Where did the gun regulations sticky go?

[Richard H]

Zuckerman, check out the side effects of many of your anti-depresents.

[Pat McCoy]

william,

I think your first two paragraphs hit the spot, but when you wrote:

Oh, by the way, "random violence" is a very polite way of saying mass murder. And there's very little random about it, is there?

I think completely miss the boat. I remember many instances of thugs roaming small towns, beating juveniles and young adults, stealing their money and property, but never murdering anyone (let alone masses). And yes, it was random, never knew which small town around the big city would be next. They finally had their come-upence when all the small towns in the area (with little or no law enforcement) started citizen committees to defend their town. Eventually the thugs picked on the wrong town, on the wrong night.

[Pat McCoy]

RE: basic ballistics by zuckerman:

Wow, too many false assumptions to even start.

I do wonder where my 30-06 hunting rifles fit in? Everyone at one time was an "assault rifle" (M1 Garand; 1903 Springfield; 1917 Enfield).

[sakurama]

I think the right has become, led by the tea party, a group that doesn't want to adapt or engage or compromise in many things. This is proving to be a very poor strategy (see gays in the military, see minorities, see women's reproductive rights) and while we are a country politically divided the base of the conservative movement, the older white Christian male, is dying off and being replaced with a multicultural, plural-theistic and equality minded electorate.

If gun owners want to tow that same line by simply saying "no" to a "thoughtful discussion" instead of engaging in it than, yes, they should be prepared to start losing rights and elections.

Gregor

[BenEnglishTX]

Rover, I have to agree with William. To disdain "thoughtful discussion" is to disdain everything that is right with this country.

In principle, I agree. This, however, is not a subject that lends itself to thoughtful discussion generally.

I am convinced that firearms, for whatever reason, are an "emotional trigger." Their presence or even talking about them causes some people to instantly become mushbrains, incapable of rational thought.

This is not as crazy as it sounds. I don't mind admitting that I have an emotional trigger. Without going into upsettingly graphic details, I can clearly say that if I found myself witnessing certain acts (that may, technically, be legal), I would simply lose my mind and, all laws be damned, do my level best to kill everyone involved. This would not be a rational response but it's an issue I simply could not be rational about if I were presented with it in person.

(OK, if anybody is really curious, you can PM me and ask me what it is. You'll regret it, though, because even if you don't respond as strongly as I do, you'll still find it stomach-turning. Graphic language describing something considered sexually stimulating by some people will be included in the reply. You've been warned.)

I am convinced that when it comes to guns, there are people who are simply so afraid of them that rational discussion is a waste of breath. Many of those people write legislation for a living. Talking to them at all, much less trying to engage in "thoughtful discussion" is an exercise in futility.

Much of the political leadership of the country is committed, when it's politically expedient, to banning all guns. That's the ultimate goal. It's always been so. After they managed to demonize "modern sporting rifles" and got the AWB passed, places like the Violence Policy Center starting publishing white papers on "Pocket Rockets", pistols that were *too* concealable and thus likely to be used in crime. They'll latch onto any excuse, any category of firearm, in an attempt to divide and conquer.

Thus, while I will not dismiss the notion of "thoughtful discussion" as desirable, I will not condemn those people who have tried and tried and tried it in the past and failed every time and who, therefore, choose to abandon it henceforward.

PS - The offer to reconstruct the old thread still stands.

[Gerard]

Gerard, I can truly appreciate that you are a disciple of Noam Chomsky, as you seem to master the concept of leaving logical thought and knowledge of prior human existence and history outside your postulations. And politely ignoring those who do use logical thinking and have a knowledge of history.

I'll answer, because you have insisted that I answer and because I wish to re-post the comment I made earlier and which you deleted, Pilkguns. I did not answer this post of yours previously because frankly I did not take it seriously, thought it to be of very little value in this debate especially considering how apparently obvious are the answers. So here goes, point by point so I don't miss anything and so fail to satisfy your new Gerard-specific rule for posting in this forum:

It would appear that you have not read, or perhaps simply not understood Mr. Chomsky. For anyone to claim that his work lacks logical consistency is an admission of failure in their understanding, as his logical, detailed, and very consistent approach over a number of decades is surely not arguable. Was he wrong about US complicity in the slaughter of almost a million people in East Timor? He was shouting into the wind, sure, but being unpopular and right seems a more valid position than either being ignorant and complicit or being aware and directly involved in the conspiracy to murder hundreds of thousands. Similarly his logical approach to the Middle East violence has remained consistent for over 40 years, and yet the violence rages and his rather conservative, cautious, staged set of solutions remains unconsidered by anyone profiting from the ongoing violence there.

As for being a "disciple" I resent such a label, and made no claim to such status personally. I do find the clarity and precision of Chomsky's whole approach refreshing in the vast and muddy waters of global politics, but that does not make me a disciple. For many years I followed the writings and debates of William F. Buckley Jr., and even of Milton Freedman, both morally repugnant, reprehensible individuals, but both brilliant in their ways and worthy of consideration. Just the same Ayn Rand. A pitiful excuse for a human being and an outright failure as a social philosoper, offering considerably less value than the fetishist/obsessed Freud, but in her own strange sphere an interesting spectacle and worth studying her output in aid of apprehending the mystery that is right-wing thinking.

What method do you propose to respond to someone who is shooting bullets at you? or an innocent child?
This a question YOU must answer Gerard, before anymore of your statements will be allowed on Target Talk. I am sick of your failure to engage with those whose powerful arguments you don't like.

Two part answer to this. Part 1: The particular response to someone shooting at me would of course vary depending on the exact circumstances in terms of a) layout (relative availability of cover, objects suitable for use as projectiles, shielding, distractors, etc.), b) apparent availability of the shooter for verbal interaction (but it's probably a safe assumption from examination of Pilkguns' attitude in previous postings here that his postulated shooter isn't responding to anything shy of a bullet in return, so b) is probably moot), and c), proximity of myself to the shooter. It is not technically possible to answer this question with any significant degree of accuracy or appropriateness without establishing at least some parameters to variables a) and c) and as such I must qualify my answer 1) by saying that it is a trick question, one which cannot be answered as posed. However, as I'll further guess that Pilkguns is not seeking an actually logical response, but rather a satisfying emotional one, I'll give that:
I'd do whatever was necessary to the best of my ability to ensure the survival of my child, or anyone's child, up to the moment of my death. Meaning I'd tear the guy apart if need be, grab the child and move myself between the gun and the child and flee for cover, or whatever course of action seemed most pertinent at the moment. As would anyone with a bit of sense I think... but from my experience most people don't display a lot of sense under hostile pressures such as this scenario, they panic, most freeze, some run herd-like in such a fashion as to make them easy prey, etc. Most people do not prepare mentally for such events, just blissfully go through their days in a state which one might call naive, or a sort of permanent 'victim' state. I prefer to move through live alert and aware, not to the point of disabling paranoia but ready for whatever happens at any time. This state has been helpful on a number of occasions, including one in which an attempt was made on my life in pitch darkness, completely unexpected. I responded instinctively and overwhelmed my attacker, took his weapon (pair of 10" ViseGrips which I still use in my shop) and ushered him away from the scene with a firm threat against his own life. It was not a brilliant attack and he was a smaller man, so hardly anything heroic, but it did demonstrate along with a few other instances of potentially life-threatening hostility aimed at me that I am capable of responding immediately and effectively to random attacks.

Answer part 2: And this is the really obvious one, if the above was not obvious enough; most live fire attacks cannot effectively be countered with returned fire as you've spelled out this attack. Someone is already firing upon me, or upon my child? I won't have time to draw a weapon and return fire. Ask a cop if they have time to return fire when a guy already has them in his sights and is firing. You know what happens, Pilkguns, you die unless you are fast enough and lucky enough to evade the bullets, that is, if the guy's a pathetically bad shot and everything happens to work just right for you as the target. What, does a concealed carry permit holder magically become Bruce Lee with lightning reflexes? Come on, be serious. Should this rare event happen to choose me or my child as a target, as stated above, I'd do whatever seemed to be the most effective thing possible at the time, but the likelihood is that whether or not I had a gun or any other weapon, I'd be shot, my child would be shot. That's the problem with guns. overwhelming, easily applied user interface. Point and click. Almost no time involved, fractions of a second between seeing a potential target and that target being eliminated. Getting out a gun, even with open carry and endless hours of practice drawing from all positions is still far slower than merely swivelling and firing once the gun's out and running. I'd wager 9 times out of 10 I'd die, my child even more so as getting to that child and moving the mass of that child to a safer position takes even longer than drawing a gun or getting myself out of the line of fire. I'd have a better chance of saving my kid from a truck doing 60 at an intersection, which is to say not much of a chance.

The problem with the question is that it assumes there are guns to be used by said attacker. This is at present a valid assumption. Is that a good thing? Or should we be using this opportunity brought about by the tragedy at Sandy Hook (not the gun regulation discussion as it's been rather shamefully renamed here) to really dig down to the roots of how our society is set up and what we might want to change? Are you, Pilkguns, demanding that I bow down and agree with the incredibly vacuous and irresponsible speechifying of the NRA's CEO and just agree that more guns in more places is the answer? I will not, unless and until someone among you can prove to me incontrovertibly that this is the right answer. Unless you're seeking that your gun culture move steadily towards automated armed turrets in all public spaces with logic circuits selectively weeding out would-be killers from crowds, I think your way is among the more irresponsible and short-sighted of the various options.

Someone is shooting at you, or God forbid one your children, What would YOU do?

Since you've demanded more than once that I answer your questions it seems I must answer each part, so... I'll save space and suggest you re-read what I wrote above to what is obviously the same rather ineffectual question. Really, one might as well ask what one would do if a car crash were about to happen. Any number of things, depending on the particulars of the situation, obviously! Accelerate, decelerate, swerve, do nothing, brace for impact, and on and on go the variables depending on so many details one can only assess on a case-by-case basis. I raced various kinds of bicycles for years and faced a number of group crashes and one-on-one crashes and individual crashes in that time. Every one was different. I responded to each on its merits. I've also been car doored on my street bike. Had all of about 1 second to respond. I took in the variables while beginning an emergency braking procedure I'd rehearsed hundreds of times offroad, bringing the back wheel about 4" off the road to focus maximum stopping force on the front wheel while simultaneously throwing my weight behind and below the seat such that I would not go over the bars. There was a tour bus hard on my left handlebar whose back wheels were placed such that even a 6" swerve to the left would result in my deflecting from the wide-thrown limousine door edge under those wheels, resulting in my death. I'd already passed the rear bumper so a somersault over the limo was no longer an option. I decided within 1/5th of a second (my estimate in hindsight based on skid marks and my speed at the location where I began braking) that hitting the door and allowing my relaxed body to wrap around it to absorb my momentum was the best course of action, through it would likely result in splitting my face on the edge of the door. In a little side thought I crossed fingers that the driver might leap out and absorb the impact, as he deserved to suffer some damage for this blatant violation of the motor vehicle code. Then I just settled in for the latter half-second and let it happen as planned. Couldn't have rehearsed it better. I turned my head about 15 degrees to the left so that my mouth wasn't hit, the door's top corner bounced off my helmet, then cheekbone and sliced downwards through my cheek to my jaw, and by that time the transfer of momentum from my arms and legs and bike hitting the door had succeeded in stopping me. Bled on the driver, got stitched up, done deal. One does what must be done, depending on circumstances.

Will you do nothing? Or will you seek to grab whatever you can find as a weapon and try to stop that person? a 2x4? , baseball bat ? , a rock? Even your IZH46 with a well placed shot in the eye could disable the attacker. What will YOU do?
Scott

This rant of yours degenerated, and still it's the same question, over and over. Oh well... in order then:

Will I do nothing? Of course not, unless my assessment of the particular circumstances dictates that doing nothing for the moment seems the safest course of action, though obviously this seems unlikely.

Will I pick up any weapon available, including one of my air pistols? Well not the air pistols, that seems very unlikely indeed, as they stay in a locked Pelican case when I'm not practicing and it's rather unlikely that I or my child would come under attack from a gunman while I'm practicing Olympic style 10 metre air pistol. Unless of course a fellow club member happens to bring a firearm to practice or a match and go nuts... in which case obviously I'd retain my loaded pistol and if it seemed useful might use it to distract or disarm him. But that's pretty far-fetched, really. For one thing he'd likely be as good a shot as I am and I'd have no chance, as he'd have the draw on me, as stated above. Even sweeping an arm with a pistol 90 degrees to one side is a whole lot slower than squeezing a trigger. I'd be dead. Or my child would be. Wouldn't matter one little bit if I had a friggin' bazooka Scott, it really wouldn't. All I might be able to do was return fire once injured, and that's a long shot considering the way a bullet impact tends to make one less functional than usual. After the first impact I'd have even less chance of fighting back, with any sort of weapon, and since the first shot from this theoretical aggressor would obviously out-pace anything I might do, the second bullet would no doubt beat me as well owing to this reduced efficiency on my wounded-ass self's part.

Now if you're suggesting that a gunman would for some mysterious reasons all his own was pointing a gun at me, then turning away or allowing his gun to drop before raising it again and firing upon me and/or my child, well of course I would take whatever opportunity was afforded to me, be it baseball bat, 2" x 4" (what am I now, Buford T. Pusser or something? This is getting ridiculous.), piece of pipe, whipping off my belt and hitting him with the buckle, a leg sweep, or... get this, a really imaginative one here... deaking to one side and getting low and running the hell away and hoping for the best, my kid tucked into my front and held there hard.

Or who knows? I mean really, who can guess what opportunities might arise in any firearm-laden situation? If someone threatens me or mine, I'll do what I can. That'll be better than some can do, worse than others with better skills can do. I'll negotiate. I'll go berzerker and shred the creep. I'll take a swing with hand or whatever and knock the weapon away if close enough. Whatever might work, depending.

What would you do Scott? When faced with a man pointing a gun at your torso, or holding it to your child's head, what would you do? Please answer directly. I don't have moderator powers here so I can't threaten you with superior firepower, as you've threatened me (and gone on to pull the trigger, deleting my rather lengthy bit of writing), but be brave, answer the question of what you would do. Would you switch into faster-than-the-speed-of-sound mode and get your gun out and drop the guy before he had time to move a little metal trigger a few millimetres and kill you or the child? Fine, I hope that works out for you really well should the circumstance ever arise. I really do, as I hate the thought of anyone, even the most cretinous little power-abusing worm like some child molester getting killed without due process. People do have rights under your precious Constitution, correct?

Or do you aspire to a Dredd style society where the mightiest of gun-wielders will serve as judge, jury, and executioner? That's what guys like this creepy kid in Sandy Hook want. Do you share that vision for your society? I ask because surely you see how this doesn't end well for the weak, the unwary, those with lesser weapons and a 'weaker' sense of survival such that they won't shoot first. It's a race to the bottom being advocated by the NRA. I do not want to participate in that race. As any father should, I will defend my children as needed. But I'll first live intelligently, use my experience and common sense in avoiding risky situations (like visiting crowded places in major US cities, for example), and associate with people who like me are not much interested in guns for so-called self-defense.

[JamesH]

JamesH,
I just want to point out that we can buy cannons, bazookas, and grenade launchers. We can also buy or make sawed off shotguns and rifles. We can buy and own pre 1986 manufactured machineguns.

We have Title I weapons, which are what a lot of folks think is all we are allowed to own. These are your common arms; rifles with 16 inch or longer barrels, shotguns with 18-1/2 inch or longer, and handguns.

We also have Title II weapons, commonly called Class 3, but that is not the correct name. These are the result of the 1934 National Firearms Act, NFA. You must register them and pay a one time tax to own them; fingerprints, photo, and background check, etc. There are not many restrictions. Your full auto pre 86 weapons are in here, short barreled guns, shoulder stocked and/or vertical foregrip pistols, and the like etc. Some, classed as AOW pay $5.00 tax, while most of the rest are $200.00. Grenades, cannons, and bazookas would be in the Destructive Devices category, again not banned, just regulated.

Justice Scalia said that rights can be regulated to a degree, but not to the degree that makes something effectively banned, including full classes of weapons. He also wasn't too sure if the pre 86 machinegun ban would hold up after the Heller decision.

It is awfully difficuly though, and you can't buy anything post-'86 so I'd say the 'right to bear arms' is anything other than 'not infringed'.

[JamesH]

I'm not really seing how letting any 21 year old male with a clean record buy a handgun solves the problem of 20-something males with clean records committing mass-murder.

So what you are saying is that it is ok for a 20 year old give his life for his country but he can't buy a handgun?

He can't buy black slaves, he can't buy child brides, he can't buy land mines, cocaine, enriched uranium or canisters of VX gas - why would dying for his country give him some special right to instant acces to a handgun with no questions asked? And why should a handgun be some special case we aren't allowed to question?

Maladjusted 18-20something males with clean records and free and easy access to firearms seem to be a fairly large part of the problem, its at least worth considering why and how to deal with it.

It was suggested in another forum that males don't have much opportunity to express their individuality and independence. It used to be done through cars, but with the collapse of the US car industry, the blandness of modern cars, price of petrol and the heavy regulation now of driving behaviour, fuel economy etc there's not really much room to do so unless you're very rich.
Gun ownership is the last bastion of independence and stick-it-to-the-govt-ness. Gun ownership, video-games and action films - which all feed off each other - are the last arenas where men can be men any more - and so its an 'emotional trigger' subject.

I don't know if this is right but it seems half reasonable.

[Ray Odle]

Constitutional rights asside, it must not be forgotten that a major factor in these incomprehensible acts of violence such as school shootings, are mental disorders.

What can be done to help promote mental health programs and support legislation?

Although it wouldn't help in comon crime, it could help in those acts commited apparently by persons with mental problems.

Crimes committed by the mentally ill are statistically extremely low. There is no advantage to anyone in adopting policies or legislation that denies individuals the right to life, liberty and property. Legislation takes away feedom. A loss of a freedom does not protect anyone. The freedom to defend ourselves against violent attack regardless of the attackers mental state is the only common sense and safe solution. Good people must possess the freedom, the will and the means to defend against the attack.

It might not hurt to be able to teach in our school "Thou shall not murder", but that would violate the separation of church and state (which can not be found in the US Constitution nor used to stop the state from dictating to the church).
The only "morals" that can be taught are dictated by the state's gods. It is taboo the attack the state gods.

[Richard H]

Morals don't come from an old book.

[william]

Justice Scalia said that rights can be regulated to a degree....

This is the most laughable reference of all. In Mondo-Scalia the rights that Scalia likes - gun ownership, corporate political involvement - are absolute; those he disdains - voting, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, access to legal representation, etc. - are there to be infringed.

The above statement is exaggerated [but only slightly] for effect.

[Richard H]

I guess that just makes him like the majority of people who treat the Constitution like a buffet, I like lots of this, a little of that and none of that.

Liberals don't have a problem with that ancient document when it's used to give gays equal rights, allows them to protest, but it immediately should be destroyed when it gives one the right to bear arms.

Conservatives love it when it gives them the right to bear arms, but dislike it when it gives gays equal rights, women the right to abortion ect.

[jhmartin]

Crimes committed by the mentally ill are statistically extremely low.

Ray ... read this article. While "statistically low", these crimes are the ones the media focuses the attention on.

"The giant, gaping hole in Sandy Hook reporting"
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-ga ... reporting/

[william]

Let me take it upon myself to act as the token liberal here (Yes, everybody, liberals can support gun ownership!) in response to Richard.

Intellectual dishonesty grows out of 2 Constitutional theories, literalism and "original intent." Literalism is hard to argue with except to recognize that the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution, SCOTUS, consists of human beings with the full complement of frailties.

Originalism is more subtle, but it must be rejected on the grounds of historical context. The "original intent" of the framers was to permit - even encourage - the ownership of persons by other persons among other obsolete ideas. The story of abolition including the XIII Amendment and the Civil Rights Movement is nothing if not the shift in historical context. On the other hand, there is still a sizable population in the former Confederacy who refer to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression" and who cling to such quaint and dangerous notions as a state's right to ignore (nullify) federal laws it doesn't like. That process would permit a return to near-slavery in several states.

As to the "liberal" position, the IX Amendment provides all I've ever needed:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Rights can pre-exist the Constitution and be protected without specifically listing them. The conservative obsession, Roe v Wade, was poorly decided - not because of Justice Blackmun's logical gymnastics, but because the Court should have cited a IX Amendment right to be free of any state's interference in a person's medical decisions. The right to have the spouse of one's choosing, ditto.

As to the II Amendment, it is the only article in the Constitution to have 2 clauses at cross purposes. The tension between the "well regulated militia" part and the "right of the people" part will never be resolved to everybody's satisfaction. The best we can hope for is that people accept that theirs is not the only possible reading.

[BPBrinson]

Banning heavy equipment?? Here is a solution that has been proven to work.....ridiculous? NOT AT ALL!!! Watch the video of actual attacks being put down by armed citizens. Unpopular? sure.. effective...absolutely!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MXykP30 ... r_embedded

[Richard H]

William I agree with you, that's why I used majority, not everyone. I too am pretty liberal and Canadian to boot, I guess that makes me just slightly right of Karl Marx.

Doesn't the argument of States rights come with the ever expanding Federal intrusion into areas with which they were not given specific powers? My understanding is the federal government was given specific powers and all other powers fall to the States.

[BenEnglishTX]

My understanding is the federal government was given specific powers and all other powers fall to the States.

It hasn't worked out that way in practice due to many factors, the most pedestrian being money.

The federal government returns money to states for things states like, such as the interstate highway system. In return, the fed can throw in conditions. The most famous, I think, was the "Oh, no, we're not saying you must reduce your speed limits to 55mph. But if you don't, we turn off the highway construction money. The choice is completely up to you." situation that arose from the first arab oil embargo.

Conceptually similar mechanisms exist in every interaction between federal and state government.

[Rover]

I just came across this interesting article a few minutes ago:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagain ... efense.htm

There were several other articles on the same page of interest in this discussion. The site is admittedly "in your face" pro-gun, so liberals beware.

[Ray Odle]

Morals don't come from an old book.

You are right. They come from it's author.

[Ray Odle]

William I agree with you, that's why I used majority, not everyone. I too am pretty liberal and Canadian to boot, I guess that makes me just slightly right of Karl Marx.

Doesn't the argument of States rights come with the ever expanding Federal intrusion into areas with which they were not given specific powers? My understanding is the federal government was given specific powers and all other powers fall to the States.

Yes. One power being to protect individual rights from being infringed by anyone or government agancy.

To William, your opinions about the intent of the Constitution's authors and your understanding of grammer and syntax needs further study.

Our fore fathers were not able to end slavery then, but they were able to a get constitution ratified and then amended that was incapable with slavery.

The two clauses of the second amendment compliment each other and further strengthen each other. It's authors made their intent clear in many other writings.