Author Topic: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days  (Read 59424 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1100 on: May 01, 2018, 01:14:57 PM »
I feel like I should point out that I don't even own a cellphone, let alone use one while driving.  :P

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1101 on: May 01, 2018, 01:19:43 PM »
Not just road rage but I can think of other emergency situations where making a phone call from a moving vehicle would be helpful: being followed by a suspicious vehicle, calling ahead to an emergency room.

Not that I am advocating for this change, but you do realize the world did exists for thousands of years before we could do this from moving vehicles (including chariots and Conestoga wagons) and we found ways to cope.

I do and I considered that but it's far from the only reason I wouldn't support a law like this. Also I have no idea how to go about quantifying it, but don't you think cell phones being used in moving vehicles can be credited with some reduction in crime? We did cope before cell phones but crime rates have dropped significantly since the 70-80's. Again, no statistics to offer but technology has almost certainly played a role.

The world existed before lots of inventions that have greatly improved our lives. (this coming from someone who still doesn't own a smartphone)

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1102 on: May 01, 2018, 01:25:47 PM »
Not just road rage but I can think of other emergency situations where making a phone call from a moving vehicle would be helpful: being followed by a suspicious vehicle, calling ahead to an emergency room.

Not that I am advocating for this change, but you do realize the world did exists for thousands of years before we could do this from moving vehicles (including chariots and Conestoga wagons) and we found ways to cope.

I do and I considered that but it's far from the only reason I wouldn't support a law like this. Also I have no idea how to go about quantifying it, but don't you think cell phones being used in moving vehicles can be credited with some reduction in crime? We did cope before cell phones but crime rates have dropped significantly since the 70-80's. Again, no statistics to offer but technology has almost certainly played a role.

The world existed before lots of inventions that have greatly improved our lives. (this coming from someone who still doesn't own a smartphone)
I'd have to think about that but to credit the cell phone as the primary reason for drops in crime may be a bridge too far.  There were a LOT of pay phones around, and I can tell you for certain as a kid growing up in those times no one was shy about calling from home as they are now and tend to just hide in their homes and ignore the crime going on outside.  I think the drop of  people being willing to report now versus what happened then, offsets or was greater than any benefit a mobile phone provides. 

As a person who has called from a moving vehicle and helped try to guide police to a drunk driver we followed, ultimately to have nothing happen as the police could never connect with us, having the phone in a moving vehicle did nothing to help the situation.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1103 on: May 01, 2018, 01:55:05 PM »
Not just road rage but I can think of other emergency situations where making a phone call from a moving vehicle would be helpful: being followed by a suspicious vehicle, calling ahead to an emergency room.

Not that I am advocating for this change, but you do realize the world did exists for thousands of years before we could do this from moving vehicles (including chariots and Conestoga wagons) and we found ways to cope.

I do and I considered that but it's far from the only reason I wouldn't support a law like this. Also I have no idea how to go about quantifying it, but don't you think cell phones being used in moving vehicles can be credited with some reduction in crime? We did cope before cell phones but crime rates have dropped significantly since the 70-80's. Again, no statistics to offer but technology has almost certainly played a role.

The world existed before lots of inventions that have greatly improved our lives. (this coming from someone who still doesn't own a smartphone)
I'd have to think about that but to credit the cell phone as the primary reason for drops in crime may be a bridge too far.  There were a LOT of pay phones around, and I can tell you for certain as a kid growing up in those times no one was shy about calling from home as they are now and tend to just hide in their homes and ignore the crime going on outside.  I think the drop of  people being willing to report now versus what happened then, offsets or was greater than any benefit a mobile phone provides. 

As a person who has called from a moving vehicle and helped try to guide police to a drunk driver we followed, ultimately to have nothing happen as the police could never connect with us, having the phone in a moving vehicle did nothing to help the situation.

Definitely not my intention. Getting back on topic of the off topic in the off topic, I think the primary road block to legislation like this would be that passengers couldn't make calls.

Regarding the idea that we got along fine before cell phones, I'm usually one of the first to make that point and cite the social isolation they can create, but I'll also admit that once society has built around a modern convenience, suddenly taking it away has different implications than never having had it in the first place. For example, pay phones were more or less replaced by cell phones so now if I don't have one I'm sol for making a call while I'm on the road. Also social expectations have changed drastically.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1104 on: May 01, 2018, 02:23:27 PM »
Not just road rage but I can think of other emergency situations where making a phone call from a moving vehicle would be helpful: being followed by a suspicious vehicle, calling ahead to an emergency room.

Not that I am advocating for this change, but you do realize the world did exists for thousands of years before we could do this from moving vehicles (including chariots and Conestoga wagons) and we found ways to cope.

I do and I considered that but it's far from the only reason I wouldn't support a law like this. Also I have no idea how to go about quantifying it, but don't you think cell phones being used in moving vehicles can be credited with some reduction in crime? We did cope before cell phones but crime rates have dropped significantly since the 70-80's. Again, no statistics to offer but technology has almost certainly played a role.

The world existed before lots of inventions that have greatly improved our lives. (this coming from someone who still doesn't own a smartphone)
I'd have to think about that but to credit the cell phone as the primary reason for drops in crime may be a bridge too far.  There were a LOT of pay phones around, and I can tell you for certain as a kid growing up in those times no one was shy about calling from home as they are now and tend to just hide in their homes and ignore the crime going on outside.  I think the drop of  people being willing to report now versus what happened then, offsets or was greater than any benefit a mobile phone provides. 

As a person who has called from a moving vehicle and helped try to guide police to a drunk driver we followed, ultimately to have nothing happen as the police could never connect with us, having the phone in a moving vehicle did nothing to help the situation.

Definitely not my intention. Getting back on topic of the off topic in the off topic, I think the primary road block to legislation like this would be that passengers couldn't make calls.

Regarding the idea that we got along fine before cell phones, I'm usually one of the first to make that point and cite the social isolation they can create, but I'll also admit that once society has built around a modern convenience, suddenly taking it away has different implications than never having had it in the first place. For example, pay phones were more or less replaced by cell phones so now if I don't have one I'm sol for making a call while I'm on the road. Also social expectations have changed drastically.
Agreed, we could not get rid of cell phones without re-establishing pay phones (or something in their place.  Those call boxes along the FL interstates are also long gone for example).  But the social isolation is not a result of the PHONE.  Let's be clear, it is a result of the COMPUTER in the phone, i.e. the smart phone.  The Motorola flip phone that could just make calls did not remove the connection of people and getting together.  It was only after I had a camera and could voice chat with someone i.e. see them or use Instagram or other apps that needed something more than a phone, did the isolation begin to occur.  We created a virtual portal to every other person on the planet as long as we were willing to share connection info (usually a phone number which ties our little handheld computers together).  A pure mobile PHONE in feature only, meaning it just makes and receives calls, no texts, nothing else, did not create that much of a shift.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 112
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1105 on: May 01, 2018, 06:30:27 PM »
My state actually just did ban all except hands free cell use by the driver. Even red light checking. I don’t know if it’s effective, but I do seem to be honking less at people who don’t notice the red light changed.

Circling back to the gun issue, I think the one thing about it I find most incredulous is the whole idea of “good guys”with guns, as if just owning a weapon somehow keeps you from doing bad things. Which is, I fear, the main reasons laws are hard to come by. If you can’t believe a gun owner would ever do something bad, despite the ample evidence to the contrary, of course you don’t want any gun laws to change!
« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 04:51:18 PM by TrudgingAlong »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1106 on: May 01, 2018, 09:41:37 PM »

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa.

First of all, thanks to Dabnasty for providing an explanation of this even if you did not agree with it. Tyort, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the difference between this straw man you're setting up of anarchy and what people are actually arguing for. It's not difficult. There's laws that say you can't do something. Let's say it's breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their stuff. I don't hear anyone on here arguing against that. Then there's laws that say you can't have a crowbar because it could break into a house. You must be watched at all hours so you can be stopped if you begin to attempt to go into someone's house. Etc. etc. One is saying there will be punishments for doing something that as a society we agree is unethical. The other is saying, we as a society will do some level of prevention to keep you from having the opportunity to do something bad. It's hard to argue against the first one unless you feel that the act isn't actually unethical. It's hard to argue the second one doesn't take away actual freedoms beyond the agreed upon restrictions of not directly hurting someone else. It may be decided as necessary by society, but if you can't understand why people could have a problem with the second one and think it means they're just all up for some good old fashioned anarchy, I'm not sure where to go from there. Yes, we have read history, and we've seen freedoms taken away not of people to hurt each other but to have the potential of doing it, and I'm not too excited about that track record, myself.

I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

Let's continue this on to more reality. There were comparisons made about drunk driving where the comment was that restricting drinking and driving was similar to restricting how guns had to be stored because neither was inherently hurting anything but were unsafe conditions. I agree. So let's look at each one. We have fairly restrictive drinking and driving laws right now, I would say. With that, we still had 10k deaths (in 2015). I would expect with the amount of intensity on this that there would be a tremendous amount of accidental gun deaths. The numbers I found was 489 deaths in 2015, and that's everything. I'm sure that includes several ones where adults accidentally shot someone else. It's not all an 8 year old shooting his sibling. There have been tremendous amounts of accusations lobbed out that all gun owners are irresponsible. It's an epidemic. Gun owners can't be trusted; they don't know the first thing about responsibility. Well, given the number of guns out there, if that was the case, I can't imagine we'd be seeing this number of accidental gun deaths. Maybe all these caviler gun owners are just getting lucky and nothing's happening. Or, could it perhaps be that gun owners maybe are being more responsible than they are being given credit for and are assessing the actual danger not the conceptional danger. The litmus test for restricting the potential for something bad to happen should be a lot higher than restricting the actual wrong doing, and in this case, the numbers just don't add up to this atrocious condition that is being presented. Perhaps in this case, focusing on actually punishing the people who are involved when something bad happens as a deterrent would be more effective.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2913
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1107 on: May 02, 2018, 05:58:39 AM »

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa.

First of all, thanks to Dabnasty for providing an explanation of this even if you did not agree with it. Tyort, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the difference between this straw man you're setting up of anarchy and what people are actually arguing for. It's not difficult. There's laws that say you can't do something. Let's say it's breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their stuff. I don't hear anyone on here arguing against that. Then there's laws that say you can't have a crowbar because it could break into a house. You must be watched at all hours so you can be stopped if you begin to attempt to go into someone's house. Etc. etc. One is saying there will be punishments for doing something that as a society we agree is unethical. The other is saying, we as a society will do some level of prevention to keep you from having the opportunity to do something bad. It's hard to argue against the first one unless you feel that the act isn't actually unethical. It's hard to argue the second one doesn't take away actual freedoms beyond the agreed upon restrictions of not directly hurting someone else. It may be decided as necessary by society, but if you can't understand why people could have a problem with the second one and think it means they're just all up for some good old fashioned anarchy, I'm not sure where to go from there. Yes, we have read history, and we've seen freedoms taken away not of people to hurt each other but to have the potential of doing it, and I'm not too excited about that track record, myself.

I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

Let's continue this on to more reality. There were comparisons made about drunk driving where the comment was that restricting drinking and driving was similar to restricting how guns had to be stored because neither was inherently hurting anything but were unsafe conditions. I agree. So let's look at each one. We have fairly restrictive drinking and driving laws right now, I would say. With that, we still had 10k deaths (in 2015). I would expect with the amount of intensity on this that there would be a tremendous amount of accidental gun deaths. The numbers I found was 489 deaths in 2015, and that's everything. I'm sure that includes several ones where adults accidentally shot someone else. It's not all an 8 year old shooting his sibling. There have been tremendous amounts of accusations lobbed out that all gun owners are irresponsible. It's an epidemic. Gun owners can't be trusted; they don't know the first thing about responsibility. Well, given the number of guns out there, if that was the case, I can't imagine we'd be seeing this number of accidental gun deaths. Maybe all these caviler gun owners are just getting lucky and nothing's happening. Or, could it perhaps be that gun owners maybe are being more responsible than they are being given credit for and are assessing the actual danger not the conceptional danger. The litmus test for restricting the potential for something bad to happen should be a lot higher than restricting the actual wrong doing, and in this case, the numbers just don't add up to this atrocious condition that is being presented. Perhaps in this case, focusing on actually punishing the people who are involved when something bad happens as a deterrent would be more effective.

I know you weren’t addressing me here, but a crowbar? It takes... guts? Something? ... to accuse someone of arguing a straw man, and then immediately set one up yourself. Stopped reading at that point.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 08:03:07 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1108 on: May 02, 2018, 06:39:41 AM »
@Wolfpack Mustachian , I think you are missing the point.  I'm not implying, suggesting, nor do I believe gun owners are irresponsible.  I believe they just do not actually care to make a change, and therefore it is incredibly frustrating when we talk about a topic that ends in death to just have someone who owns the tool used to initiate death just shrug their shoulders and constantly say "eh, I don't see a problem". 

If we could get gun owners to sit down and figure out a solution rather than just start from the position of either their is a problem, or that we already have everything we need to make the problem go away we are just not using it.  The lack of understanding that it is the result that matters and not the intent.  I'm not arguing that better enforcement of the laws could help.  But that's not happening, so what are we going to actually DO differently as a society to drive that result?  That's the engagement that is not happening.  I'm not OK with "I'm not the DA so I can't make attorneys change."  If that is still the result, then waiting for the impossible to happen is not a very viable solution, which is what makes it not a solution.  It's just an excuse.

Stop making excuses and come to the table with things you will work alongside us to change and then you can stop getting the hostility of people who want to make a change in needless deaths. 

And to your example of alcohol, I'm all for figuring out better ways to drive that down as well.  I will assume your stats is accurate.  10K deaths is a lot, and much more than 489.  But 489 is a lot too, especially if you or someone you care about is one of those 489 next year.  I make the same statement in nearly every post on this thread.  For me the difference between a gun and everything else people bring up (cars is very common), is the root purpose of the item in question.  A car is not made to cause harm.  A gun is.  It may only "harm" the paper target it is fired at for an owner who never does anything else than take it to the range every weekend, but its main purpose is still harm.  You cannot argue a gun will help me get to work, or take my kids to school or transport me anywhere.  Sure I can use it to feed me by hunting (but I need other tools to actually eat.  I can't just shoot something and dive into the carcass and chow down).  You could argue that I can use it to make money by being an entertainer that uses it for trick shooting or something that people pay me to come and watch, but that trick shooting still involves me using the  gun for its primary purpose of causing harm to the things I am shooting it.  I have yet to see a gun that launches a kitten who then licks the beer can it was shot at instead of blowing a hole in it or knocking it off its perch.  Because of this sole reason, I think comparing a gun to anything else will never resonate as a real argument.  Unless you compare it to something else who's main purpose is to cause harm.  But that won't work either because then gun owners would be forced to realize you cannot argue it successfully that way.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1109 on: May 02, 2018, 07:58:24 AM »
I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

This is a waste of time.  Let's not go hypothetical at all.  Let's look at what Chris actually said:

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom.  Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

I’m a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger.



So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl
- It is impossible for a grown man (let alone a child) to shoot himself in the head with a shotgun.


All three beliefs are demonstrably wrong.  Believing them will prevent Chris from taking simple, common sense steps to keep his kid away from his gun.  That's not a hypothetical - it's reality.  If the reality of the danger to his child doesn't terrify you, then I don't think you've fully thought through what he wrote.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2974
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1110 on: May 02, 2018, 08:23:08 AM »
I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

This is a waste of time.  Let's not go hypothetical at all.  Let's look at what Chris actually said:

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom.  Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

I’m a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger.



So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl
- It is impossible for a grown man (let alone a child) to shoot himself in the head with a shotgun.


All three beliefs are demonstrably wrong.  Believing them will prevent Chris from taking simple, common sense steps to keep his kid away from his gun.  That's not a hypothetical - it's reality.  If the reality of the danger to his child doesn't terrify you, then I don't think you've fully thought through what he wrote.

You're ignoring a lot of nuance or taking a lot of things way out of context.  Let's unpack.

Quote
So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents

What did I actually say?  I mean, you quoted it, did you read it?

"Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work."

IOW, "I told her not to, AND SHE'S ALSO NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY WORK THE ACTION."  It has the button to rack the slide Wolfpack alluded to.  She can't physically do it, dude, it's not just that I told her not to and so she won't. 

Quote
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl

That's the exact OPPOSITE of what I said.

"And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution"

Quote
- It is impossible for a grown man (let alone a child) to shoot himself in the head with a shotgun.

Nope. 

"I’m a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger."

First off, I said MY shotgun.  I have an extended barrel on MY shotgun for trap shooting.  MY shotgun =/= ALL shotguns.  Second, I said "barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger" meaning that yeah, if you actually wanted to kill yourself, it would be easy enough to do with a string or lever or whatever else, but the context was a three year old boy accidentally shooting himself.  That would be difficult to impossible to do with my shotgun, given it's about the same length as my daughter (gun is probably ~40", daughter is 48"). 

I don't expect you to agree with my risk assessments necessarily, but don't pretend like they aren't occurring.  When I ordered my first pistol (thanks cooling off period) I Amazon'd myself a pistol safe before I even picked up the pistol because my risk assessment was that it was very dangerous if my kid should come across it, so I locked it up.  Due to a variety of other factors, I determined that the way I store my other weapons was not currently particularly dangerous, so I'm comfortable with the way they are stored. 
« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 08:25:05 AM by Chris22 »
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1111 on: May 02, 2018, 08:50:59 AM »
When I ordered my first pistol (thanks cooling off period) I Amazon'd myself a pistol safe before I even picked up the pistol because my risk assessment was that it was very dangerous if my kid should come across it, so I locked it up.  Due to a variety of other factors, I determined that the way I store my other weapons was not currently particularly dangerous, so I'm comfortable with the way they are stored.

Laudable.  I'm very glad you took this type of action and no doubt your family and neighbors are much safer because you did these things.  Were you required by law to learn these basics of gun safety? 

Because, and here's my broader point - just because you did these things does not mean everyone will.  In fact a large chunk of people will not do anything at all related to learning about or using proper gun safety. 

All I'm really saying is that not everyone is like you.  Gun safety laws may seem like "nanny state" encroachments to you, because you're already doing things for handgun safety. 

Gun safety laws wouldn't actually affect you if you're already doing reasonable things for safety.  The whole point of safety laws is to ensure that everyone has a bare minimum level of safety they have to comply with when they own a weapon. 

It's just like driving a car.  You can't just say "well I'm a safe driver so I can go as fast as I want", there's speed limits even if your Mario Andretti you still have to obey them because it keeps everyone around you safer.  Especially those fools who "think" they are Mario Andretti but are really just idiots (we all know people like that). 

Also, you can't just start driving a car without a license.  Which means you have to have a (legally mandated) demonstrable, basic bare minimum of competency and skill to operate it.  It should be the same with guns.  You should need a license to own one, and the license should be conditional on passing a course/test about gun handling, gun safety, and more importantly proper gun storage. 
Frugalite in training.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2974
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1112 on: May 02, 2018, 09:00:38 AM »
When I ordered my first pistol (thanks cooling off period) I Amazon'd myself a pistol safe before I even picked up the pistol because my risk assessment was that it was very dangerous if my kid should come across it, so I locked it up.  Due to a variety of other factors, I determined that the way I store my other weapons was not currently particularly dangerous, so I'm comfortable with the way they are stored.

Laudable.  I'm very glad you took this type of action and no doubt your family and neighbors are much safer because you did these things.  Were you required by law to learn these basics of gun safety? 

Because, and here's my broader point - just because you did these things does not mean everyone will.  In fact a large chunk of people will not do anything at all related to learning about or using proper gun safety. 

All I'm really saying is that not everyone is like you.  Gun safety laws may seem like "nanny state" encroachments to you, because you're already doing things for handgun safety. 

Gun safety laws wouldn't actually affect you if you're already doing reasonable things for safety.  The whole point of safety laws is to ensure that everyone has a bare minimum level of safety they have to comply with when they own a weapon. 

It's just like driving a car.  You can't just say "well I'm a safe driver so I can go as fast as I want", there's speed limits even if your Mario Andretti you still have to obey them because it keeps everyone around you safer.  Especially those fools who "think" they are Mario Andretti but are really just idiots (we all know people like that). 

Also, you can't just start driving a car without a license.  Which means you have to have a (legally mandated) demonstrable, basic bare minimum of competency and skill to operate it.  It should be the same with guns.  You should need a license to own one, and the license should be conditional on passing a course/test about gun handling, gun safety, and more importantly proper gun storage.

I was not required by law to do anything other than submit to a background check (multiple, really, including my FOID) and pay $10 to buy a weapon.  To carry a weapon outside of my home, I would have to take extensive training. 

Same with a car.  If you want to drive a car, just buy a car and drive it on your property (absurd on a suburban lot, not at all absurd in a rural area if you own a ton of land).  If you want to drive it on public roads, you need to show a (very low) level of competency.

My problem with gun storage laws that are preventative in nature is that, as discussed, there are a ton of factors that go into what makes gun storage safe or unsafe, and I don't trust the government (look how they royally fucked up the first AWB) to build any nuance into it.  Plus, the govs tend to use new laws as an opportunity to place barriers to entry in, not because the ideas themselves are necessarily good.  "yeah, take all this training, we'll make it rare and expensive so no one actually can get a CCW permit even though they are technically available" etc.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1113 on: May 02, 2018, 09:07:00 AM »
Well then we should apply your ideas to food prep at restaurants (for example).  I mean the government can make it hard for restaurant owners to gain entry into that business, because the government always acts in an incompetent and nefarious manner.  So they should get out of the food safety legal enforcement.  After all, it's a private business, if I don't want to serve safe food, that's my right. 

That was sarcasm, BTW.

My main point is this - there needs to be basic minimum standards for safety around gun ownership.  Being required to lock up a firearm is not an infringement on your rights.  And it keeps others around you safer.  And it keeps you safer, from them. 
Frugalite in training.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1351
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1114 on: May 02, 2018, 01:13:30 PM »
You're ignoring a lot of nuance or taking a lot of things way out of context.  Let's unpack.

Quote
So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents

What did I actually say?  I mean, you quoted it, did you read it?

"Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

Why would you need to train your child, if they are incapable of operating the weapon in the first place? Seems strange. Telling your child to not touch something often results in the opposite happening. I think most parents would agree with that. And 20% of body weight is pretty damn light. My 100 lb teenager can pick up a 20 lb weight quite easily. My 40 lb daughter can easily pick up a 10 lb weight (25% of her body weight). Considering you used the word "confident" to describe their perceived strength that sets off alarm bells IMO. Just lock the damn gun up. You won't have to rely on "confidence" and "lectures."

Quote
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl

That's the exact OPPOSITE of what I said.

"And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution"

The word "might" is subjective, not definitive. You basically didn't say whether you would or would not.
Earn 25K SPG Points after 3K spend: http://refer.amex.us/KYLEDiFKR?xl=cp10

Get $250 statement credit after 1K spend AMEX Blue Cash: http://refer.amex.us/KYLEDk5SI?xl=cp10

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1115 on: May 02, 2018, 01:26:46 PM »
You're ignoring a lot of nuance or taking a lot of things way out of context.  Let's unpack.

Quote
So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents

What did I actually say?  I mean, you quoted it, did you read it?

"Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

Why would you need to train your child, if they are incapable of operating the weapon in the first place? Seems strange. Telling your child to not touch something often results in the opposite happening. I think most parents would agree with that. And 20% of body weight is pretty damn light. My 100 lb teenager can pick up a 20 lb weight quite easily. My 40 lb daughter can easily pick up a 10 lb weight (25% of her body weight). Considering you used the word "confident" to describe their perceived strength that sets off alarm bells IMO. Just lock the damn gun up. You won't have to rely on "confidence" and "lectures."

Quote
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl

That's the exact OPPOSITE of what I said.

"And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution"

The word "might" is subjective, not definitive. You basically didn't say whether you would or would not.

Just the very fact that we have to argue with a gun owner and "convince" them to lock up their weapon, is exactly the reason we need basic, minimum standards of safety that apply to everyone. 

It reminds me of the conversation around drinking and driving.  There were a lot of people that opposed putting in basic minimum levels around that, too.  They said things like "I'm fine with a couple drinks", or "I process alcohol different than most people", or my favorite "I drive better when I'm drunk than most other people do when they are sober". 

Gun owners that oppose basic safety laws are the moral equivalent of drunks that want to do away with DUI laws. 

Although now that I think about it, a better analogy might be safety laws around electrical wiring in the home.  Now a freedom loving patriot might oppose wiring things to code in their house, because their house is private property and the government is a nanny state.  "And those wires don't need to be insulated - I teach my kids to not touch live electrical wires, and covering those wires takes away my freedoms!".  Sigh. 
Frugalite in training.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1351
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1116 on: May 02, 2018, 02:52:20 PM »
You're ignoring a lot of nuance or taking a lot of things way out of context.  Let's unpack.

Quote
So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents

What did I actually say?  I mean, you quoted it, did you read it?

"Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

Why would you need to train your child, if they are incapable of operating the weapon in the first place? Seems strange. Telling your child to not touch something often results in the opposite happening. I think most parents would agree with that. And 20% of body weight is pretty damn light. My 100 lb teenager can pick up a 20 lb weight quite easily. My 40 lb daughter can easily pick up a 10 lb weight (25% of her body weight). Considering you used the word "confident" to describe their perceived strength that sets off alarm bells IMO. Just lock the damn gun up. You won't have to rely on "confidence" and "lectures."

Quote
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl

That's the exact OPPOSITE of what I said.

"And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution"

The word "might" is subjective, not definitive. You basically didn't say whether you would or would not.

Just the very fact that we have to argue with a gun owner and "convince" them to lock up their weapon, is exactly the reason we need basic, minimum standards of safety that apply to everyone. 

It reminds me of the conversation around drinking and driving.  There were a lot of people that opposed putting in basic minimum levels around that, too.  They said things like "I'm fine with a couple drinks", or "I process alcohol different than most people", or my favorite "I drive better when I'm drunk than most other people do when they are sober". 

Gun owners that oppose basic safety laws are the moral equivalent of drunks that want to do away with DUI laws. 

Although now that I think about it, a better analogy might be safety laws around electrical wiring in the home.  Now a freedom loving patriot might oppose wiring things to code in their house, because their house is private property and the government is a nanny state.  "And those wires don't need to be insulated - I teach my kids to not touch live electrical wires, and covering those wires takes away my freedoms!".  Sigh.

Yep. Hell I lock our dogs up before anyone comes into our house, especially kids. It's not that I don't trust the dogs, I don't trust the kids.
Earn 25K SPG Points after 3K spend: http://refer.amex.us/KYLEDiFKR?xl=cp10

Get $250 statement credit after 1K spend AMEX Blue Cash: http://refer.amex.us/KYLEDk5SI?xl=cp10

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1117 on: May 03, 2018, 04:15:48 AM »

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa.

First of all, thanks to Dabnasty for providing an explanation of this even if you did not agree with it. Tyort, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the difference between this straw man you're setting up of anarchy and what people are actually arguing for. It's not difficult. There's laws that say you can't do something. Let's say it's breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their stuff. I don't hear anyone on here arguing against that. Then there's laws that say you can't have a crowbar because it could break into a house. You must be watched at all hours so you can be stopped if you begin to attempt to go into someone's house. Etc. etc. One is saying there will be punishments for doing something that as a society we agree is unethical. The other is saying, we as a society will do some level of prevention to keep you from having the opportunity to do something bad. It's hard to argue against the first one unless you feel that the act isn't actually unethical. It's hard to argue the second one doesn't take away actual freedoms beyond the agreed upon restrictions of not directly hurting someone else. It may be decided as necessary by society, but if you can't understand why people could have a problem with the second one and think it means they're just all up for some good old fashioned anarchy, I'm not sure where to go from there. Yes, we have read history, and we've seen freedoms taken away not of people to hurt each other but to have the potential of doing it, and I'm not too excited about that track record, myself.

I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

Let's continue this on to more reality. There were comparisons made about drunk driving where the comment was that restricting drinking and driving was similar to restricting how guns had to be stored because neither was inherently hurting anything but were unsafe conditions. I agree. So let's look at each one. We have fairly restrictive drinking and driving laws right now, I would say. With that, we still had 10k deaths (in 2015). I would expect with the amount of intensity on this that there would be a tremendous amount of accidental gun deaths. The numbers I found was 489 deaths in 2015, and that's everything. I'm sure that includes several ones where adults accidentally shot someone else. It's not all an 8 year old shooting his sibling. There have been tremendous amounts of accusations lobbed out that all gun owners are irresponsible. It's an epidemic. Gun owners can't be trusted; they don't know the first thing about responsibility. Well, given the number of guns out there, if that was the case, I can't imagine we'd be seeing this number of accidental gun deaths. Maybe all these caviler gun owners are just getting lucky and nothing's happening. Or, could it perhaps be that gun owners maybe are being more responsible than they are being given credit for and are assessing the actual danger not the conceptional danger. The litmus test for restricting the potential for something bad to happen should be a lot higher than restricting the actual wrong doing, and in this case, the numbers just don't add up to this atrocious condition that is being presented. Perhaps in this case, focusing on actually punishing the people who are involved when something bad happens as a deterrent would be more effective.

I know you weren’t addressing me here, but a crowbar? It takes... guts? Something? ... to accuse someone of arguing a straw man, and then immediately set one up yourself. Stopped reading at that point.

First of all, I wasn't accusing tyort of a straw man. He just was using a straw man plain and simple. Not just any sort of straw man but pretty much the definition of a straw man. People who are concerned about regulations on how guns are stored in houses (because that was the real conversation we were having at that point as I can tell) are either desiring the old "wild wild west" times where murder rates were insane or are wanting a situation where it would end up that way. Um.....no..... I'm not an expert on that time period, but I'm pretty sure it was more of the lack of law enforcement and a million other little things that have very little if any application in this discussion on securing guns properly.

On the other hand, I was simply making an analogy. I was not saying that people that want to add laws for gun storage want to ban crowbars or that it is a true like for like comparison. Feel free to disagree with the analogy, I guess, but it is an analogy of a very important distinction that people on here that support gun control seem to disregard often. There's a difference between making an act that directly takes away someone else's rights illegal and making the potential for that act illegal. Use whatever analogy you'd like. A computer is bad because it can be used to look up child pornography. Constant surveillance as mentioned could prevent enormous amounts of crime. And yes, restrictions on driving while intoxicated is also restricting things for potential harm not direct infringement on rights of others. One has to be looked at with more serious consideration as the other because it has a degree of separation, like it or not. We've decided as a society that it makes sense to restrict the freedom of people to drink and drive where they are not hurting someone because the potential is so high and there is no positive benefit or potential benefit to drinking and driving, and also because it's still killing thousands of people a year even after these "pre-restrictions" have been implemented. There's a difference in taking away people's freedom to do something and making it illegal for them to actually do it....which you would have known if you would have read past your great umbrage at your incorrect assertion of what you thought was a straw man. C'mon @Kris you're better than that. 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2913
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1118 on: May 03, 2018, 05:59:21 AM »

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa.

First of all, thanks to Dabnasty for providing an explanation of this even if you did not agree with it. Tyort, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the difference between this straw man you're setting up of anarchy and what people are actually arguing for. It's not difficult. There's laws that say you can't do something. Let's say it's breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their stuff. I don't hear anyone on here arguing against that. Then there's laws that say you can't have a crowbar because it could break into a house. You must be watched at all hours so you can be stopped if you begin to attempt to go into someone's house. Etc. etc. One is saying there will be punishments for doing something that as a society we agree is unethical. The other is saying, we as a society will do some level of prevention to keep you from having the opportunity to do something bad. It's hard to argue against the first one unless you feel that the act isn't actually unethical. It's hard to argue the second one doesn't take away actual freedoms beyond the agreed upon restrictions of not directly hurting someone else. It may be decided as necessary by society, but if you can't understand why people could have a problem with the second one and think it means they're just all up for some good old fashioned anarchy, I'm not sure where to go from there. Yes, we have read history, and we've seen freedoms taken away not of people to hurt each other but to have the potential of doing it, and I'm not too excited about that track record, myself.

I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

Let's continue this on to more reality. There were comparisons made about drunk driving where the comment was that restricting drinking and driving was similar to restricting how guns had to be stored because neither was inherently hurting anything but were unsafe conditions. I agree. So let's look at each one. We have fairly restrictive drinking and driving laws right now, I would say. With that, we still had 10k deaths (in 2015). I would expect with the amount of intensity on this that there would be a tremendous amount of accidental gun deaths. The numbers I found was 489 deaths in 2015, and that's everything. I'm sure that includes several ones where adults accidentally shot someone else. It's not all an 8 year old shooting his sibling. There have been tremendous amounts of accusations lobbed out that all gun owners are irresponsible. It's an epidemic. Gun owners can't be trusted; they don't know the first thing about responsibility. Well, given the number of guns out there, if that was the case, I can't imagine we'd be seeing this number of accidental gun deaths. Maybe all these caviler gun owners are just getting lucky and nothing's happening. Or, could it perhaps be that gun owners maybe are being more responsible than they are being given credit for and are assessing the actual danger not the conceptional danger. The litmus test for restricting the potential for something bad to happen should be a lot higher than restricting the actual wrong doing, and in this case, the numbers just don't add up to this atrocious condition that is being presented. Perhaps in this case, focusing on actually punishing the people who are involved when something bad happens as a deterrent would be more effective.

I know you weren’t addressing me here, but a crowbar? It takes... guts? Something? ... to accuse someone of arguing a straw man, and then immediately set one up yourself. Stopped reading at that point.

First of all, I wasn't accusing tyort of a straw man. He just was using a straw man plain and simple. Not just any sort of straw man but pretty much the definition of a straw man. People who are concerned about regulations on how guns are stored in houses (because that was the real conversation we were having at that point as I can tell) are either desiring the old "wild wild west" times where murder rates were insane or are wanting a situation where it would end up that way. Um.....no..... I'm not an expert on that time period, but I'm pretty sure it was more of the lack of law enforcement and a million other little things that have very little if any application in this discussion on securing guns properly.

On the other hand, I was simply making an analogy. I was not saying that people that want to add laws for gun storage want to ban crowbars or that it is a true like for like comparison. Feel free to disagree with the analogy, I guess, but it is an analogy of a very important distinction that people on here that support gun control seem to disregard often. There's a difference between making an act that directly takes away someone else's rights illegal and making the potential for that act illegal. Use whatever analogy you'd like. A computer is bad because it can be used to look up child pornography. Constant surveillance as mentioned could prevent enormous amounts of crime. And yes, restrictions on driving while intoxicated is also restricting things for potential harm not direct infringement on rights of others. One has to be looked at with more serious consideration as the other because it has a degree of separation, like it or not. We've decided as a society that it makes sense to restrict the freedom of people to drink and drive where they are not hurting someone because the potential is so high and there is no positive benefit or potential benefit to drinking and driving, and also because it's still killing thousands of people a year even after these "pre-restrictions" have been implemented. There's a difference in taking away people's freedom to do something and making it illegal for them to actually do it....which you would have known if you would have read past your great umbrage at your incorrect assertion of what you thought was a straw man. C'mon @Kris you're better than that.

Lol sure.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1119 on: May 03, 2018, 11:52:21 AM »
My wild west example was specifically directed at the underlying assumption by most conservatives (and ALL libertarians) that the government should never make any laws that don't derive from "don't initiate violence", and the implicit (sometimes explicit) embrace of anarchy as a desirable state.  Slightly off topic, but still relevant, I think.

The "electrical safety" standards example was more directly on point for this discussion.  But I see you either didn't read it or ignored it since you haven't addressed it.
Frugalite in training.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1120 on: May 03, 2018, 01:19:53 PM »
My wild west example was specifically directed at the underlying assumption by most conservatives (and ALL libertarians) that the government should never make any laws that don't derive from "don't initiate violence", and the implicit (sometimes explicit) embrace of anarchy as a desirable state.  Slightly off topic, but still relevant, I think.

The "electrical safety" standards example was more directly on point for this discussion.  But I see you either didn't read it or ignored it since you haven't addressed it.
I've noticed a bit of that in this thread.  Certain items are ignored, such as my repeated attempts when I tried to explain why we feels guns should be treated differently than, say pools, being that a guns main purpose to exist is to cause harm.

I'm assuming these things are being ignored because they can't come up with a reply that isn't just another form of "put you're wrong and I don't have to do anything to fix the problem so I won't".

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1121 on: May 03, 2018, 08:15:16 PM »
I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

This is a waste of time.  Let's not go hypothetical at all.  Let's look at what Chris actually said:

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom.  Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

I’m a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger.



So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl
- It is impossible for a grown man (let alone a child) to shoot himself in the head with a shotgun.


All three beliefs are demonstrably wrong.  Believing them will prevent Chris from taking simple, common sense steps to keep his kid away from his gun.  That's not a hypothetical - it's reality.  If the reality of the danger to his child doesn't terrify you, then I don't think you've fully thought through what he wrote.

First of all, Chris has further explained his situation better than I could. I may not 100% agree with his rationale or how he handles things, but he's explaining the nuance. People here arguing on the other side seem to be trying to live in a world defined as how they see danger versus what the numbers are showing.

You're right, let's look at specifics - in this case quotes prompted me to respond:

Quote from you:

" - More than half of gun owners in the US keep a firearm without any locks or deterrent to prevent use by an unauthorized person, or to prevent theft.
 - 45% of gun owners with kids under the age of 18 leave unsecured firearms lying around the home.
 - Only 35% of gun owning parents of children with mental health conditions keep weapons unloaded and locked away.

You're asking for responsibility for their actions from a large group of people who have proven by their actions that they're not willing to accept any."

All of your three statement statistics are linked to your final statement which summed up could be said that anyone fitting into the "bad side" of any of these statistics is not willing to accept any responsibility (ergo is irresponsible).

I've just given you a rubber meets the road way that people could be very responsible and not meet the criteria of leaving all firearms "secure" with kids under 18 in the house. Yet you'd rather knee jerk and say it's irresponsible.

Wexler said this:

I have to admit that my mind is kind of blown (no pun intended) by the idea that someone can have an unsecured loaded weapon in a house with young children and think they are a responsible gun owner.  I am going to be a lot more skeptical of anyone claiming to be a responsible gun owner in the future.  This has been a good lesson for me.  People self-reporting how responsible they are with guns is like people saying they are good drivers: lots of them are wrong.

Tyort said this:

Agreed.  Not only are people like this engaging in irresponsible behavior, but they can't see how irresponsible it is, not even when it's directly pointed out to them. 

Which is why we need a law - guns get locked up.  Period.  And the law needs to be vigorously enforced.

And so on....

You claim that this or that is the reality. Let me reiterate the reality. 489 accidental gun deaths in a year. Almost certainly not all related to a child getting his parent's gun and shooting someone or himself. If my child was one of the 489, I'm sure I would be devastated, but it's probably not best to make decisions based on anecdotes. This total is very small both in light of overall deaths a year and also in perspective of how many guns are out there. My problem is, from these quotes and the general vibe, I'm getting the project of an assumption that gun owners are overall totally irresponsible or at least are if they have an "unsecured firearm" (however you define that) with kids in the house which your own statistics say is a significant portion of people. I know that I would always do what I could to keep my kids safe from real harm as best as I see it. My perspective is (and I feel this is very much backed up by numbers) that the vast majority of gun owning parents are acting in the same way. It may not be to your definition of what's safe, but the results are indicating that we're not in this widespread epidemic necessitating controls contradicting with people's desires to have weapons in a state that's more ready if there ever was a need for self defense.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1122 on: May 03, 2018, 08:19:18 PM »

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa.

First of all, thanks to Dabnasty for providing an explanation of this even if you did not agree with it. Tyort, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the difference between this straw man you're setting up of anarchy and what people are actually arguing for. It's not difficult. There's laws that say you can't do something. Let's say it's breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their stuff. I don't hear anyone on here arguing against that. Then there's laws that say you can't have a crowbar because it could break into a house. You must be watched at all hours so you can be stopped if you begin to attempt to go into someone's house. Etc. etc. One is saying there will be punishments for doing something that as a society we agree is unethical. The other is saying, we as a society will do some level of prevention to keep you from having the opportunity to do something bad. It's hard to argue against the first one unless you feel that the act isn't actually unethical. It's hard to argue the second one doesn't take away actual freedoms beyond the agreed upon restrictions of not directly hurting someone else. It may be decided as necessary by society, but if you can't understand why people could have a problem with the second one and think it means they're just all up for some good old fashioned anarchy, I'm not sure where to go from there. Yes, we have read history, and we've seen freedoms taken away not of people to hurt each other but to have the potential of doing it, and I'm not too excited about that track record, myself.

I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

Let's continue this on to more reality. There were comparisons made about drunk driving where the comment was that restricting drinking and driving was similar to restricting how guns had to be stored because neither was inherently hurting anything but were unsafe conditions. I agree. So let's look at each one. We have fairly restrictive drinking and driving laws right now, I would say. With that, we still had 10k deaths (in 2015). I would expect with the amount of intensity on this that there would be a tremendous amount of accidental gun deaths. The numbers I found was 489 deaths in 2015, and that's everything. I'm sure that includes several ones where adults accidentally shot someone else. It's not all an 8 year old shooting his sibling. There have been tremendous amounts of accusations lobbed out that all gun owners are irresponsible. It's an epidemic. Gun owners can't be trusted; they don't know the first thing about responsibility. Well, given the number of guns out there, if that was the case, I can't imagine we'd be seeing this number of accidental gun deaths. Maybe all these caviler gun owners are just getting lucky and nothing's happening. Or, could it perhaps be that gun owners maybe are being more responsible than they are being given credit for and are assessing the actual danger not the conceptional danger. The litmus test for restricting the potential for something bad to happen should be a lot higher than restricting the actual wrong doing, and in this case, the numbers just don't add up to this atrocious condition that is being presented. Perhaps in this case, focusing on actually punishing the people who are involved when something bad happens as a deterrent would be more effective.

I know you weren’t addressing me here, but a crowbar? It takes... guts? Something? ... to accuse someone of arguing a straw man, and then immediately set one up yourself. Stopped reading at that point.

First of all, I wasn't accusing tyort of a straw man. He just was using a straw man plain and simple. Not just any sort of straw man but pretty much the definition of a straw man. People who are concerned about regulations on how guns are stored in houses (because that was the real conversation we were having at that point as I can tell) are either desiring the old "wild wild west" times where murder rates were insane or are wanting a situation where it would end up that way. Um.....no..... I'm not an expert on that time period, but I'm pretty sure it was more of the lack of law enforcement and a million other little things that have very little if any application in this discussion on securing guns properly.

On the other hand, I was simply making an analogy. I was not saying that people that want to add laws for gun storage want to ban crowbars or that it is a true like for like comparison. Feel free to disagree with the analogy, I guess, but it is an analogy of a very important distinction that people on here that support gun control seem to disregard often. There's a difference between making an act that directly takes away someone else's rights illegal and making the potential for that act illegal. Use whatever analogy you'd like. A computer is bad because it can be used to look up child pornography. Constant surveillance as mentioned could prevent enormous amounts of crime. And yes, restrictions on driving while intoxicated is also restricting things for potential harm not direct infringement on rights of others. One has to be looked at with more serious consideration as the other because it has a degree of separation, like it or not. We've decided as a society that it makes sense to restrict the freedom of people to drink and drive where they are not hurting someone because the potential is so high and there is no positive benefit or potential benefit to drinking and driving, and also because it's still killing thousands of people a year even after these "pre-restrictions" have been implemented. There's a difference in taking away people's freedom to do something and making it illegal for them to actually do it....which you would have known if you would have read past your great umbrage at your incorrect assertion of what you thought was a straw man. C'mon @Kris you're better than that.

Lol sure.

Well, let me say thanks. I've explained in multiple ways the fact (that I see as irrefutable) that there's a difference between a law that says don't do something that hurts someone else and a law that says don't exist in this condition because you could eventually hurt someone else. I've not said that the latter means there shouldn't be laws regulating it but just that we should look at those laws with more scrutiny and hesitation.

You've replied with two snarky responses with no substance. Maybe you have a way to refute my thoughts and say there is no difference. Maybe you think that the differences are insignificant because of some reason you have. I guess I'll never know because you'd rather smart off.

Let me rephrase my last statement. I thought you were better than this, Kris.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1123 on: May 03, 2018, 08:29:20 PM »
@Wolfpack Mustachian , I think you are missing the point.  I'm not implying, suggesting, nor do I believe gun owners are irresponsible.  I believe they just do not actually care to make a change, and therefore it is incredibly frustrating when we talk about a topic that ends in death to just have someone who owns the tool used to initiate death just shrug their shoulders and constantly say "eh, I don't see a problem". 

If we could get gun owners to sit down and figure out a solution rather than just start from the position of either their is a problem, or that we already have everything we need to make the problem go away we are just not using it.  The lack of understanding that it is the result that matters and not the intent.  I'm not arguing that better enforcement of the laws could help.  But that's not happening, so what are we going to actually DO differently as a society to drive that result?  That's the engagement that is not happening.  I'm not OK with "I'm not the DA so I can't make attorneys change."  If that is still the result, then waiting for the impossible to happen is not a very viable solution, which is what makes it not a solution.  It's just an excuse.

Stop making excuses and come to the table with things you will work alongside us to change and then you can stop getting the hostility of people who want to make a change in needless deaths. 

And to your example of alcohol, I'm all for figuring out better ways to drive that down as well.  I will assume your stats is accurate.  10K deaths is a lot, and much more than 489.  But 489 is a lot too, especially if you or someone you care about is one of those 489 next year.  I make the same statement in nearly every post on this thread.  For me the difference between a gun and everything else people bring up (cars is very common), is the root purpose of the item in question.  A car is not made to cause harm.  A gun is.  It may only "harm" the paper target it is fired at for an owner who never does anything else than take it to the range every weekend, but its main purpose is still harm.  You cannot argue a gun will help me get to work, or take my kids to school or transport me anywhere.  Sure I can use it to feed me by hunting (but I need other tools to actually eat.  I can't just shoot something and dive into the carcass and chow down).  You could argue that I can use it to make money by being an entertainer that uses it for trick shooting or something that people pay me to come and watch, but that trick shooting still involves me using the  gun for its primary purpose of causing harm to the things I am shooting it.  I have yet to see a gun that launches a kitten who then licks the beer can it was shot at instead of blowing a hole in it or knocking it off its perch.  Because of this sole reason, I think comparing a gun to anything else will never resonate as a real argument.  Unless you compare it to something else who's main purpose is to cause harm.  But that won't work either because then gun owners would be forced to realize you cannot argue it successfully that way.

Caracarn, I do understand and agree with part of your argument that guns are unique in their purpose. Where we differ is the nuances of the purpose of a gun. I think the breakdown is this. You comment (essentially as I am reading it) is that a gun requires extra justification because it is made to cause harm to what it's shooting at. In a vacuum, I would agree with that. However, we don't live in a vacuum. To get me to agree with the declaration that a gun is totally unnecessary, we would have to live in a world where there is almost no crime whatsoever. No risk to life or limb. No beatings of people. No rapes. No anything like this. Then, yes, the gun would be out there with the potential to harm someone with no reason to ever harm anyone because no harm is necessary - no defense would be necessary. Until that happens, to simplify the gun's purpose as to say it's there to cause harm is to, as I see it, at least in part act as if causing harm was never morally justified in a situation. This is because the emotionally charged language of it being "just to cause harm" has an innate implication that causing harm is always bad. That seems to be a fundamental divide between gun control and gun rights people. Gun control people tend to see guns as rarely if ever being used for good. Gun rights people tend to see it as a tool for good. This good can be, yes, hunting, and also for defending of oneself whether it be by actually shooting or just by the presence thereof. This is a hard divide to cross, from what I've seen.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2913
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1124 on: May 03, 2018, 08:29:30 PM »

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa.

First of all, thanks to Dabnasty for providing an explanation of this even if you did not agree with it. Tyort, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the difference between this straw man you're setting up of anarchy and what people are actually arguing for. It's not difficult. There's laws that say you can't do something. Let's say it's breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their stuff. I don't hear anyone on here arguing against that. Then there's laws that say you can't have a crowbar because it could break into a house. You must be watched at all hours so you can be stopped if you begin to attempt to go into someone's house. Etc. etc. One is saying there will be punishments for doing something that as a society we agree is unethical. The other is saying, we as a society will do some level of prevention to keep you from having the opportunity to do something bad. It's hard to argue against the first one unless you feel that the act isn't actually unethical. It's hard to argue the second one doesn't take away actual freedoms beyond the agreed upon restrictions of not directly hurting someone else. It may be decided as necessary by society, but if you can't understand why people could have a problem with the second one and think it means they're just all up for some good old fashioned anarchy, I'm not sure where to go from there. Yes, we have read history, and we've seen freedoms taken away not of people to hurt each other but to have the potential of doing it, and I'm not too excited about that track record, myself.

I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

Let's continue this on to more reality. There were comparisons made about drunk driving where the comment was that restricting drinking and driving was similar to restricting how guns had to be stored because neither was inherently hurting anything but were unsafe conditions. I agree. So let's look at each one. We have fairly restrictive drinking and driving laws right now, I would say. With that, we still had 10k deaths (in 2015). I would expect with the amount of intensity on this that there would be a tremendous amount of accidental gun deaths. The numbers I found was 489 deaths in 2015, and that's everything. I'm sure that includes several ones where adults accidentally shot someone else. It's not all an 8 year old shooting his sibling. There have been tremendous amounts of accusations lobbed out that all gun owners are irresponsible. It's an epidemic. Gun owners can't be trusted; they don't know the first thing about responsibility. Well, given the number of guns out there, if that was the case, I can't imagine we'd be seeing this number of accidental gun deaths. Maybe all these caviler gun owners are just getting lucky and nothing's happening. Or, could it perhaps be that gun owners maybe are being more responsible than they are being given credit for and are assessing the actual danger not the conceptional danger. The litmus test for restricting the potential for something bad to happen should be a lot higher than restricting the actual wrong doing, and in this case, the numbers just don't add up to this atrocious condition that is being presented. Perhaps in this case, focusing on actually punishing the people who are involved when something bad happens as a deterrent would be more effective.

I know you weren’t addressing me here, but a crowbar? It takes... guts? Something? ... to accuse someone of arguing a straw man, and then immediately set one up yourself. Stopped reading at that point.

First of all, I wasn't accusing tyort of a straw man. He just was using a straw man plain and simple. Not just any sort of straw man but pretty much the definition of a straw man. People who are concerned about regulations on how guns are stored in houses (because that was the real conversation we were having at that point as I can tell) are either desiring the old "wild wild west" times where murder rates were insane or are wanting a situation where it would end up that way. Um.....no..... I'm not an expert on that time period, but I'm pretty sure it was more of the lack of law enforcement and a million other little things that have very little if any application in this discussion on securing guns properly.

On the other hand, I was simply making an analogy. I was not saying that people that want to add laws for gun storage want to ban crowbars or that it is a true like for like comparison. Feel free to disagree with the analogy, I guess, but it is an analogy of a very important distinction that people on here that support gun control seem to disregard often. There's a difference between making an act that directly takes away someone else's rights illegal and making the potential for that act illegal. Use whatever analogy you'd like. A computer is bad because it can be used to look up child pornography. Constant surveillance as mentioned could prevent enormous amounts of crime. And yes, restrictions on driving while intoxicated is also restricting things for potential harm not direct infringement on rights of others. One has to be looked at with more serious consideration as the other because it has a degree of separation, like it or not. We've decided as a society that it makes sense to restrict the freedom of people to drink and drive where they are not hurting someone because the potential is so high and there is no positive benefit or potential benefit to drinking and driving, and also because it's still killing thousands of people a year even after these "pre-restrictions" have been implemented. There's a difference in taking away people's freedom to do something and making it illegal for them to actually do it....which you would have known if you would have read past your great umbrage at your incorrect assertion of what you thought was a straw man. C'mon @Kris you're better than that.

Lol sure.

Well, let me say thanks. I've explained in multiple ways the fact (that I see as irrefutable) that there's a difference between a law that says don't do something that hurts someone else and a law that says don't exist in this condition because you could eventually hurt someone else. I've not said that the latter means there shouldn't be laws regulating it but just that we should look at those laws with more scrutiny and hesitation.

You've replied with two snarky responses with no substance. Maybe you have a way to refute my thoughts and say there is no difference. Maybe you think that the differences are insignificant because of some reason you have. I guess I'll never know because you'd rather smart off.

Let me rephrase my last statement. I thought you were better than this, Kris.

No. I think, frankly, that you are full of it for pretending that the crowbar thing was an analogy, instead of a silly straw man designed to create a ridiculous example so you could knock it down.

So, faced with that kind of “argument,” it just seems fairly ridiculous to actually argue with you.

Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1125 on: May 03, 2018, 08:37:16 PM »
My wild west example was specifically directed at the underlying assumption by most conservatives (and ALL libertarians) that the government should never make any laws that don't derive from "don't initiate violence", and the implicit (sometimes explicit) embrace of anarchy as a desirable state.  Slightly off topic, but still relevant, I think.

The "electrical safety" standards example was more directly on point for this discussion.  But I see you either didn't read it or ignored it since you haven't addressed it.

I re-read the thread section you were discussing. I can see how you were probably linking it more towards cell phones and that conversation than securing guns. My apologies as I took it down that path. With that in mind, for what it's worth :-), I rescind my straw man comment.

I still disagree with you in regards to the nanny state for the same reasons as I've listed above. I don't think the implication that reducing laws against a condition of potential harm are really tied to the Old West. Yes people do crappy things and there should be laws against them. Yes people can be aided in doing crappy things and there should be some restrictions to help prevent things from getting crazy out of hand if/when they do happen. This should be viewed with caution, though, as this is the path all government abuses of power take. No slippery slope argument here saying some will inevitably lead to more. Just that many things in this category can be fairly argued against without a slippery slope on the other side saying we'll lead to anarchy or that we want no laws against the actual things where harm is done.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1126 on: May 03, 2018, 08:41:45 PM »


No. I think, frankly, that you are full of it for pretending that the crowbar thing was an analogy, instead of a silly straw man designed to create a ridiculous example so you could knock it down.

So, faced with that kind of “argument,” it just seems fairly ridiculous to actually argue with you.

Fine, think what you will. Obviously you can read my mind. You also commented that you didn't read any further after a certain point, so I'm not expecting a whole lot. At the very least, I've made it clear what I meant later on even if you didn't like this one single thing I said about it earlier. You can see what I mean now but still choose to act like I'm a jerk or a moron or whatever. I'm trying to have a conversation but feel free to comment or not as you see fit, of course.

DHMO

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1127 on: May 03, 2018, 09:28:04 PM »
I've noticed a bit of that in this thread.  Certain items are ignored, such as my repeated attempts when I tried to explain why we feels guns should be treated differently than, say pools, being that a guns main purpose to exist is to cause harm.

I'm assuming these things are being ignored because they can't come up with a reply that isn't just another form of "put you're wrong and I don't have to do anything to fix the problem so I won't".

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
I believe that not all harm is bad, and a tool designed around accomplishing that harm is also not always bad.
The simplest example of this is the genre of "race guns". They are used in competitions, are are designed around causing as much harm to critical areas of the paper as possible, as fast as possible while staying within the rules of the competition. Hitting the center consistently and quickly is the only way to win. As a competition, winning is the end objective. I do not think that winning a competition like this is a negative, and the harm caused in order to effect it is sad for the paper and the tree that contributed it but the harm is ultimately not negative.  By relation, I have no real reason to see a "race gun" as negative. It allows me to accomplish my goal of winning, and neither the means (punching paper) nor the end (I win) are negative.
More complex and divisive examples can be found with harm to a person, and guns that are explicitly designed to be effective as weapons against humans.
I believe that situations do exist where conflict cannot be resolved unilaterally without violence. If someone is intent on hurting me, I cannot change their mind. They are going to commit violence against me. I can either let the violence happen and be grievously injured, or I can resist it. If I choose to resist, it is prudent for me to seek the most effective means available. I cannot rely on hope that the person attacking me will have a change of heart or be easily dissuaded. I need to disable him and make it impossible for him to continue the attack. We don't currently have advanced freeze-rayguns, so my next best option is to create a physical disablement.
My apologies, because this is about to get quite morbid.
He can't keep attacking me if his muscles are useless. How do I, from the outside, make his muscles useless? I deprive them of the oxygen and fuel that they need in order to work. How do I do that? I deprive them of blood flow. How do I do that? I send him into (medical) shock, by shooting him in the chest. My goal is not to kill him, even though it looks that way. I just want to get out of the situation, and if there *must* be grievous violence then I prefer that I not be on the receiving end of it. (Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that shooting him is the only way out of every or even many situations. I'm addressing the rare situations where running away, apologizing, pleading, pepper spraying, tasering, avoiding in the first place, etc. don't work or aren't enough.)
I don’t wish harm on anybody, but in this scenario there must be harm. It is terrible that it came down to that, and that we will both be carrying scars for the rest of our lives. The fact that there is harm is a negative, but the fact that it fell on him instead of me is not. The harm to him is not inherently bad, within the context of the “him or me” scenario. A weapon, gun or otherwise, designed to produce that harm and disable him does not inherit any badness. It has allowed me to accomplish my goal of surviving the situation without suffering death or grievous bodily injury, and neither the means (sending him into shock) nor the end (disabling him) are unnecessarily negative.
If you are able to see my perspective on this so far, perhaps you can already see why I do not see a gun that is designed to produce harm as an inherent negative.

To address part of your previous comments in particular: you referenced “people who want to make a change in needless deaths”. I don’t know whether you were referencing purely accidental deaths, or death by firearms as a whole. If you were referencing death by firearms as a whole, I hope that you would not count the possible death of the aggressor in the “him or me” scenario as needless. There was very much a purpose to his injuries, and the other option would be grievous injury or death to me.

I don’t have a happy ending to this post, unfortunately. I would prefer to end it in a more upbeat manner. Perhaps there may be some consolation in knowing that only a third of shootings are actually fatal if you are promptly seen at a trauma center. https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun

I don’t claim to have an answer, and I doubt that I have persuaded you. I do hope, however, that I have given you something to think about and a way to understand a bit of why it is so hard to get together to sit down and figure out a solution. Your perspective and my perspective are very different, and we are approaching this from different bases of understanding. It will take time and lots of work in order to build a common understanding and reference.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1128 on: May 04, 2018, 08:32:09 AM »
@Wolfpack Mustachian , I think you are missing the point.  I'm not implying, suggesting, nor do I believe gun owners are irresponsible.  I believe they just do not actually care to make a change, and therefore it is incredibly frustrating when we talk about a topic that ends in death to just have someone who owns the tool used to initiate death just shrug their shoulders and constantly say "eh, I don't see a problem". 

If we could get gun owners to sit down and figure out a solution rather than just start from the position of either their is a problem, or that we already have everything we need to make the problem go away we are just not using it.  The lack of understanding that it is the result that matters and not the intent.  I'm not arguing that better enforcement of the laws could help.  But that's not happening, so what are we going to actually DO differently as a society to drive that result?  That's the engagement that is not happening.  I'm not OK with "I'm not the DA so I can't make attorneys change."  If that is still the result, then waiting for the impossible to happen is not a very viable solution, which is what makes it not a solution.  It's just an excuse.

Stop making excuses and come to the table with things you will work alongside us to change and then you can stop getting the hostility of people who want to make a change in needless deaths. 

And to your example of alcohol, I'm all for figuring out better ways to drive that down as well.  I will assume your stats is accurate.  10K deaths is a lot, and much more than 489.  But 489 is a lot too, especially if you or someone you care about is one of those 489 next year.  I make the same statement in nearly every post on this thread.  For me the difference between a gun and everything else people bring up (cars is very common), is the root purpose of the item in question.  A car is not made to cause harm.  A gun is.  It may only "harm" the paper target it is fired at for an owner who never does anything else than take it to the range every weekend, but its main purpose is still harm.  You cannot argue a gun will help me get to work, or take my kids to school or transport me anywhere.  Sure I can use it to feed me by hunting (but I need other tools to actually eat.  I can't just shoot something and dive into the carcass and chow down).  You could argue that I can use it to make money by being an entertainer that uses it for trick shooting or something that people pay me to come and watch, but that trick shooting still involves me using the  gun for its primary purpose of causing harm to the things I am shooting it.  I have yet to see a gun that launches a kitten who then licks the beer can it was shot at instead of blowing a hole in it or knocking it off its perch.  Because of this sole reason, I think comparing a gun to anything else will never resonate as a real argument.  Unless you compare it to something else who's main purpose is to cause harm.  But that won't work either because then gun owners would be forced to realize you cannot argue it successfully that way.

Caracarn, I do understand and agree with part of your argument that guns are unique in their purpose. Where we differ is the nuances of the purpose of a gun. I think the breakdown is this. You comment (essentially as I am reading it) is that a gun requires extra justification because it is made to cause harm to what it's shooting at. In a vacuum, I would agree with that. However, we don't live in a vacuum. To get me to agree with the declaration that a gun is totally unnecessary, we would have to live in a world where there is almost no crime whatsoever. No risk to life or limb. No beatings of people. No rapes. No anything like this. Then, yes, the gun would be out there with the potential to harm someone with no reason to ever harm anyone because no harm is necessary - no defense would be necessary. Until that happens, to simplify the gun's purpose as to say it's there to cause harm is to, as I see it, at least in part act as if causing harm was never morally justified in a situation. This is because the emotionally charged language of it being "just to cause harm" has an innate implication that causing harm is always bad. That seems to be a fundamental divide between gun control and gun rights people. Gun control people tend to see guns as rarely if ever being used for good. Gun rights people tend to see it as a tool for good. This good can be, yes, hunting, and also for defending of oneself whether it be by actually shooting or just by the presence thereof. This is a hard divide to cross, from what I've seen.
@Wolfpack Mustachian thanks for the great reply.

I am still not being understood as clarified by your response.  I do not feel that my statements create any scenario where guns are unnecessary.  I am not advocating that all.  That's a terrible argument and you are right to refute.  If I tried to make an argument for anything to not exist, it would be a very, very specific place that that was compelling.  So to be clear, my point has nothing to do with guns being unnecessary.

What I am trying to articulate is that because of the purpose of a gun, which you did agree with, they need to be considered differently for safety, regulation and/or control.  Again, let's not get caught up in the specific words and argue about the need to control etc.  Can we just settle on the fact that they are unique in purpose, which you agreed with.  Therefore, I am suggesting that mean they should be unique in solution as well.  Which means, that comparing them to pools or drunk driving is not effective.  It just then draws us into the circular argument of gun control versus gun rights.  The good you cite, I also admit is a good for someone choosing to own a firearm (which I'm not against people doing to be clear), but it also is totally in line with the purpose of the gun of causing harm to the prey or to the predator/alleged criminal (I still struggle with due process being removed in questionable situations where a shooter kills someone because they felt threatened but nothing was really going on that was that bad, however, I'm comfortable with the processes we have in place to hold them accountable for overstepping and to be appropriately held responsible if that happens).  So I am not in the position as a gun control person who views guns as rarely being used for good.  I do think however that running to both those extremes is why no real conversation over happens and why gun rights people, IMO, feel that "give an inch" will cause total removal, because there is this false assumption that those of us who want better results than we are getting want that.  I don't.  I just want guns treated uniquely, as we've both agreed they are, and not just like any other tangible product we own.  They are very powerful and need to be respected and I just get frustrated that no meaningful conversation of how we change the results seems to ever occur.  It just quickly goes to retreating into our corners, I think because of frustration, and then it becomes ingrained that is the belief.  I also understand that gun rights people are not all of the camp that we just need to enforce the laws we have so go away, but we get there too fast.  I have seen several people even here say they could see some changes being valuable, like age limits, etc.  That's at least an attempt to solve the problem.  So hopefully me clarifying what I meant, and that is was again, not as extreme as what you thought I meant, helps a more meaningful conversation. 

ministashy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1129 on: May 04, 2018, 08:50:16 AM »

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
 ....

And it's responses like this from gun advocates (along with ones from 'responsible gun owners' who are okay with keeping loaded shotguns out in the home where kids can get at them) that solidify my opinion that they have absolutely no interest in solving this issue, because they 'don't see it as a problem'.  And by refusing to compromise on on even the tiniest sliver of regulation or responsibility for gun ownership, they are only pushing the other side--the side who is tired of watching their kids die, tired of being scared of being shot at work, or at the mall, or at a movie theater, by some random person with a grudge--into the 'ban all guns' camp.   For these kinds of gun owners, those are acceptable losses, and we should all just be willing to die (literally) on the altar of 2nd Amendment gun rights. 

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1130 on: May 04, 2018, 08:56:00 AM »
I've noticed a bit of that in this thread.  Certain items are ignored, such as my repeated attempts when I tried to explain why we feels guns should be treated differently than, say pools, being that a guns main purpose to exist is to cause harm.

I'm assuming these things are being ignored because they can't come up with a reply that isn't just another form of "put you're wrong and I don't have to do anything to fix the problem so I won't".

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
I believe that not all harm is bad, and a tool designed around accomplishing that harm is also not always bad.
The simplest example of this is the genre of "race guns". They are used in competitions, are are designed around causing as much harm to critical areas of the paper as possible, as fast as possible while staying within the rules of the competition. Hitting the center consistently and quickly is the only way to win. As a competition, winning is the end objective. I do not think that winning a competition like this is a negative, and the harm caused in order to effect it is sad for the paper and the tree that contributed it but the harm is ultimately not negative.  By relation, I have no real reason to see a "race gun" as negative. It allows me to accomplish my goal of winning, and neither the means (punching paper) nor the end (I win) are negative.
More complex and divisive examples can be found with harm to a person, and guns that are explicitly designed to be effective as weapons against humans.
I believe that situations do exist where conflict cannot be resolved unilaterally without violence. If someone is intent on hurting me, I cannot change their mind. They are going to commit violence against me. I can either let the violence happen and be grievously injured, or I can resist it. If I choose to resist, it is prudent for me to seek the most effective means available. I cannot rely on hope that the person attacking me will have a change of heart or be easily dissuaded. I need to disable him and make it impossible for him to continue the attack. We don't currently have advanced freeze-rayguns, so my next best option is to create a physical disablement.
My apologies, because this is about to get quite morbid.
He can't keep attacking me if his muscles are useless. How do I, from the outside, make his muscles useless? I deprive them of the oxygen and fuel that they need in order to work. How do I do that? I deprive them of blood flow. How do I do that? I send him into (medical) shock, by shooting him in the chest. My goal is not to kill him, even though it looks that way. I just want to get out of the situation, and if there *must* be grievous violence then I prefer that I not be on the receiving end of it. (Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that shooting him is the only way out of every or even many situations. I'm addressing the rare situations where running away, apologizing, pleading, pepper spraying, tasering, avoiding in the first place, etc. don't work or aren't enough.)
I don’t wish harm on anybody, but in this scenario there must be harm. It is terrible that it came down to that, and that we will both be carrying scars for the rest of our lives. The fact that there is harm is a negative, but the fact that it fell on him instead of me is not. The harm to him is not inherently bad, within the context of the “him or me” scenario. A weapon, gun or otherwise, designed to produce that harm and disable him does not inherit any badness. It has allowed me to accomplish my goal of surviving the situation without suffering death or grievous bodily injury, and neither the means (sending him into shock) nor the end (disabling him) are unnecessarily negative.
If you are able to see my perspective on this so far, perhaps you can already see why I do not see a gun that is designed to produce harm as an inherent negative.

To address part of your previous comments in particular: you referenced “people who want to make a change in needless deaths”. I don’t know whether you were referencing purely accidental deaths, or death by firearms as a whole. If you were referencing death by firearms as a whole, I hope that you would not count the possible death of the aggressor in the “him or me” scenario as needless. There was very much a purpose to his injuries, and the other option would be grievous injury or death to me.

I don’t have a happy ending to this post, unfortunately. I would prefer to end it in a more upbeat manner. Perhaps there may be some consolation in knowing that only a third of shootings are actually fatal if you are promptly seen at a trauma center. https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun

I don’t claim to have an answer, and I doubt that I have persuaded you. I do hope, however, that I have given you something to think about and a way to understand a bit of why it is so hard to get together to sit down and figure out a solution. Your perspective and my perspective are very different, and we are approaching this from different bases of understanding. It will take time and lots of work in order to build a common understanding and reference.
@DHMO excellent response, and thanks for the time.

I'll refer you to the response I just gave to @Wolfpack Mustachian as to where my viewpoint is not as extreme as you felt it was.  I agree with everything you said, and in that response I clarify the fallacy you attached to here to come back at me.  I do not believe a gun is inherently negative, I just believe that they are unique and should be treated that way in working to solutions.  We waste a ton of time comparing guns to pools, crowbars and drunk driving. 

And yes, I agree with you that death of someone you have no choice but to shoot is not needless.  But related to that, the death I do see as needless is the one where a criminal needs a weapon and finds yours and uses it to kill someone because we could have done something to percent that.  So that's why I would like to explore ways to minimize that possibility, and things like bio-metric triggers seem promising.  I get that they are not reliable enough.  I also believe that if the military will not adopt some technology then gun rights people have a pretty strong argument about why it is not ready for prime time.  This technology is one of them.  So I do see the complexity.  But giving up and just saying it is as good as it will get seems like a poor choice.  If gun owners demanded something to work all the time and keep an unauthorized person from using a weapon or they would not buy any, I am quite sure that technology would be perfected in a very short time.  Unless gun rights people support that it will not happen, because no gun manufacturer will spend money on R&D for something their customers will not buy.  I'm not likely to buy a gun even if it has this, so I myself cannot incentivize anyone to do this.  I need cooperation.  If there is a better way to achieve this result (only and authorized user can discharge a certain weapon) then I'm all ears. That's an example of all I'm asking for.  Again the previous reply gets into some nuance that I think is the same for your response. 

You've not had to persuade me.  Everything you said was something I agree with.  I get a BB can cause harm if I hit my brother in the eye, but if I hit him in the buttocks it just makes both of us laugh (after he recovers from the initial sting).  I'm not suggesting anything be done in those cases, accidents can happen with anything, and while it would be terrible that my brother lost his eye, there are many other ways he could have also had his eye poked out, so overreacting makes no sense.  No one will take that "gun" (read toy) and kill 50 people in Las Vegas.  I assume a "race gun" would be similarly ineffective in heavy loss of life, but I do not know enough about them.  If they were just as capable at inflicting damage as the current weapons to hate du jour (AR-15 etc.) then they should be handled similarly, but if like a BB gun they are built for a lower level of "harm" (you said they are designed to harm paper and not much else) then leave them alone until we hear race guns causing similar harm that anyone agrees is not something we want.  I do very much appreciate your example still being variations of guns because it helps to have a real conversation.  Thank you.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1131 on: May 04, 2018, 09:03:41 AM »

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
 ....

And it's responses like this from gun advocates (along with ones from 'responsible gun owners' who are okay with keeping loaded shotguns out in the home where kids can get at them) that solidify my opinion that they have absolutely no interest in solving this issue, because they 'don't see it as a problem'.  And by refusing to compromise on on even the tiniest sliver of regulation or responsibility for gun ownership, they are only pushing the other side--the side who is tired of watching their kids die, tired of being scared of being shot at work, or at the mall, or at a movie theater, by some random person with a grudge--into the 'ban all guns' camp.   For these kinds of gun owners, those are acceptable losses, and we should all just be willing to die (literally) on the altar of 2nd Amendment gun rights.
@ministashy I respectfully ask if you read the entire response before replying? Because you will see, by my response to him, that I think he did not say what you think he said.  The response was very well put together and not all all indicating that he was not willing to work to a solution.  He explains why harm to paper is not viewed by harm, in a way that was totally reasonable, IMO.  He also even explains the typical harm we talk about with guns in a very reasonable way as well. 

Both sides are guilty of just running to their corner rather than doing the hard work to converse on this difficult topic.  It does not help if we just shoot off that same corner argument (that your opinion is solidified).  I asked why no one was interested in having the hard conversation.  DHMO engaged.  Please let's not chase him back to his corner (there the gun control folks go again, jumping to I don't care).

ministashy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1132 on: May 04, 2018, 09:32:05 AM »

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
 ....

And it's responses like this from gun advocates (along with ones from 'responsible gun owners' who are okay with keeping loaded shotguns out in the home where kids can get at them) that solidify my opinion that they have absolutely no interest in solving this issue, because they 'don't see it as a problem'.  And by refusing to compromise on on even the tiniest sliver of regulation or responsibility for gun ownership, they are only pushing the other side--the side who is tired of watching their kids die, tired of being scared of being shot at work, or at the mall, or at a movie theater, by some random person with a grudge--into the 'ban all guns' camp.   For these kinds of gun owners, those are acceptable losses, and we should all just be willing to die (literally) on the altar of 2nd Amendment gun rights.
@ministashy I respectfully ask if you read the entire response before replying? Because you will see, by my response to him, that I think he did not say what you think he said.  The response was very well put together and not all all indicating that he was not willing to work to a solution.  He explains why harm to paper is not viewed by harm, in a way that was totally reasonable, IMO.  He also even explains the typical harm we talk about with guns in a very reasonable way as well. 

Both sides are guilty of just running to their corner rather than doing the hard work to converse on this difficult topic.  It does not help if we just shoot off that same corner argument (that your opinion is solidified).  I asked why no one was interested in having the hard conversation.  DHMO engaged.  Please let's not chase him back to his corner (there the gun control folks go again, jumping to I don't care).

Respectfully, the reason gun control folks jump to 'I don't care', is because every time we engage in the hard conversations, they go like this:

Gun control advocate (GCA):  I don't want to ban all guns, but I think people need to have mandatory safety training and background checks before they can buy one.
Gun right advocate (GRA):  No.  Can't happen because XYZ reasons.
GCA:  Ok, I can see you might be concerned about XYZ, but we can put rules in place to prevent that.
GRA:  No.  Government is evil.  Plus it's my right to have all the guns I want, when I want.  Also, XYZ+ reasons.
GCA:  *getting annoyed*  Look, people are dying EVERY DAY.  Innocent people, not 'bad guys'.  This a problem.  We need to find a solution.  If we can't do Common Sense Solution A, and Common Sense Solution B, both of which work EVERYWHERE ELSE, what do you propose we do?
GRA:  Go buy your own gun so that you can shoot the bad guy before he shoots you.
GCA:  Riiiiight.  And if he gets the drop on me?  Or (insert any number of other scenarios where Bad Things happen that don't result in bad guy being dead)?  Plus, yanno, people are still dying. 
GRA:  *shrug*  Not my problem.  (Alternatively:  insert libertarian/Ayn Randian/neo-conservative rant about how you should be responsible for your own life at all times, and nanny state, and blah blah blah.)
GCA:  You know what?  Fuck it, I'm tired of this.  Ban all the guns.   

Is this an oversimplification?  Yes.  Is it a pretty accurate description of how this 'conversation' goes in the U.S., over and over and over again?  Also yes.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1133 on: May 04, 2018, 09:50:41 AM »

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
 ....

And it's responses like this from gun advocates (along with ones from 'responsible gun owners' who are okay with keeping loaded shotguns out in the home where kids can get at them) that solidify my opinion that they have absolutely no interest in solving this issue, because they 'don't see it as a problem'.  And by refusing to compromise on on even the tiniest sliver of regulation or responsibility for gun ownership, they are only pushing the other side--the side who is tired of watching their kids die, tired of being scared of being shot at work, or at the mall, or at a movie theater, by some random person with a grudge--into the 'ban all guns' camp.   For these kinds of gun owners, those are acceptable losses, and we should all just be willing to die (literally) on the altar of 2nd Amendment gun rights.
@ministashy I respectfully ask if you read the entire response before replying? Because you will see, by my response to him, that I think he did not say what you think he said.  The response was very well put together and not all all indicating that he was not willing to work to a solution.  He explains why harm to paper is not viewed by harm, in a way that was totally reasonable, IMO.  He also even explains the typical harm we talk about with guns in a very reasonable way as well. 

Both sides are guilty of just running to their corner rather than doing the hard work to converse on this difficult topic.  It does not help if we just shoot off that same corner argument (that your opinion is solidified).  I asked why no one was interested in having the hard conversation.  DHMO engaged.  Please let's not chase him back to his corner (there the gun control folks go again, jumping to I don't care).

Respectfully, the reason gun control folks jump to 'I don't care', is because every time we engage in the hard conversations, they go like this:

Gun control advocate (GCA):  I don't want to ban all guns, but I think people need to have mandatory safety training and background checks before they can buy one.
Gun right advocate (GRA):  No.  Can't happen because XYZ reasons.
GCA:  Ok, I can see you might be concerned about XYZ, but we can put rules in place to prevent that.
GRA:  No.  Government is evil.  Plus it's my right to have all the guns I want, when I want.  Also, XYZ+ reasons.
GCA:  *getting annoyed*  Look, people are dying EVERY DAY.  Innocent people, not 'bad guys'.  This a problem.  We need to find a solution.  If we can't do Common Sense Solution A, and Common Sense Solution B, both of which work EVERYWHERE ELSE, what do you propose we do?
GRA:  Go buy your own gun so that you can shoot the bad guy before he shoots you.
GCA:  Riiiiight.  And if he gets the drop on me?  Or (insert any number of other scenarios where Bad Things happen that don't result in bad guy being dead)?  Plus, yanno, people are still dying. 
GRA:  *shrug*  Not my problem.  (Alternatively:  insert libertarian/Ayn Randian/neo-conservative rant about how you should be responsible for your own life at all times, and nanny state, and blah blah blah.)
GCA:  You know what?  Fuck it, I'm tired of this.  Ban all the guns.   

Is this an oversimplification?  Yes.  Is it a pretty accurate description of how this 'conversation' goes in the U.S., over and over and over again?  Also yes.

Haha, I have to laugh because this is exactly how I feel. 

I mean, we can't even agree that guns should be locked up when they are not directly in use or on your person?  Really?  You'd think that the Guns Rights people would be ALL OVER laws to lock up guns when not in use, because they always bitch so much about criminals getting their hands on guns!
Frugalite in training.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2974
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1134 on: May 04, 2018, 10:03:16 AM »
I mean, we can't even agree that guns should be locked up when they are not directly in use or on your person?  Really?  You'd think that the Guns Rights people would be ALL OVER laws to lock up guns when not in use, because they always bitch so much about criminals getting their hands on guns!

Do you not understand that gun rights people keep their guns locked IN THEIR HOUSE, and that if a criminal breaks into their house to steal a gun it's highly unlikely a safe is going to do anything to prevent theft?
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1135 on: May 04, 2018, 10:34:05 AM »
I mean, we can't even agree that guns should be locked up when they are not directly in use or on your person?  Really?  You'd think that the Guns Rights people would be ALL OVER laws to lock up guns when not in use, because they always bitch so much about criminals getting their hands on guns!

Do you not understand that gun rights people keep their guns locked IN THEIR HOUSE, and that if a criminal breaks into their house to steal a gun it's highly unlikely a safe is going to do anything to prevent theft?

Upon what facts do you base this argument?


I mean, there's an awful lot of research that indicates safe storage laws increase safety of children (https://safetennesseeproject.org/academic-studies-on-the-efficacy-of-child-access-prevention-and-safe-storage-laws/), but I'm guessing you're well over caring about/discussing that issue.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2913
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1136 on: May 04, 2018, 10:40:24 AM »
I mean, we can't even agree that guns should be locked up when they are not directly in use or on your person?  Really?  You'd think that the Guns Rights people would be ALL OVER laws to lock up guns when not in use, because they always bitch so much about criminals getting their hands on guns!

Do you not understand that gun rights people keep their guns locked IN THEIR HOUSE, and that if a criminal breaks into their house to steal a gun it's highly unlikely a safe is going to do anything to prevent theft?

Upon what facts do you base this argument?


I mean, there's an awful lot of research that indicates safe storage laws increase safety of children (https://safetennesseeproject.org/academic-studies-on-the-efficacy-of-child-access-prevention-and-safe-storage-laws/), but I'm guessing you're well over caring about/discussing that issue.

He is saying that people with guns keep their houses locked at all times. (lol) And that means the guns are locked up, even if they are in your nightstand or in a cupboard. And thankfully, since anyone who is actually in their houses would never do/never get into the guns and have any sorts of accidents or anything with them, there’s no chance of any sort of gun injury or death occurring in their home.

So, it's safe. Totally safe.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2018, 01:57:28 PM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1137 on: May 04, 2018, 11:02:59 AM »
I mean, we can't even agree that guns should be locked up when they are not directly in use or on your person?  Really?  You'd think that the Guns Rights people would be ALL OVER laws to lock up guns when not in use, because they always bitch so much about criminals getting their hands on guns!

Do you not understand that gun rights people keep their guns locked IN THEIR HOUSE, and that if a criminal breaks into their house to steal a gun it's highly unlikely a safe is going to do anything to prevent theft?

The moment someone breaks into your house, they are under time pressure to get your valuables and get out ASAP.  Anything laying around (not locked up) is going to get taken for sure.  Anything locked up in the house is much less likely to get taken.  You do want to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, don't you?
Frugalite in training.

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1138 on: May 04, 2018, 01:03:38 PM »


Respectfully, the reason gun control folks jump to 'I don't care', is because every time we engage in the hard conversations, they go like this:

Gun control advocate (GCA):  I don't want to ban all guns, but I think people need to have mandatory safety training and background checks before they can buy one.
Gun right advocate (GRA):  No.  Can't happen because XYZ reasons.
GCA:  Ok, I can see you might be concerned about XYZ, but we can put rules in place to prevent that.
GRA:  No.  Government is evil.  Plus it's my right to have all the guns I want, when I want.  Also, XYZ+ reasons.
GCA:  *getting annoyed*  Look, people are dying EVERY DAY.  Innocent people, not 'bad guys'.  This a problem.  We need to find a solution.  If we can't do Common Sense Solution A, and Common Sense Solution B, both of which work EVERYWHERE ELSE, what do you propose we do?
GRA:  Go buy your own gun so that you can shoot the bad guy before he shoots you.
GCA:  Riiiiight.  And if he gets the drop on me?  Or (insert any number of other scenarios where Bad Things happen that don't result in bad guy being dead)?  Plus, yanno, people are still dying. 
GRA:  *shrug*  Not my problem.  (Alternatively:  insert libertarian/Ayn Randian/neo-conservative rant about how you should be responsible for your own life at all times, and nanny state, and blah blah blah.)
GCA:  You know what?  Fuck it, I'm tired of this.  Ban all the guns.   

Is this an oversimplification?  Yes.  Is it a pretty accurate description of how this 'conversation' goes in the U.S., over and over and over again?  Also yes.

Bang on. Well done.
LOLing.
A lot.


caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1139 on: May 04, 2018, 02:41:57 PM »

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
 ....

And it's responses like this from gun advocates (along with ones from 'responsible gun owners' who are okay with keeping loaded shotguns out in the home where kids can get at them) that solidify my opinion that they have absolutely no interest in solving this issue, because they 'don't see it as a problem'.  And by refusing to compromise on on even the tiniest sliver of regulation or responsibility for gun ownership, they are only pushing the other side--the side who is tired of watching their kids die, tired of being scared of being shot at work, or at the mall, or at a movie theater, by some random person with a grudge--into the 'ban all guns' camp.   For these kinds of gun owners, those are acceptable losses, and we should all just be willing to die (literally) on the altar of 2nd Amendment gun rights.
@ministashy I respectfully ask if you read the entire response before replying? Because you will see, by my response to him, that I think he did not say what you think he said.  The response was very well put together and not all all indicating that he was not willing to work to a solution.  He explains why harm to paper is not viewed by harm, in a way that was totally reasonable, IMO.  He also even explains the typical harm we talk about with guns in a very reasonable way as well. 

Both sides are guilty of just running to their corner rather than doing the hard work to converse on this difficult topic.  It does not help if we just shoot off that same corner argument (that your opinion is solidified).  I asked why no one was interested in having the hard conversation.  DHMO engaged.  Please let's not chase him back to his corner (there the gun control folks go again, jumping to I don't care).

Respectfully, the reason gun control folks jump to 'I don't care', is because every time we engage in the hard conversations, they go like this:

Gun control advocate (GCA):  I don't want to ban all guns, but I think people need to have mandatory safety training and background checks before they can buy one.
Gun right advocate (GRA):  No.  Can't happen because XYZ reasons.
GCA:  Ok, I can see you might be concerned about XYZ, but we can put rules in place to prevent that.
GRA:  No.  Government is evil.  Plus it's my right to have all the guns I want, when I want.  Also, XYZ+ reasons.
GCA:  *getting annoyed*  Look, people are dying EVERY DAY.  Innocent people, not 'bad guys'.  This a problem.  We need to find a solution.  If we can't do Common Sense Solution A, and Common Sense Solution B, both of which work EVERYWHERE ELSE, what do you propose we do?
GRA:  Go buy your own gun so that you can shoot the bad guy before he shoots you.
GCA:  Riiiiight.  And if he gets the drop on me?  Or (insert any number of other scenarios where Bad Things happen that don't result in bad guy being dead)?  Plus, yanno, people are still dying. 
GRA:  *shrug*  Not my problem.  (Alternatively:  insert libertarian/Ayn Randian/neo-conservative rant about how you should be responsible for your own life at all times, and nanny state, and blah blah blah.)
GCA:  You know what?  Fuck it, I'm tired of this.  Ban all the guns.   

Is this an oversimplification?  Yes.  Is it a pretty accurate description of how this 'conversation' goes in the U.S., over and over and over again?  Also yes.
Yes, this is common.  This is running to the corners, which I suggested does not help.  So you are basically agreeing with me that the conversations are not happening.  I'm telling that the response you ran to your corner on was actually a good one if you dug into it and not what you show above, it is not the 'conversation' over and over again.  So once again, I suggest you read his whole response instead of stopping at the sentences you responded to and assuming you knew what the rest said.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2018, 02:43:52 PM by caracarn »

DHMO

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1140 on: May 04, 2018, 04:10:28 PM »

@DHMO excellent response, and thanks for the time.

I'll refer you to the response I just gave to @Wolfpack Mustachian as to where my viewpoint is not as extreme as you felt it was.  I agree with everything you said, and in that response I clarify the fallacy you attached to here to come back at me.  I do not believe a gun is inherently negative, I just believe that they are unique and should be treated that way in working to solutions.  We waste a ton of time comparing guns to pools, crowbars and drunk driving. 

And yes, I agree with you that death of someone you have no choice but to shoot is not needless.  But related to that, the death I do see as needless is the one where a criminal needs a weapon and finds yours and uses it to kill someone because we could have done something to percent that.  So that's why I would like to explore ways to minimize that possibility, and things like bio-metric triggers seem promising.  I get that they are not reliable enough.  I also believe that if the military will not adopt some technology then gun rights people have a pretty strong argument about why it is not ready for prime time.  This technology is one of them.  So I do see the complexity.  But giving up and just saying it is as good as it will get seems like a poor choice.  If gun owners demanded something to work all the time and keep an unauthorized person from using a weapon or they would not buy any, I am quite sure that technology would be perfected in a very short time.  Unless gun rights people support that it will not happen, because no gun manufacturer will spend money on R&D for something their customers will not buy.  I'm not likely to buy a gun even if it has this, so I myself cannot incentivize anyone to do this.  I need cooperation.  If there is a better way to achieve this result (only and authorized user can discharge a certain weapon) then I'm all ears. That's an example of all I'm asking for.  Again the previous reply gets into some nuance that I think is the same for your response. 

You've not had to persuade me.  Everything you said was something I agree with.  I get a BB can cause harm if I hit my brother in the eye, but if I hit him in the buttocks it just makes both of us laugh (after he recovers from the initial sting).  I'm not suggesting anything be done in those cases, accidents can happen with anything, and while it would be terrible that my brother lost his eye, there are many other ways he could have also had his eye poked out, so overreacting makes no sense.  No one will take that "gun" (read toy) and kill 50 people in Las Vegas.  I assume a "race gun" would be similarly ineffective in heavy loss of life, but I do not know enough about them.  If they were just as capable at inflicting damage as the current weapons to hate du jour (AR-15 etc.) then they should be handled similarly, but if like a BB gun they are built for a lower level of "harm" (you said they are designed to harm paper and not much else) then leave them alone until we hear race guns causing similar harm that anyone agrees is not something we want.  I do very much appreciate your example still being variations of guns because it helps to have a real conversation.  Thank you.

If you are willing to be patient with me, I think that this will be very interesting to discuss with you. I am of many different minds on this subject, possibly due to the polarization that you mentioned. It is quite likely that I will contradict myself across this discussion or even within individual messages, as my thoughts on “the appropriate conclusion” and “what needs to happen in order to reach that conclusion” do not always align and are not well formed yet. This additionally complicated by my sense that I need to “stand firm” with a more extreme position in order to even approach the table, as stating my actual position and being unwilling to give anything up is frequently seen as “not participating in the discussion”. This has happened enough that I now habitually take a more extreme position, and have to actively fight that impulse.
You may still see me make comparisons to pools, crowbars, and drunk driving. I tend to invoke those as a comparison in order to illustrate a point. If you feel that I’ve taken the comparison beyond just illustrating a point, please politely call me out on it. I will try to clarify.

I both agree and disagree that guns are unique. They are unique in that they fill a very particular niche and role, but they are not unique in a way that makes them “special”. The training required to start using a gun is not much different from the training required to start using a chainsaw, and can be accomplished quickly. There seems (in general, not necessarily from you) to be a push for mandatory training because “guns are special” somehow, and that someone who hasn’t gone through a multi-hour training course cannot be trusted. I disagree. I support training for anyone who wants it, but I do not think that it is a prerequisite for possession or use. Guns do have unique properties, fill uniques niches, and have an (unfortunately) unique cultural status, but I disagree with a train of thought that goes “Oh, wait, we’re talking about guns? Well, that’s different. They’re a special case.” The solutions that we find may be particular to guns, but they don’t inherently have to be. A gun safe and a document safe are fundamentally the same, the gun safe is just a bit bigger and has different dividers on the inside. The refinements for one are easily applicable to the other, and there may be similar applicability when it comes to finding solutions to problems with guns.
I agree that generally a death due to criminal use of a firearm is a needless death. Can I assume that you are not a hardliner or ideologue on this? I frequently encounter rhetoric like “even one death is too many!”, and taking that line would mean that anything short of an absolute guarantee is insufficient. I’m prepared to keep my weapons in security containers, if the majority of other people will accept the fact that my doing so will not keep my guns away from somebody who has the intent and the tools to break my security. We can reduce the quantity of gun thefts, but the thefts will never stop entirely.
It sounds like you are already familiar with most of the arguments for and against our current generation of biometrically-locked weapons, so I don’t need to rehash them here. I think that the general public won’t trust them until there is a track record of incredibly high reliability, and I think that military and police adoption would further that trust and help to create that record. It is useful for the military as a way to deny use to adversary if the weapons are captured, and it is useful to the police as a way to prevent situations where an officer loses control of the weapon and is subsequently shot with it. Many departments have mandated “retention holsters” as a stopgap measure, which require the officer to release a latch of some kind before the weapon can be withdrawn. The quick extra step involved makes it harder for a suspect to just grab wildly and end up with the officer’s gun. This is mostly trivia, but I’m hoping that it illustrates that there is a market for guns that can be “keyed” to a specific user or group of users.
Addressing the idea that some guns are less capable of inflicting damage and heavy loss of life than others, I would argue that the distinction doesn’t really matter from a legislative perspective. While the distinction is useful in many other contexts, attempting to separate them in any definitive way on paper is quite difficult. The features that make a race gun effective at putting shots on target quickly are the same features that make a defensive or offensive gun effective at putting shots on target quickly. Attempting to separate them by stated purpose or design is complicated by the fact that most guns are capable of filling multiple uses, and the idea that gun use against humans (as covered in my prior message) can be legitimate. If an AR-15 is the most effective means available, then the AR-15 is what I will opt to use. The fact that it is so effective is the exact reason that it is desired. If something even more effective comes along, then that will be desired instead.
To pull out one particular thing that you said which alarmed me somewhat: “then leave them alone until we hear race guns causing similar harm that anyone agrees is not something we want.” I may just be overly sensitive to this, but it sounds like “if people are killed by race guns and we don’t want that killing to continue in the future, then the neck is back on the chopping block. If we want to do something about it, we’ll take action.” Typed out, there is nothing wrong with trying to address a problem, but I’m afraid of an unwritten subtext that the problem is that an innocent person or people have died in a shooting and that the only acceptable resolution is to ensure that it cannot happen again. That particular road only leads to extremism again, and I would like to take care to avoid it. You didn’t say that, but part of having an open dialogue is communicating with each other about points of friction.
I think that progress can be made on reducing needless death by shooting and I believe that it can be done without reducing rights much further (if at all), but it will not be made quickly and will unfortunately not prevent heinous acts like the Las Vegas shooting.
I think that most of the changes are cultural, and that takes time. Guns hold an almost religious status right now, and they’re really just niche tools. It should be unremarkable that “My Dad has a gun!”. Securing your firearms should be the default best practice, and the definition of “securing” should not be onerous. (I personally think that if it successfully resists my nosy in-laws, it is secure enough.) The juvenile assertion that “I have a gun, so I win the argument” should be recognized as juvenile. Guns are not “cool”, and the sight of a holstered gun in a grocery store should not imply that something is about to go down. Hollywood should stop relying on guns as a signal of a high-tension situation, and branch out into other ways of showing that. I’m saying all of these as if they are prescriptive and are “things we need to do”, but I’m not actually arguing for them. I think that these are examples of things that can change and would have an impact, but would not change quickly.
What are your thoughts, @caracarn?

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 112
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1141 on: May 04, 2018, 08:10:57 PM »
Really good point about Hollywood and guns. I’m increasingly bothered by this. I know my kids are absorbing the message that guns can solve anything and make you “tough”just by watching (and playing, as video games also rely on this trope too much) no matter how much we try to teach them differently.

Pigeon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1142 on: May 05, 2018, 11:22:14 AM »
My very young cousin had his head blown off on one fine Christmas day.  Their neighbor had a 12 year old son,  who got hold of his father's unsecured shotgun or rifle and he took it out of his father's room to impress some other kids. It was an accident.

When the father learned that his son killed a child, he kept repating that this was impossible because his son was very responsible and had taken NRA training. That didn't keep Tommy from being very dead.

My Aunt, Uncle and cousins' lives  were forever marred by this tragedy, as was the life of the kid who killed my cousin. Such a disgusting and preventable waste.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1143 on: May 05, 2018, 10:34:33 PM »
My very young cousin had his head blown off on one fine Christmas day.  Their neighbor had a 12 year old son,  who got hold of his father's unsecured shotgun or rifle and he took it out of his father's room to impress some other kids. It was an accident.

When the father learned that his son killed a child, he kept repating that this was impossible because his son was very responsible and had taken NRA training. That didn't keep Tommy from being very dead.

My Aunt, Uncle and cousins' lives  were forever marred by this tragedy, as was the life of the kid who killed my cousin. Such a disgusting and preventable waste.

I'm so sorry for your loss. I truly don't understand how anyone can read this and not secure their weapons.  How are we arguing about this?  What gain do people get from an unsecured loaded weapon relative to one that is secured that is worth such a potential tragedy? Why can't people just unload their damn guns and store the ammunition separately if they don't want to lock them up?  Is it so hard?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2913
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1144 on: May 06, 2018, 06:38:45 AM »
My very young cousin had his head blown off on one fine Christmas day.  Their neighbor had a 12 year old son,  who got hold of his father's unsecured shotgun or rifle and he took it out of his father's room to impress some other kids. It was an accident.

When the father learned that his son killed a child, he kept repating that this was impossible because his son was very responsible and had taken NRA training. That didn't keep Tommy from being very dead.

My Aunt, Uncle and cousins' lives  were forever marred by this tragedy, as was the life of the kid who killed my cousin. Such a disgusting and preventable waste.

I'm so sorry for your loss. I truly don't understand how anyone can read this and not secure their weapons.  How are we arguing about this?  What gain do people get from an unsecured loaded weapon relative to one that is secured that is worth such a potential tragedy? Why can't people just unload their damn guns and store the ammunition separately if they don't want to lock them up?  Is it so hard?

It’s hard when your whole reason for having them is based on a fantasy in the first place.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1145 on: May 07, 2018, 09:03:24 AM »

....Text not shown for brevity....

OK, so part of the problem in discussing this is that I tried (maybe poorly) to phrase my response to your talking points.  Race guns was one of those where you were, I believe, trying to explain how race guns are different and the "harm" they cause you felt was justifiable for the sport they were used in.  I agreed.  But here you then tell me a race gun can fire other ammo and use those same high speed, grouping capabilities with more lethal effect, so that changes the discussion.  If we keep doing that we'll end up in the inevitable whirlpool getting nowhere.  I will finish this line of thought though to present you my thoughts.  I am not necessarily saying ban any type of weapon (I'd only go to a ban if no other solution could be found) or that we need to do anything other than punish someone who uses a tool (race gun) for a purpose it was not intended (instead loads it with armor piercing rounds and takes out a concert venue).  I agree, that those rare cases where a perpetrator is intent on finding a way to use a tool (gun, stapler, toothpick, etc.)  inappropriately for harm are too many and varied to address with laws and regulations.  I agree with people about not prohibiting the possession of a tool just because it can be used maliciously.  So hopefully that helps.

I also feel you muddied the water of unique regarding guns.  Again, using your current examples, the difference in the gun safe versus the document safe is not the safe, it is the contents.  Someone stealing my paper can likely not do a whole lot of damage to anyone but me and my family with that, and likely not instantly kill me with whatever embarrassment, loss of money or lawsuit that results.  Someone stealing my gun has immediate access to life threatening harm.  This is all I mean with unique and why I will continue to fine tune my explanation of this definition because I think it is the lynch pin on which any meaningful conversation hinges.  Because of the nature and seriousness (uniqueness) of a gun, there should be processes that only apply to them and not to other things.  I get that you may still refer to pools, crowbars, drunk driving (and now it seems sheets of paper) for examples, but it is crucial to understand that they are distinctly different in many crucial ways from guns and therefore trying to create equivalence (the only difference in the safe is the dividers and the size) just creates confusion.  On one hand you are right.  The only difference in those two SAFES (which are still both safes by the way, and therefore inherently not different in their purpose, to secure something) is size and dividers.  On the other hand, extending that lack to difference to the contents when the contents are very different is what then makes the description blurred and confusing.  I would like to see anyone show how my last will and testament or my social security card is in any significant way like a gun.  I'd like you to note that where you "disagree" on guns not being unique had nothing to do with a gun, but required you to bring other items into the mix (training, safes, etc.).  I'd humbly suggest that if we can just focus on the very specific point that a gun, all by itself and without things attached to it, does have a unique purpose (as do a lot of other things in this world) then we might range further down the rabbit hole.

I am open to the fact that perhaps solutions do not need to be unique.  Certainly if a safety feature was created on a safe that when it was breached without the proper opening combination that when a hand cut a laser sensor inside a guillotine blade came down and cut off the hand reaching into the safe, it would have equal impact on keeping a gun safe as it would my documents.  A person without a hand will have a difficult time taking and firing my gun and they will have a difficult time taking my papers (though I guess they could try to stick them to their bloody stump).  So as you can see, I clearly see that solutions do not have to be unique, but that again, does nothing to show that a gun is not unique.

On your last point (which is a good observation), why does Hollywood use guns to make thing seem tense, a person seem tough, or in control?  I'd suggest they do so because we all understand what I have been trying to focus my definition on.  Because a gun is unique in its set of qualities.  It can all at once, project authority (if the other side has no gun), level of intent (guns are rarely drawn unless stakes are high), and competency (since the gun requires little to no training to use as you pointed out, the person with it knows how to move their finger in a motion to fire the weapon and understands by the direction of the barrel generally which way the projectile will go unless the tool is malfunctioning).  Making a gun be the only way to get someone's attention, I agree, is as lazy as the mode of speech that suggests if you are yelling out curse words every other word it must also be serious or important.  Someone can be very intimidating without profanity and without a gun.  I have lots of friends who think that adding f$* in front of anything makes it clearly more important.  I regularly suggest to them they may simply want to expand their vocabulary. 

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1146 on: May 07, 2018, 09:11:17 AM »
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable. 

In fact I'd say that keeping the death machines locked up when not in use is a core part of being a "responsible gun owner" that they chatter on about. 

And in fact, the GRA people won't do it unless there's a law in place to make them do it.  As demonstrated by more than one GRA in this very thread. 
Frugalite in training.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1147 on: May 07, 2018, 10:03:48 AM »
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable. 

In fact I'd say that keeping the death machines locked up when not in use is a core part of being a "responsible gun owner" that they chatter on about. 

And in fact, the GRA people won't do it unless there's a law in place to make them do it.  As demonstrated by more than one GRA in this very thread.

False, jerk. I am a gun rights advocate and my gun is locked up at all times its not on my person.

My only problem with making it a law is the enforcement side of it. How do we do that? 
One way is to require the furnishment of the serial# of your gun safe when doing the required background check, but that doesn't mean they're going to use it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1148 on: May 07, 2018, 10:04:53 AM »
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable.

Typically the argument made is a self-defense one.  Guns are needed at hand at all times in case of ninja/zombie/English invasion.  If they're locked up, the ninjas will gut you / zombies will eat you / English will serve you tea before you can unlock your safe and load the weapon.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1149 on: May 07, 2018, 10:51:04 AM »
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable.

Typically the argument made is a self-defense one.  Guns are needed at hand at all times in case of ninja/zombie/English invasion.  If they're locked up, the ninjas will gut you / zombies will eat you / English will serve you tea before you can unlock your safe and load the weapon.

Then just have a holstered weapon that's on you at all times.  Then keep other guns locked up when not in use.  Simple.

False, jerk. I am a gun rights advocate and my gun is locked up at all times its not on my person.

My only problem with making it a law is the enforcement side of it. How do we do that? 
One way is to require the furnishment of the serial# of your gun safe when doing the required background check, but that doesn't mean they're going to use it.

Well, we just make it a law.  Gun Owners are law abiding citizens aren't they?  That's what I always hear, anyway.  So make it a law and the law abiding citizens will follow the law.  Unless you're saying that gun owners don't abide by the law?
Frugalite in training.