes even in a good city, and not everyone has the luxury of living in a good city. America has a proud tradition of self reliance and that is one of several reasons why our gun rights are so important to us.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Duff Ostrich

[Anouleth]

More important than all of that, however, is the security that a gun brings to a home.

Just as the highest rate of gun ownership in the world has brought security to America?

I (and many of the people here) may live in a racially segregated bubble of suburban prosperity, and so it can be easy to forget that the first and last line of defense for your house is yourself. Oh sure, police will come eventually, but that takes several minutes even in a good city, and not everyone has the luxury of living in a good city. America has a proud tradition of self reliance and that is one of several reasons why our gun rights are so important to us.

I know that America has a proud tradition of self-reliance: that's why so many of you die every year from being shot.

I think it's fine for you to want to own a gun for the purposes of recreation. But I don't think the gun will actually make you safer. At best, you are in a Prisoner's Dilemma. I definitely don't see how the increased magazine size would make you safer.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Anouleth

[Esau of Isaac]

Just as the highest rate of gun ownership in the world has brought security to America?

He obviously contributes to the gun homicide rate by merely buying and keeping a firearm for self-defense.

I know that America has a proud tradition of self-reliance: that's why so many of you die every year from being shot.

I am mostly positive at this point that you're not interested in debate and are just looking to make snide jokes to rile others up.

I think it's fine for you to want to own a gun for the purposes of recreation. But I don't think the gun will actually make you safer. At best, you are in a Prisoner's Dilemma. I definitely don't see how the increased magazine size would make you safer.

By increasing the number of bullets he is able to discharge from the gun before he has to reload it.

[Original Alear]

I know that America has a proud tradition of self-reliance: that's why so many of you die every year from being shot.

And die from a number of other things. Presumably, lifespan is not the only thing we care about, to the exclusion of individual freedom to carry firearms. People who see gun ownership as primarily about preventing death by guns are probably weird. I know that I am weird, although I don't see much purpose in gun ownership that precedes the appeal of the object itself to me

(incidentally, the appeal is very high and the appeal of most things exists, so the appeal doesn't justify ownership, especially when the fact that guns can kill people with bullets asserts itself)

I think it's fine for you to want to own a gun for the purposes of recreation. But I don't think the gun will actually make you safer. At best, you are in a Prisoner's Dilemma. I definitely don't see how the increased magazine size would make you safer.

"How would increased magazine size make you safer." I suppose you've never heard of circumstance? Come on, past outcomes don't determine future results. What if you end up facing a teenage mass murderer with an assault rifle and some body armor? Might as well give yourself a couple more shots before I love to reload during a battle.

As for the prisoner's dilemma, I wouldn't apply it here. That's a pretty loose application. It's not as simple as "you both have guns, you both die." It does make the situation more dangerous, but I'd suggest not always more dangerous for "you." If in detail, it often works out that way, I'd still suspect escalation of force as a much more useful buzzword for understanding things. The prisoner's dilemma might be seen as escapable in some way, but it is generally structured - as a way of thinking - largely to avoid diversions from the basic set of results intended by betray/not betray, and to guide thinking along which of those sorts of options is useful when. I don't think that kind of thinking will frequently hold when in a violent confrontation, or leading up to one.

Possessing an option, is not the same, as exercising an option, and while the prisoner's dilemma may be a useful subset of thinking along those lines, I'd say that a term like "escalation of force," both in possession and use, gets at something that is not only more implicitly understood, but actually gets at what might happen, and might be happening. I admit, I've never shot someone.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Mouse

[Anouleth]

He obviously contributes to the gun homicide rate by merely buying and keeping a firearm for self-defense.

I am mostly positive at this point that you're not interested in debate and are just looking to make snide jokes to rile others up.

I'm just bemused that Americans keep on talking about "safety" and "defense", when available evidence suggests, Americans aren't very good at self-defense.

I don't see myself as making snide jokes. I see myself as supplying the punchline when Americans have already provided the buildup.

By increasing the number of bullets he is able to discharge from the gun before he has to reload it.

And... how does that make him safer?

And die from a number of other things. Presumably, lifespan is not the only thing we care about, to the exclusion of individual freedom to carry firearms. People who see gun ownership as primarily about preventing death by guns are probably weird. I know that I am weird, although I don't see much purpose in gun ownership that precedes the appeal of the object itself to me

(incidentally, the appeal is very high and the appeal of most things exists, so the appeal doesn't justify ownership, especially when the fact that guns can kill people with bullets asserts itself)

See, like I said earlier, it's fine if Americans prioritise libertarian principles or the recreational value of guns over their safety. That's their choice to make. But they shouldn't pretend like they're making themselves safer, or that these rights are for "self-defense", when evidence suggests that being able to defend yourself doesn't really make you safer (for example, men are four times more likely to be murdered than women are, even though it's perfectly apparent that women are less able to defend themselves, even before you take into account the vastly lower rates of gun ownership among women). It's more of a question between "positive freedom", the Rockwellian "freedom from fear", or a negative freedom, the Constitutional "right to bear arms".

Edited January 14, 2013 by Anouleth

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm just bemused that Americans keep on talking about "safety" and "defense", when available evidence suggests, Americans aren't very good at self-defense.

I don't see myself as making snide jokes. I see myself as supplying the punchline when Americans have already provided the buildup.

How aren't you making snide jokes? You have repeatedly latched onto phrasing others used and reduced it to absurdity over and over again to make a comical point that is neither relevant to the topic or anything they were saying. Your "punchlines" aren't even comedy, they're just thinly-veiled heckling plainly meant to annoy people in favor of guns for self-defense.

And... how does that make him safer?

It makes the gun more capable of projecting bullets towards a target for a longer period of time before needing to spend time not doing so. It makes it a more effective defensive weapon.

See, like I said earlier, it's fine if Americans prioritise libertarian principles or the recreational value of guns over their safety. That's their choice to make. But they shouldn't pretend like they're making themselves safer, or that these rights are for "self-defense", when evidence suggests that being able to defend yourself doesn't really make you safer (for example, men are four times more likely to be murdered than women are, even though it's perfectly apparent that women are less able to defend themselves, even before you take into account the vastly lower rates of gun ownership among women).

This doesn't mean that men are inherently more vulnerable to attack than women, it means that people who attack others are more likely to focus on men. This is why people that wear firearms on their person tend to be harmed more in public settings when criminals do become violent: They focus on the target that is obviously a bigger threat. This in no way means that firearms are not useful for defense, it's just pointing out the fact that if someone that hurts you knows you might be able to kill them, they're not going to hold back as much when they become violent.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Zanarkin]

It makes the gun more capable of projecting bullets towards a target for a longer period of time before needing to spend time not doing so. It makes it a more effective defensive weapon.

It makes no advantage though because the murderer is probably goin to have a weapon that can fire in such a way. Not to mention that a lot of the the time, the reaction time might not be enough to stop the murderer from shooting you (assuming that most victims are going to be caught by surprise; I'd assume most people would, you don't particularly expect to be the victim of a shooting in a school/movie theater/etc.).

[Esau of Isaac]

It makes no advantage though because the murderer is probably goin to have a weapon that can fire in such a way.

They might, or they might not. At worst they have a weapon that is just as effective as yours. If they aren't wielding that exact same weapon then it is entirely possible you have a leg up.

Not to mention that a lot of the the time, the reaction time might not be enough to stop the murderer from shooting you (assuming that most victims are going to be caught by surprise; I'd assume most people would, you don't particularly expect to be the victim of a shooting in a school/movie theater/etc.).

True, but then anyone can potentially surprise anyone with any weapon before they are able to arm themselves. The fact that a mugger can potentially stab you before you've gotten ahold of your own knife doesn't defeat the purpose of a knife for self-defense, it just means that a knife doesn't make you instantly safe from harm.

[Raven]

The way I see it is this: People carry guns because other people carry guns. It doesn't necessarily make anyone safer just because an anonymous do-gooder may or may not be carrying a gun thus may or may not be able to take down a mad man unloading his weapon towards crowds of public, it just makes everyone more at risk from being a victim of gun crime because everyone and their mother's packing heat and can unload at any place and any time. Who can you genuinely trust with a gun? Yet there are nearly as many guns as there are people living in the USA. I find it incomprehensible.

[Esau of Isaac]

Do you find it incomprehensible how many knives are in the UK?

The thing that needs to be acknowledged on at least some level by both gun control proponents and gun ownership advocates is that fundamentally, guns are not causing people to become violent. Violent people are using them as a tool to do dangerous things. For every person it requires drawing a line, and for some ownership of guns is where it lies. But it shouldn't be put forth that guns are in themselves incredibly dangerous and no one can truly be trusted with them.

[BrightBow]

Do you find it incomprehensible how many knives are in the UK?

You keep brining that up but you can't possibly tell me that you don't realize that there is a world of difference between guns and knives.

But when all weapons are the same to you, one could play this game in the opposite direction and ask why civilians can't have their own tanks or nukes or whatever.

Edited January 15, 2013 by BrightBow

[Esau of Isaac]

I am not saying weapons are the same, I'm illustrating exactly my point which all of you hold: The line at which personal ownership of any weapon is deemed safe is a personal one, and removing the entirety of any given kind, while potentially helpful, can be a whole world of annoyance and unnecessary pain. I think you'd agree that a world without knives would have less knife crimes, less effective than guns or not, but I doubt any of you here would actually be okay with actually banning all bladed implements. Because it goes too far in its quest for preventing harm, despite the positive effects it would probably have on the knife homicide rate.

[Raven]

I am not saying weapons are the same, I'm illustrating exactly my point which all of you hold: The line at which personal ownership of any weapon is deemed safe is a personal one, and removing the entirety of any given kind, while potentially helpful, can be a whole world of annoyance and unnecessary pain. I think you'd agree that a world without knives would have less knife crimes, less effective than guns or not, but I doubt any of you here would actually be okay with actually banning all bladed implements. Because it goes too far in its quest for preventing harm, despite the positive effects it would probably have on the knife homicide rate.

The definition of a weapon (from Wikipedia): A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool, device, equipment, or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.

By definition, a knife is not a weapon, and only becomes branded as a weapon when used in a threatening way. That is why they are so easily obtainable straight off the shelf at your local Tesco's store. And this is why knife homicide is common in so many countries all over the World, not just the UK. There are a range of items that can give the same outcome as a knife, such as a piece of glass or scissors. Ban knives, people will murder people with other things.

But a gun? That's a weapon by definition alone because they are manufactured for the purposes of inflicting damage or harm. Why does the USA have such a large gun homicide rate compared to almost anywhere else in the World? Because guns are legal to buy. Even the assault rifles capable of killing scores with a single clip are legal. Ban guns (specifically assault rifles and unnecessarily large capacity magazines), and people will move on to less powerful handguns to commit murders and attempt killing sprees. What would happen to the gun homicide rate? It should decrease, in theory at least. However just because something like banning certain guns may or may not lower gun homicide rates and prevent less mass murders, that is no reason to not try.

Every avenue to prevent future mass homicides and general gun homicides needs to be taken. Including those involving care for mentally ill and unstable individuals. And a step up in common sense for owners of guns with nothing but honest intentions. Amongst many other things. It's no good blaming one thing or the other; it's a factor of several things merging into one. They all need to be tackled one way or another in order to prevent future mass murders as efficiently as possible. Making assault rifles and high-capacity magazine clips illegal are a good start towards the prevention of future mass homicides.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Raven

[Esau of Isaac]

The definition of a weapon (from Wikipedia): A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool, device, equipment, or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.

By definition, a knife is not a weapon, and only becomes branded as a weapon when used in a threatening way. That is why they are so easily obtainable straight off the shelf at your local Tesco's store. And this is why knife homicide is common in so many countries all over the World, not just the UK. There are a range of items that can give the same outcome as a knife, such as a piece of glass or scissors. Ban knives, people will murder people with other things.

You're using badly strung together semantics to argue a point that isn't relevant. A knife can be used a deadly weapon however useful a tool it may be. If knives were not available to the populace less knife homicides would occur, in the same sense that a complete lack of ownership of guns would lead to a reduction in gun homicides. I don't think you can reasonably argue against that.

But a gun? That's a weapon by definition alone because they are manufactured for the purposes of inflicting damage or harm. Why does the USA have such a large gun homicide rate compared to almost anywhere else in the World? Because guns are legal to buy. Even the assault rifles capable of killing scores with a single clip are legal.

A gun is not manufactured for the explicit purpose of shooting another person, in the same sense that a knife is not manufactured for the explicit purpose of stabbing a person. They can be used in such a fashion, in the same sense that a knife can, but they can also be used for recreation in firing at targets, to hunt game, or even as a wall piece.

Ban guns (specifically assault rifles and unnecessarily large capacity magazines), and people will move on to less powerful handguns to commit murders and attempt killing sprees. What would happen to the gun homicide rate? It should decrease, in theory at least. However just because something like banning certain guns may or may not lower gun homicide rates and prevent less mass murders, that is no reason to not try.

Your theory starts with the assumption that assault rifles are used in a majority of gun crimes when available, when that is simply not the case. Most gun crime is in fact carried out with the use of pistols, because they are portable, ergonomic, and most importantly easily concealable.

And the fact that it may or may not lower crime is a heavy point to think about in the same sense that I expect you would before moving to ban any bladed implement from civilian use.

Every avenue to prevent future mass homicides and general gun homicides needs to be taken. Including those involving care for mentally ill and unstable individuals. And a step up in common sense for owners of guns with nothing but honest intentions. Amongst many other things. It's no good blaming one thing or the other; it's a factor of several things merging into one. They all need to be tackled one way or another in order to prevent future mass murders as efficiently as possible. Making assault rifles and high-capacity magazine clips illegal are a good start towards the prevention of future mass homicides.

Define an assault rifle. Define high-capacity magazine.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

I think King Louis XIV had the right idea when he banned all pointed knives. Why haven't we banned pointed knives yet?

[Raven]

You're using badly strung together semantics to argue a point that isn't relevant. A knife can be used a deadly weapon however useful a tool it may be. If knives were not available to the populace less knife homicides would occur, in the same sense that a complete lack of ownership of guns would lead to a reduction in gun homicides. I don't think you can reasonably argue against that.

I'm not arguing against that, though.

A gun is not manufactured for the explicit purpose of shooting another person, in the same sense that a knife is not manufactured for the explicit purpose of stabbing a person. They can be used in such a fashion, in the same sense that a knife can, but they can also be used for recreation in firing at targets, to hunt game, or even as a wall piece.

I am aware of this and had such things mentioned in an earlier draft of my previous post. But not everyone stays within such boundaries, and this costs thousands of lives in the USA every year.

Your theory starts with the assumption that assault rifles are used in a majority of gun crimes when available, when that is simply not the case. Most gun crime is in fact carried out with the use of pistols, because they are portable, ergonomic, and most importantly easily concealable.

I'm not doubting you for a second. You're not going to get the same death toll using a handgun compared to an assault rifle, either. And that's the goal of this whole thing, is it not? To lower the numbers of homicides by gun?

And the fact that it may or may not lower crime is a heavy point to think about in the same sense that I expect you would before moving to ban any bladed implement from civilian use.

But we're not discussing the banning of blades here, we're discussing the banning of guns. Knives are already banned in public here, for the most part. And as for whether it may or may not lower gun crime, discussing it in this manner will do nothing. Putting it into practice is the only sure way of finding out. Leaving things as they are will not help towards solving anything.

Define an assault rifle. Define high-capacity magazine.

I'm not sure why I should define an assault rifle when you didn't question my usage of it earlier, even using the term yourself.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Raven

[Constable Reggie]

But we're not discussing the banning of blades here, we're discussing the banning of guns. Knives are already banned in public here, for the most part. And as for whether it may or may not lower gun crime, discussing it in this manner will do nothing. Putting it into practice is the only sure way of finding out. Leaving things as they are will not help towards solving anything.

Funny thing you say that. We already had a 10 year assault weapons ban and it had no direct correlation whatsoever with the reduce in gun crime.

[Raven]

Funny thing you say that. We already had a 10 year assault weapons ban and it had no direct correlation whatsoever with the reduce in gun crime.

I see. I'd like (reliable) sources for the contents of your post.

[Constable Reggie]

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/rr5214a2.htm

http://books.nap.edu...d=10881&page=96

https://www.ncjrs.go...ants/204431.pdf

https://www.ncjrs.go...ants/204431.pdf

Good enough? Should be more than your total amount of 0 citations for your own claims.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Raven]

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/rr5214a2.htm

http://books.nap.edu...d=10881&page=96

https://www.ncjrs.go...ants/204431.pdf

https://www.ncjrs.go...ants/204431.pdf

Good enough? Should be more than your total amount of 0 citations for your own claims.

What have I said that warrants a source?

[Constable Reggie]

Handwave my original point, good stuff.

Making assault rifles and high-capacity magazine clips illegal are a good start towards the prevention of future mass homicides.

We already had an assault weapon/magazine ban. Give evidence that the previous one helped prevent mass homicides.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Raven]

I'm still reading through the streams of words in the links you posted. So no, I'm not "handwaving" anything.

Edit:

We already had an assault weapon/magazine ban. Give evidence that the previous one helped prevent mass homicides.

Why should I give evidence for an opinion?

Edited January 15, 2013 by Raven