Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have little sympathy for excuses about one automatic or another.

See, there you go again! If I didn't know better, I'd think that you're attempting to parody those advocating for gun control.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

For the rest, only licensed people with their backgrounds checked should have them.

He did have a background check. There was nothing in his background that kept him from purchasing a firearm. You could argue that we need more thorough background checks or more consistent licensing requirements, but you're not doing that. Instead, you're taking a kind of perverse pride in arguing from a position of ignorance.

Perfectly sensible arguments can be made to tighten up or even extend existing gun control measures. You're not making them. What's more, the things that you are saying indicate that you're not at all interested in making them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why should I be in the least interested in the difference between semi-automatic and automatic?

Because you are using one or more of those terms. Isn't using a word reason enough to want to know what that word means?

If you don't care about what those words mean, you've really got no business using them. I suspect you'd be fine saying you were 'opposed to firearms' (without qualification to type)? Then just say that. Don't just add in words that may or may not be true, but whose legitimacy you are uninterested in gauging. That's pretty disrespectful of your audience.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Ahem ... !!!

Oh SNAP!!!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

First of all, in reply to Ryan, looking at that list, which I had looked at myself just a few days ago, there seems to be a high correlation between urbanization and gun violence. Vermont and North Dakota have nothing in common except that they have no cities, and that's the only way I could possibly explain their low gun violence rate. Forty years ago, the professor I referred to did tell us that southern states had higher homicide rates than northern states with the same degree of urbanization. Whether that's still true I haven't tried to figure out.

Now going back to the colonial era, no, I doubt there were many women in the militia. But it drives me crazy when people--especially self-righteous Boomers--paint the Constitution as a racist, sexist document, when in fact the framers obviously took great pains to use the most neutral language they could. The were, in principle, universalists. Unlike so many Boomers, they could accept contradictions between their existing reality and their beliefs. That's the only way they could achieve what they did. The constitution refers to slavery only when absolutely necessary and never by name. I think that is partly because many of the founders were indeed looking forward to a world without slavery. It was in that period that many northern states abolished it, and, of course, even some of the southern founders, like Washington and Jefferson, freed their slaves at their death. Society may have been racist and, by our standards, sexist. The Constitution is not.

Slavery would have likely went extinct were it not for the Cotton Gin.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

He did have a background check. There was nothing in his background that kept him from purchasing a firearm. You could argue that we need more thorough background checks or more consistent licensing requirements, but you're not doing that. Instead, you're taking a kind of perverse pride in arguing from a position of ignorance.

Perfectly sensible arguments can be made to tighten up or even extend existing gun control measures. You're not making them. What's more, the things that you are saying indicate that you're not at all interested in making them.

Obviously the background check was not thorough enough. From what I understand, the courts have knocked down the waiting period. We need that too. Insane people should not have access to guns. Noone should have access to weapons of war except soldiers.

I am for as much restrictions on guns as we can get.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Because you are using one or more of those terms. Isn't using a word reason enough to want to know what that word means?

Those words refer to weapons that allow people to shoot quickly without reloading. They are weapons of war. In a sane, civilized society, people don't go around with weapons of war-- much less insane people.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's not what I saw on a recent TV report. Only 13 states require these permits. Arizona was not one of them.

Your TV show was wrong. No surprise there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceal..._United_States

Only 3 states (I was not aware Arizona had recently changed their CCW laws) allow unlicensed concealed carry.

What I saw on TV was the same graphic as the "right to carry laws 2011" graphic on the wikipedia page you refer to (the states in green)

What the TV and wikipedia graphic refers to are unrestricted rights to carry a concealed weapon, combined with many more states that "shall issue" such a permit if the person meets certain requirements, but with no review by the granting authority:

"A Shall-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such permits is subject only to meeting certain criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the permits. Such laws typically state that a granting authority shall issue a permit if the criteria are met, as opposed to laws in which the authority may issue a permit at their discretion.
Typical permit requirements include residency, minimum age, submitting fingerprints, passing a computerized instant background check, attending a certified handgun/firearm safety class, and paying a required fee. These requirements vary widely by jurisdiction."

I think noone except undercover FBI agents and the like should carry concealed weapons. What is the purpose of carrying them, other than the myth that such concealed weapons are good self-defense? Wild-west mentality. Arizona is unrestricted, but it did not prevent the maiming of Rep. Giffords or the killing of 6 people.

Having a concealed weapon only that means if you get into an argument with another guy (say, over gun control, or a beer, or a romance, or whatever), you can pull out a concealed weapon and shoot the guy before he can do anything about it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What I saw on TV was the same graphic as the "right to carry laws 2011" graphic on the wikipedia page you refer to (the states in green).

I stand corrected then. The TV show was correct. You were wrong.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I stand corrected then. The TV show was correct. You were wrong.

The TV show did not go into the details of the difference between unrestricted and "shall carry;" at least I didn't hear it if it did.

Sudan police clash with protesters
Anti-government demonstrators in Khartoum faced riot police in protests inspired by those in Egypt and Tunisia.

Sudanese police have beaten and arrested students as protests broke out throughout Khartoum demanding the government resign, inspired by a popular uprising in neighbouring Egypt.

Hundreds of armed riot police on Sunday broke up groups of young Sudanese demonstrating in central Khartoum and surrounded the entrances of four universities in the capital, firing teargas and beating students at three of them.

Police beat students with batons as they chanted anti-government slogans such as "we are ready to die for Sudan" and "revolution, revolution until victory".

There were further protests in North Kordofan capital el-Obeid in Sudan's west, where around 500 protesters engulfed the market before police used tear gas to disperse them, three witnesses said.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Sudan police clash with protesters
Anti-government demonstrators in Khartoum faced riot police in protests inspired by those in Egypt and Tunisia.

There's a global revolution thread about this. Do you consider this mid-east revolution to be merely "violence"?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Obviously the background check was not thorough enough.

You could make that case, certainly. What did the background check consist of? How was it deficient? What changes to the system would have stopped Laughner from buying a handgun?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Insane people should not have access to guns.

I agree. Was Loughner ever found to be suffering from a mental disorder? Was he involved in any activities that would have tipped off authorities to the danger that he presented to others? What concrete changes to the system would have to be made to keep firearms (of any sort) out of the hands of someone like Loughner? (And would those changes have an impact on any Constitutionally protected rights?)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Noone should have access to weapons of war except soldiers.

You keep saying this, but a semi-automatic weapon is not necessarily a weapon of war. Semi-automatic weapons are employed by millions of law-abiding American citizens for home defense, personal defense, law enforcement, hunting, and recreational shooting.

Sigh... it's about the Spiral of Violence, last I checked. As in, how some events engender others. Read the piece.

Or do you insist on hijacking the thread for your anti-gun rhetoric?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What I saw on TV was the same graphic as the "right to carry laws 2011" graphic on the wikipedia page you refer to (the states in green)

Ultimately, the whole concealed-carry thing is something of a non-starter. Unless you're arguing that someone intent on breaking the law by murdering a lot of people would have been stopped by a law against carrying a concealed firearm.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think noone except undercover FBI agents and the like should carry concealed weapons. What is the purpose of carrying them, other than the myth that such concealed weapons are good self-defense? Wild-west mentality. Arizona is unrestricted, but it did not prevent the maiming of Rep. Giffords or the killing of 6 people.

True story: On the day of the shooting, a legal, law-abiding gun owner named Joe Zamudio heard gunshots and ran to the scene. When he got there, he saw an older man waving a pistol yelling, "I'll kill you!" Thanks to his familiarity with firearms, he saw that the pistol had jammed. Instead of shooting the man, he tackled him. Bystanders told him that he had the wrong guy and then he noticed the melee on the ground. He joined in and helped subdue Loughner.

Fortunately, Loughner's gun jammed after he loaded his second magazine so unarmed bystanders were able to wrestle his gun away. Had his gun not jammed, Zamudio might have been the one who stopped him from killing more people.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Those words refer to weapons that allow people to shoot quickly without reloading.

No, they don't. They refer to a kind of chambering/clearing process. "Manual"-loaders also allow rapid firing without reloading. I can pump out eight bullets (more, if I have a receiver that accommodates a detachable magazine, instead of just the standard receiver) in under four seconds with the lever-action .308 I use deer hunting. That's more bullets per second, iirc, than Loughner fired. And no semi-auto necessary.

I've actually done this (and no, I didn't hit the damn deer, and he bounced away once I was left just standing there like an idiot with my hip-held empty chunk of wood and metal). That's extremely rapid-fire, if we're talking about the time it would take for someone to react to me starting to shoot.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

These are essentially debating points, designed in effect to argue that since the implementation of my suggestions would require some complex decisions to be made, and would not in any case be perfectly effective, then they should all be dismissed. That's a totally illogical position. No regulation, including that of alcohol (a good example again), is perfectly effective. There are still teen-agers whose older brothers buy them booze--does that mean we should do away with all age restrictions for buying booze? I wouldn't object to having the government buy up weapons that had been declared illegal.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It is correct that only three states (including, interestingly enough, the People's Republic of Vermont) don't require a permit to carry at all, but many do not require any particular reason to carry one, which is part of my proposal too, which you, of course, chose to ignore.

I’m not the one giving vague answers in response to questions on what you propose for gun-control. How can one engage in debate that way (or are your answers purposefully deceptive)? You propose to create laws that infringe on freedom from a position of ignorance? You wish to legislate without thinking the problem through beforehand, and you believe my positions are illogical?

I've said it once and I'll say it again; authoritarians such as you David are exactly why I own firearms. Some of you folks seem really into the "write laws, let God sort em out" philosophy of modern sleaze politics. Good for you. Hope it works out for you when the lights go out and the cops stay home.

Here is what I propose David (no longer up for debate): I will never submit to or obey any gun control that infringes on my freedom. I will choose what is best for me as far as how I arm myself. In return you will never hear me bark about domineering legislation you must abide by or how I want to change the constitution to force you to do something you don't want to do. I leave you alone, you leave me alone.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

You have learned your lines well. Congratulations.

Oh and since we are throwing out snarky comments for no particular reason, I expect more from a University Professor.

I was already done with this debate once and somehow allowed myself to be sucked back in. To those in the room attempting to inseminate the discussion with facts, good luck. Those of you who are ignorant, stay ignorant. I don't really give a fuck.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

I agree. Was Loughner ever found to be suffering from a mental disorder? Was he involved in any activities that would have tipped off authorities to the danger that he presented to others? What concrete changes to the system would have to be made to keep firearms (of any sort) out of the hands of someone like Loughner? (And would those changes have an impact on any Constitutionally protected rights?)

As I understand it, though I haven't been reading every possible article on Loughner, his behavior was erratic enough to get him kicked out of college but not erratic enough that he showed up on any 'don't sell him a gun' list when he bought his weapon.

One might suppose that the government might be made responsible for collecting all rumors that a certain individual might be unstable, and put all said names on a list which has to be consulted by anyone selling a gun.

A legal problem with that is that to deny someone a Right guaranteed as an individual right, you need a level of proof significantly above hearsay. It is reasonable that with little cause an organization can say they don't want an individual hanging out on their property. That is part of what 'property' means, one can decide who is or is not welcome. A stronger level of proof ought to be required before one starts denying something in the Bill of Rights.

So, because a college decides an individual is batty enough that he should no longer be welcome as a student, does this make the college competent and responsible to put him on a no gun list?

To me, not a question with an obvious answer.

Originally Posted by Odin

Slavery would have likely went extinct were it not for the Cotton Gin.

That's true. Sometime in the very early 1800s, a bill to finance the gradual emancipation of Virginia slaves nearly passed.

China is now worried about spreading populist discontent. Almost everything I'm seeing is driven by youth, who have been most affected by the global recession. China certainly has some issues waiting to boil over on that front.

China restricts news, discussion of Egypt unrest

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

T There are example cities like Washington DC and Chicago where the problems of guns and violent crime are at their worst, and where gun control laws end up their strongest.

But the problems of race, poverty and drugs are also strong in those cities. I would expect that regardless of gun control policy, cities that currently have high violent crime rates would still have high violent crime rates. Gun control regulations are just one variable in a complex situation. Passing gun laws is easier than seriously addressing the problems of race, drugs and poverty.

And despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Chicago and DC also have some of the highest violent crime and murder rates.

So is gun control really the "easy" way to fix it?

Not only does it fail to address the stated problem of violence, but it isn't popular enough to be an easy political push. The issue is divisive enough among boomers, but there seems to be almost no nomads or civics who want to stand up for the tortured reasoning of the boomer left.

Is it a matter of tighter regulation or repealing fundamental rights? Here, even the gun-control advocates of the left are divided. One will say there is no fundamental right, and another says it must simply be managed better.

Nay, rather than a easy solution, the gun control discussion seems an obsolete relic of some past time when boomers had the luxury of endless and uncompromising debate.

Originally Posted by Xer H

The main reason people have a hard time considering planned "gun control" policy now is that they don't trust the people who would create and enact that legislation. They know the past position these people have had on the subject and can tell the "we're only talking about controlling, not banning" message now is just that -- messaging strategy. Scripted right out of a DNC newsletter.

I think that was my point. Why fight about something that isn't on the table ... unless you want it there for your own purposes.

Originally Posted by Xer H ...

As you may remember, I'm all for strengthening regulations and treating guns just like we do automobiles -- registration, proof of a user's knowledge and ability to use safely, continual updates on skill and ownership, etc. But I have so little faith in Washington's ability to create wise regulation that I'm opposed to anything they attempt to do. Once they fix regulation of the financial sector, once they stop being bought out by corporations, once they start listening to the people they're sworn to represent, THEN I may trust them to put restrictions on our Constitutional rights.

Why do you think that a gun in your possession will allow you to change corporate policies? ... or have any impact whatsoever?

Originally Posted by Xer H ...

But then, as I pointed out to a friend the other day, the reason our country hasn't reached the point of Egypt is that our government knows a majority of Americans are armed. They don't dare push us too far.

Hogwash. the most powerful movements have all been peaceful. Violence can easily be met by far more violence that you can stand. In 1968, when the demonstrations got ratcheted up to the lowest level of violence, Chicago being the prime example, the response was armed and surly cops or troops. Do you believe you have a chance against the pros?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

You can take that too far. The crucial distinction is whether you're regulating interactions between people or the conduct of individual people in isolation. The former is necessary for civil society, the latter is a "cage."

There's another example of "gun control" meaning two different things on this thread. Not to pick on M&L but, Marx & Lennon's posts 2402 and 2403 above show two entirely different types of gun restrictions. To see the difference one need only extend the driver's license analogy from the first post to the second. Do we prevent people from owning cars larger or fancier than what they "need"?

OK, then where do you draw the line? Can I own an artillery piece (actually they are legal many places). How about a jet fighter (believe it or not, they are for sale on eBay). Can I own thermobaric weapons? How about nukes?

If you say yes to all of these, then you are either being disingenuous, or you're just plain scary. If you drew a line, where and why?

Originally Posted by RyanJH

I have been told that if I want to persuade a group of people to adopt a policy, my most effective arguments are in order: strong emotional arguments, strong arguments establishing my credibility as an 'expert' and lastly, a very distant last, arguments based on logic and fact.

If this is so, I am unlikely to persuade anyone on this forum to change their mind from their current stance regarding gun control as I will not attempt to make an appeal either to your emotions or my credibility.

I think the reason many of us express dismay at the partial inability on either side to listen to reason arises from the fact that most arguments we have heard are not an attempt at reason but an attempt to motivate constituents, who often are already sympathetic to viewpoints being expressed by the presenter, to take some action to help support / oppose a politician. Reasoned arguments make poor commercial sound bites.

Also, many have confused correlations for causality. It is true that the United States has a higher firearms / population ratio than many nations and a higher number of murders / population ration than many nations but this is not necessarily causal. Israel and Switzerland have much higher firearms / population ratio than does the United States but lower number of murders / population (In 2008, United States at 5.4 / 100,000 and Israel at 2.4 / 100,000 and Switzerland 0.7 / 100,000).

There is an interesting correlation between homicide rates and offenders between the ages of 14-24. Starting in the mid-1980s, these rates start to rise and peak in the mid-90s before starting to fall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homoffendersbyage.svg

Now it could be that McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 (aka Firearms Owners Protection Act) set the stage for increasing gun violence by loosening firearms regulations and this wasn't brought back under control until the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993, the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban of 1996 (aka The Lautenberg Amendment) tightened gun regulations. However, this time-frame also correlates fairly well to when Gen Xers are passing through those age groups. The earliest Gen Xer was 14 in 1975, when the homicide trend starts to rise, and the latest Gen Xer was 24 in 2005 when homicide rates for 14-24 year old group come back to their mid-1980s levels. It is also interesting to note that the homicide rates for all ages older than 24 are falling, for the most part, across that time frame.

The violence as a function of gun regulation argument also fails to explain why the homicide rates for states with lax gun regulations are so low. The 15 lowest state homicide rates per 100,000 in 2008 are:

North Dakota: 0.5
New Hampshire: 1.0
Utah: 1.4
Idaho: 1.5
Hawaii: 1.9
Wyoming: 1.9
Minnesota: 2.1
Oregon: 2.2
Maine: 2.4
Montana: 2.4
Iowa: 2.5
Massachusetts: 2.6
Wisconsin: 2.6
Vermont: 2.7
Rhode Island: 2.8

This is not to say that lenient gun regulations correlates with lower homicide rates. There are several states with lax gun regulations that have high homicide rates. I suggest that correlation between gun control/regulations and homicide rates is extremely questionable.

There is much to learn about the causes of violence. The debate on how to best counter violent tendencies in the United States would be better served sans the emotional myths currently used as arguments.

Finally, I found it instructive to review a couple of Wikipedia articles related to the topic and I think the forum's discussion might be better informed by them.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

Not to dump on you too much, but here is the real data set on gun violence. All the worst offenders, with the exception of the District of Columbia, are lax regulation states, and the lowest levels are in strict regulation states.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Loughner used a Glock-19, a semi-automatic pistol that is no different from the sidearms that police carry. It is also no different from the pistols that millions of people carry, concealed or otherwise, every day. Although weapons like the Glock-19 are issued to soldiers in every modern army, they see little use because they are backup weapons.

That's what Justin and The Rani are both getting at. You're painting semi-automatic pistols as these mysterious weapons of unbelievable death and destruction that see legitimate use only in the hands of soldiers. In reality, they are the most common type of handgun in the United States.

You seemed to go out of your way to ignore the 30-round magazines Loughner used. I'm OK with the Glock, but the mags have to go.