Tragic and self explanatory (Gun Control)

[Dante]

I'm happy to be corrected. What do you see that I don't? Or, do you happen to know some background context about the author. If you have read something else by this author and know that he is sane, then I can see that you'd assume this is satire, but if you're judging just from the article, I'm curious what you see in it that I missed.

Well, he's Asian himself, so there's that.

[Dante]

Maybe someone here can help me understand this. So one of the legislative proposals being tossed around by gun control advocates is the idea of banning high-capacity clips (e.g. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/273813-sensing-political-shift-pelosi-dems-call-for-ban-on-high-capacity-gun-clips). And it seems that the magic number that defines a high-capacity clip is... 10?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the sidearm most commonly used by police officers was a Glock 22, which comes standard with a 15-round clip. So this would mean, that if I wanted to carry a handgun, and went through all the certification to get a license and a concealed carry permit and everything, I wouldn't be able to choose the go-to weapon of the police? The magazine would be too large by 50%?

I get the rationale behind trying to ban large-capacity clips; advocates typically argue that really the only purpose for such a clip is to kill large numbers of people. However, when you set the cutoff at 10 bullets, this means you're now saying that police sidearms are equipped with clips whose only purpose would be to 'kill large numbers of people'?

Police officers clearly carry their sidearm to protect themselves and others in the case of a shootout, so (even granting the argument for gun control) how can gun-control advocates possibly say that a 15-round clip is an unreasonable thing for a private citizen to want?

[moralist]

Maybe someone here can help me understand this. So one of the legislative proposals being tossed around by gun control advocates is the idea of banning high-capacity clips (e.g. http://thehill.com/h...acity-gun-clips). And it seems that the magic number that defines a high-capacity clip is... 10?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the sidearm most commonly used by police officers was a Glock 22, which comes standard with a 15-round clip. So this would mean, that if I wanted to carry a handgun, and went through all the certification to get a license and a concealed carry permit and everything, I wouldn't be able to choose the go-to weapon of the police? The magazine would be too large by 50%?

I get the rationale behind trying to ban large-capacity clips; advocates typically argue that really the only purpose for such a clip is to kill large numbers of people. However, when you set the cutoff at 10 bullets, this means you're now saying that police sidearms are equipped with clips whose only purpose would be to 'kill large numbers of people'?

Police officers clearly carry their sidearm to protect themselves and others in the case of a shootout, so (even granting the argument for gun control) how can gun-control advocates possibly say that a 15-round clip is an unreasonable thing for a private citizen to want?

Why try to make sense of irrational liberals who ignore the rotten moral values of evil people while fixating on blaming amoral inanimate objects?

Edited December 20, 2012 by moralist

[softwareNerd]

...one of the legislative proposals being tossed around by gun control advocates is the idea of banning high-capacity clips (e.g. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/273813-sensing-political-shift-pelosi-dems-call-for-ban-on-high-capacity-gun-clips). And it seems that the magic number that defines a high-capacity clip is... 10?

According to Megan McCardle these were banned between 1995 and 2005.

[SapereAude]

I'm happy to be corrected. What do you see that I don't?

He's an Asian American professor best known for his arguments against the Japanese internments during WW2 and the Korematsu v US decision of the Supreme Court.

[Plasmatic]

According to Megan McCardle these were banned between 1995 and 2005.

Only the import and production of post legislation high caps were banned. Preban mags became extremely expensive as a result.

[Kate87]

OK I'm really drunk right now but I think that you Americans are awesome so even though you are awkward sometimes I think your "sense of life" is absolutely brilliant. It has took me a long time to write this so you better appreciate this. No spelling errors or anything. You guys rule. Britain and America rule. But really America is an old colony of Britain but we won't mention that. Honestly I think you guys are amazing, I don't agree with your conclusions but you have really impressed me with your candidness. I wish I could marry one of you, But you would never marry me because I am drunk. I know who I actually like on here but I would never admit it. Gun control is good English common sense which you guys should accept. I think you are being awkward on purpose. If I was only slightly drunk I wouldn't feel the need to write this but being absolutely ******ing wrecked means that I have no choice. Well I do have a choice really but there you go. I realise I will regret having wrote this however part of me feels I won't but maybe this is the drunk part. You rule.

[moralist]

Kate... I'm impressed. You truly do get Ayn Rand.

[FeatherFall]

Our rejection of English common sense is precisely why our sovereignty was won. No need to remind us of that nasty colonial business.

I fully appreciate drunken posts; they bring us all together.

Edited December 20, 2012 by FeatherFall

[Plasmatic]

That McCardle article get all kinds of things wrong.

[SapereAude]

OK I'm really drunk right now but I think that you Americans are awesome so even though you are awkward sometimes I think your "sense of life" is absolutely brilliant. It has took me a long time to write this so you better appreciate this. No spelling errors or anything. You guys rule. Britain and America rule. But really America is an old colony of Britain but we won't mention that. Honestly I think you guys are amazing, I don't agree with your conclusions but you have really impressed me with your candidness. I wish I could marry one of you, But you would never marry me because I am drunk. I know who I actually like on here but I would never admit it. Gun control is good English common sense which you guys should accept. I think you are being awkward on purpose. If I was only slightly drunk I wouldn't feel the need to write this but being absolutely ******ing wrecked means that I have no choice. Well I do have a choice really but there you go. I realise I will regret having wrote this however part of me feels I won't but maybe this is the drunk part. You rule.

I was discussing amongst friends the other day the curious fact that the British are so obsessed with how Americans "should" govern themselves.

The British always seem to have such strong opinions about how we should adopt their style of government healthcare, their style of welfare state, their completely unsuccessful police state weapons bans.

I can only conclude that deep down the Bristish are ashamed of their cradle to grave dependency on government and so feel the desire to see us brought down to their level.

[SapereAude]

Huh? How are you making that link? Do you have data to back it up?

Who thinks that? What does this have to do with the Lanza case? Was he being treated for something? I haven’t heard that in any report yet. Are you talking about depression medication, or something like Adderall? From what you’ve written you could just as easily mean alcohol or marijuana, since your use of ‘right narcotic’ is terribly imprecise (narcotics aren’t prescribed for mental or emotional problems, so I take it you mean ‘drug’). The population of people taking, say, anti-depression drugs contain a higher number of people already with mental problems (than in the population as a whole), so if it turns out there’s a correlation to later troubled behavior it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Proponents of such treatments could argue that there’d be more crackups if you took away this kind of treatment. I don’t have an opinion on it, how is it you came to yours?

SSRI medications have warnings about the need to watch for erratic behavior changes for good reason. They have been shown to cause “anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania" (this taken straight from a label) in clinical studies.

The problem with any meaningful diologue on the correlation/causation part of this is that these drugs are relatively new and they work on different people in different ways. My wife supervises the administration of these drugs in her line of work (she is a mental health utilization review specialist) and it is for her the most frustrating aspect that treatment with these drugs is quite literally case by case trial and error. This is what happens- 1) diagnosis 2) prescription 3) drug starts being taken 4) wait and see what changes for good or bad 5) wait and see what changes for good or bad, adjust dosage if bad 6) wait and see what changes for good or bad, adjust dosage if bad 7) wait and see what changes for good or bad, adjust dosage *or* switch to different SSRI if very bad and so on and so on.

Another issue being that mentally ill people are unreliable and don't always take their meds. Suddenly ending your SSRI routine can have terrible effects.

So, while I wouldn't *blame* the drugs (some people are helped by them and some are harmed by them) I would say that the culture that pretends the drugs are a magic fix-all is problematic.

[Nicky]

Gun control is good English common sense

Here are some obscure details about England's history that you might want to learn about, if you're gonna try to tell us what is and what isn't "English":

1. England is a thousand years old.

2. It began banning rifles and regulating shotguns 25 years ago, and it only banned handguns 15 years ago. Before that, English common sense was the same as American common sense.

And the bans had nothing to do with common sense, they had to do with irrational hysteria. The kind you're suffering from.

[SapereAude]

This is the best and most comprehensive explanation of why gun banning is not only counterproductive, but also will not work, that I've seen since this started.

I warn you, it is very long, but if you are taking the issue seriously I highly recommend it.

Dante, there is also a thorough answer to the question you asked about things like magazine/clip capacity as well as other break downs of information such as "what is an 'assault gun'?".

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

[FeatherFall]

Thanks for posting that Larry Correia peice. I haven't read it all, but I felt the need to post a quote before I forget. I haven't verified it, but here goes:

There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.

1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
   
2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
   
3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
   
4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.
   

And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

[SapereAude]

I can verify the Oregon one.

The media seems to be deliberately underreporting cases where armed citizens end these things, but if you look you can find them.

In the case of the recent Oregon mall shooting a man with a CCL was shopping with a female friend and her baby.

When the gunman started shooting the man got his friend and her baby under cover then made his way to a pillar with his gun out trying to get a shot at the shooter.

This is the point where the shooter's gun jammed. The CCL man attempted to get a shot at the gunman but another man behind the gunman was of concern (didn't want to miss and accidentally shoot a bystander). When the gunman saw he was being stalked by an armed man he killed himself.

[Eiuol]

But the point is property is a tool, as well as any category like a weapon. No weapon has a “purpose” sine it takes an outside actor to impose action on inanimate objects.

I can split the topic if you want to talk more about gun control, since it's tangential to this thread.

After thinking about your point, I don't think it holds water, at least if we both accept that objective understanding of concepts is possible. There is no metaphysical necessity for forming any concept, just as there is no metaphysical definition. For the most part, even if the units remain the same, identified essentials and even purpose can vary among people for the concept. What gives anyone the authority to say humans are rational animals? No one. I could even say that humans are hairless bipeds, since no one has the authority to say it must be that way. The reason I wouldn't accept hairless biped as a valid definition, even though we are using the same referent, is that it violates what I know as the essential which distinguishes humans from similar units. Objectively, I can still say one definition of the concept is wrong.

I can do the same with weapons. Weapons are tools, and tools are distinguished based upon their purpose. I can use a hammer as a drumstick, but hammers are made in order to put nails into objects. Indeed, whoever owns the property can choose a number of ways to use a tool besides the purpose it was designed for, but objectively, there is still a purpose. I can even say hammers can be used to kill people, but that's not the purpose of a hammer. Weapons are a kind of tool intended to kill or maim. Weapons can be divided up based on what a weapon is used to kill: humans, and nonhumans. Guns certainly fall under a tool used to kill people, even though you can use a gun for hunting. As far as I know, guns were invented in order to kill people. The purpose in your circumstances for a gun may vary, but there is also the intended purpose of a gun. We're talking about a tool whose purpose is the use of force, and the only way for government to be in control of force is to define what force is and how weapons may be used. That includes guns.

Still, with what you said on WMDs, you seemed to have accepted though that there are certain objects that the government may regulate, regardless of what the creator/owner says.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Eiuol

[moralist]

But the point is property is a tool, as well as any category like a weapon. No weapon has a “purpose” sine it takes an outside actor to impose action on inanimate objects. The “purpose” of property is what the owner decides to do with it. People impose motive and action on objects, not the other way around.

This point is completely lost on the gun control people who choose to be stubbornly fixated on blaming inanimate objects for the evil that people do.

I think that is what frustrates me more than anything else with this issue, is the subconscious idea that people see guns and fret that the object is acting in some dialectal materialistic way to impose motive and action on men

My reaction is similar because that mindset flies in the face of reality that only people, by their own actions, possess the ability to be good or evil.

[thenelli01]

Guns certainly fall under a tool used to kill people, even though you can use a gun for hunting. As far as I know, guns were invented in order to kill people. The purpose in your circumstances for a gun may vary, but there is also the intended purpose of a gun. We're talking about a tool whose purpose is the use of force, and the only way for government to be in control of force is to define what force is and how weapons may be used. That includes guns.

Is it relevant that a gun was invented to kill people? Listerine was invented as a surgical antiseptic 133 years ago, then to cure gonnorrea, and later on as a cure for bad breath and clean mouth. You wouldn't suggest that Listerine, the mouth wash, has some attachment to the cure for gonnorrea if it is being sold as a mouth wash, would you?

The fact is that a gun is being marketed as a tool for self defense, hunting, and recreation - all moral actions under Objectivism. It has no attachment to its original purpose.

[Nicky]

As far as I know, guns were invented in order to kill people. The purpose in your circumstances for a gun may vary, but there is also the intended purpose of a gun. We're talking about a tool whose purpose is the use of force, and the only way for government to be in control of force is to define what force is and how weapons may be used. That includes guns.

The government's job is not to define what force is, or to regulate the use of force in general. The government's job is to ban one specific type of force: initiation of force, and hold a monopoly on another specific type of force: retaliatory force.

So, even if we accepted your premise that guns are only a tool for killing people (which isn't true, they're used for hunting and sport as well), it would still not make it the government's business, because the government has no business interfering with the use of force in self defense.

[Kate87]

I noticed that the NRA is advocating armed guards in school. This would probably lead to a reduction in massacre deaths in the context of today's America which is awash with guns. A much better solution however would be to work to destroy the gun culture in the first place so that armed guards are not needed.

[moralist]

I noticed that the NRA is advocating armed guards in school. This would probably lead to a reduction in massacre deaths in the context of today's America which is awash with guns. A much better solution however would be to work to destroy the gun culture in the first place so that armed guards are not needed.

NRA's Wayne LaPierre said it best:

"Only a good man with a gun can stop a bad man with a gun."

Notice that the guns are amoral inanimate objects... and only men can be bad or good by their deeds.

Edited December 22, 2012 by moralist

[Plasmatic]

Kate said:

" A much better solution however would be to work to destroy the gun culture in the first place so that armed guards are not needed. "

In other words a reduction of constitutional rights and an invitation to tyranny.

[Kate87]

Kate said:

" A much better solution however would be to work to destroy the gun culture in the first place so that armed guards are not needed. "

In other words a reduction of constitutional rights and an invitation to tyranny.

Your constitution is flawed. Get over it and get it amended! Solving government tyranny which has a modern Army behind it, with civilian gun ownership is extremely impractical to say the least.

[Grames]

Two of the most recent examples of people not in the army getting guns and deposing a tyranny are Libya and Syria. Armed rebellion is entirely practical.