A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[carpedm9587]

Negative, that is not my position. My position is that it's not a significant factor at all. It would not have any impact of significance.

I have to acknowledge we have no data on this. My "gut" says that forcing a shooter to reload more frequently has to slow the carnage, at least to some degree - without impacting gun owners more than a bit of inconvenience. But since studies on this have not been funded - we just don't know. You cannot substantiate your position - and I cannot substantiate mine. Hence my #1 item: fund studies that will help us figure this out.

[carpedm9587]

There is too much leeway in what is negligent in securing their firearms. In my opinion if your house is locked and your gun is inside it is secured. If someone breaks into your house and steals your gun it is on him.

Negligence is a widely used concept in law. If I do not secure my pool area and a child climbs in and drowns, I can be held negligent. If I keep my cars keys on the seat of my car and a child grabs them and kills themselves by crashing the car into a tree, I can be held negligent.

Are you suggesting that firearms should somehow be exempt from this?

[Cow Poke]

No - I think you are mischaracterizing the discussion. There are multiple factors involved, obviously, but guns is one of them.

Sure.

Those strongly advocating for gun rights seem to continuously insist that we NOT look at the guns.

I'm not them - and you started this thread about guns.

The fact is, we have to look at the guns AND all of the other factors. But to NOT look at the tool is, IMO, not a reasonable way of proceeding.

The other factors get handwaved, and it keeps coming back to guns. So much so, that the gun rights crowd sees this as simply an excuse to kill 2nd Amendment protections.

When we were poisoned by tylenol in unsecured bottles - we looked at the bottles
When we were poisoned by lead - we looked at the lead
When we were kills by automobiles - we looked at the automobiles
When babies died in cribs - we looked at the cribs

There is no "right" to have easily openable medicine bottles, or lead pipes, and we didn't ban cars, and there is no right to manufacture and market unsafe cribs.

So when people are being killed by guns - we should be looking at the guns - as well as the people using them and their reason for using them.

The bottles didn't kill anybody, the focus was on 'how do we make it more obvious that this bottle has been tampered with".
The lead pipes were replaced with other kinds of pipes - we didn't totally abandon piping water into and through our houses
The cars didn't drive themselves and kill people, and cars were not banned - just made safer, and more focus on the drivers
The cribs are still being manufactured and sold - but modified to be safer.

In none of these cases did we say "let's ban bottles/pipes/cars/cribs.

[Adrift]

I have to acknowledge we have no data on this. My "gut" says that forcing a shooter to reload more frequently has to slow the carnage, at least to some degree - without impacting gun owners more than a bit of inconvenience. But since studies on this have not been funded - we just don't know. You cannot substantiate your position - and I cannot substantiate mine. Hence my #1 item: fund studies that will help us figure this out.

Come on. You don't need to fund a study to determine whether or not magazine size factors into reload frequency. The whole point of larger magazine size is that you don't have to reload as often, which saves time. There wouldn't even be a market for the things if they didn't accomplish that very basic task. That said, I think concentrating on things like magazines and bump stocks and the like is missing the bigger picture. Restricting access to firearms altogether, or at least implementing the rules I posted from the Vox article are likely to do a lot more good than worrying about how many bullets can fit into a magazine.

[Cow Poke]

I agree that the absolute way in which Teal worded her post is unwarranted.

That is my what my post was about, and you responded to my post.

MY post was about reducing the probability. It was NOT an absolute. If we can put in place a law that has the potential to reduce the probability of a mass shooting, without significantly impacting anyone's freedom (i.e., lockup your guns, or face the consequences if they are used to harm others), why would anyone be against it? We are weighing the inconvenience and cost of having to maintain a reasonable gun locker against possible loss of life. How can these even begin to compare?

We should all be prudent and safe with our weapons. My response was Teal's 'absolute' statement.

[Cow Poke]

A dedicated killer will find a way to kill - there is no question about it. But making tools that make that killing easy readily available seems to me an exercise in folly, especially when there is really no reason why these tools HAVE to be readily avaiable.

A man walks onto a plane a tries to blow it up with a bomb in his shoes - and now EVERY person boarding a plane in the U.S. has to remove and screen their shoes - and this is seldom challenged.

OK, think about that for a second. We have broadcast to the WHOLE WORLD that shoes will be analyzed prior to boarding a plane. So, you think terrorists are going to simply give up? OR maybe - as you said - dedicated killer will find a way to kill, and he'll simply change his tactics.

Why can't you see that?

But when a teenager blows away 17 kids with an assault riffle

Rifle. And not an "assault rifle", but an AR-15.

and we say, "gee, maybe we should look at how easy it is to get assault rifles?"

OR, we could realize how easy it is to obtain semi-automatic weapons, and realize that WHILE contemplating that, we need to focus on something more reasonable and quicker to implement.

we suddenly have a problem? Because we're talking about guns instead of shoes and guns are in the constitution but shoes are not?

The "shoes" analogy is silly - have you heard of the underwear bomber? And he was even on "watch lists", but still boarded a flight. So much for "national databases", eh?

The logic of this escapes me completely...

I noticed.

[Cow Poke]

I have to acknowledge we have no data on this. My "gut" says that forcing a shooter to reload more frequently has to slow the carnage, at least to some degree -

It might make you feel better, but in actual practice, the difference is insignificant. Besides, this assumes - again - that ALL high capacity magazines disappear, and that a determined shooter can't obtain some even if they were outlawed.

without impacting gun owners more than a bit of inconvenience. But since studies on this have not been funded - we just don't know. You cannot substantiate your position - and I cannot substantiate mine. Hence my #1 item: fund studies that will help us figure this out.

I can take you to a shooting range with an AR-15, and I can show you that - even with less fingers on my hands than you have - I can put a tremendous number of rounds downrange whether I have 8-round magazines or 30. Or, I can just bring a backpack full of semi-automatic pistols. If I'm forced to "slow down" because I'm having to reload more frequently, then I know I have to focus more on "making every shot count".

You're not going to make millions of high capacity magazines disappear.
you're not going to make potential criminals cooperate by using limited capacity magazines.
Even if you DID manage to do the above, it might just take a few more seconds to kill just as many people.

This is an exercise in futility, IMOHBAO.

[demi-conservative]

Demi - can you please take the flaming elsewhere? So far, this thread has been pretty civil. I'd like to keep it that way.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

not this thread the staff is honoring Carpe's request that this thread be one of civil and respectful discussion. None of your usual trollish flaming if you can't play nice you will be banned from this thread. this go everyone else as well.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[carpedm9587]

Sure.

I'm not them - and you started this thread about guns.

I did. Secretly - it was a ploy to annoy YOU!

The other factors get handwaved, and it keeps coming back to guns. So much so, that the gun rights crowd sees this as simply an excuse to kill 2nd Amendment protections.

No. I have to resist this position. That is how the right and the gun-advocate crowd is positioning it - but that is not what many (most?) of us looking to deal with the issue of gun violence are trying to do. Many (most?) of us want to find ways to reduce violence due to guns, while preserving gun rights. Frankly, most of the people (like me) resent having every attempt to look at this issue characterized as "repealinh the 2nd amendment" or "grabbing our guns." Those are NRA mantras. They ar enot the reality for many (most?) of us.

There is no "right" to have easily openable medicine bottles, or lead pipes, and we didn't ban cars, and there is no right to manufacture and market unsafe cribs.

CP, all of us have the right to drink water from our faucets believing what we are safe doing so. A company that installs lead pipes knowing it will harm the consumer is criminally negligent. We all have the right put put our children to bed believing the crib were are putting them in is safe if it was solf to us. To suggest otherwise is...odd...at the very least. To suggest that a company that continues to manufacture cribs that can strangle children after it has been determined that spacing the bars larger than X makes them unsafe is criminally negligent.

The bottles didn't kill anybody, the focus was on 'how do we make it more obvious that this bottle has been tampered with".

And likewise we shoould be asking, "how did the shooter gain such easy access to firearms?

The lead pipes were replaced with other kinds of pipes - we didn't totally abandon piping water into and through our houses

Nor should we completely abandon firearms - but perhaps the ones that do so much damage...as with the lead pipes?

The cars didn't drive themselves and kill people, and cars were not banned - just made safer, and more focus on the drivers

And likewise should we be asking, "how do we make firearms safer? Smaller magazines? Finger-print triggers? Better ways of securing them? Better ways of identifying those most likely to use them to do harm?

The cribs are still being manufactured and sold - but modified to be safer.

In none of these cases did we say "let's ban bottles/pipes/cars/cribs.

And Few of us are advocating "banning" guns. Some are - but most are not. To characterize the entire discussion as about "banning guns" is simply not a correct characterization.

[Mountain Man]

Umm...you're taking an extreme case to make a general argument - it doesn't work, IMO. The vast majority of the population cannot reload at this kind of speed. So if the magazine holds 8 rounds instead of 15 rounds - THIS shooter won't be significantly impacted - but the vast majority of shooters will be. It's an obstacle that helps to reduce the carnage, without significantly impacting gun owners, except for the inconvenience of having to swap magazines more frequently. So we're talking convenience versus lives. To me - that's a no brainer.

That doesn't negate my point. Anyone can learn to do it with sufficient practice.

[Cow Poke]

No. I have to resist this position. That is how the right and the gun-advocate crowd is positioning it - but that is not what many (most?) of us looking to deal with the issue of gun violence are trying to do. Many (most?) of us want to find ways to reduce violence due to guns, while preserving gun rights. Frankly, most of the people (like me) resent having every attempt to look at this issue characterized as "repealinh the 2nd amendment" or "grabbing our guns." Those are NRA mantras. They ar enot the reality for many (most?) of us.

Walks like it, talks like it... and the fact that the "gun grabbers" rally when there's a shooting... looks like it.

CP, all of us have the right to drink water from our faucets believing what we are safe doing so. A company that installs lead pipes knowing it will harm the consumer is criminally negligent.

What did I say to make you think I don't agree with any of that? But the fact is, we still use pipes, just made of different materials. We didn't ban pipes.

We all have the right put put our children to bed believing the crib were are putting them in is safe if it was solf to us. To suggest otherwise is...odd...at the very least. To suggest that a company that continues to manufacture cribs that can strangle children after it has been determined that spacing the bars larger than X makes them unsafe is criminally negligent.

Wow... you think I'm suggesting they be allowed to make and sell unsafe cribs? The fact is that cribs were not banned - they were made safer, and are still available to anybody who wants them.

And likewise we shoould be asking, "how did the shooter gain such easy access to firearms?

In both of those cases, the problem was not "availability" and the solution was not "banning"..... Those were fairly easy problems to solve.

Nor should we completely abandon firearms - but perhaps the ones that do so much damage...as with the lead pipes?

I really think you need better analogies. There is near universal support (I try to refrain from absolutes in statements like this) that we need to not use lead pipes or unsafe cribs. Unfortunately, not the case with firearms, so the thinking simply cannot be the same. Your analogies are seriously flawed.

And likewise should we be asking, "how do we make firearms safer? Smaller magazines?

You mean lower capacity magazines --- how bout we drop that one for reasons I stated previously, eh?

Finger-print triggers? Better ways of securing them? Better ways of identifying those most likely to use them to do harm?

BINGO!!! The latter!

And Few of us are advocating "banning" guns. Some are - but most are not. To characterize the entire discussion as about "banning guns" is simply not a correct characterization.

It's a problem. The most vocal advocates for or against are the "gun rights" people and the "let's grab guns" people. A bunch of us fall in the middle, and we don't have a whole lot of power.

[carpedm9587]

OK, think about that for a second. We have broadcast to the WHOLE WORLD that shoes will be analyzed prior to boarding a plane. So, you think terrorists are going to simply give up? OR maybe - as you said - dedicated killer will find a way to kill, and he'll simply change his tactics.

Why can't you see that?

I can. That does not mean that you stop throwing as many obstacles up as you can - short of violating individual rights. Look, CP, I am the first to say "why are we compromising so many of our civil liberties because 'the terrorists might get us.' " When we do so - the terrosist wins. But we are talking about finding ways to put reasonable controls in place that do NOT violate an innocent citizen's right to bear arms. So submitting to a background check before you can purchase a firearm does not restrict you right to bear arms - it provies a means for screaning out those who ought NOT bear arms. Requiring reasonable gun astorage does not prohibit your right to bear arms, it redices the probability that someone who should nto have it will take the device and do harm. And so forth.

And not an "assault rifle", but an AR-15.

We seem to be splitting hairs. The AR-15 is a stripped down version of the M16 - semi-automatic instead of automatic. I can think of no world in which a 19 year old, with a semi-developed frontal cortex, should have access to such a weapon without adult supervision.

OR, we could realize how easy it is to obtain semi-automatic weapons, and realize that WHILE contemplating that, we need to focus on something more reasonable and quicker to implement.

Like...?

The "shoes" analogy is silly - have you heard of the underwear bomber? And he was even on "watch lists", but still boarded a flight. So much for "national databases", eh?

I have. I think the only thing that stopped them from implementing strip-searches for underwear bombs was the impracticality of such a solution. But you will note that the push for "body scanners" followed shortly thereafter. And no one says that a database is "perfect." Any system will have limitations. Pointing to a few isolated "see - they got through" does not mean the system itself is nonsensical. It makes sense if it reduces the bulk of the treat - even if it does not reduce all of it. We seem to be back to "binary thinking."

I noticed.

Perhaps because there is not logic...?

[Cow Poke]

That doesn't negate my point. Anyone can learn to do it with sufficient practice.

And somebody who is planning to go on a killing spree is going to practice. The Florida killer even figured out that tripping the fire alarm would negate the "code red" security already built into the school. These people are not idiots.

[carpedm9587]

It might make you feel better, but in actual practice, the difference is insignificant. Besides, this assumes - again - that ALL high capacity magazines disappear, and that a determined shooter can't obtain some even if they were outlawed.

We seem to be back to the argument: if the law is not universally effective, forget it. By that rule, we should eliminate all laws because none of them are universally effective. This does not seem a rational argument, to me.

I can take you to a shooting range with an AR-15, and I can show you that - even with less fingers on my hands than you have - I can put a tremendous number of rounds downrange whether I have 8-round magazines or 30. Or, I can just bring a backpack full of semi-automatic pistols. If I'm forced to "slow down" because I'm having to reload more frequently, then I know I have to focus more on "making every shot count".

You're not going to make millions of high capacity magazines disappear.
you're not going to make potential criminals cooperate by using limited capacity magazines.
Even if you DID manage to do the above, it might just take a few more seconds to kill just as many people.

This is an exercise in futility, IMOHBAO.

But you will, over time, make them more difficult to acquire. Eventually, the high-capacity magazines in use will be mostly gone. You also provide another tool in the legal system for prosecuting those who use them. Look - if I make gas-guzzling, emission-emitting vehicles illegal - then their manufacture will become illegal. Over time, the ones that exists "in the wild" will fail and their total number will be reduced. To say, "I'm not going to outlaw gas-guzzling emission-emitting vehivles because they will still be out there" is a formula for never doing anything.

[Cow Poke]

I can. That does not mean that you stop throwing as many obstacles up as you can - short of violating individual rights. Look, CP, I am the first to say "why are we compromising so many of our civil liberties because 'the terrorists might get us.' " When we do so - the terrosist wins. But we are talking about finding ways to put reasonable controls in place that do NOT violate an innocent citizen's right to bear arms. So submitting to a background check before you can purchase a firearm does not restrict you right to bear arms - it provies a means for screaning out those who ought NOT bear arms. Requiring reasonable gun astorage does not prohibit your right to bear arms, it redices the probability that someone who should nto have it will take the device and do harm. And so forth.

Try focusing really hard on "reasonable" controls - that means things which could realistically be implemented, and would actually make a difference. Quite honestly, you seem to be focusing on kinda "pie in the sky" "perfect world" scenarios or "options".

We seem to be splitting hairs. The AR-15 is a stripped down version of the M16 - semi-automatic instead of automatic.

Your link said "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name". But, actually, I think you have it backwards --- the M16 is a military version of the AR-15. The AR-10 and AR-15 were developed first, the AR-15 in 1959 followed by the M16 in 1962. The M16 is a "scaled up" version of the AR-15, adding selective fire, making it capable of fully automatic gunfire.

HOWEVER, I will try harder to ignore your (IMOHBAO) misuse of the phrase "assault rifle".

I can think of no world in which a 19 year old, with a semi-developed frontal cortex, should have access to such a weapon without adult supervision.

I can think of no world in which a 19 year old, with known emotional issues, having been kicked out of school, and visited by Police 30+times, should have access to such a weapon - period.

Like...?

Focusing on the actual problem -what makes these kids want to be mass murderers, and how do we stop them?

I have. I think the only thing that stopped them from implementing strip-searches for underwear bombs was the impracticality of such a solution. But you will note that the push for "body scanners" followed shortly thereafter. And no one says that a database is "perfect."

Yet, you want a national gun database, and we have seen horrendous problems with people accidentally being put on the "no fly" list, while we actually let a potential bomber pass through freely.

Any system will have limitations. Pointing to a few isolated "see - they got through" does not mean the system itself is nonsensical.

Um... when the PURPOSE of the database is to prevent airplanes from being blown up, it only has to fail ONCE.... And we have no idea how many others "got through". Besides, as I said, thousands of people are accidentally put on that list and prevented from boarding flights - even US Senators.

It makes sense if it reduces the bulk of the treat - even if it does not reduce all of it. We seem to be back to "binary thinking."

No, not "we".

Perhaps because there is not logic...?

Perhaps because one of us has a degree of tunnel vision, and only looks at the "logic" that fits their agenda?