Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?

[Indy]

You seem to be conflating issues again.

[Dan H]

How so? You want to expand background checks, we see here how the existing background check system can be misused even without expansion. Do you see not being able to handle money well as a legitimate reason for failing a background check?

[Indy]

We were talking about the SHP and you said you think they are a shell for Bloomberg but instead posted other organizations and shot them down.

[Dan H]

I'm haven't had a chance to look for a legit link yet. I don't have anything firm which was why I qualified the earlier statement.

[Nodack]

Cops using deadly force in the news. Here's a cop justified in shooting the suspect, but restrains himself more than I think I would have in that situation. Only the bad ones making the news. Here is a good one.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/19/us/ohio-n ... index.html#

On Thursday, Officer Jesse Kidder could have opened fire on a man in New Richmond, Ohio, and likely would never have heard a breath of the protest that followed the shootings of Eric Harris and Walter Scott.

What might have been a "suicide by cop" ended in the suspect's arrest and booking, thanks to what Kidder's colleagues say was his "great restraint."

[dribblepebble]

Cops using deadly force in the news. Here's a cop justified in shooting the suspect, but restrains himself more than I think I would have in that situation. Only the bad ones making the news. Here is a good one.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/19/us/ohio-n ... index.html#

On Thursday, Officer Jesse Kidder could have opened fire on a man in New Richmond, Ohio, and likely would never have heard a breath of the protest that followed the shootings of Eric Harris and Walter Scott.

What might have been a "suicide by cop" ended in the suspect's arrest and booking, thanks to what Kidder's colleagues say was his "great restraint."

Theres something wrong with the Police institution as a whole. They've been doing that in many states already. Its time the national government do something about it.

[Dan H]

Cops using deadly force in the news. Here's a cop justified in shooting the suspect, but restrains himself more than I think I would have in that situation. Only the bad ones making the news. Here is a good one.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/19/us/ohio-n ... index.html#

On Thursday, Officer Jesse Kidder could have opened fire on a man in New Richmond, Ohio, and likely would never have heard a breath of the protest that followed the shootings of Eric Harris and Walter Scott.

What might have been a "suicide by cop" ended in the suspect's arrest and booking, thanks to what Kidder's colleagues say was his "great restraint."

Theres something wrong with the Police institution as a whole. They've been doing that in many states already. Its time the national government do something about it.

It's not like the Federal police forces have covered themselves in glory. I'd imagine that if anything it would make the problem worse as they'd be less accountable to their local citizens.

Along the lines of Nodack's post comes this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... vid-french

Educating cops about Constitutional rights would be a pretty darn good start, IMO.

As if the home invasion, the appropriation of private property, and the verbal abuse weren’t enough, next came ominous warnings. Don’t call your lawyer. Don’t tell anyone about this raid. Not even your mother, your father, or your closest friends. The entire neighborhood could see the police around their house, but they had to remain silent. This was not the “right to remain silent” as uttered by every cop on every legal drama on television — the right against self-incrimination. They couldn’t mount a public defense if they wanted — or even offer an explanation to family and friends.

[Dan H]

We were talking about the SHP and you said you think they are a shell for Bloomberg but instead posted other organizations and shot them down.

Okay, so with the exceptions of some spurious connections between members of their board to big time anti-gunners like Governor Malloy of CT, I wasn't able to find anything. So I do retract the claim that they're funded by Bloomberg.

But it is a bit of an exaggeration to say they are JUST about education.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/timmcgraw.asp

Sandy Hook Promise does, however, support the consideration of what they deem to be "new laws where public safety and reduction in violence can be achieved without eroding 2nd Amendment rights," such as legislation that would require background checks for all gun sales, reduce the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to ten bullets, and make firearms trafficking and straw purchases federal crimes:

[Indy]

We were talking about the SHP and you said you think they are a shell for Bloomberg but instead posted other organizations and shot them down.

Okay, so with the exceptions of some spurious connections between members of their board to big time anti-gunners like Governor Malloy of CT, I wasn't able to find anything. So I do retract the claim that they're funded by Bloomberg.

But it is a bit of an exaggeration to say they are JUST about education.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/timmcgraw.asp

Sandy Hook Promise does, however, support the consideration of what they deem to be "new laws where public safety and reduction in violence can be achieved without eroding 2nd Amendment rights," such as legislation that would require background checks for all gun sales, reduce the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to ten bullets, and make firearms trafficking and straw purchases federal crimes:

I don't think anyone said they were just about education.

[Ghost]

There are suggestions out there that they're affiliated with Bloomberg, I'm trying to find some sourcing for it though.

Mom's Demand Action, for example, is headed by a long-time PR flack who's done all sorts of professional lobbying and funded by Mike Bloomberg.

Even if true, being affiliated with Bloomberg says more about your bias than their agenda. I know you already backed away from that statement so I won't beat a dead horse.

The only point SHP makes that strikes me as remotely controversial is wanting the smaller magazine size.

[Dan H]

There are suggestions out there that they're affiliated with Bloomberg, I'm trying to find some sourcing for it though.

Mom's Demand Action, for example, is headed by a long-time PR flack who's done all sorts of professional lobbying and funded by Mike Bloomberg.

Even if true, being affiliated with Bloomberg says more about your bias than their agenda. I know you already backed away from that statement so I won't beat a dead horse.

The only point SHP makes that strikes me as remotely controversial is wanting the smaller magazine size.

Been tried, was of dubious effectiveness.

Finally, let’s look at the logistical ramifications of another magazine ban. The AWB banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use, and it was a felony to possess those.
Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire. That’s it. Magazines are considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn’t so much as inconvenience a single criminal.
Meanwhile, bad guys didn’t run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine. My old company designed a rifle magazine once, and I’m no engineer. I paid a CAD guy, spent $20,000 and churned out several thousand 20 round Saiga .308 mags. This could’ve been done out of my garage.
Ten years. No difference. Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if you’re already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply don’t care.
Once the AWB timed out, because every politician involved looked at the mess which had been passed in the heat of the moment, the fact it did nothing, and the fact that every single one of them from a red state would lose their job if they voted for a new one, it expired and went away. Immediately every single gun person in America went out and bought a couple guns which had been banned and a bucket of new magazines, because nothing makes an American want to do something more than telling them they can’t.

Straw purchasing and firearms trafficking are already federal crimes as well so I'm not sure what their intention is there. The laws against straw purchasing are also of dubious effectiveness, also, IMO. See here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ing-uncle/

Thankfully the four leftists and the token squish on the court saved us from the dangerous cop and his law-abiding uncle.

I keep referring back to Larry Correia's gun control article because honestly it pretty much sums up the debate IMO. Give it a read if you haven't already, I think the original link was way back on the front page.

http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/ ... n-control/

The meat and potatoes of the agument is this:

Gun and magazine sales skyrocket every time a democrat politician starts to vulture in on a tragedy. I don’t know if many of you realize this, but Barack Obama is personally responsible for more gun sales, and especially first time gun purchases, than anyone in history. When I owned my gun store, we had a picture of him on the wall and a caption beneath it which said SALESMAN OF THE YEAR.

So you can ban this stuff, but it won’t actually do anything to the crimes you want to stop. Unless you think you can confiscate them all, but I’ll talk about confiscation later.

I honestly wish the gun control hysteria would go away so stuff would get cheaper again.

[Nodack]

As long as people go out and massacre other people with guns the hysteria won't go away.

At least we can have a sort of real discussion here. We don't have to be enemies on this. We are all Americans. It is possible that some Democrats are making a fuss about this because they care about people's lives and not just because they like attacking Republicans. It is possible that some Republicans aren't fighting this just because they care more about their hobby more than people's lives or attacking Democrats.

The fact remains, people do use guns to kill other people and sometimes they try to kill as many people as they can. People get upset over that and want to do something about it. The Left says limit gun use and that will help solve the problem. The Right says give guns to everybody and that will help solve the problem. The moderate in me says meet in the middle or at least have a real conversation about it, but this is America, only the fringe left and right get heard and none of them are talking to each other. They are yelling at each other.

[Dan H]

As long as people go out and massacre other people with guns the hysteria won't go away.

The problem isn't the tool, the problem is the people doing the massacring. You can try to limit access to inanimate objects all you want, but in the end, killers are going to kill.

The biggest mass murders in this country's history were committed with gasoline and dynamite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[OE32]

The problem isn't the tool, the problem is the people doing the massacring. You can try to limit access to inanimate objects all you want, but in the end, killers are going to kill.

[Ghost]

There are suggestions out there that they're affiliated with Bloomberg, I'm trying to find some sourcing for it though.

Mom's Demand Action, for example, is headed by a long-time PR flack who's done all sorts of professional lobbying and funded by Mike Bloomberg.

Even if true, being affiliated with Bloomberg says more about your bias than their agenda. I know you already backed away from that statement so I won't beat a dead horse.

The only point SHP makes that strikes me as remotely controversial is wanting the smaller magazine size.

Been tried, was of dubious effectiveness.

Agreed. I didn't argue about it being effective, only being controversial (it's pretty hard to argue that their goals are soundly humanitarian and in the best interest of everyone, particularly children, unless you want to sound like a sociopath).

I do think there's a huge difference between a crazed gunman with a clip of 30 vs a clip of 10, though. But my support for limiting magazine size is tempered by a lot of reality...it's not that hard to pack three handguns and make up for it, if you can't find or make a bigger magazine.

I honestly wish the gun control hysteria would go away so stuff would get cheaper again.

Well, then support something along my idea for people control. If we know who has the guns and can hold them accountable for storing them properly, there will be fewer incidences of gun violence. I realize that guns will still get into the country and into the wrong hands, so don't bother with that one. Trafficking firearms is another issue (and a very important one), but what we CAN do right now is to regulate what we already have here.

Yes, I realize that our current gun control laws are not terribly effective. And the answer is not to implement more laws that will be ineffective. So instead, let's start by FIXING THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE.

You talk as though you want the problem to just disappear, but that doesn't happen until the death toll drops. So, do you want to fix it, or ignore it?

[Nodack]

As long as people go out and massacre other people with guns the hysteria won't go away.

The problem isn't the tool, the problem is the people doing the massacring. You can try to limit access to inanimate objects all you want, but in the end, killers are going to kill.

The biggest mass murders in this country's history were committed with gasoline and dynamite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Iran wants nukes which are inanimate objects. Just more tools. Iran hasn't fired a shot at us and say they have no intentions of attacking us and yet we are on the verge of declaring war where most likely hundreds of thousands of people at a minimum would die, all because we don't trust them with an inanimate object. Apples to oranges? The only purpose an assault rifle has is to kill as many people as possible as efficiently as possible. Same with a nuclear bomb. You can use them both to hunt.

The biggest mass murders in this country's history were committed with gasoline and dynamite.

So that proves we shouldn't try to stop gun violence? We should try to stop all mass murders IMO. You can't go to a dynamite store and buy dynamite if you are the average Joe. Gasoline has all kinds of purposes. An assault rifle has one purpose. I like collecting the Ebola virus. I think it's a cool hobby and don't think my rights should be infringed by the government telling me I can't collect it as I see fit.

[Dan H]

Nodack, 'assault rifle' implies fully automatic. They are already subject to Federal and local Sheriff background checks, as well as a supply limited by legislation. A true, NFA legal assault rifle is going to be upwards of $20,000 as a result. Does this stop criminals from getting fully automatic weapons? Nope, because they're criminals. It's already illegal to import them or convert them, how many other laws do you feel need to be laid over top of the existing laws?

BTW, regarding Iran, I've stated in another thread that I don't feel like we should be negotiating with them. As far going to war with them, last I checked it was the guy you voted for who just deployed the Navy to the Straights of Hormuz and set up a standoff with them. Give him a call, he doesn't put much credence into my opinions.

[Dan H]

I do think there's a huge difference between a crazed gunman with a clip of 30 vs a clip of 10, though. But my support for limiting magazine size is tempered by a lot of reality...it's not that hard to pack three handguns and make up for it, if you can't find or make a bigger magazine.

Which is exactly what Klebold and Harris did at Columbine. They only had 10-round magazines, so they carried multiple magazines, multiple weapons, oh, and improvised explosives. All which was illegal, but wasn't a deterrent. So what do we do to deter that in the future?

Well, then support something along my idea for people control. If we know who has the guns and can hold them accountable for storing them properly, there will be fewer incidences of gun violence. I realize that guns will still get into the country and into the wrong hands, so don't bother with that one. Trafficking firearms is another issue (and a very important one), but what we CAN do right now is to regulate what we already have here.

Yes, I realize that our current gun control laws are not terribly effective. And the answer is not to implement more laws that will be ineffective. So instead, let's start by FIXING THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE.

You talk as though you want the problem to just disappear, but that doesn't happen until the death toll drops. So, do you want to fix it, or ignore it?

I already keep my guns locked up. Sorry, I neither want the government mandated to make sure I'm doing so or coming and inspecting my home. You really want to open up that can of worms? Accidents happen, and I would be personally crushed if something happened to my kids - which is why I lock them up and teach my kids responsible behaviors around guns - as well as power tools, knives, and swimming pools. How many kids drown each year as opposed to those who die in accidental shootings? Google it, you'd be surprised - it's about ten times the amount that die in accidental shootings.

You speak of death toll as though we have some literal blood bath on the streets every day. That's just not the case.



Crime as a whole in the US has been trending downward for years (as an aside, there's some thought that it might be due to the elimination of lead in paints and gasoline. See here - http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... k-gasoline) so the more recent numbers are even lower. Comparing ourselves to Mexico, where legal gun ownership is heavily regulated to the point that there is a grand total of (1) gun store in the entire country, and citizens are limited to I believe shotguns and .22s. But, again, criminals don't really care. And they can always get guns from the Holder Justice Department.

I know England is often pointed to as a good example, and yes, their murder rate is lower than ours, but it's also calculated differently.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 95ap25.htm

Homicide statistics too vary widely. In some developing countries, the statistics are known to be far from complete. Figures for crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent. The adjustment is made only in respect of figures shown in one part of the Annual Criminal Statistics. In another part relating to the use of firearms, no adjustment is made. A table of the number of homicides in which firearms were used in England and Wales will therefore differ according to which section of the annual statistics was used as its base. Similarly in statistics relating to the use of firearms, a homicide will be recorded where the firearm was used as a blunt instrument, but in the specific homicide statistics, that case will be shown under "blunt instrument".

[OE32]

Interesting chart, Dan. Funny you bring up Mexico, an example of a country with ineffective gun control laws having a homicide rate higher than ours, but neglect to notice that none of the countries with higher homicide rates than us are developed industrial democracies (with the arguable exception of Russia). And then a bunch of countries to the left in your chart are developed industrial democracies with heavy gun restrictions (you know, countries most comparable to ours, with the very distinction at issue in this discussion - apples to apples, so to speak). So you note one country as evidence of your point and neglect the 20+ which would seem to be evidence to the contrary. That seems pretty ad... ad... oh well, you'll figure it out.

I'm glad you brought up the lead in gasoline!! A hugely important event for understanding regulatory policy. Scientists argued for years that lead was contributing to negative health and mental outcomes - a drop in IQ for every person in the country, and worst for those in areas around refineries (you know, poor neighborhoods) - but industry fought this science. When finally regulations were put in place, it cost industry very little, and the benefits were extraordinary. What's the value of an IQ increase of 4 or so points for a whole country? If you're a free market person, you can't even comprehend such a value, because people can't actually pay for clean air on a market. For that you need an effective regulatory body.

Parallels can be drawn between that scenario and the Republicans today who deny climate science and the efficacy of the EPA. Republicans exclusively talk about the costs of EPA regulations. But the fact is, the EPA's regulations tend to be the most cost-benefit-justified of any agency's. The benefits of most EPA rules are wildly disproportionate to the costs. And yet, how many GOP candidates want to "abolish" the EPA? Or "abolish" the IRS, whose job it is merely to enforce the law, and for which every dollar invested results in an additional $6 for the government?

Sorry, ranting again.

In any case, I don't think guns are the primary reason for our higher homicide rate, but I do think they contribute. It's just strange that you're so defensive on this peculiar issue and so hateful of those "liberals" who seem to value lives more than you value your toys. For the most part, they're not asking for much. What's the big deal about the magazine size? Is this all an argument about slippery slopes? Personally, I'm willing to let this issue be resolved by the evidence, but you seem to judge the evidence by whether it favors your perspective. There are more interesting arguments to be had, but you're coming across as a single-issue voter, and what an unworthy single issue it is.

[Ghost]

Which is exactly what Klebold and Harris did at Columbine. They only had 10-round magazines, so they carried multiple magazines, multiple weapons, oh, and improvised explosives. All which was illegal, but wasn't a deterrent. So what do we do to deter that in the future?

Become better at preventing them from getting access to guns. Improve health care. Do a better job of recognizing signs of their brand of mental illness. All stuff that requires regulation and funding.

I already keep my guns locked up. Sorry, I neither want the government mandated to make sure I'm doing so or coming and inspecting my home. You really want to open up that can of worms? Accidents happen, and I would be personally crushed if something happened to my kids - which is why I lock them up and teach my kids responsible behaviors around guns - as well as power tools, knives, and swimming pools. How many kids drown each year as opposed to those who die in accidental shootings? Google it, you'd be surprised - it's about ten times the amount that die in accidental shootings.

And I am glad you are a responsible gun owner and parent! I didn't suggest inspections, though. I said that in the event someone were to gain access to your guns and use them in a crime, you should be guilty of a felony. (An accidental shooting would qualify as a crime in my book...at least as a crime for the owner who failed to secure his guns properly.)

I'm a born and raised Arizonan; I am well aware that drownings take more lives than accidental shooting. So what? Are we only allowed to talk about the worst problem facing society at any given moment, and not consider others until we completely eradicate everything that is worse? Ridiculous.

You speak of death toll as though we have some literal blood bath on the streets every day. That's just not the case.

Crime as a whole in the US has been trending downward for years (as an aside, there's some thought that it might be due to the elimination of lead in paints and gasoline. See here - http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... k-gasoline) so the more recent numbers are even lower. Comparing ourselves to Mexico, where legal gun ownership is heavily regulated to the point that there is a grand total of (1) gun store in the entire country, and citizens are limited to I believe shotguns and .22s. But, again, criminals don't really care. And they can always get guns from the Holder Justice Department.

Ahh, I played the ridiculous card too soon, I see. So, not only should we not address gun violence in our country until everything that takes more lives than gun violence is eradicated, but we need to fix the homicide rate in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY first? That's...beyond crazy. The murder rate in Mexico is completely irrelevant, as we are not talking about Mexico. We are perfectly capable of improving our country without saying "it could be so much worse, so let's just ignore it." Part of me wants to address the reasons why Mexico's problem is so much worse despite more intense regulation, but the point doesn't deserve anything in this context, and I think you are as aware of Mexico's problems just as much as I am, so let's move on.

As far as criminals getting guns, yep, they sure will. I already said as much. I am not talking about solving all criminal violence; I am talking about addressing what we do have the ability to control -- regulating our citizen militia, if you will, to make sure that legal firearm owners are handling their weapons properly.