Man, I love my Magnum Research Babay Eagle .40! Went to the range this weekend, very nice after not having the opportunity the last few years.
I also have to opportunity of working for a 2nd amendment constitutional law attorney. it’s a very interesting job to say the least 
Sam
P.S.- where’d World Eater go?
fixed quote tags - ub
World Eater is busy doing something, and will be back in an hour or so. I forgot to log off.
Don’t worry you’ll have plenty of time to beat me up later. 
Not to squelch the impressive give and take about the overall gun issue being debated here, but I do, as a person who lives in New Orleans, want to offer these perspectives on this particular shooting:
The school in question is one of the city’s worst performing public schools. This in a system that is the worst in the state of Louisiana, which, at the state level, is among the worst in the country. In some of our public schools there are not funds to provide toilet paper, let alone classroom materials. This is largely due to the fact that New Orleans is a poor city, but also due to bizarre property tax structures and to political patronage incompetence that date back to the French and Spanish colonial era. In short: we’re a banana republic here, in many ways.
This particular shooting is not along the same mold as Columbine and the like - - there was no effort here to target the entire student body by some loner. This was a retribution strike, aimed at a particular individual or group of individuals, and may be gang, drug, or neighborhood turf related. If the shooters hadn’t been able to get an AK-47, they would have found another weapon, be it a gun, knife, or something else.
There were guards on duty at the school, as with all New Orleans public schools, but the positions don’t pay well, so the guards are not all that competent. Regardless, the perpetrators apparently were able to avoid the security check point by using a side entrance off an alley. Of course, there’s major security there today, with police checkpoints, x-ray machines, and metal detectors.
While the city has been relatively calm in the past few years, at one time we had the highest per capita murder rate in the U.S., due largely to the fact that poor minority kids were killing other poor minority kids over drugs and turf. Hopefully this is an isolated event and isn’t a harbinger of the coming summer, which by anyone’s standards are HOT and LONG, and in which the crime rate rises with the temperatures and humidity.
I own one for the same reason a golfer may give you for owning a $10,000 set of clubs.
I like it…
BTW what the hell does one need with a 10grand set of clubs? I mean seriously, and what do you need with clubs in the first place?, golf is boooring :yawn:…
I really doubt you can find one at Wal-Mart, I’ll take that as hyperbole.
Naw, Tony, not $10K, more like $1500, but your point is valid. (But Tony, 18 in the morning followed by a couple hundred rounds of trap in the afternoon is da bomb!!)
Yes that’s perfectly true, and I wholeheartedly agree with your entire post, it makes a lot of sense. The only issue I see in regards to inanimate objects being deadly, is a a gun is the only thing that can kill several people in a very short amount of time, from a distance. I think we can all agree it would have been more difficult for Klebold to cause the damage he did with a beer bottle, or a baseball bat.
Guns don’t kill, people do, but people with guns kill as well. Shooting someone has to be the easiest ways to kill or wound someone, so I can’t help but wonder how might things be different if these animals were denied this one tool.
**
I think it would be more appropriate to fear criminals with guns. I for one, am certainly less fearful of a criminal without one.
**
No
**
I wouldn’t want him to own one. Most likely it would be used legally, maybe an intruder could use it against him, or maybe he would accidentally shoot himself or someone with it. Again, I simply would prefer he didn’t have one. Luckily they are both dead.
**
I think law officers should have firearms, I don’t think citizens should. YMMV
**
The difference was a psycho was wielding the shotgun. Remove the shotgun from the equation, and you now have a psycho wielding an armchair leg, which to many people would be preferable.
**
I think the problem here is my perception that it is easier for a criminal to acquire a gun because there are 180 million firearms out there. It seems to increase the chances of a gun falling into the wrong hands, but the people who want them, will find them, and that’s never going to change.
**
Well in 2000, (first set of stats that google brought up), there were 16,000 suicides, and almost 11,000 homicides by firearm. Not nearly as big a problem as drunk driving, but still, wow.
**
Yep that’s pretty much a blip.
**
**
I still see it as 18,000 deaths, no matter how insignificant the percentage makes it seem. (not saying you are trying to)
**
See above, but it won’t effect your numbers.
**
**
They wouldn’t, at best we could hope they would shave the numbers down even a little more.
**
But not for someone else to go get you one. Of course you hope they would have enough sense not to do it, because I would imagine a gun registered to them would send them up the creek, if it was used in the commission of a crime. That of course would be a factor only if it were acquired legally. I guess what I’m wondering is would a firearm be harder to get if they were banned outright?
**
The effect one would hope for is reduced use of them, because they are harder to acquire, resulting in less deaths and injuries. I don’t think much less, but would 100 less be worth it? Probably not. Would 1000 less worth it? Maybe.
You get the point.
**
Good question. First we need to fix our revolving door justice system.
**
**
You got me there, I donno. I’m sure it’s worked in some places, and in others it hasn’t.
**
What good would that do? The registered gun owners aren’t the problem, the animals running around shooting people with guns is.
**
Well all of these cases were premeditated murder, not kids imitating Rambo. The thing is, , that if the gang bangers couldn’t get their grubby mitts on an assault rifle so easily, they would have used an armchair leg on the kid they intended to kill, and the 3 wounded girls would have stayed out of it.
Damn I feel shitty putting it that way.
**
And since guns won’t be going anywhere, anytime soon, I’m all for educating the people who own them as best as possible.
**
Sure, as long as you keep in mind that some objects can be more dangerous then others.
**
Well it was worth exploring and discussing.
**
Again, the best we could hope for, is to make it even harder.
**
I never said, and I’d never believe that if firearms kill x number of people, then banning them will save x number of lives. I’m was just hoping for a reduction. The reduction would most likely not be worth penalizing all the law abiding gun owners out there.
**
Well put.
A little more news about the shooting. The 15yr old who died was also armed. A loaded 9mm hand gun was found on the victim.
Hmmm. Well, I like to shoot golf balls. They make great little targets. Especially for the .22 when there’s no one else at the range. Chase them little sumbitches all over the place. Great fun.
Nope. It is illegal for anyone to sell, loan, or otherwise furnish firearms to convicted felons.
First, drop the suicides from your statistics. It’s not reasonable to include these. There are many studies which show the rate of suicide remain constant despite an increase, or decrease, in the availability of guns. Second, the remaining 11,000 firearm homicides are a) not committed with the hated assault rifles you wish to ban, but handguns and b) they are overwhelmingly committed by known criminals against other known criminals. Those fuckers can shoot each other all day long for all I care. As long as no innocent bystanders are harmed anyway. They’ve made their decision to “live by the sword;” it’s only justice if the reap what they sow. Which apparently, as CLedet now shows us, is pretty much the case.
I’ll go out on a limb now and predict the evil NRA will have absolutely nothing to say about this incident. The only ones spinning it will be the anti-gun groups.
I assume you mean the shooting range, not the driving range?
Heh. Yeah. Although . . .
Heh. Yeah. Although . . .
Your scenarios are absurd, at best. Beer bottles? Baseball bats? That odd fascinations with armchair legs?
You apparently didn’t read my post. The example you were discussing was “Eric Klebold” (What, did Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold suffer some freak accident and get fused together?) at Columbine. If you remove the shotguns (And other firearms) from the equation, then you still have two people that want to kill lots of people, but now have to rely on the explosives they had, instead. And if they were relying soley on their explosives, they might have just taken a little extra time to double-check that the fuses on their rather large caffeteria bombs were set right. You do know that those bombs would have killed many more people than all their shooting did, right? At least, that’s what the Sheriffs, FBI, and ATF say. Same story for Thurston, while we’re at it.
But your insistance that without firearms, people would have to resort to beer bottles and armchair legs is pretty damn flawed.
CLedet: And this is one of the events quoted in anti-gun statistics when we’re told “X number of children die from firearms every year.”
Not entirely an untruth, but misleading just the same. Why is this event “gun violence” and not “gang violence”?
It’s also one of the few tools that can drill a hole in paper at a hundred yards.
Your statement is akin to saying “A car is the only thing that bank robbers can use to get away quick enough.” More or less factually true, but it tends to presuppose that cars are only used for bank robbery getaways.
Firearms are also one of the few tools with which one can defend oneself adequately at ranges past arms’ length. Keep in mind a police officer may be foreced to “kill several people in a very short amount of time, from a distance.” Us lowly civillians can, and often do, find ourselves in similar situations- indeed, the officer is often there only due to the fact that such a situation with the civvies arose.
Not for lack of trying. People tend to forget the dozens of homemade pipe bombs and propane bombs the pair brought into the school. They forget only because none of them worked.
And there was not ONE call to ban the fabrication of homemade explosives. It’s already illegal, just as murder, having a firearm on school grounds, and so on were already illegal before the event. But there were many calls to further ban firearms and gunshows.
As long as we’re speculating, perhaps we can suppose that, had Harris and Klebold not had access to the firearms, they might have spent a little more time “perfecting” their improvised explosives, and the resulting death toll may well have been far higher.
As do I. However, firearms aren’t going to magically disappear overnight, and like it or not, the ownership thereof is Constitutionally protected. Can you envision a way to keep guns out of the hands of those who by definition don’t obey the law, while at the same time protecting my right to own them legally and safely?
Why? The majority of crooks, druggies and gang-bangers don’t carry a gun, since they can be sold for drugs, most know that if they’re stopped and checked that they can be arrested for having it even without doing anything else wrong (holding drugs, etc) and even stolen ones are fairly expensive for the average street hood.
If someone’s breaking into your house at night, do you sit back and relax, thinking, “It’s okay, he doesn’t have a gun”?
Right, only the authorities should be armed. Much like, say, China, North Korea or Iraq.
These are what’s known as Police States. Suffice to say that is not an idea one should be striving for.
Sure. And while hypothesizing, remove the psycho from the equation and there is no more equation. Easy.
But specious. Firearms exist. Wishing that criminals didn’t have them, or hypothesizing how much better it would be if only the police had them is pointless fallacy at best. As I said in the last post, we can wish the world worked in a certain way, and keep trying, insisting on solutions that would only work in that certain way, or we can deal with the world as it exists, here and now.
Sure, hypothetically we can assume that, if the number of guns were halved or quartered, it would be even more difficult for a thug to lay his hands on one, but again, that’s just hypothetical.
Can you tell me how we can reduce the number of firearms without infringing on Constitutional rights? I’m regularly told “If we just got rid of the guns…” or “If there were just fewer out there…” but Pandora’s box has been open for a thousand years, and wishing otherwise won’t change that.
Find a way to keep them out of the hands of crooks without trampling anyones’ rights (including unlawful search and seizure) and the world will hail you as a hero.
Agreed. Every death is a tragedy, but how many of those “homicides” were police-related shootings of a perp? How many others were justifiable uses of force by an armed civilian against a mugger, robber or rapist?
Just as I said at the top of the post, when Druggie A shoots and robs Supplier B, that’s a homicide, recorded identically to when Homeowner A shoots and kills Burglar Out On Parole B. Both are recorded as homicides, but one is a crime, the other is not.
Agreed, again. Eighteen thousand deaths is a huge number- ONE preventable death is too many. However, the point was that the overwhelming majority- as in within a few fine frog hairs of every single one- of US gun owners are safe, responsible users of firearms.
Thus, why the common and accepted calls to ban all of an object when some operator misuses one-one-hundred-millionth of them?
Besides which, part of what gets me is the inconsistency- Kid A shoots up School B and suddenly we have- as here, within hours- calls for further controls or bans on the gun, but not a word said about the gang violence.
But when Drunk Driver A mows down Nun Crossing the Street B, calls are made to increase policing of drivers, and improvements in alcohol counseling programs- but NOT calls to “ban” or further limit or restrict cars.
In the former case, it’s assumed the object is at fault, since it’s so evil and inherently dangerous. In the latter, it’s more correctly assumed the driver- the operator- is at fault.
Why the difference?
I knew I was off by a bit, but generally speaking, one-ten-thousandth is essentially less than a rounding error. Yes, in a Nation of three hundred million, even such a vanishingly small fraction of a percent equals some real numbers, but then, on the other hand, if one passes a law banning guns wholesale, we have just infringed on the rights of over a hundred million US citizens, in order to potentially save the lives of perhaps a few thousand.
Sound a bit callous? It does… but if one used the same concept, why not ban cars? Inconveniencing two hundred and fifty million, sure, but it would save the lives of tens of thousands, wouldn’t it?
Specious reasoning? Tell me why.
And we already have reams of laws on the books attempting to do just that. In most cases- nearly all- law abiding gun owners have accepted, voluntarily or otherwise, more and more restrictions on their rights, for the occasional small fraction less accidental or deliberate deaths.
Again, can you think of a law- one that the those disinclined to obey the law will follow- that will further restrict a criminals’ access without further restricting the average owner’s rights?
That is called a “straw man” purchase, and is already illegal at the Federal level. As UB noted, it’s illegal to in any way provide a firearm to a felon- more to the point, it’s illegal to provide one to someone who you might have reasonable belief will use it in the commission of a crime.
Are drugs harder to get considering they’re totally illegal throughout the whole of North America?
Will it be possible to reduce the criminal use to even further below .0001%? Possible, and a worthy goal. But what would you do to bring that about? Or, more to the point, what would you be willing to give up? Perhaps have Ashcroft rule that the police can now search your house at will, and without a warrant expressly to look for guns? That would probably reduce criminal use of the guns- as well as legal use- but is it something you’re willing to allow to have that happen?
Going back to the car analogy: In order to reduce the… what, fifty thousand traffic fatalities a year? Now you’re given limits on gas tank capacity, horsepower, and numerical limits on how far you can drive in a day. The speed limit is reduced to 45 on the highways, and fifteen in the city. Alcohol is banned outright, and- my personal favorite- cellphone users caught with one in the car are pulled over and imprisoned.
Would you be willing to accept such limits in order to save tens of thousands of lives?
Very much agreed. Although it’s not so much a “revolving door” as it is a severely limited and overworked system. When judges have caseloads of fifty crooks a day, sometimes the nuances of the cases fall through the cracks. When a prison has beds for 700 and they have 1,500 prisoners to house, sometimes choices have to be made and let some of the so-called less-dangerous crooks out. When the court-appointed attorney has to deal with forty cases in a day, he can’t exactly give each one his absolute best effort, can he?
The two most famous right now are both England and Australia, both of whom have, within the past several years, enacted sweeping and exhaustive gun bans, confiscations and prosecutions.
And in both countries, crime as risen afterwards. Direct relation? Some argue no, some argue yes, it’s obvious. The truth is surely somewhere in between, but in any case, the statistics are clear- crime of various sorts went UP, after legislation was enacted to supposedly REDUCE it.
Something we agree on. And since the definition of a criminal is one who does not obey the law, please let me know how more laws will stop or slow them down? Confiscate all the guns? Okay, but that’s taking us back to the as-yet-unaddressed Constitutional issues, and back to the question of what rights and protections YOU, personally, are willing to give up in order to help control those ‘animals’.
Another that we agree on: A killer will kill regardless of the tools at hand.
At the opposite pole, however, a firearm is often the absolute best bet to ward off such an attacker. If the druggie can’t get his mitts on a gun, he’ll use a knife. If he can’t find a knife he’ll get a stick or rock. If he can’t find a stick or rock, he’ll try and beat you with his fists and feet.
If you, the victim, were thus attacked with any of the above, would you like to be limited to only responding in kind? Okay, what if you’re a 120-lb woman and the attacker was a 240-lb weightlifting ex-felon with a coke habit?
Ah, again I agree. Here my only problem is one of application. Most legislators force said training down the owner’s throat- IE, you must have such-and-such an accredited course in hunter safety or you must have passed this-and-that firearms safety course in order to purchase this gun.
Well, that adds yet another thorny legal issue about rights- is it a “Right” if something as simple as only having six hours education instead of eight prevents you from otherwise legally purchasing that gun?
Alternatively, instead of forcing the issue, provide incentives- perhaps a savings in homeowner’s insurance for having completed a safety course, or maybe waive the state taxes on the purchase of the gun for having done so. For hunters, provide for a discount on the cost of a hunting license or deer tag for having completed the course.
It’s the old flies with honey or vinegar thing, and avoids the Constitutional issue entirely.
Certainly, like Plutonium. Or gasoline. Rat poison. Mercury. High voltage electricity.
A Louisville Slugger is more dangerous than a whifflebat. Lawn darts are more dangerous than a backgammon board. A motocross bike is more dangeous than the electric scooter at the grocery store. A bacon double cheeseburger with mayo is more dangerous than a garden salad with fat-free dressing.
And do so without further infringing that 99.9999% of law-abiding users’ rights. That, m’boy, is the key.
Personally, I’m all for a minor penalization- if the law actually did anything!
For example- the '94 ban on magazines over ten rounds? What the hell was that supposed to solve, and can it even be guessed that it saved even ONE life? If not, what was the purpose?
How about the ban on cosmetic features, like “flash hiders” or pistol grips? That law covered only firearms used- at the time- in less than one tenth of one percent of all gun crime.
How about the current calls in California to ban .50 cal rifles? Such rifles have never been used in crime- not once that I’m aware of. So why ban them, if not just as another step down the “slippery slope” that I’m regularly told is a fallacy and doesn’t exist?
Thank you.
Doc Nickel, I am going to have to put you in the upper echelon of erudite pro-gun posters, along with Uncle Beer and ExTank. Your arguments have summed up a large number of pro-gun sentiments without hyperbole nor rancor. Bravo!
Yes, I’ll agree, well put. I appreciate that the time you’ve taken to compose your posts, Doc, they’ve been very informative. Perhaps I’ll take some time and revisit my feelings on the subject.
**
Ah, so criminals will get them anyway, but we should ban them…
**
You’re trading those 1000 lives (assuming a ban does lead to a reduction, which is highly debatable), for the tens of thousands of lives who are current projected with defensive gun uses. People who protect their families from home invaders, and that sort of stuff. The actual number of defensive gun uses per year is highly contested, so to say “tens of thousands” on my part is highly conservative. Many estimates are well over a million.
Many people believe that there’s a net benefit to the ownership of guns as-is. The homicide rate with them is fairly low, really - 10,000 seems like a lot, but most of those are criminals, gang members, etc. shooting each other - in a country of 300 million.
However, on the other side, you have people who often save their lives and property with guns - not even by killing the intruder, necesarily, but by scaring the shit out of them. Even as-is, without any new gun restrictions, it’s very possible that gun ownership is a large net benefit to society in terms of lives taken and lives saved, ignoring the other benefits.
**
Ah, so people who are determined to get guns will, as you said - but when it’s convenient for you, they’ll only get an arm chair’s leg?
Er, “current projected” should be “currently protected”…
And I usually proof read.
Hmm just maaybe I should keep my yap shut about golf until I actually tried it huh? 
I’ve never had sex with a guy, so a ban on sexual activities between men couldn’t affect me in the least, yet I somehow manage to be opposed to laws against gay sex. But you’ve offered exactly as much support for why it “isn’t quite right” for a 19 year old to buy an AK 47 at a national chain store (none) as I have for why it isn’t quite right for a 19 year old to be able to have sex with a 19 year old of the same sex, so why don’t we ban both of them? You know, it also ‘isn’t quite right’ that a 16 year old girl can go off an have an abortion, killing an innocent child, without consequence. Let’s ban abortions too, on that feelings basis. Oh, wait, I forgot - your fucking ‘feelings’ are more important than other people’s people’s civil liberties, because you’re an ignorant jackass who likes to restrict other people for no more reason than that it amuses you.
Ignorant? Let’s see, one minute you say:
Yet then you go on to say:
Every single Deset Eagle pistol (and indeed the vast majority of all pistols) is semi-automatic. So, you both think that a Desert Eagle should be fine, and that it should simply be banned. Is it at all suprising that your calls for banning things on the basis of your feelings are not being picked up?