Homicide rate in the U.S. - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 89Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 02-10-2016, 11:43 AM
Veggie Regular
 
TailFin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
I understand that people enjoy the sport of shooting, but honestly? Take up darts or something. Considering the harm that guns can do-- ARE doing-- it's not worth it.
I totally understand this comment, but people could make the same argument with a variety of other items, such as knives. If we ban all knives, what about kitchen knives?

IMO, it boils down to the right that the government has given citizens. If people give up that right, they lose it. For example, I've heard people say: I don't mind the government spying on me, because I have nothing to hide. They have now given up the right to privacy. That has an astounding effect on them and others.

My personal beliefs are that as a first step, we need stricter gun control. It's way too easy for a gun to fall into the wrong hands, either through straw purchases or weapons being 'stolen' or 'lost'.

An interesting read comparing the difference in gun laws between two cities in the US:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...city.html?_r=0

I'm in favor of NYC gun laws. It doesn't infringe upon one's right to own a gun, but it does require the applicant to provide proof for the need of a gun.
TailFin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 02-10-2016, 12:05 PM
Veggie Regular
 
odizzido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 727
Difference between a knife and a gun is knives are tools. You can use them to prepare food, make items, fix things, etc. The only function guns perform is to destroy.
odizzido is offline  
#33 Old 02-10-2016, 12:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
TailFin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by odizzido View Post
Difference between a knife and a gun is knives are tools. You can use them to prepare food, make items, fix things, etc. The only function guns perform is to destroy.
Not necessarily so, as @Lipps pointed out. They can be used as a hobby for sport shooting targets.
Lipps likes this.
TailFin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 02-10-2016, 12:20 PM
Veggie Regular
 
odizzido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 727
I knew you'd say that. You're destroying targets for fun. That's fine, but the function is still the same.
odizzido is offline  
#35 Old 02-10-2016, 12:20 PM
Beginner
 
Lipps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by TailFin View Post
Please note that all questions below are genuine in nature, and are not sarcastic and are not meant to be offensive. I'm asking, because I am curious for your thoughts.

I appreciate your views. What is your opinion on gun control, rather than elimination of guns? What are your thoughts on no background checks at gun shows? I would think that responsible gun owners would be upset at irresponsible gun owners? It seems like the irresponsible folk are the ones that cause stereotypes.

I'm not one for removing rights afforded to us by our government, but at the same time, I'm not for exploiting those rights, either. Do you find responsible gun owners for or against gun control? I've heard both sides of the story, so I'm interested in your side.
Good questions.

I believe gun control is misguided and ill-conceived, but not for the usual reasons you might think.
First, let me summarize how the current system works. There is a federal background check system in place right now. We call it NICS (National Instant Background Check System). Every state in the USA must, at a minimum, adhere to this system. Some states go a little further and some states just follow the minimum standard. For the purpose of this thread I will discuss the federal minimum, as fifty different states would be too time consuming and complicated.

Currently all federally licensed gun dealers (FFL) are required to perform background checks on all gun purchases (some minor exceptions such as black powder-type firearms do not require background checks) The NICS check must be conducted where ever the sale takes place, including gun shows. The vast majority of gun sales at gun shows are made by dealers. The 'loophole' is where private individuals at the gun show sell their privately owned guns to another individual. There is no federal law preventing this because a private individual is not in the business of selling guns.

There are federal laws even private individuals must follow, dealers and non-dealers alike.
All handguns can only be sold to individuals residing in the same state where the handgun is sold. So, you can't sell a handgun to someone who lives in another state.
Long guns (rifles and shotguns) can be sold to out-of-state residents.

When any firearm crosses state lines to complete a transaction, it must be sent to a dealer in the the destination state. So, if I go online and decide to buy a gun from you, I send you the money, then you take the gun to your dealer and your dealer ships it to my dealer, then I go to my dealer and he performs the NICS check before I can take possession.

I have never seen or heard of anyone selling a gun online where they just mail you a gun after you send them the money. (although I am certain you could find such a thing on the Darknet)

Do gun owners favor gun control? Well, that depends. Gun owners are not some monolithic hive-mind. They are just as diverse as any other group. I know as many Conservative gun owners as I do Socialist gun owners. Some gun owners just like to nerd-out over the latest gun-gadgets and others think the black helicopters are about to land.

The problem with gun control, in my opinion, is that it is expensive, cumbersome, and ineffective. Right now, there is debate whether or not to include people on the 'No-Fly List' to the NICS system. Before his death, Sen. Ted Kennedy was placed on that list 5 times. Does anyone think Ted Kennedy(before he died) shouldn't be able to buy a gun?

The NICS check is flawed and does not address the issue of prohibited individuals from attempting to purchase firearms. In 2004 the FBI had 71,000 cases of NICS denials. Of those, only 77 were prosecuted. Of those prosecuted, only 13 were convicted.
It's unbelievable, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year for 13 convictions?

Another problem with NICS is access. That is if you are not a licensed dealer you don't have access to NICS. We should, and it should be free, just as it is to dealers.
Dealers typically charge between $25-$75 to do a gun transfer and background check. The background check costs them about 30 seconds on a free phone call.

I do believe millions of gun owners would gladly pick up a phone to do a quick background check if the NICS were available for them to do so.

I also believe the NICS system would have a much fairer reputation if federal prosecutors would actually prosecute individuals illegally attempting to purchase guns. Do people actually think the bad guy just walks away from a denial and gives up trying to find a gun?

Although anecdotal, in my experience, gun owners have a very real concern about privacy. gun control schemes tend to reinforce the idea that gun control advocates want to create a database to make confiscation that much easier. Make of that what you will, but it would make confiscation easier.

I think part of the problem with gun control in general is that it is focused on mode rather than motive. I'll grant you that motive is far more difficult to diagnose and influence, but regulating the mode invariably intrudes and infringes on the rights of everyone else.

Let's look at mode and motive in the context of another right. Free Speech. I have often seen written that free speech is regulated where you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater where there is no fire. Therefore guns should be regulated in a similar way. What the speaker fails to realize is, that guns are already regulated in much the same way free speech is regulated.

Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater where there is no fire is not about free speech, it is about intent. Intent to cause panic. Obviously, if there were a fire and someone yelled 'fire' there would be no cause for prosecution because the intent, or motive, is not panic, but warning that there is a fire.
Likewise, we have laws regarding the use and discharge of firearms. Here, where I live, a person can't just walk around shooting a gun in the air, across a road, within city limits, in public spaces in general etc.. Unless there is a justifiable reason to do so. It's not about the right to bear arms, it's about intent -or motive. On private property outside of those parameters I can shoot whenever I want to. I can also yell 'fire' as much as I want to as well.
I live South of Austin TX. For several months now someone or some people have been throwing rocks at cars driving along I-35 in the city at night. The police have discovered that the rock throwers are throwing the rocks from cars traveling in the opposite direction. It's horrible and there have been a number of terrible accidents (although they aren't technically accidents).
Throwing rocks should not be outlawed. No one has even suggested it. Driving cars should not be outlawed. Indeed, no new law will fix this problem. What will fix this problem is either the perpetrators will decide to control themselves or they will be caught and punished (hopefully). The rocks are not at fault here (mode). The perpetrators actions are (motive).

Back to gun control. The best proposal I have seen is called BIDS (Blind Identification Database System) Mostly because it protects privacy (particularly medical histories).

This is how it would work:

1. The dealer does the check, not the government. Government does not perform any part of the check.

2. The check is on a list that is in the dealer's possession.

3. BIDS is not a background check. It's a check only for prohibited persons and their disabilities. The list does not contain the reason for any disability.

4. Dealers are not only no longer forced to keep gun buyer identifying information, they're generally prohibited from doing so (without clear notice to potential buyers).

5. Existing buyer identifying records are destroyed under heavy penalty and further collection prohibited.


If you are familiar with Form 4473 and current ATF gun trace methods, you will also understand that I recognize this would change how certain crimes are investigated involving firearms. I would not object to keeping that part of the dealer transaction in place.

Sorry if I digressed a bit here and there. I probably left important details out as well.
LedBoots likes this.

The symbol of the race ought to be a human being carrying an ax, for every human being has one concealed about him somewhere, and is always seeking the opportunity to grind it.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Lipps is offline  
#36 Old 02-10-2016, 12:27 PM
Veggie Regular
 
TailFin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by odizzido View Post
I knew you'd say that. You're destroying targets for fun. That's fine, but the function is still the same.
In that case, the sole purpose of a pencil is to destroy, because it 'destroys' paper.
TailFin is offline  
#37 Old 02-10-2016, 12:35 PM
Beginner
 
Lipps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by odizzido View Post
Difference between a knife and a gun is knives are tools. You can use them to prepare food, make items, fix things, etc. The only function guns perform is to destroy.
Your claim that 'The only function guns perform is to destroy' is imprecise. a jackhammer or a wrecking ball's only function is to destroy, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns.

To be precise, a high capacity
military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most
reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible.

Other guns are designed for specific types of sport target shooting such as sporting clays, benchrest, hunting, even the Olympics. Each to its own purpose.

The symbol of the race ought to be a human being carrying an ax, for every human being has one concealed about him somewhere, and is always seeking the opportunity to grind it.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Lipps is offline  
#38 Old 02-10-2016, 12:36 PM
Veggie Regular
 
odizzido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by TailFin View Post
In that case, the sole purpose of a pencil is to destroy, because it 'destroys' paper.
seriously? Apparently this discussion is over. I will just say something about hitler and we can end it.
odizzido is offline  
#39 Old 02-10-2016, 12:46 PM
Veggie Regular
 
TailFin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by odizzido View Post
seriously? Apparently this discussion is over. I will just say something about hitler and we can end it.
I didn't mean to offend you. I was using the same logic (and word choice) in a different situation to show that judging something so blindly is wrong.

Unfortunately, I do think the discussion between us is over regarding this topic, but not the thread.
TailFin is offline  
#40 Old 02-10-2016, 12:50 PM
Veggie Regular
 
odizzido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lipps View Post
Your claim that 'The only function guns perform is to destroy' is imprecise. a jackhammer or a wrecking ball's only function is to destroy, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns.

To be precise, a high capacity
military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most
reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible.

Other guns are designed for specific types of sport target shooting such as sporting clays, benchrest, hunting, even the Olympics. Each to its own purpose.
Jackhammers/wrecking balls remove structures so something else can be built or repaired. This is a useful function.

Everything else you mentioned, shooting clays, shooting targets from a bench, hunting, olympic target shooting all destroy items or life. The only function this arguably performs is giving joy to the people destroying these things.

Guns in the military....yeah, of course. Nobody is going to argue that point.
odizzido is offline  
#41 Old 02-10-2016, 12:51 PM
Veggie Regular
 
odizzido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by TailFin View Post
I didn't mean to offend you. I was using the same logic (and word choice) in a different situation to show that judging something so blindly is wrong.

Unfortunately, I do think the discussion between us is over regarding this topic, but not the thread.
I am not offended.
odizzido is offline  
#42 Old 02-10-2016, 12:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Spudulika's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by TailFin View Post
In that case, the sole purpose of a pencil is to destroy, because it 'destroys' paper.
Pencils actually don't 'destroy' paper. Shredders destroy paper. That is their sole function.
Spudulika is offline  
#43 Old 02-10-2016, 01:04 PM
Beginner
 
Lipps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by odizzido View Post
Jackhammers/wrecking balls remove structures so something else can be built or repaired. This is a useful function.

Everything else you mentioned, shooting clays, shooting targets from a bench, hunting, olympic target shooting all destroy items or life. The only function this arguably performs is giving joy to the people destroying these things.

Guns in the military....yeah, of course. Nobody is going to argue that point.
If you wish to believe this you are free to do so. It has no bearing on the issue I am discussing.
TailFin likes this.

The symbol of the race ought to be a human being carrying an ax, for every human being has one concealed about him somewhere, and is always seeking the opportunity to grind it.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Lipps is offline  
#44 Old 02-10-2016, 01:17 PM
Veggie Regular
 
TailFin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 498
@Lipps , thank you for your in-depth discussion. My questions and comments come from someone who has never (nor will ever) own a gun. They don't strike my fancy. But, it is interesting to learn about nonetheless.

While I have had discussions regarding people's viewpoint, I have not actively researched the BIDS proposal. I think my initial reaction based on your list is fear over self-regulation; however, I do not know enough about it to make any claims.
TailFin is offline  
#45 Old 02-10-2016, 01:34 PM
Veggie Regular
 
TailFin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika View Post
Pencils actually don't 'destroy' paper. Shredders destroy paper. That is their sole function.
It depends on the definition of 'destroy'. If I write on a piece of blank paper, it is now changed. It is destroyed for any further use as it's intended purpose. In order to write more, I have to use another sheet.

In your example, a shredder's sole purpose is to destroy. So, should we ban all shredders? Of course not, that'd be ridiculous. Just the thought of it is ridiculous.

The purpose of my comment wasn't to argue semantics, but to say that it is wrong to blindly ban something because of one potential (mis)use. Outside of very few situations, using a gun against another living thing would be considered using the product outside of its intended use. Spray paint is misused but isn't banned. Pharmaceuticals are misused but aren't banned. Using spray paint or pharmaceuticals outside of their intended use is punishable by law. The same can be said of guns.
TailFin is offline  
#46 Old 02-10-2016, 01:41 PM
Beginner
 
Lipps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by TailFin View Post
@Lipps , thank you for your in-depth discussion. My questions and comments come from someone who has never (nor will ever) own a gun. They don't strike my fancy. But, it is interesting to learn about nonetheless.

While I have had discussions regarding people's viewpoint, I have not actively researched the BIDS proposal. I think my initial reaction based on your list is fear over self-regulation; however, I do not know enough about it to make any claims.
It is an astute observation you have made there.
Consider, for a moment, the current political climate in the USA on the Left and on the Right.

On the Right we have a fear that the government is over stepping with regard to gun regulations -to the point of eventual confiscation. The Left argues it is only common sense, there's no reason why people need such things and they are just too dangerous.

On the Left there is a palpable fear that the nation's police forces are institutions of racism, and with good reason, they point to an ever increasing list of individuals of color who are beaten, shot, or otherwise killed at the hands of police for seemingly minor infractions of the law. The Right argues 'cultural differences', law and order, and "why did he run away?" as a defense to the situation.

In relation to the last part of your comment, I find it interesting that the Right seems to ignore the injustice all around us in the form of police abuse of power to the same degree that the Left seems to ignore the fact that they are advocating that firearms ONLY be allowed by the very institutions they accuse of racially motivated abuse of power.

I suspect there is more in common among the Left and the Right than their respective mouthpieces want us to think there is.

As far as regulations are concerned, when dealing with any constitutional right, it is my opinion that regulations be as unobtrusive as possible -even erring on the side of risk over safety.

The symbol of the race ought to be a human being carrying an ax, for every human being has one concealed about him somewhere, and is always seeking the opportunity to grind it.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Lipps is offline  
#47 Old 02-10-2016, 01:59 PM
Veggie Regular
 
TailFin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lipps View Post
It is an astute observation you have made there.
Consider, for a moment, the current political climate in the USA on the Left and on the Right.

On the Right we have a fear that the government is over stepping with regard to gun regulations -to the point of eventual confiscation. The Left argues it is only common sense, there's no reason why people need such things and they are just too dangerous.

On the Left there is a palpable fear that the nation's police forces are institutions of racism, and with good reason, they point to an ever increasing list of individuals of color who are beaten, shot, or otherwise killed at the hands of police for seemingly minor infractions of the law. The Right argues 'cultural differences', law and order, and "why did he run away?" as a defense to the situation.

In relation to the last part of your comment, I find it interesting that the Right seems to ignore the injustice all around us in the form of police abuse of power to the same degree that the Left seems to ignore the fact that they are advocating that firearms ONLY be allowed by the very institutions they accuse of racially motivated abuse of power.

I suspect there is more in common among the Left and the Right than their respective mouthpieces want us to think there is.

As far as regulations are concerned, when dealing with any constitutional right, it is my opinion that regulations be as unobtrusive as possible -even erring on the side of risk over safety.
These topics are so in-depth and involve so many pieces. I always find it funny when someone (typically on my Facebook newsfeed) simplifies the topic to a single sentence or meme. People are either way, way too liberal or way, way too conservative. I wish sometimes I could sit down with someone and discuss it face to face in a calm, collected manner, but emotions run high on certain topics.

If regulations are to err on the side of risk (rather than safety), two things come to mind: (1) you'd have to define the level of risk versus the level of safety, and (2) the self-regulated community (i.e., the dealers) would themselves need to take a higher level of risk and responsibility for the guns they sell. If they made a judgment call, they will need to be held accountable to a high level of prosecution.

That said, in my field (engineering), risk never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever outweighs safety. We are safety conscious to the point that we include considerable factors of safety in our calculations to avoid risk.
TailFin is offline  
#48 Old 02-10-2016, 02:21 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Spudulika's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by TailFin View Post
It depends on the definition of 'destroy'. If I write on a piece of blank paper, it is now changed. It is destroyed for any further use as it's intended purpose. In order to write more, I have to use another sheet.

In your example, a shredder's sole purpose is to destroy. So, should we ban all shredders? Of course not, that'd be ridiculous. Just the thought of it is ridiculous.

The purpose of my comment wasn't to argue semantics, but to say that it is wrong to blindly ban something because of one potential (mis)use. Outside of very few situations, using a gun against another living thing would be considered using the product outside of its intended use. Spray paint is misused but isn't banned. Pharmaceuticals are misused but aren't banned. Using spray paint or pharmaceuticals outside of their intended use is punishable by law. The same can be said of guns.
No, it doesn't depend on your "definition of destroy". A piece of paper with print, or writing, or paint on is still a piece of paper. It's never been "destroyed" by anyone's definition, apart maybe from yours?

A shredder's sole purpose is to destroy paper. Unlike pencils, it does destroy paper and turn it into shreds instead of paper.

No shredders shouldn't be banned, they do no harm to any kind of sentient life. They only terrify, mutilate and destroy paper. Though of course, paper doesn't suffer or care ;-)

Guns on the other hand, have some entertainment uses, but their monstrous damage to hundreds of thousands of people's lives outweighs those 'fun times' had by sports fans. IMO
Beautiful Joe likes this.

Last edited by Spudulika; 02-10-2016 at 02:26 PM.
Spudulika is offline  
#49 Old 02-10-2016, 03:11 PM
Beginner
 
Lipps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by TailFin View Post
These topics are so in-depth and involve so many pieces. I always find it funny when someone (typically on my Facebook newsfeed) simplifies the topic to a single sentence or meme. People are either way, way too liberal or way, way too conservative. I wish sometimes I could sit down with someone and discuss it face to face in a calm, collected manner, but emotions run high on certain topics.

If regulations are to err on the side of risk (rather than safety), two things come to mind: (1) you'd have to define the level of risk versus the level of safety, and (2) the self-regulated community (i.e., the dealers) would themselves need to take a higher level of risk and responsibility for the guns they sell. If they made a judgment call, they will need to be held accountable to a high level of prosecution.

That said, in my field (engineering), risk never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever outweighs safety. We are safety conscious to the point that we include considerable factors of safety in our calculations to avoid risk.
I can see where engineering would be concerned with safety. Ironically, in today's political context, the term 'gun safety' doesn't actually mean "How to make a gun safer".

Guns are, in practice and in fact, not much different from any other manufactured consumer product. I like to compare them to sewing machines and typewriters (mainly because Singer and IBM manufactured guns for the war effort in the 1940's). I own a pistol made by Singer Sewing Machine Co.
Anyway, gun safety has traditionally been concerned with two areas. One, the integrity of the product (does it perform as it is intended to perform) and proper procedures intended for the end user to follow to ensure safe operation and continued product integrity.

So, what does that look like? Basic rules for the operator such as:
RULE 1
ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
The only exception to this occurs when one has a weapon in his hands and he has personally unloaded it for checking. As soon as he puts it down, Rule 1 applies again.

RULE 2
NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
You may not wish to destroy it, but you must be clear in your mind that you are quite ready to if you let that muzzle cover the target. To allow a firearm to point at another human being is a deadly threat, and should always be treated as such.

RULE 3
KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
This we call the Golden Rule because its violation is responsible for about 80 percent of the firearms disasters we read about.

RULE 4
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET
You never shoot at anything until you have positively identified it. You never fire at a shadow, or a sound, or a suspected presence. You shoot only when you know absolutely what you are shooting at and what is beyond it.

These rules were written by Col. Jeff Cooper, a widely read writer (before he died in 2006). The NRA, IDPA, SASS and other groups have very similar rules -so similar in that some are identical.

Your basic operational procedures.

Then there are safety designs. This is a very popular pistol design that has been around for over 100 years. It is designed so that if you do not have a complete grip on the firearm the trigger will not depress. That is a safety feature.




There are all sorts of safety features on guns. Some are active, meaning the operator must engage or disengage purposely and others are passive, where the operator must only manipulate the gun in a normal way and the safety will disengage automatically. As soon as the operator lays the gun down the safety re-engages. That grip safety is passive. The slide safety in the same graphic is active.

When people talk about banning guns (of any type) and then call that 'gun safety', I wonder if they are lying or just have no idea what they are talking about. Either way, it isn't good.

The reality is, guns are very safe. The FBI/Dept. of Justice publishes data every year showing that death by firearm ACCIDENT is less than 1000 persons -every year. In a country with 300,000,000 (three hundred million) guns and three hundred and fifty million people that is statistically so close to zero that you could say 'zero.'

I know there will be people wanting to answer this with all of the statistics of homicides, suicides, mass shootings, etc., but those are not accidents and have nothing to do with safety.

I want to address the rest of your comment, but I have to leave for a little while.

The symbol of the race ought to be a human being carrying an ax, for every human being has one concealed about him somewhere, and is always seeking the opportunity to grind it.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Lipps is offline  
#50 Old 02-10-2016, 03:11 PM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
My biggest issue with gun ownership, truthfully, is that I don't subscribe to the theory that the public is divided into good, responsible, law-abiding citizens on one side and bad, irresponsible criminals on the other. I believe that all people have the potential to make fatal mistakes given the proper circumstances. The combination of human emotion (particularly fear and anger) with a deadly weapon can easily result in tragedy, even when the gun owner in question considers himself one of the good guys.

I'm thinking of a case in particular. I found a decent retelling of it online:

Quote:
Chad and his young family lived in a cabin built by his grandparents. Deep in the woods, life was remote without electricity and cellphone services yet his wife and children found the place magical. Security was a big concern as break-ins were not uncommon, despite Chad’s efforts to put up “No Trespassing” signs, delineating the property with wires and fences and having a supply of firearms. Kerri, Chad’s wife, describes her husband as a military veteran who immensely loves his children. Chad’s children consider him as their best friend and a funny dad.

A day before Chad’s gruesome encounter, the family (then hosting guests camped out in their property) had three encounters with an unknown vehicle. The first time resulted in a theft of one of his solar lamps, the second appeared like a stalking incident which scared Kerri and the third (the following evening) also had solar lamps taken off, a car chase, gun fires and Rory and his friends getting shot at. From here, two versions of how the incident unfolded fail to match.

Chad claims that during the chase (he in his truck, Rory and friends in a Chevrolet car), a strong light emanated from Rory’s car and was directed towards him. Chad then heard the sound of three gunshots; he retaliated by picking up his pistol and firing a few rounds. Afterwards, a solar lamp was thrown out of the car followed by what appeared to be a piece of plastic being waved from the car’s rear window.  On a dirt road, Rory’s car suddenly made a 180-degree turn: Chad said the car came at him and interpreted it as an escalation tactic. In response, Chad grabbed his firearm and started shooting again. After the car stopped, Chad heard a voice shouting “I give up”; he also saw Rory slumped over the steering wheel with a wound on his neck. Chad left to call for help, but first ran to the cabin to relay his story to his friends and wife. Along with Kerri and a friend, they drove down the mountain for a phone signal that would enable them to make a 911 call.


Lewis Smyth tells a different story. Lewis is Rory’s best friend and along with four more friends, went up the mountain in search for a party. Lewis admits to the prank of stealing the solar lamps and a small warning sign that seemed funny at that time (of trespassers facing the worst kind of punishment). Lewis claims that his group never fired since they didn’t have a gun. Chad did all the shooting aided by a laser light. Rory made a U-turn after seeing the road’s dead end; as he did, they were peppered with shots once more. Lewis recalls throwing the lamps and showing a white shirt as signs of giving up; when Chad got out of his truck, Lewis remembers Chad (with a rifle and green laser light in tow) circling the car and later taking off. At that time, Lewis was shot on his calf; Rory was shot in the head.

The crime scene was captured on video (now part of a public official record) by a reality show photographer who happened to be with the game ranger that responded to the 911 call. Overall, the meadow was a picture of a gruesome crime, worse than anything that the photographer has seen in a movie.

After a long interview with Chad, the victims and the amount of evidence gathered, the Sheriff’s detectives deduced the following: Chad changed his story every now and then, including the use of an AR assault rifle but stuck to his claim of defending his terrorized family; that the victims had no gun and that Rory’s car hit a rock which severed its oil pan and let its contents oozing off.

After seeing the video and evidences, the District Attorney of Plumas County filed a case against Chad. After Rory died, Chad was charged with first-degree murder and assault. The DA had to build a case that proved Chad as an angry man who was out to kill the young men, far from the self-defense claim.  The DA faced a lot of pressure in persuading the jury for two reasons: one, the county’s limited budget only allowed one trial and two, the town was divided on gun ownership. Meanwhile, Chad had a prominent defense lawyer backing him up and refused to take the DA’s deal; he even looked forward to his trial.

The self-defense argument portrayed Chad as one who had a good judge of character based on his military service and the testimonies of his family. The defense team also had evidences of Rory and friends having a gun: from three shell casings found near the crime scene (which didn’t match any of Chad’s assortment of guns) and gun residue from the victims’ hands analysed by a forensic expert.

The DA refuted the defense with their own evidences: the video showing the horrors of the crime;  the trail of oil from Rory’s car which showed that the men did not head straight to Chad but circumvented his truck to avoid him; and the high-placed shots Chad made on the car which proved he was out to kill and not to neutralize the young men. The DA’s case was bolstered when Chad’s military records came in, proving that Chad never served overseas, was never a Ranger and was discharged for forging sick leave papers and wearing ranger badges, among others. This last evidence destroyed Chad’s chance to get out free as it tarnished his credibility as a good judge of character.

The sad part of these all is that there are two families left behind, suffering the consequence of both anger and prank: Chad’s family especially his little boy who dearly misses him and Rory’s parents who will never see Rory’s potential thrive. As for the Wallin-Reed’s property in the Sierra woods where the the disturbances started, it has been sold to pay for Chad’s legal fees; Kerri and her children are now holding on to the good memories they’ve had in it.
TailFin and Jasminedesi16 like this.
no whey jose is offline  
#51 Old 02-10-2016, 04:08 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Spudulika's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,099
As a UK citizen who's not used to the idea of guns being freely available, claims by people that guns are super important to their safety, reminds me of animal eaters claiming that eating meat is super important to their health. I really don't get it.
Spudulika is offline  
#52 Old 02-10-2016, 05:29 PM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,942
It seems quite frequently that children shoot their parents by simply picking up guns. The girl who pulled a gun from a glovebox while her dad pumped gas-shot herself. the toddler who pulled a gun from moms purse seated in a grocery cart-killed her. Children shooting siblings, friends, family members. People who shoot visiting relatives at night thinking they;re intruders. All these from registered gun owners. And then of course the hunting accidents. lets not forget the nine year old girl taken to a gun range for her birthday who shoots the instructor.


Too many people seem to amend the second amendment to their own beliefs. If they don't like the current government they should arm themselves to the hilt before they're persecuted.

You know, I firmly believe all the new legalized carry laws is why there are more killings done in robberies. No one wants to chance robbing someone who may have a gun, so they kill before taking their money. Used to be your money or your life, now it's your life then your money.

and then there's the young women running from being attacked, banging on a strangers door, pleading for help- shot by the registered gun owner

Then there was Travon Martin, a 12 year old with a BB gun. Why was there so much hatred on the family for 'allowing' him to have a look alike gun and not fury over kids playing with guns to begin with?
Crouton and no whey jose like this.
silva is offline  
#53 Old 02-10-2016, 06:00 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
:facepalm:
LedBoots is offline  
#54 Old 02-10-2016, 06:07 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Crouton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika View Post
As a UK citizen who's not used to the idea of guns being freely available, claims by people that guns are super important to their safety, reminds me of animal eaters claiming that eating meat is super important to their health. I really don't get it.
This is really well-put, and it's how I see it too. Coming from a country where gun violence isn't a major issue outside of extreme crime only then hearing people say they "need" guns for safety is very similar to people claiming they "need" meat for their health.
no whey jose likes this.
Crouton is offline  
#55 Old 02-10-2016, 06:19 PM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post
:facepalm:
facepalm me? What?
silva is offline  
#56 Old 02-10-2016, 06:40 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
Facepalming the thread, nothing personal silva.
Lipps likes this.
LedBoots is offline  
#57 Old 02-10-2016, 07:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
0
A recent meta-analysis concluded what many people already knew: the availability of firearms is a strong risk factor for both homicide and suicide. But the study came to another conclusion that is rarely mentioned in the gun control debate: females are uniquely impacted by the availability of a firearm. Indeed, the study found that women with access to firearms become homicide victims at significantly higher rates than men.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...-safer/284022/


Quote:
• Drivers who carry guns are 44 percent more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77 percent more likely to follow them aggressively.

• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10 percent increase in homicides.

• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

• 43 percent of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.

• In one survey, nearly 1 percent of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at these claims found that more than half involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.

• A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.

• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

• As much as 40 percent of all gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. In a survey, 40 percent of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes said they'd gotten them this way. More than 80 percent of gun owners support closing this loophole.

• An investigation found that 62 percent of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.

• When researchers posed as illegal "straw" buyers, 20 percent of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to them.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ths-fact-check


Quote:
Women in the United States are 11 times more likely to be murdered with guns than women in other high-income countries. The presence of a firearm during a domestic violence incident increases the likelihood of a homicide by 500 percent. Guns are also regularly used in non-fatal incidents of domestic violence, with researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health concluding in a study from 2000 that “hostile gun displays against family members may be more common than gun use in self-defense, and that hostile gun displays are often acts of domestic violence directed against women.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/24/%E2%...womens_safety/
TailFin and no whey jose like this.
Beautiful Joe is offline  
#58 Old 02-10-2016, 07:12 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,282
You can facepalm all you want, ledboots, but it doesn't make the many, many unnecessary deaths go up in a puff of smoke.

Quote:
People who have ready access to a firearm are almost twice as likely to be killed and three times likelier to commit suicide than those without a gun available in the home or from a neighbor or friend, a new study has concluded.

Though men and women with firearm access were about equally likely to take their own lives with a gun, the latest research turned up a gender gap when it came to homicide. Compared with all adults without access to a gun, men with firearm access were 29% more likely to die in a gun-related homicide. But the analysis found that a woman who had a gun in or available to her household was close to three times likelier to die by homicide.
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sc...121-story.html
Beautiful Joe is offline  
#59 Old 02-10-2016, 07:40 PM
Beginner
 
Lipps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by TailFin View Post

If regulations are to err on the side of risk (rather than safety), two things come to mind: (1) you'd have to define the level of risk versus the level of safety, and (2) the self-regulated community (i.e., the dealers) would themselves need to take a higher level of risk and responsibility for the guns they sell. If they made a judgment call, they will need to be held accountable to a high level of prosecution.

That said, in my field (engineering), risk never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever outweighs safety. We are safety conscious to the point that we include considerable factors of safety in our calculations to avoid risk.
To continue...

I disagree with the idea of dealers needing to take a higher degree of risk and responsibility for the guns they sell. The closest thing I can think of where we do something similar is holding a bartender accountable for serving too much alcohol to a person who later drives drunk and causes an accident.

Ask yourself why we hold the bartender accountable and not the manufacturer of the alcohol or the manufacturer of the car, or even the car salesman. Just the bartender is held accountable. The reason is that the bartender has knowledge the other actors do not. The car salesman, car manufacturer, and alcohol manufacturer have no knowledge that this person is about to drive drunk. The bartender does, but only because he has been serving the individual alcohol all night long. If the same person went to a liquor store and bought a bottle of gin the store owner could not be held liable if the person later drove drunk and killed someone because he has no direct knowledge he was drinking before driving.

Likewise, unless an individual walks into a gunshop and declares intent to commit a crime there is no reasonable evidence the gun dealer would know this is the case.

Again, regulations are generally not about safety.

There are 9 pieces of federal legislation that govern 99% of all federal gun law in the United States. Not one includes a single mandate to make guns safe.

There are two that contain provisions that could be argued from a safety perspective, but they both are extremely limited in scope. The first is the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 that raises the minimum age to buy a handgun from 18 to 21. (note it is still legal to possess a handgun at 18, you just can't buy one)
The second is the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This bill was passed because, presumably, having a gun on school property is unsafe, but the bill only prohibits gun possession by "unauthorized persons", meaning that there are some persons that can carry a gun and it's perfectly fine. So which is it? Are guns safe or unsafe? Only in the hands of certain people are they safe? I won't pretend police are the most stable individuals in society if you don't.

The remainder of the federal legislation concerns itself with types of weapons based on cosmetic features (yes, how they look, not how they function), interstate commerce, dealer licensing, magazine capacity, machine guns and silencers and other destructive devices such as grenades and cannons. By the way, you can own any of these things with the proper paperwork and background check -but it is uncommon.

The symbol of the race ought to be a human being carrying an ax, for every human being has one concealed about him somewhere, and is always seeking the opportunity to grind it.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Lipps is offline  
#60 Old 02-10-2016, 11:42 PM
Beginner
 
Lipps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 134
For those not following the conversation between Tailfin and I, I would ask you to consider that right now, as we debate so-called gun control, technology is advancing at such a pace that one can now manufacture assault rifles in a kitchen with simple molds, readily available polymers, simple hardware bits available at any Home Depot and a toaster oven.

One can also manufacture simple firearms with 3D printers using freely available programming online. 3D printed firearms are now being constructed from metal printers. They are becoming more sophisticated by the day. Of course any machine shop can still manufacture anything, but now, with the internet and modern polymers making a gun is becoming as simple as setting up an XBox. Ammunition is not particularly hard to manufacture either. We are talking about a technology well over a century old, in the case of smokeless powder. It's simply not that difficult if there is a demand.

Shall we restrict the sale of 3D printers? Make polymers a controlled substance? Start background checks on common industrial chemicals? Nitrocellulose was invented in 1868. An undergraduate chemistry major could make smokeless powder. This stuff isn't that hard and if anyone believes these things are controllable should have a sober look around the world. Why are guns so readily available in Northern Ireland -I mean, it's a tiny little place on an island. You'd think gun control would be easy right? In a word, demand.
Some countries in Southern Europe are considering relaxing gun restrictions. Austria is in a gun buying frenzy right now in response to the refugee crisis from Syria. I'd bet money there are a fair amount of black market guns selling like hotcakes somewhere in Vienna right now.

Here is the reality, like it or not guns in America aren't going anywhere in your lifetime -regardless of what laws we pass or don't pass. Americans like guns, want to buy guns, want to use guns. Refusing to find ways to work with this 'gun culture' will not make anything easier for anyone. Prohibition laws will not keep up and violence always increases with any prohibition. Have you ever had a problem buying drugs? Weed, heroin, cocaine -all strictly prohibited and all readily available to anyone who cares to buy some (you can even get bulk discounts). And at what cost? Would it not be better to find ways to diminish the motive behind violence than play wack-a-mole with illegal gun dealers? If you thought the drug wars were violent you haven't seen anything yet. Is this what gun prohibitionists want?

Do you really believe Americans will dutifully line up to turn in their guns like they did in the UK and Australia? I ask honestly, because I know that it isn't just a 'gun culture' that distinguishes America from the UK and OZ. We share a language and certain foundations of Western civilization, but we are NOT the same people -more importantly, as nations, we hold vastly different attitudes and priorities on a whole host of issues. I would argue that the United States has more in common, culturally, with Mexico and Canada than it does Britain and Australia.

The proof is already here. New York passed the Safe Act requiring all assault rifles to be registered. The NYTimes reported that out of a police estimate of 1,000,000 assault rifles only 45,000 were registered by the deadline. That is a 4.5% compliance rate or a 95.5% non-compliance rate if you prefer -in New York. A thoroughly blue state where supposedly 60% of the voters supported the law. Think of that for a moment. New Yorkers are hiding almost one million assault rifles from the New York state police. All the while 60% of the voters are patting themselves on the back for a job well done. It's the very definition of absurd.

The symbol of the race ought to be a human being carrying an ax, for every human being has one concealed about him somewhere, and is always seeking the opportunity to grind it.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Lipps is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off