Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:09 pm

Identifying criminals by possession of handgun means if you catch a guy with a handgun you can arrest him instead of needing to wait until he uses it before you can arrest him. Minor difference, I know, but it could be important to the person the gun is used on.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:29 pm

Koatanga wrote:Sorry, I thought we were talking about guns, not bows or sticks or fishing poles or traps or blowguns or boomerangs or darts or grenades or tanks or helicopters or rockets or catapults or trebuchets or ballistae any other bloody implement that could possibly be used to hunt something.

Well, you are the one that wants to remove the handgun, leaving myself, and others like myself with 2 options. We take our rifles or shotguns with us, OR we get up and personal with animals that will hurt you.

I don't know how you took from my statements that handguns were *only* valued for concealment and use against humans, except that you chose to bias my statement by inserting the word "only".


I'm not OK with handguns and assault rifles. No one needs to go semi-automatic against a deer. Those are for people. Handguns, in the general sense, are not sufficiently accurate for hunting and are valued for concealability and close-quarters combat. I don't believe the general population needs guns designed for use against people.


No one needs to go semi-automatic on a deer. Those are for people. Really? the guns I linked are just for shooting people? I swear. I shoot animals with them.
And then the rest of your comment: You stated that they are valued for their conceal, and close quarters. You say that these guns are designed for use against people. Not hunting. I added the only, because you implied. Tell me, how you quoted statement doesn't say that they are only for use against people? You say that they aren't accurate enough to hunt with, and then say that they are for shooting people. Your words. Not mine.


And I was referring to handguns "in general", not sport pistols designed for hunting. Can we stipulate for the sake of argument that there is a difference between a precision handgun and a saturday night special?


Well, then I guess it will shock the hell out of you when I tell you that the handgun that I have Rabbit Hunted with is
Image

a $125 High Point 9mm blowback style semi automatic. It's in the same category as a "saturday Night Special"

And tell me, what's the difference between this:
Image

And this?
Image

Does the Ruger Hunter model know not to shoot and kill people? Does the Saturday Night Special suddenly become more accurate when pointed at a person instead of a rabbit? I take my High Point 9mm when I go Fishing. My dad? Just an old revolver that fits in the tackle box.

I thought I made it sufficiently clear that I am OK with guns specifically designed for sport to be used for sport, but I guess in your fervent quest to Prove Me Wrong, you either ignored that or simply didn't get it.


No, I'm telling you that handguns aren't so cut and dry. You want to label all handguns that aren't the ruger hunting model I linked as "bad" because they are pocketable to knock over a liquor store. I'm saying, If they use a .38 chief's special, a saturday night special, or a Ruger Hunting Model, it doesn't matter. A gun is a gun is a gun.

And @Nooska.

I agree. hunting weapons are serious weapons. If my comments led anyone to think otherwise, I'm sorry. I think that Guns are a serious thing, and I don't think every tom dick harry and jenny should be allowed to own one. I personally think that all firearm owners should be licensed. I think part of the licensing should include safety courses. I personally think that you should have a psych profile done as well. I don't think that you or I, no matter our license, no matter our training should be able to get our hands on this tactical .223 semi automatic rifle.
Image
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:54 pm

Because people and rabbits are the same size, and therefore are equally easy to hit, so there is no difference in the accuracy required to hit them.

Want to know the difference between the Ruger and the SNS? The Ruger has a longer barrel which, assuming equal build quality, provides for greater accuracy. The Ruger also has better sights than the SNS, again contributing to greater accuracy. The SNS is more suitable for robbing liquor stores due to the shorter barrel length making it more compact and easier to carry in a coat pocket. In addition, it is black to make it less noticeable than the chrome Ruger.

I am not sure if you "hunt" in the sporting sense, or just wander around in the bush randomly spraying ammo and strapping what falls down to the hood of your car. You seriously don't know the functional difference between the Ruger and the SNS with regard to hunting?
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:56 pm

Only more accurate over distance but probably heavier and more prone to shooter inaccuracy, unless it's just a superiorly crafted weapon, in which case there will be a difference in cost and sight accuracy is usually a trade off for sight speed or cost.

Edit: Rabbits here are generally hunted with a shotgun or maybe birdshot .22, but there's all sorts of game that favor different weapons.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:27 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Only more accurate over distance but probably heavier and more prone to shooter inaccuracy, unless it's just a superiorly crafted weapon, in which case there will be a difference in cost and sight accuracy is usually a trade off for sight speed or cost.

Edit: Rabbits here are generally hunted with a shotgun or maybe birdshot .22, but there's all sorts of game that favor different weapons.

When referring to accuracy I thought distance was assumed. Accuracy doesn't particularly matter at point-blank range. If you regularly get to point-blank range on rabbits while hunting, then a snub-nosed .38 would be fine. If you need to shoot them across a field, then you might want something with a longer barrel and better sights.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:26 pm

Koatanga wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Only more accurate over distance but probably heavier and more prone to shooter inaccuracy, unless it's just a superiorly crafted weapon, in which case there will be a difference in cost and sight accuracy is usually a trade off for sight speed or cost.

Edit: Rabbits here are generally hunted with a shotgun or maybe birdshot .22, but there's all sorts of game that favor different weapons.

When referring to accuracy I thought distance was assumed. Accuracy doesn't particularly matter at point-blank range. If you regularly get to point-blank range on rabbits while hunting, then a snub-nosed .38 would be fine. If you need to shoot them across a field, then you might want something with a longer barrel and better sights.

I've never seen anyone shoot a rabbit across a field, though I suppose it depends on the breed of rabbit. Jack rabbits are large enough to see I suppose, I've never hunted them.

In PA, you generally are kicking them out and need to shoot at close range and very very fast. That's why shotguns are used, you don't have to be accurate, but you have to be fast. You'd be amazed at how easily you can miss at point blank range, rabbits can be quite humbling even with a shotgun. A pistol of any sort would be quite difficult, you need something with a spread, a pistol would be better at range, but just not really a viable weapon for the rabbits I hunted. Also rabbits are part of "small game" season in PA, which means squirrels and game birds too, and you can't be shooting long range weapons into the air at birds, that's unsafe. But as I said, there are other types of game and other situations where different weapons would be handy.

You can't assume a range on accuracy, because guns are designed to be accurate at different ranges, often that's a major point of differentiation. So are bullets for that matter, even within a caliber it can vary significantly based on the bullet. A 30-06 is going to be accurate at a longer range with a 150 grain bullet than a 200 grain. The reason you might choose a "less accurate" bullet is because a 150 grain bullet will not be as accurate when shooting through brush because of its higher speed it's more likely to be deflected. Now a 200 grain isn't really less accurate, but its slower and so will have a faster and sharper fall off point, it also packs more of a wallop. There are all sorts of things to consider.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby bldavis » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:26 am

there are a ton of different ammo options for just about any weapon, and they all affect accuracy

bird shot in shotguns is used for its spread, makes it easier to hit flying birds
you wouldnt want to try to hit a duck 50 ft up with a slug...
likewise you wouldnt want to try to take a deer down with bird shot, it would just be like an OUCH! STOP THAT as the deer runs away
a slug will drop that deer

same thing with a full metal jacket vs a hollow point
full metal jacket will have greater penetration, but is more likely to just go through the target, where as a hollowpoint is designed to mushroom and slow down, doing a ton of damage and will most likely not go all the way through someone

as far as what guns i would use...
well if i am using something for self defense while hunting, i want my normal hunting gun soemthing that is accurate for me at a decent range cause deer are hard to sneak up on...
and i want something small enough i can shoot fast and accurate at short ranges, which is generally a handgun of some sort

just as a case in point of what i mean -
Image
Hunting Alone? Guy shoots a very nice elk in N. Dakota, takes his picture using the timer on his camera, then almost suffered a coronary when
he downloaded it the next morning.p

deer are hard to sneak up on..but humans not so much (and yes i know this is an elk..)

just adding my 2 copper in, that is all
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Passionario » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:02 am

Fridmarr wrote:Banning handguns would require you to collect all guns...unrealistic. It would also require a constitutional amendment...unrealistic. The hunter permit allowance makes any such ban a joke anyhow.


Image

Instead of banning guns and implementing that ban by force, what incentives could be provided for people to voluntarily disarm themselves?
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2253
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:10 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:35 am

Koatanga wrote:Because people and rabbits are the same size, and therefore are equally easy to hit, so there is no difference in the accuracy required to hit them.


You missed the part where I hunt with the 9mm didn't you? Totally NOT a hunting handgun, but with an appropriate optic, I'm able to hunt with it, when the occasion calls for it. Do I enjoy hunting with a handgun? No. It's not my.... thing. I personally own 2 handguns. The 9mm and a WWII .32 Semi Automatic. I've owned several over the years, but my cheapy Hi Point is really the gun I have so that when a buddy calls and says "Hey, I'm going to the range, want to come along?" I can say, SURE!

It's not even good Home Defense. it's in a lock box, in the top of my closet. The ammunition is kept in a different closet. The Key is kept with me. It's a firearm. And I respect it as such in a home with 3 children. There is no way in hell I want my children to ever have a chance to do something stupid like "look at dad's gun" while they are unsupervised.

My rifle, and my shotgun, aren't even kept in my home. I keep them at my parents home, in my father's gun safe. Why? Because again. It's a firearm. When it's mishandled, bad things happen, generally to people.

Want to know the difference between the Ruger and the SNS? The Ruger has a longer barrel which, assuming equal build quality, provides for greater accuracy. The Ruger also has better sights than the SNS, again contributing to greater accuracy. The SNS is more suitable for robbing liquor stores due to the shorter barrel length making it more compact and easier to carry in a coat pocket. In addition, it is black to make it less noticeable than the chrome Ruger.


I am not sure if you "hunt" in the sporting sense, or just wander around in the bush randomly spraying ammo and strapping what falls down to the hood of your car. You seriously don't know the functional difference between the Ruger and the SNS with regard to hunting?



Thank you Captain Obvious for missing the point.

Image

Happy? You are thinking about it backwards. I'm not talking about the difference in hunting. Of course there is a difference in terms of hunting. I'm certainly not going to try and knock a squirrel out of a tree, or a rabbit out of a hole with a snub nose SNS. That doesn't mean you can't. It also doesn't mean that you can't use that snazzy hunting pistol to commit a gun crime either.

And you totally got me. That's what it is, I just fumble around the bush randomly spraying ammo, and strapping what I kill to the hood of my Huyndai Accent and going home screaming "I GOT ME A RABBIT" in my best hillbilly accent.

Or maybe, I'm not talking in terms of hunting. I'm talking in terms of a crime. The SNS is just as unreliable of a weapon in a liquor store as it is in the "field" hunting. The Ruger doesn't suddenly lose accuracy "in a store". The difference is proximity. The SNS is an inferior weapon AT EVERY SINGLE MEASURABLE with which you would rate a firearm in terms of quality. That doesn't automatically make it nothing but a "gun crime weapon" and only a "Robber's Weapon". Just like the Ruger doesn't equate to only being a hunting pistol because it is a superior weapon.

And like I've said before, I have absolutely no problem with increasing regulation on firearms. I just completely disagree with the idea that a Handgun is as you said, Handguns, in the general sense, are not sufficiently accurate for hunting and are valued for concealability and close-quarters combat. I don't believe the general population needs guns designed for use against people.

I'm open, and receptive to:
Banning Tactical Assault weapons, both in an Automatic, and semiautomatic functionality.
Limiting the magazine capacity of firearms. Removing high capacity drum and stick mags from the marketplace.
Limiting the caliber/size of ammunition that is legal to own. There comes a time when big, is simply too big.
Requiring guns to be registered.
Requiring Firearm owners to be licensed.
Requiring more stringent wait times, and background checks.
Requiring these regulations no matter if the sale is made in a store, online, or at a gun show.
Capping the maximum number of firearms that an individual citizen is allowed to own.

Fridmarr,

In Ohio, a popular form of Rabbit Hunting is in the Early Spring / Late Fall. Going to a Field, and scouting holes, etc... Some people use a bird shot Shotgun, because it is close, but there is something to be said for taking the time to line up a shot and hunting with small arms. It's tough hunting. I've participated in it a few seasons, mainly with a friend. I'd equate it to the challenge of bow hunting for deer.

And like BLDavis said, a Handgun while hunting is a valuable commodity. Also, while fishing in more parts of the country than people realize. Ohio has few poisonous snakes, but enough that you watch your step, and a blossoming Coyote population, as well as pockets of Bobcats. There are sometimes, when the handgun is the superior weapon, even in a hunting situation.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:24 pm

Shoju wrote:I'm open, and receptive to:
Banning Tactical Assault weapons, both in an Automatic, and semiautomatic functionality.
Limiting the magazine capacity of firearms. Removing high capacity drum and stick mags from the marketplace.
Limiting the caliber/size of ammunition that is legal to own. There comes a time when big, is simply too big.
Requiring guns to be registered.
Requiring Firearm owners to be licensed.
Requiring more stringent wait times, and background checks.
Requiring these regulations no matter if the sale is made in a store, online, or at a gun show.
Capping the maximum number of firearms that an individual citizen is allowed to own.

The statistics show that handguns are far and away the most commonly-used implement in murders. Your suggestions seem to be primarily about tactical assault weapons.

Of 8775 people killed by firearms, 358 were killed by rifles, and only a sub-section of that number would be by assault rifles.

Yes they are big and scary. Yes they can cause a lot of damage in the wrong hands. But is going after a small percentage of the problem really going to make a difference to the whole?

Why not target the 6009 handgun killings?
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:31 pm

As a side note, people who say "well guns kill more people than knives/bombs/poison gas/angry laser death sharks" kind of sicken me. The point isn't how many people were killed - the point is that anyone was killed at all. That's where the tragedy lies; the difference is that the media doesn't harp on it ceaselessly for weeks or months after the event. Similarly, people who say "well if they didn't have guns, they'd use knives/bombs/poison gas/angry laser death sharks to do it". Point of the matter is, they had guns. They used guns. Arguing that they might have, in an alternate universe, used something else instead is irrelevant.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:55 pm

Fivelives wrote:As a side note, people who say "well guns kill more people than knives/bombs/poison gas/angry laser death sharks" kind of sicken me. The point isn't how many people were killed - the point is that anyone was killed at all. That's where the tragedy lies; the difference is that the media doesn't harp on it ceaselessly for weeks or months after the event. Similarly, people who say "well if they didn't have guns, they'd use knives/bombs/poison gas/angry laser death sharks to do it". Point of the matter is, they had guns. They used guns. Arguing that they might have, in an alternate universe, used something else instead is irrelevant.

There are laws against people killing people, and for the most part they do a decent job, but people are still going to kill people - it's been happening since there were people.

What I am after is to make it less convenient to kill people. Maybe if you had to get up close and personal to someone to knife them to death it would be less convenient than standing several yards away squeezing a trigger. Perhaps that alone is enough to turn 8775 firearms murders into 8774, and a life is saved.

The implement is relevant as to the convenience and "impersonal-ness" of the weapon. People can get squeamish if they have to kill someone with their bare hands, and some are simply not physically up to the task. Weapons make it both easier and less personal. Ranged weapons (and I'll include bombs and poisons here) make it even less personal.

The more difficult and more personal you force a murder to be, the less likely the murder is to take place as the perpetrator may chicken out or be unable to do the crime.

If murder is as easy as "I was pissed off at him and I had my gun in my pocket so I popped a cap in his ass", then the likelihood of someone doing it in the heat of the moment is far greater than if there was no weapon. With no weapon it maybe turns into an assault instead of a murder.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:11 pm

Koatanga wrote:
Shoju wrote:I'm open, and receptive to:
Banning Tactical Assault weapons, both in an Automatic, and semiautomatic functionality.
Limiting the magazine capacity of firearms. Removing high capacity drum and stick mags from the marketplace.
Limiting the caliber/size of ammunition that is legal to own. There comes a time when big, is simply too big.
Requiring guns to be registered.
Requiring Firearm owners to be licensed.
Requiring more stringent wait times, and background checks.
Requiring these regulations no matter if the sale is made in a store, online, or at a gun show.
Capping the maximum number of firearms that an individual citizen is allowed to own.


The statistics show that handguns are far and away the most commonly-used implement in murders. Your suggestions seem to be primarily about tactical assault weapons.

Of 8775 people killed by firearms, 358 were killed by rifles, and only a sub-section of that number would be by assault rifles.

Yes they are big and scary. Yes they can cause a lot of damage in the wrong hands. But is going after a small percentage of the problem really going to make a difference to the whole?

Why not target the 6009 handgun killings?


Primarily about tactical Assault Weapons?

Limiting the magazine Capacity of Firearms
Limiting the caliber/size of ammunition
Requiring all firearms to registered
Requiring all owners to be licensed
More Stringent wait times
requiring regulations to matter on the sale no matter where it was made
capping the number of firearms an invidiual can own.

7 of the 8 ideas that I spitballed off the top of my head affect EVERY gun. I mean, if you wanted to get "really" technical, it's 6 and a half, since limiting the magazine capacity won't affect many shotguns and revolvers. Drum and Stick Mags are available as an aftermarket accessory for almost any firearm that takes a magazine. Handguns, Shotguns, Rifles. Yes. Even Handguns. http://www.mississippiautoarms.com/gloc ... -2530.html

Every other idea that I spitballed off the top of my head in 30 seconds while writing a post directly impacts the sale, proliferation, ownership, of handguns. (except for the outright ban on the sale of Tactical Assault Weapons.

Hell, I just came up with another regulation. All new guns manufactured, should implement the multiple safety firing system that brands like Springfield already include in their handguns. It should be applied to rifles, shotguns, and handguns, manufactured and sold in the United States. While that isn't "directly" influencing gun crime, it will move the needle in a positive manner in the number of accidents that happen with firearms.

Will this stop one on one gun crime? No. But it should make a noticeable change. It should provide a "move in the needle" on the issue. Everyone wants to keep pointing at the size of the population when talking statistics. So lets talk about size of the population, and culture for a second. The United States is a country of 316 odd million people. Who for 200+ years have lived in a culture where handgun ownership is not just a right, at multiple times in our history it has been encouraged.

You can't come out of the park swinging for the fences and saying "We're going to ban ALL THE HANDGUNS!" 316 million people. it's estimated that there are 100 million handguns owned in the US by private Citizens, comprising 47-53 million people in the country. That type of legislation is just not going to work. You have two things working against you.

1.) Culture.
2.) the sheer unenforceable nature of the law.

So what do we do? We start progressively. We work to increase Gun Safety, Gun regulations, reinstitute the Assault Weapons Ban. Remove High Capacity Mags, Don't take away the freedom to own a gun, just make it harder to purchase a gun.

And at the same time, we work to move the lust for blood in our culture. Not by banning things out right, but by having responsible conversations.
And we work to improve our Mental Health care.
And we work to combat the problem with guns coming from Mexico.
And we need to implement stricter laws and sentencing guidelines regarding gun crime.

You can't just point at Handguns and say: "That's the problem." Because it's not the problem. A gun, sitting in a lock box, in the top of a closet, or in a Gun Safe, left alone, has a ridiculously low chance of killing someone on its own. I mean, at that point, we are talking about a catastrophic failure of the gun, the ammo, the lock box / safe, etc...

Improved Gun Regulations are just one piece of the puzzle. It's not the final solution.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:16 pm

I'd say bi-annual recertification in order to keep your license. Including bi-annual background checks, target practice at the shooting range and other methods to ensure that the gun-owner is not only proficient in the use of the gun, but also up to date with safety measures around gun use.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby bldavis » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:20 pm

Image
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:21 pm

And on an entirely different topic

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/ ... ?mobile=nc

Louisiana decided to mess with Texas!! I wish more states would stand up to the crap the Texas education system is.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:29 pm

Klaudandus wrote:I'd say bi-annual recertification in order to keep your license. Including bi-annual background checks, target practice at the shooting range and other methods to ensure that the gun-owner is not only proficient in the use of the gun, but also up to date with safety measures around gun use.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.


While I don't think it's asking too much, pushing through a bi-annual recert would be tough sledding. Annual Re-Cert would probably be passable.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:36 pm

Shoju wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:I'd say bi-annual recertification in order to keep your license. Including bi-annual background checks, target practice at the shooting range and other methods to ensure that the gun-owner is not only proficient in the use of the gun, but also up to date with safety measures around gun use.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.


While I don't think it's asking too much, pushing through a bi-annual recert would be tough sledding. Annual Re-Cert would probably be passable.


Ok, make it a year. Although the confusion is really my fault, I meant biennial
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:50 pm

Klaudandus wrote:
Shoju wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:I'd say bi-annual recertification in order to keep your license. Including bi-annual background checks, target practice at the shooting range and other methods to ensure that the gun-owner is not only proficient in the use of the gun, but also up to date with safety measures around gun use.

Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.


While I don't think it's asking too much, pushing through a bi-annual recert would be tough sledding. Annual Re-Cert would probably be passable.


Ok, make it a year. Although the confusion is really my fault, I meant biennial


Hey biennial would work too, and would surely be easier to pass.

We make kids in ohio have a driver's permit for 6 months (they can get their permit at 15 1/2.)
pass a written test, driving test, and maneuverability test
drive with a parent or guardian until they are 16
drive with someone over the age of 21 after 16
receive 24 hours of in class training
8 hours of instructed driving with a teacher
50 hours with a parent, 10 of which MUST be night driving

All before they are allowed to get their license
Once they have a license, they can't have more than one passenger until they are 17, and can't drive between midnight and 6am.

But, we have no restrictive procedure for owning a gun. You have to complete a hunter's safety course for your hunting permit. But it fails in comparison to the regulations required to drive.

I'm Pro Gun, but I'm not Pro Stupid. If we require someone we believe to be of competent age to operate a motor vehicle to complete a comprehensive training process, why don't we have something similar for firearm safety?

And because it's crossed my mind, I'm also not of the opinion that "Grandfathering" into the old law should be applicable, without stringent guidelines. I.E. CCW license for multiple years (3? 5?) Hunting License continuously held for multiple years, etc...
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:48 pm

I am curious to know how many of those 8775 handgun murders were committed by legally-licensed handgun owners using the gun registered to them, and how many were committed using guns bought off the streets by people with no license/permit/whatever.

I see it as more of a supply issue than a licensing one. I think severely limiting the sale of handguns would do more to begin the process of removing them from the population than adding more license restrictions.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Melathys » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:32 pm

Koatanga wrote:I am curious to know how many of those 8775 handgun murders were committed by legally-licensed handgun owners using the gun registered to them, and how many were committed using guns bought off the streets by people with no license/permit/whatever.

I see it as more of a supply issue than a licensing one. I think severely limiting the sale of handguns would do more to begin the process of removing them from the population than adding more license restrictions.


I think this is why this debate breaks down very quickly. In one single sentence you went from limiting to removing guns. I think any rational person is open to debating licensing or restrictions, but immediately after that debate starts it turns into removing and banning.
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:44 pm

Koatanga wrote:What I am after is to make it less convenient to kill people. Maybe if you had to get up close and personal to someone to knife them to death it would be less convenient than standing several yards away squeezing a trigger. Perhaps that alone is enough to turn 8775 firearms murders into 8774, and a life is saved.


If someone is pissed off enough to kill another person, they're going to use whatever is handy to do so. Whether that be a gun, knife, rock, stick, or rabid badger doesn't really matter. The only difference is in what's handy. I highly doubt that if we completely removed guns as A Thing™ that murder rates would necessarily go down - only murders done by guns (since they no longer exist).

The implement is relevant as to the convenience and "impersonal-ness" of the weapon. People can get squeamish if they have to kill someone with their bare hands, and some are simply not physically up to the task. Weapons make it both easier and less personal. Ranged weapons (and I'll include bombs and poisons here) make it even less personal.


Bombs and poisons require as much forethought as grabbing a gun from a gun safe. The key step in reducing impulse violence is adding a delay mechanism - whether that be unlocking a tumbler safe (for guns), manufacturing (for bombs), or mixing (for poisoning). Reducing the number of guns isn't the issue here - it's reducing the immediate access. If you add a step for people to sit back and think, they will likely change their mind. If they don't, then they were resolved to do the crime anyway, and reducing overall access to the tool isn't going to stop it.

The more difficult and more personal you force a murder to be, the less likely the murder is to take place as the perpetrator may chicken out or be unable to do the crime.


See above.

If murder is as easy as "I was pissed off at him and I had my gun in my pocket so I popped a cap in his ass", then the likelihood of someone doing it in the heat of the moment is far greater than if there was no weapon. With no weapon it maybe turns into an assault instead of a murder.


There is no such thing as "no weapon". You are never out of arm's reach of something that could be used to possibly kill another person - whether that be something obvious like a knife, or not so obvious like a television, there's always an improvised weapon at hand.

Perhaps limiting the ability to "bear" guns would help? I don't see restricting purchases (beyond something simple like "total number of guns owned") being feasible, but we could restrict carrying guns to those who are licensed to carry. The certification/recertification process is already in place in some states - like Florida, where your license to carry a concealed weapon expires every 7 years. Drop that to 2 years (the length of time a CPR license is valid for) and make it mandatory for every gun owner and household member of a gun owner - because let's be serious, I don't think it likely that someone is going to buy a gun without the at least tacit approval of the rest of the people in their home. Separate it into tiers; basic carry permits for open carry (openly visible either in the vehicle or on a person) and concealed carry permits for law enforcement personnel and "special circumstances*" only.

Because I do agree that there's largely no reason to conceal a firearm. Half the job of protecting oneself can be done simply when people see you carrying an iron on your hip - concealing it nullifies that whole "make someone else think twice" thing.

That said, I do have a concealed carry permit. I got it because I live near the border of a reservation where they don't post signs letting you know when you're actually on a reservation. When I got pulled over by the tribal cops on the state highway here (in Arizona) and busted for a weapons charge - illegal carrying on tribal land - I went out and got it. Case was dismissed, since I was on an Arizona highway and had absolutely no reasonable way of knowing exactly where the border was, but still. Concealed carry permits allow you to carry in every state that recognizes those permits, and on all federal land, including tribal reservations.

* By "special circumstances" think taxi drivers, truckers, etc. People who are in the most at-risk professions should have the right to defend themselves in cases where police can't get to them immediately.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:56 pm

Melathys wrote:
Koatanga wrote:I am curious to know how many of those 8775 handgun murders were committed by legally-licensed handgun owners using the gun registered to them, and how many were committed using guns bought off the streets by people with no license/permit/whatever.

I see it as more of a supply issue than a licensing one. I think severely limiting the sale of handguns would do more to begin the process of removing them from the population than adding more license restrictions.


I think this is why this debate breaks down very quickly. In one single sentence you went from limiting to removing guns. I think any rational person is open to debating licensing or restrictions, but immediately after that debate starts it turns into removing and banning.

You misunderstood me. I am talking about severely restricting the sale of handguns so that numbers of handguns will gradually decline by attrition of the existing supply (damage, confiscation in crimes, lost). I am not talking about a door-to-door removal of guns from the population.

I understand you can't force people to give up their guns, and people are not going to want to give up their guns. But if you choke the supply, then it starts the very gradual process of removing handguns. It won't happen overnight, but it means that when Ma Kettle goes to the Wal Mart to buy her some home defense, she buys a shotgun instead of a handgun, and there's one less handgun out there. Repeat for a few generations and maybe at some point the rate of handgun murders declines.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Melathys » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:28 pm

I didn't misunderstand, I chose to interpret it that way to prove a point. Any debate of any variation of gun control eventually devolves into removal and/or banning. As soon as any mention of removal comes into the debate, it has ceased to become a debate and both sides become polarized. It seems that any time anyone tries to bring up any form of gun control, it becomes apparent very quickly that the end game goal is wholesale removal of firearms. Up to that point, there was a positive debate about "responsible gun ownership", which again, any rational person should be willing to discuss.

I was discussing this subject with a buddy, and I told him that maybe some people value their freedom more than their safety. He responded with "That's easy for you to say, you get to carry no matter what." I looked at him until he realized he just proved my point. He was referring to the fact that I'm a federal agent, and carry concealed on and off duty without regard to state laws. (well, not so concealed when I'm on duty, but I could go do Intel sometime.)
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest