I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the irony of the above.
I’d actually be interested in the percentage of “no-prior-conviction” violent criminals for whom the crime was a crime of passion, as I see those as being the types least likely to not commit a crime due to lack of firearm (granted, any crime they commit in the heat of the moment will be less statistically deadly in the absence of a firearm). Something that I consider to partially bear this out is that it’s more rare to see armed robbers (not typically a crime of passion) with no priors than murders.
To the extent that gun bans or severe limitations would work at all, I perceive them only working really well on the law-abiding and low-rent misdemeanor/minor felony crowd. The hardened types will be able to get guns as trivially as they get drugs now, IMHO, and the crime-of-passion types will in the balance probably not care.
I agree. To be honest, I am pretty supportive of gun rights regardless of idiot partisans like DA. But citizens that exercise their gun rights by taking their guns to the statehouse or their AK47s to Safeway are idiots and are no better than the klan or the Illinois nazis exercising their free speech rights. Intimidating and offending other citizens is no way to cement your rights, it will only lead to the shit we see today. I am an atheist, and i feel the same way about people suing about the pledge of allegiance. The tide of history and law is on the side of both athiesm and gun rights, no reason, IMHO, to push it and be an asshole.
Who said anything about bans? I was referring to the specific assertion made that CCW should be allowed in state houses because they have already been cleared.
Gun advocates think that there are good and bad people, and that the latter can be identified. They think that.all you need to do is keep them from having firearms and all’s well. The pont, to repeat myself, is that people are not static, or fixed. Just because they have CCW licenses does not mean they will never commit a crime or murder someone.
Did somebody dispute the distinction between “good and bad people?”
I believe that under your premise you would consider me a “gun advocate,” however that is not what I think. I believe it is one piece of a puzzle under the topic of law enforcement WRT gun control. Dumbing it down in your manner of over simplification seems somewhat disingenuous.
Perhaps, although you say “it” with no clear reference as to what you’re talking about, so I’m a bit unclear as to your meaning.
Regarding your broader point, perhaps I am oversimplifying. I am sure that there exist gun advocates who are capable of more complex thinking. Unfortunately, they are not the ones saying anything. The gun advocates who I ever hear anything from them propose solutions like “We should arm all the teachers and janitors!” This suggests a belief that belonging in the category of teachers or janitors denotes fitness to carry a firearm. I don’t know about you, but I can certainly think of many teachers who should never be allowed near a firearm.
They say things like “Just keep people with mental illness from having a firearm.” The problem is that there is not such a simple category. First of all, this statement fails to recognize that there are many different types of mental illness. For instance, should all people with an anxiety disorder be prevented from firearm possession? (My sense is that people with anxiety disorders are the lion’s share of the market for firearms, but that’s a separate discussion.) Eating disorders? Dyslexia? How about what used to be called Asperger’s Disorder, a disorder related to Autism? ADHD? Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
Also, mental illness doesn’t work like a fixed switch. Disorders wax and wane over time. People may have a mental illness for a period of time in childhood or adolescence, and may never meet criteria again. Alternately, they may have a chronic course of repeated episodes throughout their lifetime. Does any history of any disorder put people in the category of “mentally ill” in terms of firearm ownership?
Furthermore, when gun owner registrations are brought up, gun advocates almost universally argue that there is no benefit to them other than to give guidance to the black helicopters when they come to confiscate your weapons. They say that the background check has already been done, so there’s no need of the gun registration. But this thinking is exactly what I’m talking about. The background check is a method of identifying concerns at a point in time prior to the ownership of a weapon. But gun owners who have passed a background check in the past can still commit crimes, right? They can still have the new onset of a mental illness, right? So without a gun registration, how do we know who already owns a firearm at the point that they end up in circumstances that would prohibit firearm ownership?
Again, I agree that some gun advocates may have nuanced opinions on these issues that do not betray categorical and static thinking about the real nature of being a human, but they are not the ones saying anything. I can only respond to what I hear gun advocates saying. And what they are saying is what Lumpy said; it’s cool to allow CCW people to carry in the state house because they’ve already been vetted, and because CCW people are more law abiding. Do you still not see the problem with these assertions?
Yes. It’s an artificial construct designed to provide reassurance to those with an underlying awareness that they, too are capable of losing control or making bad decisions. But people are people.
Whenever I’ve seen the distinction made and a clearer definition requested, the “I’m a good person, a law-abiding citizen” side has never come back with more than a legal one - a “bad person” who should not be permitted access to firearms is someone with a violent felony or an adjudicated mental illness or something else. Nowhere is the problem that “law-abiding citizens” can, and often do, suddenly stop abiding the law, or that “good people” can, and often do, take actions with very bad consequences.
But maybe you can do better. What, to you, are the defining characteristics of “good and bad people”? And how are you sure that you do and always will fall under the first category?
I habitually carry; maybe I have business at the capital and don’t want to have to leave my gun at home.
If you don’t understand that carrying is NOT about being a swaggering bully, then you’re arguing against the stereotype strawman in your head, not actual gun owners.
So by the same token it may be “cool” to allow convicted felons gun ownership under certain limited restrictions?
It does not need any time- based attribute. By that logic nobody would ever do anything for fear of making a mistake because some assumption changes possible future outcomes This is pedantic reasoning proposed only for the sake of argument and not for the purpose of addressing a complex issue.
They argue against the concept of guns themselves and all the terrible implications imaginable arising from deadly weapons - not the owners.
What the fuck are you talking about? Is this something you think I’ve advocated? Step back, understand the conversation, and then post specifically to the discussion so that others can figure out what you’re saying.
Thanks for precisely exemplifying my point. “It doesn’t need any time-based attribute”: good and bad are determinable categories, membership in which is fixed and static. Gotcha. zeriel, any questions?
Not remotely true. I just spent several posts talking about problems arising from the frailty of the human condition. Guns without people are fine; it is precisely the intersection of guns and people that is the problem. Understand?
Ah. So it’s all about you. Nobody else’s interests or concerns are relevant; the world revolves entirely around Lumpy. Got it. :rolleyes:
Then there must be some real, respectable reason you carry your binkie *everywhere you go. How about sharing it with us then, cowboy? :dubious:
*
What purpose did you have in mind in carrying a firearm into the state capitol? :dubious:
People who are currently prohibited from possessing firearms are more likely to commit murder with a firearm (well murders generally and its just so much easier with a gun). I didn’t think there was a dispute about this. There is some dispute about how much of the gun murders are committed by this category of people but I was pretty sure that everyone agreed that this small subset of the population committed most of the gun murders. You can flip through this Home | Bureau of Justice Statistics and do a word search for murder.
Assuming that the population of gun murdereres tracks the population of murderers generally… according to the DoJ, 53% of murderers have prior convictions, 10% of murderers are underage, add the number of murderers who have a history of domestic violence or are the subject of a restraining order and the number gets larger.
The other point is that CCWs commit gun murders at a lower rate than the general population. I didn’t think this was in dispute either. The rebuttal from the other side seems to be “so what, there are examples of CCWs committing murder so who gives a shit if CCW’s are generally more law abiding than the general population”
I presented some information from Texas and I believe Florida and while CCW laws are different from state to state, they all require more extensive background checks, which (combined with the voluntary nature of exposing yourself to this added scrutiny) is what makes this self selected group of people more law abiding.
So, 53% of murderers have prior convictions and yet these people account for a relatively small portion of the population.
They are not homogenous or fungible either. Different demographics represent different risks.
You’re new to this conversation right? What makes you think I’m partisan (besides Elvis saying so)? Or an idiot?
As a gun advocate, I can say that I do not believe this.
I believe that people are not fungible. I believe that some people are far more likely to commit gun crime than others and you can severely diminish gun violence by restricting access to these people.
I believe the cost to society of guns in the hands of law abiding people should be balanced against the benefits to society of guns in the hands of law abiding people.
I’m obviously not speaking up enough :smack:
:dubious:
Thats all?
:dubious:
What am I, chopped liver?
What about Zeriel?
I don’t think Lumpy thinks people are static, I think Lumpy thinks that the risk that you perceive is blown way the fuck out of proportion. But I agree that there are many places where we already have armed guards where we can reasonably restrict a person’s ability to bear arms. And I think that any private establishment that is open to the public can restrict arms on their premises.
The irony is the throwing around of “gun advocates” as a monolithic category, of course.
No one recently, I was just musing on the effects of them and/or much stricter restrictions of the type that’s been proposed in this thread on slowing down violent crime based on the statistics.
Hell, by the standards of some, I’m in FAVOR of those “strong restrictions” I was musing about.
No one else has any legal or moral requirement to defend me from anything–not you, not the police, not anyone. Therefore, it’s my own obligation to do so.
The part where you cross over into idiotic is where you fail to understand that it’s entirely possible to believe it’s one’s moral duty to be prepared for anything, really, AND be completely aware that it’s a low chance one will have to use that preparation.
The idea it has to be based on some kind of actualized fear or need for an emotional security blanket is approximately as ludicrous as the idea that buckling my seat belt means I’m pants-wettingly afraid of crashing every time I drive.
It’s not a perfect analogy–my seat belt doesn’t increase the risk to myself or others nearly as much as carrying a firearm does, and I’ll be the first to acknowledge that. I simply disagree with you on where that risk increase balances with my duty (as a living being. It can be argued that EVERY right flows from the right to effective self-defense–the majority of which is provided, again obviously and admittedly, by the fact of the generally peaceable and civilized society in which we live) to protect my own person as I am able.
You are oblivious to the other side of the issue - that the person needed to be defended *against *might well be you. That there is much more than a non-zero chance that the origin of, or escalator of, a situation will be the person equipped to do so. It is amazing how much you gunstrokers are able to convince yourselves that it’s impossible, that you’re the law-abiding citizens, that the “bad guys” are invariably someone else. But it’s self-delusion, as is demonstrated by the constant stream of gun deaths caused by those who think about themselves exactly what you think. You’re not a good guy or a bad guy, those concepts are artificial and not very useful, but you are a guy, including all the strengths *and weaknesses *that go along with it. Don’t pretend you’re not.
So what are those of us in a civilized society allowed to do to protect ourselves from the danger *you *represent? The only solution you ever offer is to arm ourselves against you, to become you, to become part of the problem ourselves. That is, quite simply, insane. Admittedly, it’s a little less insane than the “defense against tyranny” idiocy we see from so many others, including in this very thread, but it’s insane nonetheless.
But there’s another approach, one that virtually every other civilized society in the world uses, and which has demonstrable results in every one. What makes us so different here other than the extent to which we’ve allowed the problem to grow? (DA, this is where you tell us there are too many guns to grab so it’s pointless to try) Is the difference the sheer numbers of people who see themselves as isolated individuals, with no responsibility at all to those inconvenient, dismissible abstractions all around them who also call themselves humans and are always blathering on about their rights not to be killed? Is it the sheer numbers of those such as yourself who deny the very existence of society as a significant or even real concept? Is the difference between the US and the civilized world the extent of that mass psychopathy?
So possessing weapons is, in your opinion, a secession from or rebellion against the rest of humanity? If that’s the case then you’re reiterating the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that freedom only leads to a war of all against all as the selfish animals all seek to look out for #1. I’m genuinely baffled by you; you seem incapable of conceiving of anyone other than a criminal or a barbarian wanting to possess the means of deadly force. To the extent that you’re not seeing any other possibility, you’re not even seeing or hearing a large number of people trying to explain themselves to you.
I’m not oblivious to it at all. It’s most certainly a tradeoff between “if I have a gun I can threaten someone else” and “if I don’t have a gun I can’t effectively defend myself against a gun wielder”. If I was, I wouldn’t…
…call for gun use policies much closer to, say, Germany or Scandinavia (licensed owners, registered weapons, required training).
Actually, if you ask me, there ARE major differences between the US and the rest of the civilized world that account for the majority of our violence period, let alone our gun violence. This statistically almost HAS to be the case–gun ownership alone doesn’t cut it, because other countries don’t have gun violence rates proportional to their gun ownership rates. Canada has 1/3 our guns per capita and 1/5th our gun death rate. Brazil has less than 1/10 our guns per capita and their gun death rate is double ours (and their gun homicide rate is SIX TIMES ours).
I put a lot of the blame for our violence in the hands of systemic racial bias and the insane lengths to which our so-called “conservative” parties will throw any amount of money and power at the system to keep as many people as possible desperate and poor. This is the reasons that I’m NOT a single-issue gun-rights voter–and the only reason I self-style as “the Democrat with a gun” is that I prefer voting for the lesser of two evils that has a shot rather than, say, casting my ballot for Kucinich or Nader.
Frankly, if you figure out how to build me a personal shield generator, I’d rather have that than a gun. That’s my question to you–even granted the relatively low odds of an event happening where I’d prefer to have a firearm in self-defense, what are you suggesting doing to society or offering me in exchange for my firearm? Meet me halfway here–given my stated moral position on the right/duty to self-defense, what SHOULD I be doing?
So you can carry a loaded gun if you are headed to or from a gun range but not otherwise (unless you have a CCW). I would perpetually be headed to the range.
