OT: Chaos

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 12, 2013 - 12:22pm.

spdrun wrote:
Because the problem is the culture of solving problems with guns, not the guns themselves. Many European countries have 40-50% the gun ownership rate of the US, yet the number of gun crimes is MUCH lower than 40-50% of the US level. The problem isn't the guns, it's idiots' and psychopaths' extreme willingness to use them.

Spdrun: On this, we completely agree and your point is a valid one. However, as you also stated, how does one go about doing that?

America is "Gunfighter Nation". It's woven into our DNA. I'm not saying that it isn't worth trying, but how?

Even if every poster on this thread were to simultaneously agree that an outright ban is the best option moving forward, there are 300 million guns in the US. So, now what?

Submitted by spdrun on June 12, 2013 - 12:43pm.

Not many suggestions, but here's one:

This might be really counterintuitive, but expand the availability of high-school JROTC and match-shooting/biathalon (at least up north) programs. If the guns are going to be around, might as well instill responsible use of them from the teen years on. Make the association between gun use and discipline.

As an aside, I'd also support going back to 1960s and making machine-shop and home-ec programs mandatory (as they were in my high school in the 90s). A basic education in How Shit Works(tm) is as important as rigorous programs in languages, sciences, math and history.

Submitted by livinincali on June 12, 2013 - 12:58pm.

SK in CV wrote:

Never is probably an exaggeration, but if the assertion was that gun owners should be required to have insurance covering every possible kind of damage done by a gun, then I suspect it would be pretty cost prohibitive. Standard homeowner policies and umbrella policies cover accidental gun discharge. I don't know whether they require prior disclosure or listing, I'm guessing not, at least for liability purposes. I know there is also concealed carry coverage available, though it excludes criminal acts.

Statistically speaking there just aren't a whole lot of cases where a law abiding citizen accidentally discharges a weapon and it causes injury. It happens but it's relatively rare in the world of gun violence.

One's of my points was mandatory gun liability insurance isn't about compensating victims it's about trying to attach an annual cost of ownership to firearms. A gun ownership tax isn't going to pass but if you disguise it as insurance maybe it will.

In the recent mass shootings I don't see how any of the proposed regulations would have prevented or limited the damage. I just see in effort to collect and track more data on American citizens in the guise of safety. Maybe you like the idea of big brother, most people seem to think it's ok until you end up with the wrong dictator.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 12, 2013 - 12:58pm.

Spdrun: I don't know if it's around anymore or not, but the NRA ran a program when I was a kid, using WWII surplus M-1 Garands, teaching gun safety, gun use and how to become an accurate shot. It was taught (in our area) by some former soldiers and Marines, including a Gold Cup shooter. You could also purchase the rifles for like $100, which was stupid cheap, even back then.

I think it was called the Civilian Marksmanship program.

I'd be all for that How Shit Works class, too. Seeing the vacant stares you get from kids these days when you attempt to show them something mechanical is terrifying. If the power went out, half these little SOBs would starve cuz the electric can opener doesn't work.

Submitted by no_such_reality on June 12, 2013 - 2:35pm.

livinincali wrote:

One's of my points was mandatory gun liability insurance isn't about compensating victims it's about trying to attach an annual cost of ownership to firearms. A gun ownership tax isn't going to pass but if you disguise it as insurance maybe it will.

Sure and we can have a breathing fee too. In reality, breathing is just as much to blame as law abiding gun owners.

Submitted by dumbrenter on June 12, 2013 - 2:40pm.

ocrenter wrote:
dumbrenter wrote:
We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.

GLad you brought up dogs. All dogs are mandated to be registered. If caught having an unlicensed dog, a fine is assessed. An unlicensed dog involved in an altercation you are now looking at charges of an at large dog and having a vicious dog. Dogs that exchange hands need to be re-licensed, and so on.

Great example dumbrenter, thanks!

Thank you. Also note that there is no demand for national registry of dog owners and most of the registrations on local government level (not even state if I am not mistaken). There will be no media generated frenzy if you are attacked by a dog.

Submitted by dumbrenter on June 12, 2013 - 2:47pm.

ocrenter wrote:

#5. Firepower. At some point you have to limit guns with excessive firepower. Guns are for self defense right? Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?

Wrong. 2nd amendment goes much further than self defense.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 12, 2013 - 3:11pm.

I wonder why insurance companies don't ask about guns before providing homeowners coverage. They would deny coverage or charge more if you own a bulldog. But I've never been asked about my guns.

Submitted by spdrun on June 12, 2013 - 3:34pm.

As ownership of arms is a Constitutional right, is it legal for them to ask?

Submitted by ocrenter on June 12, 2013 - 5:53pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
ocrenter wrote:

#5. Firepower. At some point you have to limit guns with excessive firepower. Guns are for self defense right? Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?

OCR: So, what if we made your response above into an analogy, by replacing the phrase "excessive firepower" with the phrase "excessive horsepower"? Then we could repurpose your sentence, "Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?" to read, "Why do you need a Ferrari Enzo if the maximum speed limit (in California) is 70mph?"

Come to think of it, it doesn't even need to be a Ferrari Enzo. The latest Corvettes, Mustangs and Camaros all feature versions that are all capable of performance in excess of 150mph, which is double the maximum speed limit.

There are numerous street legal cars that possess well in excess of 500 horsepower and even from relatively staid manufacturers, like Cadillac and Mercedes-Benz. Isn't that "excessive horsepower"?

The analogy is a partial fit. While both excessive firepower and excessive horsepower can kill, excessive firepower is applied to an object whose whole reason for existence is to kill or at least threaten to kill. Whereas excessive horsepower is simply excessive bling. Excessive horsepower, while increases the probability of death when involved in an accident, does not increase the number of death. Excessive firepower, increases the probability of death AND increases the number of death dramatically.

Submitted by ocrenter on June 12, 2013 - 6:05pm.

dumbrenter wrote:
ocrenter wrote:
dumbrenter wrote:
We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.

GLad you brought up dogs. All dogs are mandated to be registered. If caught having an unlicensed dog, a fine is assessed. An unlicensed dog involved in an altercation you are now looking at charges of an at large dog and having a vicious dog. Dogs that exchange hands need to be re-licensed, and so on.

Great example dumbrenter, thanks!

Thank you. Also note that there is no demand for national registry of dog owners and most of the registrations on local government level (not even state if I am not mistaken). There will be no media generated frenzy if you are attacked by a dog.

So are you saying if local government is going to start registering all guns within its border, you would be ok with it then?

Reason why national registry works better is because trafficking of guns would be easier than trafficking of dogs.

Submitted by KIBU on June 12, 2013 - 6:12pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
KIBU wrote:
More shootings and death in Santa Monica, close to the college:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tw...

It seems like everyday, there are plenty of the so called "isolated" deaths by guns all over the cuountry.

KIBU: Again, a red herring. There are thousands of gun deaths around the country. I never disputed that. My point was specific to mass killings, and a specific rebuttal to your assertion that mass killings were commonplace. Which, they are not.

Let's try this another way, since you clearly skipped your Logic 101 course in undergrad.

What do you favor as the answer to this intractable problem?

A complete ban on all firearms?

A partial ban on some firearms?

Some specific limits?

Instead of being sarcastic, and without a plan, how's about you take a stand and tell us your SPECIFIC PLAN WITH DETAILS.

You up for that? Or, are you simply content to spew bullshit talking points without actually addressing a problem you clearly feel so strongly about?

One has to be sincere and understand that a real problem exists in this country before talking about the solution.

When one is still dishonest about the issue then the asking for solutions is just another dishonest attempt for more rhetorics in the hope to distract with the aim to go no where on this issue. I won't entertain those grade school begging for a fight, but at other threads and other time, I have put in some suggestions for discussion on gun safety which others have raised them here as well.

How about starting with accepting that we do have a serious problem with guns in this country. From there, nothing ever could stop Americans in finding a solution for anything. If we don't accept that there is a problem, don't kid around with solution.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 12, 2013 - 9:47pm.

KIBU: I've never denied that there is a problem. Far from it. Going further, I've also written numerous times supporting ANY AND ALL measures that will improve safety and make gun ownership less dangerous.

However, in a neat piece of dissembling, you make it seem as though any disagreement with what you said is "dishonest". In early posts, you accused me and other pro-gun supporters of being "self-delusional" and twisting facts and evidence to support our position.

It's obvious that you're anti-gun and virulently so. Fine. It's America and you're entitled to your opinion, same as everyone else.

However, you've not stated your plan to solve the problem and continue to avoid answering the question.

Yes, we have a problem. What's the solution? With details, please.

Submitted by CA renter on June 13, 2013 - 1:54am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
KIBU: I've never denied that there is a problem. Far from it. Going further, I've also written numerous times supporting ANY AND ALL measures that will improve safety and make gun ownership less dangerous.

However, in a neat piece of dissembling, you make it seem as though any disagreement with what you said is "dishonest". In early posts, you accused me and other pro-gun supporters of being "self-delusional" and twisting facts and evidence to support our position.

It's obvious that you're anti-gun and virulently so. Fine. It's America and you're entitled to your opinion, same as everyone else.

However, you've not stated your plan to solve the problem and continue to avoid answering the question.

Yes, we have a problem. What's the solution? With details, please.

To add to this, I'd like to ask the anti-gunners what their plans are when someone is left defenseless at all times. As it stands, when one has a stalker or other violent criminal intent on harming them, s/he can at least buy a gun and have a chance of defending him/herself. Without a gun, how do you propose to protect these now-defenseless people from violent criminals? Mind you, these criminals will still own guns and other weapons, and they will still be every bit as capable of killing their target(s). Registration has NEVER prevented a crime from occurring.

How do you protect the victims when a determined killer/attacker targets them? And please don't say that they should call 911, since cops almost always show up to take a report, not to proactively protect a victim of a violent crime.

Submitted by livinincali on June 13, 2013 - 7:15am.

KIBU wrote:

How about starting with accepting that we do have a serious problem with guns in this country. From there, nothing ever could stop Americans in finding a solution for anything. If we don't accept that there is a problem, don't kid around with solution.

I think the better line of questioning would be we have a serious problem with violence in this country. Guns are just a tool to carry out that violence. Can you confidently say that without the guns the violence would go away. I'd be somewhat hard pressed to believe that.

The two primary areas where violence comes from is the war on drugs and mental unstable people taking various drugs that can have adverse effects. Most serious disputes over drugs are settled by murder because you can't use the courts to settle those disputes. Many mentally unstable people see improvement from various psychotropic drugs yet a small minority don't. The warning labels on those drugs do describe adverse effects such as violent behavior.

If we got rid of the war on drugs and spent that money on treating mentally unstable people we'd probably have a far greater effect on violence than any proposed gun regulations.

Submitted by KIBU on June 13, 2013 - 9:23am.

livinincali wrote:
I think the better line of questioning would be we have a serious problem with violence in this country. Guns are just a tool to carry out that violence. Can you confidently say that without the guns the violence would go away. I'd be somewhat hard pressed to believe that.

The two primary areas where violence comes from is the war on drugs and mental unstable people taking various drugs that can have adverse effects. Most serious disputes over drugs are settled by murder because you can't use the courts to settle those disputes. Many mentally unstable people see improvement from various psychotropic drugs yet a small minority don't. The warning labels on those drugs do describe adverse effects such as violent behavior.

If we got rid of the war on drugs and spent that money on treating mentally unstable people we'd probably have a far greater effect on violence than any proposed gun regulations.

livinincali,

Thank you for your response. Yes, I agree with you that we have the root causes that include drug/mental health etc and the guns are tools. I believe that it make a huge difference when one has a gun versus not having a gun readily to carry the violence out.

Submitted by KIBU on June 13, 2013 - 9:26am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Yes, we have a problem. What's the solution? With details, please.

Is this an "isolated" problem?

Submitted by dumbrenter on June 13, 2013 - 9:33am.

ocrenter wrote:
dumbrenter wrote:
ocrenter wrote:
dumbrenter wrote:
We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.

GLad you brought up dogs. All dogs are mandated to be registered. If caught having an unlicensed dog, a fine is assessed. An unlicensed dog involved in an altercation you are now looking at charges of an at large dog and having a vicious dog. Dogs that exchange hands need to be re-licensed, and so on.

Great example dumbrenter, thanks!

Thank you. Also note that there is no demand for national registry of dog owners and most of the registrations on local government level (not even state if I am not mistaken). There will be no media generated frenzy if you are attacked by a dog.

So are you saying if local government is going to start registering all guns within its border, you would be ok with it then?

Reason why national registry works better is because trafficking of guns would be easier than trafficking of dogs.

Almost. The local governments can 'try' to start registering all guns. You are missing the key difference between how dogs are registered and what you are asking for.

Your reason for national registry working better for guns is both immature and ignores how laws are made. To address one, it is harder to transport other humans against their wishes than trafficking dogs. Does it mean we should now have a national registry of all humans? Does an American have a choice of refusing to be registered? Don't even bother coming back to me with SS# or drivers license...they are not obligatory and will show you are either confused between rights & privileges or that you have a control freak agenda.

Interesting how it starts with guns but is all about control.

Submitted by SK in CV on June 13, 2013 - 9:44am.

KIBU wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Yes, we have a problem. What's the solution? With details, please.

Is this an "isolated" problem?

It isn't exactly isolated, but it is substantially different in different regions of the country. Murder by guns is a problem in San Diego. People get shot and killed every year. But it's nothing like the problem in some big cities. The murder rate per capita in Chicago is like 5 times what it is in San Diego. Slightly worse than that in DC. LA is more than double SD, but only half of Chicago and DC.

Gives you an idea why some big city mayors are so strident in their desire to make changes. There is no easy solution that isn't going to infringe on what some perceive as their rights.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 13, 2013 - 9:58am.

KIBU wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Yes, we have a problem. What's the solution? With details, please.

Is this an "isolated" problem?

KIBU: Yeah, as I suspected, you're just playing semantical games and have no interest in a serious, meaningful dialogue.

I answered your question, now please answer mine. I'm all too familiar with the Clintonian approach to parsing words and have no interest in playing games.

Submitted by dumbrenter on June 13, 2013 - 10:22am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
KIBU: I've never denied that there is a problem. Far from it. Going further, I've also written numerous times supporting ANY AND ALL measures that will improve safety and make gun ownership less dangerous.

However, in a neat piece of dissembling, you make it seem as though any disagreement with what you said is "dishonest". In early posts, you accused me and other pro-gun supporters of being "self-delusional" and twisting facts and evidence to support our position.

It's obvious that you're anti-gun and virulently so. Fine. It's America and you're entitled to your opinion, same as everyone else.

However, you've not stated your plan to solve the problem and continue to avoid answering the question.

Yes, we have a problem. What's the solution? With details, please.

No, we don't have a gun problem. If anything, we have an issue with creating situation where some members in our society decide to take it out on little kids at school. These folks who engage in such acts come from across income demographics but practically all of them have had contact with our medical industry, many of them were on meds, and they had no support system to fall back upon to where they could be cared for.
Our system of government has gradually broken down the bonds of family & community and made everything a matter of an individual and the state. Our material wants have brought both dad & mom to workplace. A home maker and her contributions mean nothing when measured by our liberal economists. There is no value in our society to be a home maker and raise & care for a family. Many of the kids are outsourced to day care centers or left with electronic entertainment. When they act up, they are put on meds. And when they are totally lost and act out their frustration, these same economist geniuses wail against guns.
We created this cruel system ourselves, keep voting for its continuity and when such incidents happen, we get all righteous about the fact that this happens only here among developed economies.

I guess blaming guns is a lot easier way out than taking a hard look at our humanity & the cruel system/structures we have created that lets these poor folks fall to such depths that taking it out on little kids at school is the only thing they can do to show their frustration.

In terms of cost, it costs so little to provide a net for these about to be shooting perpetrators, a little bit of care for them, compared to the consequences. But oh no, we cannot talk about that, it is all about the guns.

Submitted by KIBU on June 13, 2013 - 10:24am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
My point, which bears repeating as it is actually supported by real evidence, is that for every isolated Santa Monica-type shooting (and, yes, statistically speaking, they are isolated), there are thousands of instances where firearms (not just HANDGUNS) are used to protect life and property.

So is the problem an "isolated" problem? Does a minority of data just automatically mean it's "isolated" ?

Describe what you mean by "yes we have a problem" ?

Until the pro-guns accepts that this country
have a serious problem with guns, their asking of solution are just games. How can you have a solution to a non-problem??? Logic 101 right?

Submitted by moneymaker on June 13, 2013 - 11:13am.

A little off topic but how about a yearly tax on drivers licenses to cut down on traffic. Could use the excuse that it is for upgrading licenses with an RFID chip so that a police office would be able to scan your car and know without pulling you over if you are a licensed driver. Hopefully no one on this forum works high up in the DMV as I was being sarcastic.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 13, 2013 - 11:17am.

KIBU wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
My point, which bears repeating as it is actually supported by real evidence, is that for every isolated Santa Monica-type shooting (and, yes, statistically speaking, they are isolated), there are thousands of instances where firearms (not just HANDGUNS) are used to protect life and property.

So is the problem an "isolated" problem? Does a minority of data just automatically mean it's "isolated" ?

Describe what you mean by "yes we have a problem" ?

Until the pro-guns accepts that this country
have a serious problem with guns, their asking of solution are just games. How can you have a solution to a non-problem??? Logic 101 right?

KIBU: You're too much. I don't know what a "minority of data" are, but I'm presuming you mean when a small dataset (as a subset of a much larger dataset) is referenced, then, yes, it is isolated in the sense that it's not the larger, and thus more prevalent, dataset.

In this case, mass killing using an assault rifle, is isolated. Gun deaths from other causes are far more prevalent. The FBI maintains annual statistics on gun deaths and causes, please feel free to look it up (in other words, don't take my pro-gun word for it).

You titled this thread "Chaos". The definition of chaos is "utter confusion or disorder". Taking that definition and the referenced event (the Santa Monica shootings), one can likely infer that you believe that this shooting represents some sort of societal breakdown.

However, the statistics (as per the FBI) simply don't bear this out. Gun related crime has been in steady decline (see FBI Uniform Crime statistics and CDC reportage) and gun-related homicides mirror the decline referenced above.

So, if I put my Logic 101 hat on and review the actual data, I find that the use of the word "Chaos" is spurious and hyperbolic and not at all consistent with the data and evidence.

Now, being completely logical and juxtaposing this with your persistent and consistent unwillingness to give a straight answer and instead duck, bob and weave in order to avoid doing so, one is left with the presumption that this is nothing other than a political agenda at work, masked by "concern" over the gun "problem" (as you define it).

Submitted by KIBU on June 13, 2013 - 11:48am.

I read the post twice and I will restate my questions:

1. Is "yes, we have a problem" an "isolated" problem or not?

2. What exactly is "yes, we have a problem" ?

Until one is honest with the answer, don't preach.

Submitted by CA renter on June 13, 2013 - 3:47pm.

dumbrenter wrote:

No, we don't have a gun problem. If anything, we have an issue with creating situation where some members in our society decide to take it out on little kids at school. These folks who engage in such acts come from across income demographics but practically all of them have had contact with our medical industry, many of them were on meds, and they had no support system to fall back upon to where they could be cared for.
Our system of government has gradually broken down the bonds of family & community and made everything a matter of an individual and the state. Our material wants have brought both dad & mom to workplace. A home maker and her contributions mean nothing when measured by our liberal economists. There is no value in our society to be a home maker and raise & care for a family. Many of the kids are outsourced to day care centers or left with electronic entertainment. When they act up, they are put on meds. And when they are totally lost and act out their frustration, these same economist geniuses wail against guns.
We created this cruel system ourselves, keep voting for its continuity and when such incidents happen, we get all righteous about the fact that this happens only here among developed economies.

I guess blaming guns is a lot easier way out than taking a hard look at our humanity & the cruel system/structures we have created that lets these poor folks fall to such depths that taking it out on little kids at school is the only thing they can do to show their frustration.

In terms of cost, it costs so little to provide a net for these about to be shooting perpetrators, a little bit of care for them, compared to the consequences. But oh no, we cannot talk about that, it is all about the guns.

Great post, DR.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 13, 2013 - 4:26pm.

CAR. In my group of gun owners it's a cultural thing

It's not about thought and reasoning but about claiming a right that they feel should not infringed upon.

The argument about protecting the constitution is crap. These guys don't care about the constitution, only the parts that they like.

The self-defense argument is also bullcrap. These guys are itching to blow someone's head off for trespassing into their property. Real self-defense is about thoughtful modesty and avoiding dangerous situations, not provoke them.

Yes. some people such as battered women could use guns but that's a different story.

I think in the country there is a cultural clash between the more urban, more cosmopolitan population and a more traditional middle America.

The people I know who own guns and are fanatical about them tend to be of lower educational backgrounds, regardless of their current incomes.

You don't have to answer this, but I'll take a wild guess here. I bet your husband owns guns also and he didn't complete a 4-year college degree right after high school.

Allan said that guns are in our DNA. They are in our culture, not DNA. Culture can be changed.

I own guns but I'm OK with making guns so expensive and inconvenient that not every schmuck can own them. Yeah, yeah, what about the criminals you may ask? Criminals have easy access to guns because schmucks can buy them for cheap legally and trade them in the black/grey market.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 13, 2013 - 5:22pm.

FIH: The group I shoot with counts two attorneys, a doctor (pediatrics, interestingly enough), a former USAF flight surgeon and a former USMC intel officer (colonel) in its ranks.

When I was in high school, I shot competition sporting clays at Los Altos Rod & Gun Club. You couldn't throw a rock without hitting an attorney, or educator from Stanford, or Silicon Valley bigwig.

I was raised around guns, as my dad was a former Marine DI and member of the Marine Rifle Team. He also happened to be an aerospace engineer in Palo Alto with an MS in Aeronautical Engineering. My uncle was also an avid shooter and flew jets for the Marines in WWII and Korea. He had an MBA from Stanford and spent his whole career with Merrill Lynch in investment banking.

I could go on about former Army officers I served with who remain shooters, all of whom have undergrad degrees, as an absolute minimum, but what's the point?

Facts getting in the way of a good story and all...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 13, 2013 - 5:32pm.

KIBU wrote:
I read the post twice and I will restate my questions:

1. Is "yes, we have a problem" an "isolated" problem or not?

2. What exactly is "yes, we have a problem" ?

Until one is honest with the answer, don't preach.

KIBU: Don't preach? From the person who wants to tell us how to run our lives? Oy gevalt.

Since you and I already know what your plan looks like, let me save you the trouble and spell it out: TOTAL GUN BAN.

We could doll it up and make it alliterative: KIBU's Komplete & Komprehensive Kapture Konfab.

Bottom line: Take all the guns. And that will magically solve the problem, right? I notice you haven't answered the other posters queries on this topic because you know if you're forced into actually divulging details, well, that's when the wheels come off the wagon.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 13, 2013 - 5:43pm.

Well, Allan, in your group of successful professionals. policies to make gun ownership a luxury proposition wouldn't make any difference. If anything, the value of you guys' gun collections would skyrocket and your right to own guns would hardly be infringed upon.

You have to acknowledge the urban/rural cultural divide.

In some states, alchohol can only be purchased in limited numbers of stores.

I don't think that guns should be something cheap and easy to get. If you go back to our founding fathers, guns were a a substantial percentage of owners' net worth, perhaps outside of land, the most valuable things they own.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.