ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: LunarOrbit on June 12, 2016, 08:07:50 PM
-
I’m sitting here watching the news about the terrible shooting at a “gay club” in Orlando, and I want to get some of the thoughts out of my head.
I’m not a religious person, but I’ve always liked the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” philosophy, and I believe that if there is a God he/she put gay people on this Earth in order to test our ability to follow it. If you are the kind of person who thinks it is okay to discriminate or act violently against gay people based on your religious beliefs, then you are failing God’s test.
I’m amazed by how easy it is for some religious people to justify hateful actions against other people. They can even manage to justify mass murder. Somehow, in their mind, murder is a less serious sin than loving someone. It makes no sense to me.
I don’t care if someone is gay since it has no bearing on my life. Let them live their lives openly and free to do the same things that you are free to do. You don’t have the right to impose your beliefs on them. People should not have to live in hiding, afraid that they might be murdered simply for being different.
-
Good thought. I've been struggling to think of something to add. It has been a disturbing evening.
-
Thanks, Glom. It was something I had been trying to put into words in my head all afternoon. Writing it here in the forum helped.
-
Preach. But there is no reason in the mind of a mass murderer, their target could be gays, Christians, students, anyone. Maybe those of us blessed with healthy minds should think about mental health in the States and why we have such intensely violent people.
-
I don't think we can pass all cases like this off as mental illness, especially if it turns out he planned his attack in advance.
It's not just the mass murderers that I'm thinking of right now either. I'm almost as bothered by the people who will refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple as I am by the guy who killed at least 50 people today. They are both using their religion, which is supposed to be about peace and love, to justify their hate and discrimination. Like I said, I feel like they are failing God's ethics test.
-
"My life sucks, everybody else is going to pay for it." seems to be a recurring theme.
-
I'm so tired, so very tired, of these things getting blamed on the mentally ill. We are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators; sometimes, mass shooters are clearly mentally ill, and, yes, we need a safety net that will catch them before people die from another's mental illness. But who's protecting us from you people?
-
Sadly, one does not get far suggesting the problem is anything to do with guns...
-
I'm so tired, so very tired, of these things getting blamed on the mentally ill. We are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators; sometimes, mass shooters are clearly mentally ill, and, yes, we need a safety net that will catch them before people die from another's mental illness. But who's protecting us from you people?
Do you think that mass murder is an option for a mentally healthy person? And who are 'you people' and what actions/beliefs do they/we endorse?
-
I'm so tired, so very tired, of these things getting blamed on the mentally ill. We are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators; sometimes, mass shooters are clearly mentally ill, and, yes, we need a safety net that will catch them before people die from another's mental illness
Are you really suggesting that someone who goes into a nightclub and massacres 50 people because he didn't like the thought of two men kissing, with a history of domestic violence, controlling behaviour, steroid abuse and who, in the words of his ex-wife, was unstable is mentally healthy? Seriously?
But who's protecting us from you people?
Sounds like a pretty large chip on your shoulder to me.
-
I'm so tired, so very tired, of these things getting blamed on the mentally ill. We are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators; sometimes, mass shooters are clearly mentally ill, and, yes, we need a safety net that will catch them before people die from another's mental illness. But who's protecting us from you people?
Do you think that mass murder is an option for a mentally healthy person? And who are 'you people' and what actions/beliefs do they/we endorse?
If studies of the psychology of mass murderers shows anything, yes, it is. The average mass shooter does not show any signs of mental illness; the only way you can make them do so is to assume that willingness to kill lots of people is in and of itself a mental illness that shares no symptom profile with any other condition. And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy. The people we are a most danger to is ourselves.
-
And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy.
What metric do you base this statement on?
-
I'm so tired, so very tired, of these things getting blamed on the mentally ill. We are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators; sometimes, mass shooters are clearly mentally ill, and, yes, we need a safety net that will catch them before people die from another's mental illness. But who's protecting us from you people?
Do you think that mass murder is an option for a mentally healthy person? And who are 'you people' and what actions/beliefs do they/we endorse?
If studies of the psychology of mass murderers shows anything, yes, it is. The average mass shooter does not show any signs of mental illness; the only way you can make them do so is to assume that willingness to kill lots of people is in and of itself a mental illness that shares no symptom profile with any other condition. And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy. The people we are a most danger to is ourselves.
Am I correct in assuming you are distinguishing between mental illness and personality disorders? DSM-5 has 'removed the arbitrary boundaries between personality disorders and mental disorders'(link below). Of course no one in the thread mentioned 'mental illness' at all, except LO in passing, not blaming. Why we have so many sufferers of disorders (less tiresome terminology I hope?) leading to extreme violence is what I am wondering about
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Personality%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf (http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Personality%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf)
(Also saw on another thread that you had some wonderful news, I wish you and your family all the best)
-
Do you think that mass murder is an option for a mentally healthy person?
Was President Truman a mentally healthy person when he authorized dropping nuclear bombs on Japan? What about the pilot and bombardier of the Enola Gay? I believe they were. We can play word games over what is considered murder and what isn't, but sane people justify homicide (to themselves, at least) all the time. Sometimes we call them heroes, and sometimes we call them monsters, it's just a matter of perspective.
A person acting out religiously inspired plans to kill people is going to have a hard time convincing me they were mentally unfit at the time... not without admitting to me that their god is just a delusion resulting from years of indoctrination and brainwashing.
I'm so tired, so very tired, of these things getting blamed on the mentally ill. We are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators; sometimes, mass shooters are clearly mentally ill, and, yes, we need a safety net that will catch them before people die from another's mental illness
Are you really suggesting that someone who goes into a nightclub and massacres 50 people because he didn't like the thought of two men kissing, with a history of domestic violence, controlling behaviour, steroid abuse and who, in the words of his ex-wife, was unstable is mentally healthy? Seriously?
It depends. Like I said above, people justify murder to themselves all the time. Is it mentally unhealthy to do something if you believe it is what God wants you to do? A lot of men use religion to justify their domestic violence and controlling behaviour, so you're not really convincing me he was mentally unhealthy and not just acting on religious motives.
But who's protecting us from you people?
Sounds like a pretty large chip on your shoulder to me.
I think Gillianren's comment is a fair one. People who are considered mentally healthy can be incredibly cruel.
I suffered from depression, anxiety, and low self esteem for pretty much all of high school and into my thirties. I blame much of it on the high school environment which was just plain soul crushing, and it was probably tame by today's standards.
How many kids start high school mentally healthy but come out suffering from depression, eating disorders, low self esteem, suicidal or violent thoughts, etc. after enduring four years of abuse from other allegedly normal kids? How many kids have committed suicide because of it?
-
Of course no one in the thread mentioned 'mental illness' at all, except LO in passing, not blaming.
Wait a second... let's get something straight here.
The first mention of mental illness was by you.
But there is no reason in the mind of a mass murderer, their target could be gays, Christians, students, anyone. Maybe those of us blessed with healthy minds should think about mental health in the States and why we have such intensely violent people.
I responded that it wasn't fair to say all cases like this are the result of mental illness.
I don't think we can pass all cases like this off as mental illness, especially if it turns out he planned his attack in advance.
-
Of course no one in the thread mentioned 'mental illness' at all, except LO in passing, not blaming.
Wait a second... let's get something straight here.
The first mention of mental illness was by you.
But there is no reason in the mind of a mass murderer, their target could be gays, Christians, students, anyone. Maybe those of us blessed with healthy minds should think about mental health in the States and why we have such intensely violent people.
LunarOrbit, please note that I simply did not say anything about 'mental illness', and for the same reason that it appears gillianren finds it objectionable. You can talk about having a healthier mental state without talking specifically about mental illness. The mentally ill are largely nonviolent and this has been known for years, no argument here. But since I didn't even mention mental illness, am I breaching forum rules by requesting that words not be put in my mouth?
-
But since I didn't even mention mental illness, am I breaching forum rules by requesting that words not be put in my mouth?
How am I putting words in your mouth by quoting your exact words?
Maybe those of us blessed with healthy minds should think about mental health in the States and why we have such intensely violent people.
You are clearly saying "mental health" issues are the reason why the US has "such intensely violent people". Unless you are saying it's the healthy people that are causing the violence, I see no other way to interpret it.
-
But since I didn't even mention mental illness, am I breaching forum rules by requesting that words not be put in my mouth?
How am I putting words in your mouth by quoting your exact words?
Maybe those of us blessed with healthy minds should think about mental health in the States and why we have such intensely violent people.
You are clearly saying "mental health" issues are the reason why the US has "such intensely violent people". Unless you are saying it's the healthy people that are causing the violence, I see no other way to interpret it.
We're kind of splitting hairs here, but you are not quoting my exact words. I simply didn't say anything about mental illness because the mentally ill are overwhelmingly non-violent, and no, I don't think the Orlando shooter had a mental illness. I believe he likely had a mental disorder, was sane (although profoundly unhealthy, my main point) but did not have a mental illness, as contradictory as that sounds on the surface. Do you get how talking about mental health issues involving intense violence has little to do with the largely non-violent mentally ill?
So that is how I hope you can interpret it, violently unhealthy but not mentally ill (as an aside, this is my first shot participating in a forum so if I screw up, please excuse any lapses)
-
Keep following this story. The newest twist is that the shooter himself seems to have been a regular patron of the nightclub, and several people who knew him suspect he was gay. That doesn't include his religious father, but that would hardly be surprising.
So it may be that we have an extreme example of something we've seen repeatedly in this country: a closeted gay who so completely internalizes the homophobia all around him that he "protests too much" and takes on the public persona of an aggressive homophobe. Fortunately it usually doesn't take the form of a mass murder.
Until now they have been mostly conservative Republican politicians and fundamentalist Christians. But given that homophobia seems universal in fundamentalist religion there's absolutely no reason to think it couldn't happen to a gay person raised in a Muslim family.
The point is very simple: homophobia kills, and in more ways than one. And it's about time people woke up to this fact.
-
And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy.
What metric do you base this statement on?
Flat numbers. The number of mentally ill people killed by mentally healthy in a year in the US is higher, by a fair amount, than the number of mentally healthy people killed by mentally ill people. No matter whose statistics you're using. This isn't separating out personality disorders, which I'm not doing. The fact is, whether you're looking at people with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or narcissistic personality disorder, or anything else you care to mention, we are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators, and the sicker we are, the more likely we are to be victims. According to "Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms," a study by Jonathan M. Metzl, MD, PhD corresponding author and Kenneth T. MacLeish, PhD, published in The American Journal of Public Health, "Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness." Further, "Their extensive surveys of police incident reports demonstrate that, far from posing threats to others, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have victimization rates 65% to 130% higher than those of the general public."
-
And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy.
What metric do you base this statement on?
Flat numbers. The number of mentally ill people killed by mentally healthy in a year in the US is higher, by a fair amount, than the number of mentally healthy people killed by mentally ill people. No matter whose statistics you're using. This isn't separating out personality disorders, which I'm not doing. The fact is, whether you're looking at people with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or narcissistic personality disorder, or anything else you care to mention, we are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators, and the sicker we are, the more likely we are to be victims. According to "Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms," a study by Jonathan M. Metzl, MD, PhD corresponding author and Kenneth T. MacLeish, PhD, published in The American Journal of Public Health, "Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness." Further, "Their extensive surveys of police incident reports demonstrate that, far from posing threats to others, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have victimization rates 65% to 130% higher than those of the general public."
I'm a well armed 2nd amendment defender....
I've come to conclusion I've been doing it wrong...for a few decades.
There is no quick fix here in the USA.
Nobody needs assault rifles. But I own one....
-
I'm a well armed 2nd amendment defender....
I've come to conclusion I've been doing it wrong...for a few decades.
There is no quick fix here in the USA.
Nobody needs assault rifles. But I own one....
Do you mind me asking what you use it for?
-
And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy.
What metric do you base this statement on?
Flat numbers. The number of mentally ill people killed by mentally healthy in a year in the US is higher, by a fair amount, than the number of mentally healthy people killed by mentally ill people. No matter whose statistics you're using. This isn't separating out personality disorders, which I'm not doing. The fact is, whether you're looking at people with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or narcissistic personality disorder, or anything else you care to mention, we are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators, and the sicker we are, the more likely we are to be victims. According to "Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms," a study by Jonathan M. Metzl, MD, PhD corresponding author and Kenneth T. MacLeish, PhD, published in The American Journal of Public Health, "Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness." Further, "Their extensive surveys of police incident reports demonstrate that, far from posing threats to others, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have victimization rates 65% to 130% higher than those of the general public."
Yes, but the less than 5% figure refers to mass shooters previously diagnosed with mental illness, many may have gone undiagnosed prior to their crimes (the study you cite also notes 'reports that up to 60% of perpetrators of mass shootings in the United States since 1970 displayed symptoms including acute paranoia, delusions and depression before committing their crimes.'
I'm so tired, so very tired, of these things getting blamed on the mentally ill. We are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators; sometimes, mass shooters are clearly mentally ill, and, yes, we need a safety net that will catch them before people die from another's mental illness. But who's protecting us from you people?
Do you think that mass murder is an option for a mentally healthy person? And who are 'you people' and what actions/beliefs do they/we endorse?
If studies of the psychology of mass murderers shows anything, yes, it is. The average mass shooter does not show any signs of mental illness; the only way you can make them do so is to assume that willingness to kill lots of people is in and of itself a mental illness that shares no symptom profile with any other condition. And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy. The people we are a most danger to is ourselves.
May I ask for clarification: your wrote 'but who's protecting us from you people?' and that 'you people' meant the mentally healthy. Does this mean that by saying 'us', you are saying you are mentally ill? And when you say ' the people we are most a danger to is ourselves', does this refer to the same or different grouping?
-
::)
-
May I ask for clarification: your wrote 'but who's protecting us from you people?' and that 'you people' meant the mentally healthy. Does this mean that by saying 'us', you are saying you are mentally ill? And when you say ' the people we are most a danger to is ourselves', does this refer to the same or different grouping?
Yes, I am mentally ill. So are one or two other people around here who may not have spoken up. Mentally ill people are more likely to kill themselves than others. They are more likely to be killed by mentally healthy people than they are to kill mentally healthy people, but every time there's a crime like this, everyone leaps on the "dangerous mentally ill people" bandwagon. Which, in fact, is part of why we're in more danger. Because there's an assumption we will turn violent, even when that's not true, a common reaction is to feel threatened by us and to take out the threat. And we die. We are killed more often by police, because they aren't trained in the nonviolent ways of dealing with mental illness that produce the best results. That isn't "and then they took out the shooter"; that's "and then they shot the guy who was ranting to himself in the middle of the street." Unfortunately, my references on that one are books, not websites. My references on most of this stuff has been books, because I read a fair amount about mental illness.
-
May I ask for clarification: your wrote 'but who's protecting us from you people?' and that 'you people' meant the mentally healthy. Does this mean that by saying 'us', you are saying you are mentally ill? And when you say ' the people we are most a danger to is ourselves', does this refer to the same or different grouping?
Yes, I am mentally ill. So are one or two other people around here who may not have spoken up. Mentally ill people are more likely to kill themselves than others. They are more likely to be killed by mentally healthy people than they are to kill mentally healthy people, but every time there's a crime like this, everyone leaps on the "dangerous mentally ill people" bandwagon. Which, in fact, is part of why we're in more danger. Because there's an assumption we will turn violent, even when that's not true, a common reaction is to feel threatened by us and to take out the threat. And we die. We are killed more often by police, because they aren't trained in the nonviolent ways of dealing with mental illness that produce the best results. That isn't "and then they took out the shooter"; that's "and then they shot the guy who was ranting to himself in the middle of the street." Unfortunately, my references on that one are books, not websites. My references on most of this stuff has been books, because I read a fair amount about mental illness.
Thank you, that's what it sounded like but wasn't sure. You sound strong in dealing with it it, and I think people in general are beginning to understand the difference between mental illness and antisocial/violent behavior, we are all learning. Good luck to you
-
Sadly, one does not get far suggesting the problem is anything to do with guns...
That genie isn't going back in the bottle in the States, though. I read somewhere that there are more firearms than humans here. Limiting magazine capacity always made sense to me, people who think they need 50 rounds available before reloading are clearly preparing for a firefight, and I would have to question exactly what scenario they had in mind.
High powered weapons can be a real power symbol/totem. Always kind of wondered if getting one can take someone who is just mean and, just because of the extra power, edge him over the line to full-on homicidal? Chicken or egg problem
-
The plain reality is that he would have not have been able to inflict such carnage if he did not have that weapon. I am amazed that US citizens fail to grasp such simple facts.
Don't get me wrong: I am not against firearms.
I believe that if farmers need them then there is no issue with them having rifles or perhaps shotguns.
I believe that sporting shooters can have weapons - providing that they are kept at an approved range.
I believe that people should be allowed to have weapons... providing they show a need (farmer / hobby / hunter) and undergo an appropriate background check.
Could he have obtained a weapon and killed people under the restriction I propose? Perhaps... but there would have been a greater chance to filter him out and prevent a weapon getting into his hands.
BTW, I am also curious: why do people need an assault rifle? I can understand a collector or dealer would want to be able to own one but why an ordinary person?
-
BTW, I am also curious: why do people need an assault rifle? I can understand a collector or dealer would want to be able to own one but why an ordinary person?
I'm not an American, or a gun owner (I used to be, until the gun laws changed in the UK after Dunblane, something I griped about but couldn't really argue with) but the response I've most often seen to that question is: 'Because I want one, and the law says I can have one.' The same way someone who was into cars or motorbikes might want the fastest, most powerful one they could legally have.
BTW, an AR-15 technically doesn't fall into the definition of 'assault rifle' because it doesn't (or shouldn't) have the capability to fire on full auto. However, it can be fired very rapidly just by pulling the trigger quickly so the difference is academic really. However, it's one of those things always seized on in these discussions by people eager to point out that liberals don't know anything about guns so should keep their mouths shut.
-
Thank you, that's what it sounded like but wasn't sure. You sound strong in dealing with it it, and I think people in general are beginning to understand the difference between mental illness and antisocial/violent behavior, we are all learning. Good luck to you
You're welcome. It's not always easy, but I've survived so far.
As to the "I want one, and the law says I can have one" argument, I really do feel as though, if you can't argue better than my not-quite-three-year-old, it's just possible that you're not mature enough to own a killing tool. And if you can't acknowledge that guns are killing tools, that's another problem.
-
The plain reality is that he would have not have been able to inflict such carnage if he did not have that weapon. I am amazed that US citizens fail to grasp such simple facts.
BTW, I am also curious: why do people need an assault rifle? I can understand a collector or dealer would want to be able to own one but why an ordinary person?
I think Timothy McVeigh and some guys from Saudi Arabia would beg to differ on how much carnage can be done without firearms. Don't underestimate motivated sociopaths.
An ordinary person doesn't need an assault rifle but a car buff doesn't need cars either. They just genuinely appreciate their design and performance, especially ex-military personnel. Guns in the US are tied in with our identity more than most countries; the idea of the armed citizen is in our cultural DNA. And overwhelmingly, their owners care for them responsibly and don't hurt a soul.
-
The plain reality is that he would have not have been able to inflict such carnage if he did not have that weapon. I am amazed that US citizens fail to grasp such simple facts.
BTW, I am also curious: why do people need an assault rifle? I can understand a collector or dealer would want to be able to own one but why an ordinary person?
I think Timothy McVeigh and some guys from Saudi Arabia would beg to differ on how much carnage can be done without firearms. Don't underestimate motivated sociopaths.
An ordinary person doesn't need an assault rifle but a car buff doesn't need cars either. They just genuinely appreciate their design and performance, especially ex-military personnel. Guns in the US are tied in with our identity more than most countries; the idea of the armed citizen is in our cultural DNA. And overwhelmingly, their owners care for them responsibly and don't hurt a soul.
Without wishing to put words into Obviousman's mouth, while it's true a motivated sociopath can do a lot of damage without guns, it's just a darn sight easier to cause mayhem with a gun. Specifically, you need less than an hour and, what, a couple of thousand dollars to go to your local gun shop, purchase a few firearms and some ammunition, then go out and kill dozens of people. By contrast, the 9/11 attacks took years of planning and must have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in air fares, flying lessons, hotel bills and so on.
The danger with firearms is the damage which can be caused by someone who's just Having A Bad Day.
Back in the late 1980s Australia had a couple of massed killings caused by people with guns, with six to eight people killed. These were obviously leading news stories of the day (given the population difference between Australia and the USA I'll let you calculate what the equivalent casualties would be). But I also very vividly remember reading a story at the time, on about page 5 of the newspaper, only a few centimetres long, of a man who went on a rampage in a shopping centre with a knife: something like seven people were wounded. And I remembered thinking, at least he didn't have a gun, otherwise it would have been another mass killing. Very simply, a gun allows you to kill people tens of metres away with just the twitch of your index finger, even if they're running away; with a knife you need to be right next to someone, and you need to use your whole arm: physically and psychologically it's a lot easier to kill people with a gun than with a knife.
-
And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy.
What metric do you base this statement on?
Flat numbers. The number of mentally ill people killed by mentally healthy in a year in the US is higher, by a fair amount, than the number of mentally healthy people killed by mentally ill people. No matter whose statistics you're using. This isn't separating out personality disorders, which I'm not doing. The fact is, whether you're looking at people with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or narcissistic personality disorder, or anything else you care to mention, we are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators, and the sicker we are, the more likely we are to be victims. According to "Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms," a study by Jonathan M. Metzl, MD, PhD corresponding author and Kenneth T. MacLeish, PhD, published in The American Journal of Public Health, "Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness." Further, "Their extensive surveys of police incident reports demonstrate that, far from posing threats to others, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have victimization rates 65% to 130% higher than those of the general public."
I have withheld any statements in an effort to abstain from an argument concerning statistics, however. In the 90's I was a special education teacher and by far the number of students with Emotional Disturbances was far larger than any other disability. Now it may have been a particular school or population but these individuals are far more inclined to commit violent crimes than any other disability group. So I would argue that people with ED are far more inclined to commit these violent crimes and as a percentage would be larger for that particular populations.
The other larger group of Learning Disabilities, is another group that MAY be inclined to commit crimes as they have a tendency to have difficulty conforming to "normal" learned personal behaviors. I'm not indicating that they are aggressive in there behaviors, but those students have difficulty in self esteem, when associating with the "general" population. With this lack of self esteem and believing out of normal behaviors MAY strike out with violent behaviors, including capital murders.
As a side note to the comment from your citation concerning schizophrenia. The population is so small that any crime committed will be large in percentages.
From Google "Worldwide about 1 percent of the population is diagnosed with schizophrenia, and approximately 1.2% of Americans (3.2 million) have the disorder. About 1.5 million people will be diagnosed with schizophrenia this year around the world"
-
So . . . you would argue, based on your experience with one population that even you admit might not be universal?
-
That genie isn't going back in the bottle in the States, though. I read somewhere that there are more firearms than humans here. Limiting magazine capacity always made sense to me, people who think they need 50 rounds available before reloading are clearly preparing for a firefight, and I would have to question exactly what scenario they had in mind.
I collect and shoot various firearms. I also have what are referred to as high capacity magazines. I'm not preparing for a gun fight; you have no rational reason to think I'm doing so. If you do, then please tell me why I am.
High powered weapons can be a real power symbol/totem. Always kind of wondered if getting one can take someone who is just mean and, just because of the extra power, edge him over the line to full-on homicidal? Chicken or egg problem
Just guns to me.
Ranb
-
I believe that sporting shooters can have weapons - providing that they are kept at an approved range.
No thanks. I also do my own gunsmithing for the most part, and I prefer to do so at home.
Could he have obtained a weapon and killed people under the restriction I propose? Perhaps... but there would have been a greater chance to filter him out and prevent a weapon getting into his hands.
He had a bkgd check; what else do you want?
BTW, I am also curious: why do people need an assault rifle? I can understand a collector or dealer would want to be able to own one but why an ordinary person?
I compete with mine.
Ranb
-
I believe the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, and if there was some way to guaranty that only responsible people could own guns I probably wouldn't have a problem with them. But we know that irresponsible people can too easily get their hands on them, and I don't think there is a way to prevent that because it's not like they walk around with a giant sign that points to them saying "I'm not responsible enough to own a gun".
Background checks will only help so much. Someone who is planning their first crime won't have a criminal record. Not all mental illnesses have been diagnosed, let alone reported to anyone. And the people who have become radicalized are often smart enough to avoid catching the attention of the government.
And what good is a background check if it isn't going to prevent people who are on the anti-terrorism "do not fly" list from owning a large arsenal of weapons?
So what would you recommend, Ranb? How do we prevent mass shootings without restricting access to these weapons? How do we know who will commit those crimes before they do it?
I think we need to draw the line somewhere. At the very least there should be a limit to how much ammunition a magazine can hold, but I'd like to go even further. Require a special license for owning certain guns, and prohibit access to others completely. Someone like yourself who competes with a particular rifle would have a license to do so because you have proven you're responsible.
Believe me, I totally understand why good people don't want to be punished for the crimes of a few bad apples, but I think it's clear that things have gotten out of hand. The US doesn't have more mentally ill people than other countries, but it has a vastly higher rate of mass shootings. The ease of access to assault rifles has got to have something to do with it.
We ban dangerous items all the time. You can't get a Kinder Egg (a hollow chocolate egg containing a small toy) in the United States because they are a potential choking hazard. We can't get lawn darts any more because 6 people were killed over the course of 10 years in the 1980s. But for some reason guns that can kill 50 people in a matter of seconds can be owned by pretty much anyone. How does that make sense?
-
I collect and shoot various firearms. I also have what are referred to as high capacity magazines. I'm not preparing for a gun fight; you have no rational reason to think I'm doing so. If you do, then please tell me why I am.
Ok, fair point and I concede it. How about this: Is there a reason that you would need mag capacity beyond, say, 5 rounds before reloading? Maybe just for specialized competition? Would it be reasonable to have specialized licensing for those firearms so that you could enjoy them responsibly while keeping them away from guys like the Orlando shooter? In light of his and other victims, is there any rational argument against such a minor measure?
High powered weapons can be a real power symbol/totem. Always kind of wondered if getting one can take someone who is just mean and, just because of the extra power, edge him over the line to full-on homicidal? Chicken or egg problem
Just guns to me.
Different subjects. I'm wondering if guys who fetishize high-powered weapons (I'll introduce you to boatloads if you have not met any) might get empowered to take their hate to the next level by buying one, not suggesting all owners are like that. Just guns to me too, but for the Orlando shooter it was an efficient tool for a job, and slowing those types down is the issue.
He had a bkgd check; what else do you want?
Uhhh...maybe for him to not have the option of picking up a modified military weapon on his freaking lunch break with nothing but a driver's license? You sound like the classic perfectly responsible owner, do you really think some yahoo off the street should be able to easily get his hands on hardware like that? After all, what could go wrong?
I live in a state where even shotguns have to be plugged to hold no more than three shells. I found it reasonable and no horrific burden. What reason could some knucklehead off the street have to reasonably need that kind of capacity, short of a firefight?
-
Without wishing to put words into Obviousman's mouth, while it's true a motivated sociopath can do a lot of damage without guns, it's just a darn sight easier to cause mayhem with a gun...(snipped for brevity)
I agree with your observations and have also argued in favor of limiting magazine capacity etc in this very thread. Obviousman said:
The plain reality is that he would have not have been able to inflict such carnage if he did not have that weapon. I am amazed that US citizens fail to grasp such simple facts.
That is demonstrably not a fact, the Orlando shooter could have inflicted carnage in an incalculable number of ways. He chose the easiest, but McVeigh showed pretty clearly that there are other ways to wreak havoc. Us dumb ol' US citizens can in fact grasp simple facts, but the gun issue is fairly complex (*nationalistic pride engaged*)
-
We ban dangerous items all the time. You can't get a Kinder Egg (a hollow chocolate egg containing a small toy) in the United States because they are a potential choking hazard. We can't get lawn darts any more because 6 people were killed over the course of 10 years in the 1980s. But for some reason guns that can kill 50 people in a matter of seconds can be owned by pretty much anyone. How does that make sense?
Excellent points in a well-written post. Regarding lawn darts and Kinder eggs, though, these were marketed for use by kids. Firearms aren't, and to own one you have to meet your state and federal laws. In my state, even to buy a BB gun you have to apply for a 'long gun card', register with your towns police department, be fingerprinted etc in addition to the felon/background check requirements.
-
I think we need to draw the line somewhere. At the very least there should be a limit to how much ammunition a magazine can hold, but I'd like to go even further. Require a special license for owning certain guns, and prohibit access to others completely. Someone like yourself who competes with a particular rifle would have a license to do so because you have proven you're responsible.
Believe me, I totally understand why good people don't want to be punished for the crimes of a few bad apples, but I think it's clear that things have gotten out of hand. The US doesn't have more mentally ill people than other countries, but it has a vastly higher rate of mass shootings. The ease of access to assault rifles has got to have something to do with it.
We ban dangerous items all the time. You can't get a Kinder Egg (a hollow chocolate egg containing a small toy) in the United States because they are a potential choking hazard. We can't get lawn darts any more because 6 people were killed over the course of 10 years in the 1980s. But for some reason guns that can kill 50 people in a matter of seconds can be owned by pretty much anyone. How does that make sense?
Well said.
-
The plain reality is that he would have not have been able to inflict such carnage if he did not have that weapon. I am amazed that US citizens fail to grasp such simple facts.
That is demonstrably not a fact, the Orlando shooter could have inflicted carnage in an incalculable number of ways. He chose the easiest, but McVeigh showed pretty clearly that there are other ways to wreak havoc. Us dumb ol' US citizens can in fact grasp simple facts, but the gun issue is fairly complex (*nationalistic pride engaged*)
Okay, I concede there are many ways to cause carnage... but the use of firearms in the US to wreak havoc must indicate something.
-
I collect and shoot various firearms. I also have what are referred to as high capacity magazines. I'm not preparing for a gun fight; you have no rational reason to think I'm doing so. If you do, then please tell me why I am.
In terms of possessing the necessary equipment, you are nevertheless prepared
-
So . . . you would argue, based on your experience with one population that even you admit might not be universal?
All I was trying to suggest, communication is my Achilles heal, That those ED individuals are far more likely to commit violent crimes than any other group when considering disabled individuals or those not diagnosed with disabilities.
-
That is demonstrably not a fact, the Orlando shooter could have inflicted carnage in an incalculable number of ways. He chose the easiest, but McVeigh showed pretty clearly that there are other ways to wreak havoc. Us dumb ol' US citizens can in fact grasp simple facts, but the gun issue is fairly complex (*nationalistic pride engaged*)
Here's the thing, though. After Oklahoma City, sales of large amounts of fertilizer were tracked. One company even started developing a fertilizer that couldn't be turned into a bomb. Because we as a nation recognized that, hey, that was a dangerous thing that we could maybe do something to mitigate even though what he used was not intended as a killing tool. But when it comes to actual tools designed to kill, any step to mitigate the danger is just plain wrong, somehow.
So . . . you would argue, based on your experience with one population that even you admit might not be universal?
All I was trying to suggest, communication is my Achilles heal, That those ED individuals are far more likely to commit violent crimes than any other group when considering disabled individuals or those not diagnosed with disabilities.
Oh, I know exactly what you were trying to suggest. I'm saying you don't have a valid statistical sample to do so.
-
So . . . you would argue, based on your experience with one population that even you admit might not be universal?
All I was trying to suggest, communication is my Achilles heal, That those ED individuals are far more likely to commit violent crimes than any other group when considering disabled individuals or those not diagnosed with disabilities.
Oh, I know exactly what you were trying to suggest. I'm saying you don't have a valid statistical sample to do so.
Then the statistics you quoted are even a smaller group, so those are more questionable than the mine.
EDIT: And this was the type of argument that I didn't want to be involved with. Statistics can be used to "show" many sides of an argument. I have a saying, Figures never lie but liars always figure. Note that I am not calling you a liar, as you are posting information gathered from other sources.
-
Ok, fair point and I concede it. How about this: Is there a reason that you would need mag capacity beyond, say, 5 rounds before reloading? Maybe just for specialized competition?
That would be it. I also enjoy 30 round mags for plinking.
Would it be reasonable to have specialized licensing for those firearms so that you could enjoy them responsibly while keeping them away from guys like the Orlando shooter? In light of his and other victims, is there any rational argument against such a minor measure?
You understand that every firearm with a detachable magazine can accept a high capacity magazine. If you can't buy one, then anyone who can operate a hacksaw and a roll of tape can make one. What you propose is a license to own just about any semi-auto firearm. No thanks.
Would this be a "shall issue" or a "may issue" license? Current federal regulations require that any individual who wants to buy or make an NFA firearm obtain the signature of their local sheriff on the application. The sheriff can discriminate in any fashion he or she wants and no one has been able to successfully sue when unable to obtain the signature. When I lived in Hawaii it was said that one had to be a friend of the Honolulu police chief to obtain a carry permit as it was "may issue", but rarely done.
Uhhh...maybe for him to not have the option of picking up a modified military weapon on his freaking lunch break with nothing but a driver's license? You sound like the classic perfectly responsible owner, do you really think some yahoo off the street should be able to easily get his hands on hardware like that? After all, what could go wrong?
I'm one of those yahoos off the street. I buy guns by showing a state issued ID card and a NICS check. Making a silencer is even easier but more time consuming. I send in an application along with a copy of my trust document.
I live in a state where even shotguns have to be plugged to hold no more than three shells. I found it reasonable and no horrific burden. What reason could some knucklehead off the street have to reasonably need that kind of capacity, short of a firefight?
Does "even shotguns" mean other firearms are limited to 3 rounds? Was the 3 round limit put in place due to a crime problem? Where are they doing this?
Ranb
-
In terms of possessing the necessary equipment, you are nevertheless prepared
So are over a million other Americans of which the vast majority don't consider murdering people.
Ranb
-
1. You understand that every firearm with a detachable magazine can accept a high capacity magazine. What you propose is a license to own just about any semi-auto firearm.
2 Would this be a "shall issue" or a "may issue" license?
3. I'm one of those yahoos off the street.
4. Does "even shotguns" mean other firearms are limited to 3 rounds? Was the 3 round limit put in place due to a crime problem? Where are they doing this?
1. Yes, I know, and yes, that is what I am proposing. Semis are the weapon of choice for mass shooters, and I think extra measures to keep them in the hands of responsible users are entirely reasonable steps, posing minimal burden on responsible users.
2. 'Shall issue' after demonstrating proficiency in safe handling and familiarity with local firearm laws. Again, in the interests of safety to the general public, not a huge burden.
3. No, I don't think you are. I think you are a responsible gun enthusiast, not some nitwit who buys a gun he saw in Call of Duty and cleans it with WD-40.
4. Other firearms not permitted for hunting in my state, except a short black powder muzzle-loader season with special permit. Not even .22lr for small game/varmints. No open or concealed carry of handguns without an almost impossible to get Judge's order based on your life being in danger. The three shell plug was law in the 1980's when I got my Long Gun card, don't know the reasoning behind it. Welcome to the gun owners paradise of New Jersey, USA. Shotgun only for hunting because the state is flat and densely populated. NFA guns not even up for discussion, if I am remembering correctly what they are (shotguns with barrels under 18" and such, right? Not gonna see 'em here babe).
This is why I don't get why this Mickey Mouse level of regulation we are talking about in this thread is such an issue in other states. You really think the piddly measures we are talking about here are so draconian? If a few nuisance regulations can prevent a lot of body bags and grieving families, I think it's something we can all live with.
-
That is demonstrably not a fact, the Orlando shooter could have inflicted carnage in an incalculable number of ways. He chose the easiest, but McVeigh showed pretty clearly that there are other ways to wreak havoc.
Not so fast. McVeigh and his buddy Nichols had to invest a lot of time and effort. They first had to learn how such large bombs are made. Then they had to obtain and store the necessary materials, which was much more than just a lot of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Rather than mix the AN with the usual diesel oil, they used nitromethane, purchased over time through racing suppliers.
Then they needed a way to detonate it. ANFO is so insensitive that you need a "booster" explosive; a mere blasting cap won't set it off. (ANNM is more sensitive but I still think it needs a booster.) So they arranged to burgle large amounts of booster explosive, detonation cords, fuses and blasting caps from a mining operation. That was a major operation in itself that obviously carried a major risk of compromising the whole operation. So was their robbery of a nearby gun owner to fund the operation.
IIRC, they conducted some small-scale test explosions, which obviously also carried considerable risk.
Finally they had to rent the truck, mix and assemble the bomb (when they were almost detected) and drive it to Oklahoma City.
All this was far more difficult than merely buying an AR-15 and a lot of ammo and driving to a nightclub. Fortunately.
-
He had a bkgd check; what else do you want?
Uhhh...maybe for him to not have the option of picking up a modified military weapon on his freaking lunch break with nothing but a driver's license? You sound like the classic perfectly responsible owner, do you really think some yahoo off the street should be able to easily get his hands on hardware like that? After all, what could go wrong?
I live in a state where even shotguns have to be plugged to hold no more than three shells. I found it reasonable and no horrific burden. What reason could some knucklehead off the street have to reasonably need that kind of capacity, short of a firefight?
He also had a concealed carry license and a security permit. On paper (FBI suspicions notwithstanding) he looked better-vetted than your average citizen. Mebbe the whole "nothing on the background check despite terrorism suspicion" angle should be pursued rather than limiting everyone else?
-
BTW, I am also curious: why do people need an assault rifle? I can understand a collector or dealer would want to be able to own one but why an ordinary person?
My assault rifle do you mean "military looking" semi-auto rifle? What makes one special compared to a differently-packaged semi-auto?
-
my daughter looked up the definition of a mass shooting and found this article that is pretty disturbing. Of all the people who were wounded, how many of them have had their quality of life seriously degraded?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence)
-
That is demonstrably not a fact, the Orlando shooter could have inflicted carnage in an incalculable number of ways. He chose the easiest, but McVeigh showed pretty clearly that there are other ways to wreak havoc.
Not so fast. McVeigh and his buddy Nichols had to invest a lot of time and effort. They first had to learn how such large bombs are made. Then they had to obtain and store the necessary materials, which was much more than just a lot of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Rather than mix the AN with the usual diesel oil, they used nitromethane, purchased over time through racing suppliers.
Then they needed a way to detonate it. ANFO is so insensitive that you need a "booster" explosive; a mere blasting cap won't set it off. (ANNM is more sensitive but I still think it needs a booster.) So they arranged to burgle large amounts of booster explosive, detonation cords, fuses and blasting caps from a mining operation. That was a major operation in itself that obviously carried a major risk of compromising the whole operation. So was their robbery of a nearby gun owner to fund the operation.
IIRC, they conducted some small-scale test explosions, which obviously also carried considerable risk.
Finally they had to rent the truck, mix and assemble the bomb (when they were almost detected) and drive it to Oklahoma City.
All this was far more difficult than merely buying an AR-15 and a lot of ammo and driving to a nightclub. Fortunately.
And with all this planning, they forgot to have/put a license on their vehicle, carried a unlicensed hidden hand gun and got picked up by a officer, who luckily spotted the vehicle.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oklahoma-city-bombing-20150419-story.html
-
That is demonstrably not a fact, the Orlando shooter could have inflicted carnage in an incalculable number of ways. He chose the easiest, but McVeigh showed pretty clearly that there are other ways to wreak havoc.
Not so fast. McVeigh and his buddy Nichols had to invest a lot of time and effort. They first had to learn how such large bombs are made. Then they had to obtain and store the necessary materials, which was much more than just a lot of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Rather than mix the AN with the usual diesel oil, they used nitromethane, purchased over time through racing suppliers.
Then they needed a way to detonate it. ANFO is so insensitive that you need a "booster" explosive; a mere blasting cap won't set it off. (ANNM is more sensitive but I still think it needs a booster.) So they arranged to burgle large amounts of booster explosive, detonation cords, fuses and blasting caps from a mining operation. That was a major operation in itself that obviously carried a major risk of compromising the whole operation. So was their robbery of a nearby gun owner to fund the operation.
IIRC, they conducted some small-scale test explosions, which obviously also carried considerable risk.
Finally they had to rent the truck, mix and assemble the bomb (when they were almost detected) and drive it to Oklahoma City.
All this was far more difficult than merely buying an AR-15 and a lot of ammo and driving to a nightclub. Fortunately.
Yeah, that was Revmic you were quoting, not me.
-
In terms of possessing the necessary equipment, you are nevertheless prepared
So are over a million other Americans of which the vast majority don't consider murdering people.
Ranb
I suppose my concern lies in the direction that, while I agree all those people aren't considering murdering people, those of us without firearms don't know whether the next person walking down the street openly carrying a firearm is one of that vast majority of sensible law-abiding citizens or someone about to unsling their weapon and start shooting, especially considering it takes only a few seconds to extract the weapon and start firing.
-
I suppose my concern lies in the direction that, while I agree all those people aren't considering murdering people, those of us without firearms don't know whether the next person walking down the street openly carrying a firearm is one of that vast majority of sensible law-abiding citizens or someone about to unsling their weapon and start shooting, especially considering it takes only a few seconds to extract the weapon and start firing.
What makes you think that those of us with firearms feel any different? If I was this paranoid I wouldn't be able to leave my house at all.
Based on what I've read about the typical person with a concealed carry permit or those who carry openly, I've got little to fear from them at all. It is the Zimmerman's who get a huge amount of press, but the guy or gal who carries without incident is ignored until someone comes along to tell me how worried they are that an inanimate object is going to turn the armed person into a monster.
Ranb
-
This is why I don't get why this Mickey Mouse level of regulation we are talking about in this thread is such an issue in other states. You really think the piddly measures we are talking about here are so draconian? If a few nuisance regulations can prevent a lot of body bags and grieving families, I think it's something we can all live with.
Can you identify any gun control measures that have led to less body bags? Other than laws that prohibit gun possession by criminals, most gun control laws are directly aimed at law abiding persons. In San Francisco they tried to prohibit handgun possession; criminals were among those who were exempt from the proposed ordinance. http://mccullagh.org/sf/handgun-ban/
The latest ideas consist of using lists of persons who will not be allowed to buy guns. The due process is minimal (mickey mouse?) as far as I know and some people who are guilty of nothing other than their name being known to the US government are going to find their civil rights curtailed.
1. Yes, I know, and yes, that is what I am proposing. Semis are the weapon of choice for mass shooters, and I think extra measures to keep them in the hands of responsible users are entirely reasonable steps, posing minimal burden on responsible users.
I wasn't speaking of only semi-auto firearms, but anything with a detachable magazine including bolt action guns. I have a Savage 10 FCM chambered in 338 whisper with a 20 round magazine. A hacksaw and duck tape was all that was required to assemble it from the original mag and an aftermarket M-14 mag. When it worked I welded the two pieces of sheet metal together. http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/338whisper.jpg
Ranb
-
Can you identify any gun control measures that have led to less body bags?
Well, you could just look how the number of gun deaths per capita in the USA compares with other western democracies, and then compare gun control measures in the US and those other countries.
-
This is why I don't get why this Mickey Mouse level of regulation we are talking about in this thread is such an issue in other states. You really think the piddly measures we are talking about here are so draconian? If a few nuisance regulations can prevent a lot of body bags and grieving families, I think it's something we can all live with.
Can you identify any gun control measures that have led to less body bags? Other than laws that prohibit gun possession by criminals, most gun control laws are directly aimed at law abiding persons. In San Francisco they tried to prohibit handgun possession; criminals were among those who were exempt from the proposed ordinance. http://mccullagh.org/sf/handgun-ban/
Easy.
Australia had a mass shooting when a rich kid went full Tonto and murdered 35 people with an AR15. The Aussie government then banned all semis, pump action shotguns and introduced tight firearm controls. Guess how many mass shootings since then? 4. In 20 years. America has more than that in a week.
Also in 1996 a pervert named Thomas Hamilton walked into a school in Scotland and slaughtered 16 kiddies under the age of 6 and their teacher. He then shot himself. Following that the UK government introduced two gun control laws that pretty much banned most handguns and rifles. Guess how many mass shootings since then? One. In 20 years.
Other countries can make gun legislation that works and forces gun users to take up another hobby. Neither of those countries are cowering under oppressive governments, as is frequently portrayed by the gun lobbies and Conservatives in the US.
-
That is demonstrably not a fact, the Orlando shooter could have inflicted carnage in an incalculable number of ways. He chose the easiest, but McVeigh showed pretty clearly that there are other ways to wreak havoc.
Not so fast. McVeigh and his buddy Nichols had to invest a lot of time and effort. They first had to learn how such large bombs are made. Then they had to obtain and store the necessary materials, which was much more than just a lot of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Rather than mix the AN with the usual diesel oil, they used nitromethane, purchased over time through racing suppliers.
Then they needed a way to detonate it. ANFO is so insensitive that you need a "booster" explosive; a mere blasting cap won't set it off. (ANNM is more sensitive but I still think it needs a booster.) So they arranged to burgle large amounts of booster explosive, detonation cords, fuses and blasting caps from a mining operation. That was a major operation in itself that obviously carried a major risk of compromising the whole operation. So was their robbery of a nearby gun owner to fund the operation.
IIRC, they conducted some small-scale test explosions, which obviously also carried considerable risk.
Finally they had to rent the truck, mix and assemble the bomb (when they were almost detected) and drive it to Oklahoma City.
All this was far more difficult than merely buying an AR-15 and a lot of ammo and driving to a nightclub. Fortunately.
As Peter B courteously noted, I think this was directed to me. Thanks, ka9q, for an informative post, I knew generally about nitrates but not about the need for a boosting agent and the other details. However, I didn't mean to suggest that it was simple, fast or easy to make an improvised explosive of that magnitude, I was responding to Obviousman's 'simple fact' that the Orlando shooter could not inflict carnage without that weapon. I entirely agree that restrictions will slow down some would-be shooters, maybe even stop the really dimwitted ones, and I'm on board with reasonable measures to curb their corner-store access by almost anyone at anytime. But I was by no means suggesting that they were comparable in logistics or execution.
-
Thanks, but I did mean laws in the USA. I am already familiar with the effects of gun control laws in Australia.
-
This is why I don't get why this Mickey Mouse level of regulation we are talking about in this thread is such an issue in other states. You really think the piddly measures we are talking about here are so draconian? If a few nuisance regulations can prevent a lot of body bags and grieving families, I think it's something we can all live with.
Can you identify any gun control measures that have led to less body bags? Other than laws that prohibit gun possession by criminals, most gun control laws are directly aimed at law abiding persons. In San Francisco they tried to prohibit handgun possession; criminals were among those who were exempt from the proposed ordinance. http://mccullagh.org/sf/handgun-ban/
The latest ideas consist of using lists of persons who will not be allowed to buy guns. The due process is minimal (mickey mouse?) as far as I know and some people who are guilty of nothing other than their name being known to the US government are going to find their civil rights curtailed.
1. Yes, I know, and yes, that is what I am proposing. Semis are the weapon of choice for mass shooters, and I think extra measures to keep them in the hands of responsible users are entirely reasonable steps, posing minimal burden on responsible users.
I wasn't speaking of only semi-auto firearms, but anything with a detachable magazine including bolt action guns. I have a Savage 10 FCM chambered in 338 whisper with a 20 round magazine. A hacksaw and duck tape was all that was required to assemble it from the original mag and an aftermarket M-14 mag. When it worked I welded the two pieces of sheet metal together. http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/338whisper.jpg
Ranb
gwiz and Zakalwe beat me to the punch on your first question, but trying to outright ban ownership of guns in the States would certainly lead to a state of less than civil disobedience. The US hasn't laid down much by way of serious laws for comparison, that's kind of the problem. BTW, in my fair State, ownership of your guns and silencers in the pics would fall under 'defacing a firearm' and earn you a lengthy stay in one of our lovely correctional facilities. I forget sometimes how much variation exists between jurisdictions.
Your point that laws only affect the law abiding is well taken, but can we assume for the moment that ease of access is the issue? You pretty clearly are into the design and performance of firearms and take them seriously. A potential mass shooter just wants something that throws a lot of rounds as fast as possible, that he can acquire fast and easy. Would throwing up some speed bumps to keep modified military weapons away from his easy access really be such a crippling blow to you? How would you present that argument to the grieving families in Orlando?
Bolt-action rifles are I believe less common for mass shooters, a couple of snipers come to mind but by and large it is the rounds per minute delivery that is the big issue. Yes, you can kill with a single-shot weapon, but not spray a crowd as a gas semi can do in seconds.
As a sidebar, nice pics, are those home built silencers? (3-5 years for possession here, never used one except the 2-liter bottle improv) Do they affect your spread much?
-
Do you think that mass murder is an option for a mentally healthy person?
If studies of the psychology of mass murderers shows anything, yes, it is. The average mass shooter does not show any signs of mental illness; the only way you can make them do so is to assume that willingness to kill lots of people is in and of itself a mental illness that shares no symptom profile with any other condition.
Meant to follow up on this, got derailed. Mass shooters tend to either shoot themselves (suicide), or can reasonably expect to be shot by responding law enforcement (suicide by cop). Since one of our most basic needs is survival, should mass murderers be considered to be making a rational choice?
-
Meant to follow up on this, got derailed. Mass shooters tend to either shoot themselves (suicide), or can reasonably expect to be shot by responding law enforcement (suicide by cop). Since one of our most basic needs is survival, should mass murderers be considered to be making a rational choice?
Are soldiers? They go in knowing they might be killed. Volunteer soldiers enlist knowing they might be killed; come to that, so do cops, firefighters, and all nature of other professions.
-
Meant to follow up on this, got derailed. Mass shooters tend to either shoot themselves (suicide), or can reasonably expect to be shot by responding law enforcement (suicide by cop). Since one of our most basic needs is survival, should mass murderers be considered to be making a rational choice?
Are soldiers? They go in knowing they might be killed. Volunteer soldiers enlist knowing they might be killed; come to that, so do cops, firefighters, and all nature of other professions.
I know I might be killed when crossing the street. Cops, soldiers, firefighters, etc accept risks but try not to, for instance, blow their own heads off. They also have long-term benefits in their jobs that at least assume they will continue to live after working, which statistically they do. Not comparable to the suicide mission that the mass murderer 'rationally' chooses
-
I know I might be killed when crossing the street. Cops, soldiers, firefighters, etc accept risks but try not to, for instance, blow their own heads off. They also have long-term benefits in their jobs that at least assume they will continue to live after working, which statistically they do. Not comparable to the suicide mission that the mass murderer 'rationally' chooses
All right, then, limit it to soldiers asked to volunteer for extremely dangerous missions; it happens, after all. Are they rational?
-
Would throwing up some speed bumps to keep modified military weapons away from his easy access really be such a crippling blow to you? How would you present that argument to the grieving families in Orlando?
What kind of speed bumps do you suggest that would have kept Marteen from getting a semi-auto rifle? He was a licensed security guard if I remember correctly. I would suggest that we need to concentrate on preventing access by violent people until all guns can be eliminated from society (which would be never).
As a sidebar, nice pics, are those home built silencers? (3-5 years for possession here, never used one except the 2-liter bottle improv) Do they affect your spread much?
All home built as I can't afford to buy them. They're $40 to $250 in material plus the ATF's $200 tax on each. Since the bullet never touches the baffles, accuracy and velocity is unaffected. The addition weight on the barrel requires scope or sight adjustment at anything but short range.
New Jersey is falling behind the times. The general trend is for states to ease restrictions on guns especially silencers as they are the most effective means of reducing gun noise.
But in NJ they think they can limit the amount of guns sold by requiring that only smart guns be sold; no one voting for the smart gun bill was actually stupid enough to believe it was going to make anyone safer.
When the prime sponsor of the smart gun law realized she wasn't fooling anyone she pushed another bill through which would actually encourage the use of smart guns by requiring that dealers stock them along side traditional guns; but dumb-ass Christie vetoed it. NJ is the laughing stock of the gun community as a result.
Ranb
-
I know I might be killed when crossing the street. Cops, soldiers, firefighters, etc accept risks but try not to, for instance, blow their own heads off. They also have long-term benefits in their jobs that at least assume they will continue to live after working, which statistically they do. Not comparable to the suicide mission that the mass murderer 'rationally' chooses
All right, then, limit it to soldiers asked to volunteer for extremely dangerous missions; it happens, after all. Are they rational?
Even a soldier volunteering for an extremely dangerous mission will have the best extraction plan feasible in place, I think that is not comparable to the 40% of mass shooters who commit suicide (statistics vary a lot on this, including whether the shooter would have killed himself if the cops had not got him first). A mass shooter's suicide or 'shoot until shot' choice offers no plan for survival, which I do not see as a rational option for a 'healthy' mind.
-
What kind of speed bumps do you suggest that would have kept Marteen from getting a semi-auto rifle? He was a licensed security guard if I remember correctly. I would suggest that we need to concentrate on preventing access by violent people until all guns can be eliminated from society (which would be never).
I think VQ had a similar observation, that having a concealed carry permit and being a security guard implies he was more responsible, I think those things work against him. Concealed carry is actually preparing for a shootout on the street, and IMHO security guards , armed neighborhood watchers, and other wannabe cops are the loosest of cannons.
Yes, keeping arms out of the hands of violent people is the ideal. No, we don't always know who they are. Since you seem opposed to licensing, are you proposing some kind of psychological testing at point of sale? Do tell.
NJ is the laughing stock of the gun community as a result.
Settle down.
-
Concealed carry is actually preparing for a shootout on the street, and IMHO security guards , armed neighborhood watchers, and other wannabe cops are the loosest of cannons.
Data to back this up?
Yes, keeping arms out of the hands of violent people is the ideal. No, we don't always know who they are. Since you seem opposed to licensing, are you proposing some kind of psychological testing at point of sale? Do tell.
No point of sale testing. Just about any adult (non-felon) can get a license for anything. Unless the license is used to actually deny possession to the great majority of people, it will not change anything.
Settle down.
I do not jest. The NJ smart gun law exempted the police, a group of people who can obviously benefit from smart guns that actually work, not just ones that the AG thinks are acceptable. Why would NJ exempt smart gun use by the police? Probably because they're more interested in limiting civilian gun choices than safety. I've yet to see any police agency that wants the current smart gun technology. Why make others buy junk that the police are unwilling to risk their lives over?
I'd prefer a personalized gun if it worked and was not cumbersome.
Ranb
-
Concealed carry is actually preparing for a shootout on the street, and IMHO security guards , armed neighborhood watchers, and other wannabe cops are the loosest of cannons.
Data to back this up?
Data for what? The first part is a self-evident logical conclusion, the second is a humble opinion.
Concealed carry applies to public areas, or 'on the street'. Unless you claim that a concealed carrier wants to be prepared for an impromptu target shoot where he must conceal his weapon to be a surprise contender (slight strawman, but not by much), the intent of a concealed handgun is to publicly open fire on someone. Or just wave it around, actually worse. Judge, jury, and executioner on a split seconds notice. Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question
No point of sale testing. Just about any adult (non-felon) can get a license for anything. Unless the license is used to actually deny possession to the great majority of people, it will not change anything.
So when you say that we should focus on 'preventing access by violent people' you mean we should....do absolutely nothing? Another serious question
Probably because they're more interested in limiting civilian gun choices than safety.
I don't know how the smart gun issue was portrayed in the rest of the country, but your above quote was the prevailing local opinion. Final serious question: what spread and at what yardage can you hold with that Contender in your photobucket, assuming still wind?
-
Data for what? The first part is a self-evident logical conclusion, the second is a humble opinion.
Concealed carry applies to public areas, or 'on the street'. Unless you claim that a concealed carrier wants to be prepared for an impromptu target shoot where he must conceal his weapon to be a surprise contender (slight strawman, but not by much), the intent of a concealed handgun is to publicly open fire on someone. Or just wave it around, actually worse. Judge, jury, and executioner on a split seconds notice. Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question
Have you undertaken any training or serious study of CCW? It doesn't sound like your conclusions and your opinion aren't very well informed. The goal of CCW is to survive a life threatening situation. It isn't just a matter of strapping up like some Barney Badass. Knowing the laws and other factors, such as situational awareness and threat avoidance are critical components. For instance, just waving a concealed firearm around is itself a crime (Brandishing) in my locale and others and can be extended to a more serious offense such as Menacing, or Assault With a Deadly Weapon, depending on circumstances.
I'm a practitioner myself...although not daily, since I work in a Federal facility...and I will be quite content to never have a need to deploy my firearm. Ever. But my overriding goal is for myself and/or others to not be injured or killed if I can help it.
And yes, I also have AR-15s: one off-the-shelf model chambered in 5.56 mm and one I built, in .300 Blackout. Their primary use is recreational shooting, with utility as home defense rifles...even if it's against a bear that doesn't mind his manners like most of our ursine visitors do. Magazine capacity? What one actually needs is always determined after the fact. I want more left in the magazine after an encounter than I needed. It beats the heck out of having one less.
-
Data for what? The first part is a self-evident logical conclusion, the second is a humble opinion.
Concealed carry applies to public areas, or 'on the street'. Unless you claim that a concealed carrier wants to be prepared for an impromptu target shoot where he must conceal his weapon to be a surprise contender (slight strawman, but not by much), the intent of a concealed handgun is to publicly open fire on someone. Or just wave it around, actually worse. Judge, jury, and executioner on a split seconds notice. Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question
Actually, I know several people that only use their permit exclusively for transport of weapons to and from the range - the definition of "concealed" can be counterintuitive and it avoids risk of legal trouble. The intent of a concealed carry is to stop a felonious assault.
I think for most security guards their job is just a job, one in which a license to carry results in a slightly better pay rate.
-
I've yet to see any police agency that wants the current smart gun technology. Why make others buy junk that the police are unwilling to risk their lives over?
Why don't you ask the Las Vegas cop at the Donald Trump rally when Michael Sandford tried to steal his gun to shoot Trump?
The Boston Bombers murdered an MIT police officer in an unsuccessful attempt to steal his gun; apparently he had some sort of lock that kept them from pulling it out of its holster. Yes, the cop is still dead but that's only because the brothers didn't know about the holster lock. If it became generally known that cops had either holster locks or a "smart" gun that kept it from being fired by anybody else, the incentive to steal a cop's gun would go away.
-
Data for what? The first part is a self-evident logical conclusion, the second is a humble opinion.
Concealed carry applies to public areas, or 'on the street'. Unless you claim that a concealed carrier wants to be prepared for an impromptu target shoot where he must conceal his weapon to be a surprise contender (slight strawman, but not by much), the intent of a concealed handgun is to publicly open fire on someone. Or just wave it around, actually worse. Judge, jury, and executioner on a split seconds notice. Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question
Have you undertaken any training or serious study of CCW? It doesn't sound like your conclusions and your opinion aren't very well informed. The goal of CCW is to survive a life threatening situation. It isn't just a matter of strapping up like some Barney Badass. Knowing the laws and other factors, such as situational awareness and threat avoidance are critical components. For instance, just waving a concealed firearm around is itself a crime (Brandishing) in my locale and others and can be extended to a more serious offense such as Menacing, or Assault With a Deadly Weapon, depending on circumstances.
I'm a practitioner myself...although not daily, since I work in a Federal facility...and I will be quite content to never have a need to deploy my firearm. Ever. But my overriding goal is for myself and/or others to not be injured or killed if I can help it.
And yes, I also have AR-15s: one off-the-shelf model chambered in 5.56 mm and one I built, in .300 Blackout. Their primary use is recreational shooting, with utility as home defense rifles...even if it's against a bear that doesn't mind his manners like most of our ursine visitors do. Magazine capacity? What one actually needs is always determined after the fact. I want more left in the magazine after an encounter than I needed. It beats the heck out of having one less.
Have I undertaken 'serious study? Gonna go with 'no' on that one.
The goal is to 'survive a life threatening situation'? Would that be by throwing the firearm? Hiding behind it? Don't mince. My comment was that concealed carriers are actually preparing for a public shootout, are you honestly suggesting that a carrier of a concealed weapon is...not prepared for shooting in a public area? You're being dishonest if you are suggesting the intent of carrying a weapon is threat avoidance; a handgun is for threat confrontation. Self defense is everyone's right, but if you are carrying, you damn well better be prepared for a firefight on the street. Since you are well informed after your serious study, please explain to me a little more clearly precisely how wrong I am in asserting that a concealed weapon carrier is preparing for a firefight on the street. I'm not sure I understood that part.
-
Data for what? The first part is a self-evident logical conclusion, the second is a humble opinion.
Concealed carry applies to public areas, or 'on the street'. Unless you claim that a concealed carrier wants to be prepared for an impromptu target shoot where he must conceal his weapon to be a surprise contender (slight strawman, but not by much), the intent of a concealed handgun is to publicly open fire on someone. Or just wave it around, actually worse. Judge, jury, and executioner on a split seconds notice. Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question
Actually, I know several people that only use their permit exclusively for transport of weapons to and from the range - the definition of "concealed" can be counterintuitive and it avoids risk of legal trouble. The intent of a concealed carry is to stop a felonious assault.
I think for most security guards their job is just a job, one in which a license to carry results in a slightly better pay rate.
You need a conceal permit to transport in your state? That's news to me, and if that's the case I stand corrected, that is clearly a non-confrontational use. My state is rough but requires no permit if gun is cased and ammo locked separately.
'Stop a felonious assault?' How, besides firing? No euphemisms, VQ, the intent is to shoot. That's what firearms are built to do. I do not suggest it is in any way wrong to take your safety in your own hands. My point is that concealed carrying (the transport you mention aside) shows a willingness and preparedness to engage in a shootout on the street (or at least should). It does not confer any responsibility or morality on the carrier's qualifications.
Fair point about security guards, I concede it. Was thinking of a few I know locally, and the Zimmenrmans out there, doesn't apply here.
-
Have I undertaken 'serious study? Gonna go with 'no' on that one.
The goal is to 'survive a life threatening situation'? Would that be by throwing the firearm? Hiding behind it? Don't mince.
I'm not mincing. I'm describing my philosophy on armed self defense...one that is not uncommon. Yes, discharging the firearm may be unavoidable in a sizable subset of situations but that is not the only interim step toward the ultimate goal of surviving the encounter. If I can disengage or de-escalate the situation by some other means: success. If while I'm drawing my weapon, the assailant has a sudden change of heart: success. If both I and the assailant survive the encounter: success.
You're being dishonest if you are suggesting the intent of carrying a weapon is threat avoidance; a handgun is for threat confrontation.
What I actually said is, threat avoidance is a factor in armed self defense and a critical one, at that. There's far more to it of course, but to oversimplify, if I'm going somewhere I think I'll likely have to use my CCW firearm...I don't go there.
please explain to me a little more clearly precisely how wrong I am in asserting that a concealed weapon carrier is preparing for a firefight on the street. I'm not sure I understood that part.
If you'll use less loaded language, I will agree that I have prepared for an armed self defense encounter if you'll agree that the "firefight" isn't the end-all and be-all of my preparations.
-
Data for what? ....Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question
I interpreted it as looking for a shootout, sorry about that. The people I know who carry concealed do so to be prepared. I only know of one of them who actually took their pistol out of the holster in response to a threat. He did this to confront a man who was trying to get himself killed by snatching a rifle off of a shooting bench at a rifle range and waving it around. After he was disarmed I helped hold the guy down until the police/EMT's took him away cuffed to a gurney. This is the CCW I'm used to seeing; not exactly the wild west or macho wannabes spoiling for a fight.
I used to carry but never got comfortable with it so my WA CPL is used as proof of a bkgd check (useless after I-594 passed) and to transport a handgun in a car without keeping it locked up.
So when you say that we should focus on 'preventing access by violent people' you mean we should....do absolutely nothing? Another serious question
I'm not sure how this would be done.
Final serious question: what spread and at what yardage can you hold with that Contender in your photobucket, assuming still wind?
I can generally shoot about 2 MOA with the stocked (carbines, SBR's) contenders and about 4 MOA (from a rest) with those rigged up as a handgun. MOA is minutes of angle; about 1 inch group for each 100 yards distance.
-
Why don't you ask the Las Vegas cop at the Donald Trump rally when Michael Sandford tried to steal his gun to shoot Trump?
I don't think I need to ask. I'm confident that most police officers would prefer to issued a reliable personalized handgun. But I've yet to hear of any police officer who is willing to use what is available now. I read comments by the Seattle police chief saying that smart gun tech is not good enough for the police.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Smart-gun-industry-may-have-found-its-test-bed-6850142.php The San Francisco police don't think smart gun tech is ready either. San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr on Tuesday offered his department as a test bed for smart guns once the technology is more fully developed.
If it became generally known that cops had either holster locks or a "smart" gun that kept it from being fired by anybody else, the incentive to steal a cop's gun would go away.
Holster locks are miles away from a real personalized gun. The lock is just something that keeps the handgun more secure in the holster so it doesn't fall out. Anyone familiar with the lock will be able to draw the gun.
Ranb
-
Have I undertaken 'serious study? Gonna go with 'no' on that one.
The goal is to 'survive a life threatening situation'? Would that be by throwing the firearm? Hiding behind it? Don't mince.
I'm not mincing. I'm describing my philosophy on armed self defense...one that is not uncommon. Yes, discharging the firearm may be unavoidable in a sizable subset of situations but that is not the only interim step toward the ultimate goal of surviving the encounter. If I can disengage or de-escalate the situation by some other means: success. If while I'm drawing my weapon, the assailant has a sudden change of heart: success. If both I and the assailant survive the encounter: success.
You're being dishonest if you are suggesting the intent of carrying a weapon is threat avoidance; a handgun is for threat confrontation.
What I actually said is, threat avoidance is a factor in armed self defense and a critical one, at that. There's far more to it of course, but to oversimplify, if I'm going somewhere I think I'll likely have to use my CCW firearm...I don't go there.
please explain to me a little more clearly precisely how wrong I am in asserting that a concealed weapon carrier is preparing for a firefight on the street. I'm not sure I understood that part.
If you'll use less loaded language, I will agree that I have prepared for an armed self defense encounter if you'll agree that the "firefight" isn't the end-all and be-all of my preparations.
Your last point first: I absolutely did not suggest that the sole reason for concealed carry is to engage in a shootout. You, me, and everyone else can defend themselves however they deem appropriate, preferably complying with applicable law. I do suggest that we drop the euphamisms like 'prepared for an armed encounter'. Icing on cupcakes has less sugar than that.
Philosophies of self-defence were not the topic, so you lost me a little with the 'doesn't sound like your conclusions and your opinions aren't very well informed (sic)' jazz. Some would call that loaded language. That you kicked off with. Maybe address that before calling me to the carpet?
-
Data for what? ....Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question
I interpreted it as looking for a shootout, sorry about that. The people I know who carry concealed do so to be prepared.
Yeah, maybe shouldve worded differently, made sense to me when typing but can see how it could sound that way. But saying 'being prepared' is exactly what I meant: prepared for what? Prepared to open fire in an uncontrolled situation where they have elected themselves judge, jury and possibly executioner.
So when you say that we should focus on 'preventing access by violent people' you mean we should....do absolutely nothing? Another serious question
I'm not sure how this would be done.
[/quote]
Full circle to the thread discussion. Did you see that article earlier from the Guardian that mako88sb put up, reply #52? It's time to take steps to so something, even if it gives responsible owners a migraine, and even if the steps don't work perfectly.
Was asking about the Contender .22lr scoped and silenced earlier. No experience with silencers, but assumed that there would be an uncontrolled change in air pressure inside the baffled area that would interfere with trajectory. That's not an issue?
-
Your last point first: I absolutely did not suggest that the sole reason for concealed carry is to engage in a shootout.
My mistake, then. You seemed rather focused on the "shootout in the street" idea so I guess I focused on it, too...and too much.
I do suggest that we drop the euphamisms like 'prepared for an armed encounter'. Icing on cupcakes has less sugar than that.
Sure, it's a bit clinical but it's also more encompassing of possible situations and outcomes than is the term "firefight" and that was my intent. I suppose we could opt for a term commonly used in the literature: Defensive Gun Use or DGU.
Philosophies of self-defence were not the topic, so you lost me a little with the 'doesn't sound like your conclusions and your opinions aren't very well informed (sic)' jazz. Some would call that loaded language. That you kicked off with. Maybe address that before calling me to the carpet?
I don't think one can so neatly separate preparation from the philosophy one uses in approaching it. I can't, anyway. My impression of how well informed your opinions are was colored by what I saw as hyperbole in your posts and if I'm not mistaken, it was bolstered by your admission that you've undertaken no serious study of the subject.
-
Your last point first: I absolutely did not suggest that the sole reason for concealed carry is to engage in a shootout.
My mistake, then. You seemed rather focused on the "shootout in the street" idea so I guess I focused on it, too...and too much.
I do suggest that we drop the euphamisms like 'prepared for an armed encounter'. Icing on cupcakes has less sugar than that.
Sure, it's a bit clinical but it's also more encompassing of possible situations and outcomes than is the term "firefight" and that was my intent. I suppose we could opt for a term commonly used in the literature: Defensive Gun Use or DGU.
Philosophies of self-defence were not the topic, so you lost me a little with the 'doesn't sound like your conclusions and your opinions aren't very well informed (sic)' jazz. Some would call that loaded language. That you kicked off with. Maybe address that before calling me to the carpet?
I don't think one can so neatly separate preparation from the philosophy one uses in approaching it. I can't, anyway. My impression of how well informed your opinions are was colored by what I saw as hyperbole in your posts and if I'm not mistaken, it was bolstered by your admission that you've undertaken no serious study of the subject.
Well put and I concede to hyperbole causing ambiguity.
Rather than DGU or other clinical terminology, can we agree call it shooting people? Defensive Gun Use is another euphamism, as firing at someone is not defensive- it's a counterattack (please note I am resisting the urge to hyperbolicly ask if you expect your bullet to defensively deflect the attacker's shot) No issue with that per se, I am an advocate of violence as a problem solving measure and am comfortable calling a spade a spade.
Regarding philosophies of self-defense, I have not studied it but am I correct in reasoning these broad generalities?
1. Establish order of expendability, both in general beforehand and situationally.
2. Take whatever neutralizing action, starting with the least destructive, that is at your disposal to preserve your life and well-being while inflicting as little damage as possible to others, in order of their expendablity.
-
You need a conceal permit to transport in your state? That's news to me, and if that's the case I stand corrected, that is clearly a non-confrontational use. My state is rough but requires no permit if gun is cased and ammo locked separately.
'Stop a felonious assault?' How, besides firing? No euphemisms, VQ, the intent is to shoot. That's what firearms are built to do. I do not suggest it is in any way wrong to take your safety in your own hands. My point is that concealed carrying (the transport you mention aside) shows a willingness and preparedness to engage in a shootout on the street (or at least should). It does not confer any responsibility or morality on the carrier's qualifications.
No, a CCW is not needed to transport a firearm in any state, to my knowledge. It simplifies transport of a handgun by reducing the number of ways in which a shooter can unintentionally violate the law.
The intent is self-defense. Stopping an assault is not a euphemism - that is the goal of concealed carry. Killing a person by shooting them (while something a carrier of a concealed weapon is implicitly willing to do) is not the only possible outcome of drawing, nor is it the preferred outcome.
Regarding philosophies of self-defense, I have not studied it but am I correct in reasoning these broad generalities?
1. Establish order of expendability, both in general beforehand and situationally.
2. Take whatever neutralizing action, starting with the least destructive, that is at your disposal to preserve your life and well-being while inflicting as little damage as possible to others, in order of their expendablity.
Honest question - you don't feel like you are resorting to euphemisms here?
-
Rather than DGU or other clinical terminology, can we agree call it shooting people? Defensive Gun Use is another euphamism, as firing at someone is not defensive- it's a counterattack (please note I am resisting the urge to hyperbolicly ask if you expect your bullet to defensively deflect the attacker's shot) No issue with that per se, I am an advocate of violence as a problem solving measure and am comfortable calling a spade a spade.
No, I'm quite comfortable sticking with DGU since it is more accurate than your suggestion. "Shooting people" is a subset of successful DGUs. "Defensive shooting" and "counterattack" are not mutually exclusive terms, however, the latter encompasses both non-lethal and lethal use of force. The former is a commonly used term in the literature when referring to DGUs during which the weapon is fired, so I will continue to use it.
Regarding philosophies of self-defense, I have not studied it but am I correct in reasoning these broad generalities?
1. Establish order of expendability, both in general beforehand and situationally.
2. Take whatever neutralizing action, starting with the least destructive, that is at your disposal to preserve your life and well-being while inflicting as little damage as possible to others, in order of their expendablity.
No, "expendability" is not a consideration and things often happen far to fast for such a thought intensive process. The nutshell version is more like, (1) identify and access the threat and (2) respond with the appropriate level of force. If it's a non-lethal threat, respond with The degree of non-lethal force necessary to stop the attack. If it's a threat that puts you in reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death, respond with lethal force. In either case, if retreat offers the better chance of going home, go home.
Now before I hear the "judge, jury, and executioner" comment again, responding with lethal force does not mean the goal is to "shoot to kill". The goal is to stop the attack. Now. Definitively. While it's true that putting rounds on the center of observable mass has a high chance of being lethal, death is not strictly required so long as the attack is stopped. In other words, if the assailant reconsiders his life choices after taking one round to the chest that doesn't kill him...well...as I wrote earlier: success. If I choose to keep shooting after that, I am no longer defending myself.
-
No, a CCW is not needed to transport a firearm in any state, to my knowledge. It simplifies transport of a handgun by reducing the number of ways in which a shooter can unintentionally violate the law.
So the concealed carry is used as an assurance of compliance in case of technical transporting infractions? OK, that makes sense.
The intent is self-defense. Stopping an assault is not a euphemism - that is the goal of concealed carry. Killing a person by shooting them (while something a carrier of a concealed weapon is implicitly willing to do) is not the only possible outcome of drawing, nor is it the preferred outcome.
I disagree that self defense is the object, on the grounds that attacking and counterattacking are not defensive, but your directness is appreciated.
Honest question - you don't feel like you are resorting to euphemisms here?
If you mean expendability, maybe poor word choice. I'm trying to think in terms of 'philosophy of self-defense', and it seems that you would have to determine in advance who is most important to defend and the collateral damage you can accept. Priority of those involved, like if I am with my family, their safety comes before mine. Do you shoot through bystanders in order to take out a mass shooter who is actively firing? Also thinking of LunarOrbits earlier question about the decision to use nuclear weapons, the expendability/priority of the combatants and civilians had to be weighed. Tough to find the right words
-
I disagree that self defense is the object, on the grounds that attacking and counterattacking are not defensive, but your directness is appreciated.
"Self-defense" is a term with existing definitions; the relevant one per Wiktionary is "The right to protect oneself against violence by using reasonable force, can be used as justification in several charges including murder, assault, and battery." English isn't a language of logical constructions; whether shooting in self defense is itself an act of defense is irrelevant to the definition.
-
If you mean expendability, maybe poor word choice. I'm trying to think in terms of 'philosophy of self-defense', and it seems that you would have to determine in advance who is most important to defend and the collateral damage you can accept. Priority of those involved, like if I am with my family, their safety comes before mine. Do you shoot through bystanders in order to take out a mass shooter who is actively firing? Also thinking of LunarOrbits earlier question about the decision to use nuclear weapons, the expendability/priority of the combatants and civilians had to be weighed. Tough to find the right words
Not really any more than I plan in advance where I'll steer if my father, brother, and son all jump into the road on the front and each side of my car while driving. I think your imagination doesn't really match up with reality here.
-
I disagree that self defense is the object, on the grounds that attacking and counterattacking are not defensive, but your directness is appreciated.
"Self-defense" is a term with existing definitions; the relevant one per Wiktionary is "The right to protect oneself against violence by using reasonable force, can be used as justification in several charges including murder, assault, and battery." English isn't a language of logical constructions; whether shooting in self defense is itself an act of defense is irrelevant to the definition.
True, but context is a factor you are ignoring. The context of this thread is not self defense generally, it is specifically about the use of a firearm. A gun is an 'equalizer' as they say, which means your defensive action is roughly equal to the attacking force, so more appropriately a counterattack. If you are hung up on definitions, note that the definition you cite says refers to the 'right', in the context of a legal justification. I am talking about the specific action.
Not really any more than I plan in advance where I'll steer if my father, brother, and son all jump into the road on the front and each side of my car while driving. I think your imagination doesn't really match up with reality here.
Not a valid comparison. I am talking about generally assessing what you are willing to do, and to who, and under what circumstances, before being faced with a specific threat. Contemplating realistically how prepared you are to commit to violence. The time to think about that is before the situation comes up, unlike your example with the car (no brainer btw, son lives). Are you seriously saying you don't do that? You'll just wing it? Please sell your guns if so.
-
One thing I've never understood is why there's hardly any discussion of body armor. If the world is so dangerous that you have to arm yourself, wouldn't you at least start by wearing body armor? It's purely defensive, so issues of use of force simply don't arise. It works passively and automatically, even if the attack is an ambush, and won't accidentally injure bystanders.
Certainly at least some of those who have objectively reasonable concerns about being shot do wear it, whether or not they also carry offensive weapons; soldiers going into battle and US presidential candidates, to pick an example of each.
-
Rather than DGU or other clinical terminology, can we agree call it shooting people? Defensive Gun Use is another euphamism, as firing at someone is not defensive- it's a counterattack (please note I am resisting the urge to hyperbolicly ask if you expect your bullet to defensively deflect the attacker's shot) No issue with that per se, I am an advocate of violence as a problem solving measure and am comfortable calling a spade a spade.
No, I'm quite comfortable sticking with DGU since it is more accurate than your suggestion. "Shooting people" is a subset of successful DGUs. "Defensive shooting" and "counterattack" are not mutually exclusive terms, however, the latter encompasses both non-lethal and lethal use of force. The former is a commonly used term in the literature when referring to DGUs during which the weapon is fired, so I will continue to use it.
Regarding philosophies of self-defense, I have not studied it but am I correct in reasoning these broad generalities?
1. Establish order of expendability, both in general beforehand and situationally.
2. Take whatever neutralizing action, starting with the least destructive, that is at your disposal to preserve your life and well-being while inflicting as little damage as possible to others, in order of their expendablity.
No, "expendability" is not a consideration and things often happen far to fast for such a thought intensive process. The nutshell version is more like, (1) identify and access the threat and (2) respond with the appropriate level of force. If it's a non-lethal threat, respond with The degree of non-lethal force necessary to stop the attack. If it's a threat that puts you in reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death, respond with lethal force. In either case, if retreat offers the better chance of going home, go home.
Now before I hear the "judge, jury, and executioner" comment again, responding with lethal force does not mean the goal is to "shoot to kill". The goal is to stop the attack. Now. Definitively. While it's true that putting rounds on the center of observable mass has a high chance of being lethal, death is not strictly required so long as the attack is stopped. In other words, if the assailant reconsiders his life choices after taking one round to the chest that doesn't kill him...well...as I wrote earlier: success. If I choose to keep shooting after that, I am no longer defending myself.
Ok, if were doing philosophy of self defense, I'm game. Couple things to clear up, maybe avoid asking each other what the hell the other is talking about:
Self defense is a broad subject, including psychological, unarmed physical, improvised weapons, etc. I have only heard you refer to concealed carrying, drawing, or firing a gun, which is a comparatively rare use of self defense (also, I believe that self defense includes reasonable defense of others; I gather from your posts that you do not?). I suggest using 'philosophy of conflict' as phraseology that should satisfy us both. I object to the term 'DGU', unless you clarify specifically what it entails. As far as I know, you can show or draw a gun (threatening attack or counterattack) or fire it. Unless there is another significantly different use for the gun that you could explain, then DGU is a euphamism, and dishonest.
When I mentioned 'expendability' earlier, I was trying to keep the post short and used poor wording. Fleshed out: you have to assess honestly how physically, mentally, emotionally, and technically prepared you are to engage in violence. You have to assess, prior to conflict, how far you are willing to go and who has priority in terms of survival (if I am with my kids, they are first. If alone, I am first, etc). Honest self evaluation is by far the most important element in any philosophy of conflict. Quick anecdote: my sister took a job in Philly, asked me if she should carry a gun or knife. I said no way, she was in no way prepared to actually use either.
Regarding being judge, jury, and (possibly) executioner, you are in point of fact doing exactly that. Don't bob and weave, that is what you are doing by shooting with lethal force. No sugar coating, babe. Own it.
-
Bodyarmor - not good for tomcatting around the leather bars, though. It is also quite uncomfortable to wear.
-
One thing I've never understood is why there's hardly any discussion of body armor.
Body armor types are pretty specific to the type of threat they're intended to counter. While many can offer decent protection to the front and rear torso against some typical handgun rounds, side protection is typically far less (or practically nonexistent) and they offer far less protection from stabbing attacks. They provide little to no protection from brute force attacks involving knives or blunt objects, especially at grappling distances. The neck and the good old brain pan remain vulnerable.
Additionally, body armor is restricted or outright banned for civilian use on some jurisdictions, if my knowledge is up to date.
-
I have only heard you refer to concealed carrying, drawing, or firing a gun, which is a comparatively rare use of self defense (also, I believe that self defense includes reasonable defense of others; I gather from your posts that you do not?).
Various studies (including one by the CDC) estimate that there are 500,000 to 3 million DGUs per year, which outnumber gun injuries and fatalities combined. "Comparatively rare" depends entirely on the basis of comparison. My commitment to armed self defense includes myself, my family and others in need.
I suggest using 'philosophy of conflict' as phraseology that should satisfy us both. I object to the term 'DGU', unless you clarify specifically what it entails. As far as I know, you can show or draw a gun (threatening attack or counterattack) or fire it. Unless there is another significantly different use for the gun that you could explain, then DGU is a euphamism, and dishonest.
This is the second time you've applied that term to my words. It concludes our conversation.
-
Body armor types are pretty specific to the type of threat they're intended to counter.
I can understand that. I can understand that it doesn't protect every part of the body. And I can also understand that it's uncomfortable.
But isn't some protection better than nothing? Even if you also carry an offensive capability?
And isn't getting shot even less comfortable than wearing body armor?
Additionally, body armor is restricted or outright banned for civilian use on some jurisdictions, if my knowledge is up to date.
Unless the materials are toxic or otherwise hazardous to bystanders, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense given that many highly effective offensive weapons are not (currently) restricted or outright banned. Does it?
-
But isn't some protection better than nothing? Even if you also carry an offensive capability?
The conclusion of a cost/benefit analysis depends on the situation. Risk exposure in the LE and military environments is markedly different than in the civilian world. Carrying 2 or 3 pounds of steel on your waist is one level of commitment. Carrying that and another few pounds of bulky Kevlar and the attendant clothing requirements goes beyond that. In practicing CCW, I'm planning for the rare exigency. If the risk was more immediate and chronic, I would certainly give greater consideration to body armor. However, I'm not LE and my military career is behind me by almost 18 years.
Unless the materials are toxic or otherwise hazardous to bystanders, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense given that many highly effective offensive weapons are not (currently) restricted or outright banned. Does it?
Making sense rarely seems to influence public policy in these matters. Automatic knives are still virtually banned due to hoodlum hysteria dating back to the 1950s, fueled I think by Hollywood sensationalization. Yet I have a couple of perfectly legal knives that deploy just as quickly because the spring mechanism is my finger, rather than internal. Suppressors are similarly subject to severe restrictions due to their popular association with Mafia hitmen and the Hollywood myth that they make firearms effectively silent. Go figure.
-
True, but context is a factor you are ignoring. The context of this thread is not self defense generally, it is specifically about the use of a firearm. A gun is an 'equalizer' as they say, which means your defensive action is roughly equal to the attacking force, so more appropriately a counterattack. If you are hung up on definitions, note that the definition you cite says refers to the 'right', in the context of a legal justification. I am talking about the specific action.
And it's only roughly equal to the attacking force on the assumption that the criminal has a gun, which is not in any way a certainty. I'm not saying a defense has to limit itself to exactly the same force as the attack; it's perfectly reasonable to use the level of force required to successfully counter the attack. However, you will never know going in what that level of force will be, and carrying a gun assumes, at least to me, the permanent necessity of lethal force.
Not a valid comparison. I am talking about generally assessing what you are willing to do, and to who, and under what circumstances, before being faced with a specific threat. Contemplating realistically how prepared you are to commit to violence. The time to think about that is before the situation comes up, unlike your example with the car (no brainer btw, son lives). Are you seriously saying you don't do that? You'll just wing it? Please sell your guns if so.
In this analogy, are we assuming that the brakes don't work? Because the sensible thing to do is to hit the brakes. Not that the scenario in question bears any resemblance at all to a thing that would actually happen.
-
Additionally, body armor is restricted or outright banned for civilian use on some jurisdictions, if my knowledge is up to date.
The only laws I've read on body armor in the USA are restrictions on possession by criminals and use while committing a crime. As far as I know anyone can buy it.
Ranb
-
The only laws I've read on body armor in the USA are restrictions on possession by criminals and use while committing a crime. As far as I know anyone can buy it.
I thought I had read of locales where it is/was more restricted but as I hinted, I'm really not sure. I haven't even looked into it in my state since I don't consider it practical for my needs.
-
Not a valid comparison. I am talking about generally assessing what you are willing to do, and to who, and under what circumstances, before being faced with a specific threat. Contemplating realistically how prepared you are to commit to violence. The time to think about that is before the situation comes up, unlike your example with the car (no brainer btw, son lives). Are you seriously saying you don't do that? You'll just wing it? Please sell your guns if so.
No, you didn't ask about general assessment. What you said was:
...it seems that you would have to determine in advance who is most important to defend and the collateral damage you can accept. Priority of those involved, like if I am with my family, their safety comes before mine. Do you shoot through bystanders in order to take out a mass shooter who is actively firing?
That is not general assessment; it is tactically specific. You make several unsupported assertions and then treat them as fact:
1. That there is a plausible scenario, unique to CCW, that involves choosing between loved ones.
2. That such a scenario is sufficiently predictable that it can be planned in advance.
3. That such a plausible, predictable scenario is sufficiently likely that it would be irresponsible not to plan it in advance.
Such assertions and your ignorance of the subject makes it difficult to take you seriously.
Regarding being judge, jury, and (possibly) executioner, you are in point of fact doing exactly that. Don't bob and weave, that is what you are doing by shooting with lethal force. No sugar coating, babe. Own it.
Wrong, and quite hyperbolic. The legal system carries out due process in criminal cases - there is no imminent threat from the accused; the focus is their prior alleged actions. Lethal force in self defense is solely focused on what the attacker is doing right now, and the right to use lethal force stops as soon as the assault does.
One thing I've never understood is why there's hardly any discussion of body armor. If the world is so dangerous that you have to arm yourself, wouldn't you at least start by wearing body armor? It's purely defensive, so issues of use of force simply don't arise. It works passively and automatically, even if the attack is an ambush, and won't accidentally injure bystanders.
Certainly at least some of those who have objectively reasonable concerns about being shot do wear it, whether or not they also carry offensive weapons; soldiers going into battle and US presidential candidates, to pick an example of each.
Body armor is less convenient (heavier, bulkier, and more detectable) than a handgun and also only useful in some situations (ie, mostly useless against sharp or blunt weapon attacks).
Odds of getting shot aside, body armor is more useful for groups than for an individual. For a civilian by themselves a nonlethal but incapacitating injury not prevented by body armor (ie a bullet to the knee or, for that matter, a bullet to the body armor) could easily turn into a lethal situation because the ability to fight or flee is impaired. Soldiers and presidential candidates will be surrounded by allies that can protect them in such a situation.
-
Additionally, body armor is restricted or outright banned for civilian use on some jurisdictions, if my knowledge is up to date.
The only laws I've read on body armor in the USA are restrictions on possession by criminals and use while committing a crime. As far as I know anyone can buy it.
Ranb
Wasn't the FBI alerted about the Orlando shooter by a gun shop because he wanted to buy armour? We'll sell you assault rifles and more ammo than a typical person could use in a lifetime, but wanting to buy body armour is suspicious. ::)
-
No, you didn't ask about general assessment. What you said was:
I believe this was the original comment you are referring to?
Regarding philosophies of self-defense, I have not studied it but am I correct in reasoning these broad generalities?
1. Establish order of expendability, both in general beforehand and situationally.
2. Take whatever neutralizing action, starting with the least destructive, that is at your disposal to preserve your life and well-being while inflicting as little damage as possible to others, in order of their expendablity.
Please read the first one, the stuff in bold. I have explained that 'expendability' was poor word choice and have since clarified. Some of the clarifications are what you are quoting now.
...it seems that you would have to determine in advance who is most important to defend and the collateral damage you can accept. Priority of those involved, like if I am with my family, their safety comes before mine. Do you shoot through bystanders in order to take out a mass shooter who is actively firing?
That is not general assessment; it is tactically specific.
No, those are a couple (of many) general things to consider before you end up in a situation when you don't have time to think about it. Those two things are not tacticly specific. At all. I'm not theorizing some shootout. Valueing my kids above all is in not a specific tactic. Willingness to accept hurt bystanders is something to carefully consider beforehand; I used a concrete example of that and now you're reading a whole novel into it. Do you understand that using a concrete example is not imagining a scenario or theorizing a tactic?
You make several unsupported assertions and then treat them as fact:
1. That there is a plausible scenario, unique to CCW, that involves choosing between loved ones.
2. That such a scenario is sufficiently predictable that it can be planned in advance.
3. That such a plausible, predictable scenario is sufficiently likely that it would be irresponsible not to plan it in advance.
Such assertions and your ignorance of the subject makes it difficult to take you seriously.
Respectively:
1. I make absolutely no assertion of a plausible scenario involving choosing loved ones, unique to CCW or not. The 'unique to CCW' add-on is really weird. Take a look at the quote up there again, not a word about CCW or guns in the family example. Just the assertion that I consider them more important than me.
2. Again, there is no hypothetical scenario. Do you seriously think those two utterly unrelated examples i used (family more important, possibility of hurt bystanders) constitute a scenario?
3. Dear god in heaven- there is no plausible predictable scenario anywhere but in your head.
The 'assertions' you accuse me of do not exist. Please explain, if you don't mind, what I am ignorant of, and for that matter, specifically what subject (self defense, CCW, what?). And please tell me what you were drinking when you had the hallucination of the assertions. Imma try some of dat
-
Wasn't the FBI alerted about the Orlando shooter by a gun shop because he wanted to buy armour? We'll sell you assault rifles and more ammo than a typical person could use in a lifetime, but wanting to buy body armour is suspicious. ::)
It wasn't just that he wanted body armor.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/06/16/gun-shop-omar-mateen-body-armor/
Abell said that Mateen asked for level 3 body armor, but the store doesn’t sell it. He also said Mateen made a phone call and spoke Arabic before asking for bulk ammunition.
The employees did not sell him any ammunition and Abell stated that “we contacted FBI direct” after Mateen left the store, but they were “not as attentive as we would have hoped.”
However, law enforcement officials told CBS News that they have not found any evidence that gun shop employees contacted police about Mateen’s suspicious behavior.
Asking for body armor, bulk ammo and making a phone call in Arabic was what it allegedly took for the gun store owner to make a call.
and more ammo than a typical person could use in a lifetime
I can't find anything on exactly how much ammo Mateen tried to purchase, but buying in bulk is not unusual at all. I buy in bulk when ever I can and try to have enough ammo on hand to last a year. This is 5k to 10k rounds a year. A typical person who shoots a lot is not buying enough ammo for a lifetime all at once.
Ranb
-
Regarding being judge, jury, and (possibly) executioner, you are in point of fact doing exactly that. Don't bob and weave, that is what you are doing by shooting with lethal force. No sugar coating, babe. Own it.
Wrong, and quite hyperbolic. The legal system carries out due process in criminal cases - there is no imminent threat from the accused; the focus is their prior alleged actions. Lethal force in self defense is solely focused on what the attacker is doing right now, and the right to use lethal force stops as soon as the assault does.
Forgot to respond to this one: You are correct in the mechanics of due process. But it is not what is being discussed. 'Judge, jury and executioner' is a well-known figure of speech in the US, usually meaning the exercising of extrajudicial power. In this context it means first that you are deciding someones guilt at extremely short notice with little time for sober deliberation ('stop a felonious assault' were your words, right? Who determines guilt of a felony crime or assault in our legal system?). And 'quite hyperbolic'? What are you talking about?
VQ: Do you agree that if you fire on someone in a conflict situation, even if your intent was only to stop a felonious assault, that you have judged him as guilty of a crime? I'll stop there.
-
VQ: Do you agree that if you fire on someone in a conflict situation, even if your intent was only to stop a felonious assault, that you have judged him as guilty of a crime? I'll stop there.
No; non sequitur.
Your other post completely ignores your subsequent crystallization of your position; I can no longer pretend your pretense of wanting to actually discuss is real so we're done. All the best.
-
VQ: Do you agree that if you fire on someone in a conflict situation, even if your intent was only to stop a felonious assault, that you have judged him as guilty of a crime? I'll stop there.
No; non sequitur.
Your other post completely ignores your subsequent crystallization of your position; I can no longer pretend your pretense of wanting to actually discuss is real so we're done. All the best.
Nope. In the other post, you misinterpreted concrete examples as being details of some imagined scenario. Its really not that complicated.
But this is the first time I have been flounced....and I will always remember it fondly...Adieu, VQ, adieu...
No, wait: Non sequitur, VQ, non sequitur...