All-purpose gun legislation thread

[jpinard]

Have you all not read the released text message from his phone? I wasn’t expressing an opinion there. He had pictures of himself smoking pot

I guess we should be on the watch for Miley Cyrus then. She smoked pot on Euro TV. Doug Benson did a whole movie while sky high on pot, so he’s probably a real danger too.

Another shooting in “self-defense”. Country singer Wayne Mills shot in the head by bar owner: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/showbiz/wayne-mills-death/
Since the news reports don’t mention Wayne had a gun or knife on him, are we supposed to assume he wasn’t armed? Curious why there’s so little information. He could have just shot him in the leg otherwise and now, once again, there’s no one to testify on the victim’s behalf.

[Houngan]

I guess we should be on the watch for Miley Cyrus then. She smoked pot on Euro TV. Doug Benson did a whole movie while sky high on pot, so he’s probably a real danger too.

I didn’t say anything about the pot making him dangerous, I said he was a drug user, street fighter, and thug. I was accused of slandering (libeling, I suppose) him and pointed out that they were factual labels, not my opinion. All of those are corroborated by evidence, though I suppose “thug” is a bit loaded, let’s just say he was an enthusiast of criminal violence. The question ultimately comes down to whether the verdict was just, and some of those things speak directly to whether Trayvon was likely to attack someone. The cops think he did, the jury thinks he did, but you don’t think he did because . . .?

I’ve never bothered to mention the text messages until now because I made my case shortly after discovering the 911 transcript, which clarified the likely scenario. You keep painting the man as some kind of evil stalker bent on clever murder, and I guess I just had enough of it.

[Houngan]

Another shooting in “self-defense”. Country singer Wayne Mills shot in the head by bar owner: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/showbiz/wayne-mills-death/
Since the news reports don’t mention Wayne had a gun or knife on him, are we supposed to assume he wasn’t armed? Curious why there’s so little information. He could have just shot him in the leg otherwise and now, once again, there’s no one to testify on the victim’s behalf.

As for this, no you’re not supposed to assume anything. You’re supposed to shut up until you know more about it. That’s the whole issue here, you’re already against the bar owner despite being completely ignorant of what happened, if that article is the only one you’ve read.

[AlanQ]

I said he was a drug user, street fighter, and thug. I was accused of slandering (libeling, I suppose) him and pointed out that they were factual labels, not my opinion. All of those are corroborated by evidence, though I suppose “thug” is a bit loaded, let’s just say he was an enthusiast of criminal violence.

Does the presumption of innocence only apply to people who shoot others and claim self-defence? Martin was never tried and convicted for any crime, as far as I know.

the jury thinks he did

The jury didn’t make a finding of whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman. The jury was only tasked with determining whether there was proof against Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was not tasked with determining whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman. In fact, the jury could have been 95% sure that Martin was totally innocent and Zimmerman was a stone-cold killer, but would still have been obliged to acquit Zimmerman.

[Janster]

At least he had a trial.

[Incendiary_Lemon]

Why on earth would you shoot someone in the leg?

Shoot to ‘wound’ is a TV fiction. If you’re pulling the trigger, it’s with intent to kill. Guns are not less than lethal weapons - they’re lethal, and they should always be treated as such. If you’re uncomfortable with that, then you shouldn’t be squeezing the trigger.

[Starlight]

And weaponry hasn’t changed much in 150 years.

Err…what NBC weapons did mankind have 150 years ago? Also, er, at least military firearms have come a long way…

[Incendiary_Lemon]

I’ve been writing about honor and culture for most of the semester - which brings me back to this thread.

You can see a clear split between those who believe in the principle of self defense, and those who do not. In the South, it’s assumed that you will do whatever it takes to defend your home. As a man it is your responsibility. The idea that you would simply call the police, that you would find an interior room and hide, would be unmanly unseemly. Violence, and using violence to assert your authority, is a cornerstone of male identity. If someone challenges your person then you have every right and indeed every obligation to respond. There is even an element of might makes right, your willingness to engage in risk validates your argument.

Critics would point to the higher death rates for men in the south, especially white men, and they would certainly be correct. We engage in riskier behavior, and we pay a price for it. It’s also a foundation of our identity and one we will not part with willingly. The pacifism that runs through much of America is an anathema here.

[ShivaX]

He could have just shot him in the leg

Jesus Christ I hate when people think movies are real life.

[Soapyfrog]

You can see a clear split between those who believe in the principle of self defense, and those who do not. In the South, it’s assumed that you will do whatever it takes to defend your home. As a man it is your responsibility. The idea that you would simply call the police, that you would find an interior room and hide, would be unmanly unseemly. Violence, and using violence to assert your authority, is a cornerstone of male identity. If someone challenges your person then you have every right and indeed every obligation to respond. There is even an element of might makes right, your willingness to engage in risk validates your argument.

So wait a sec, you are asserting that Southern males man children, ruled by their id, and that shooting unarmed, harmless civilians who just need a helping hand in the face on your doorstep is an expresison of southern identity?

edit: and the rest of Americans are pacifists?

[Incendiary_Lemon]

So wait a sec, you are asserting that Southern males man children, ruled by their id, and that shooting unarmed, harmless civilians who just need a helping hand in the face on your doorstep is an expresison of southern identity?

Southerners are willing to accept tragic mistakes as just that, tragic mistakes, because they value the greater principle.

and the rest of Americans are pacifists?

Americans, by and large, abhor violence. Look at the opposition to the military on the West Coast and in New England. By the opposite measure, look at per capita enlistment rates in the South and in the Mountain West.

The southern United States has long been known to be more violent than the northern United States. The authors argue that this may be due in part to an ideology justifying violence for self-protection and for maintaining "honor " or a reputation for toughness. Analysis of data from three surveys shows that southern White males do not endorse violence unconditionally but do endorse violence when it is used for self-protection, to defend one’s honor, or to socialize children. These data fit well with behavioral data concerning gun ownership and the types of homicide committed in the South. Although the conditions that gave rise to southern violence are largely gone, it may be sustained through collective representations emphasizing the importance of honor and through violent self-fulfilling prophecies centering on hypersensitivity to affronts.

Link

[ddtibbs]

He’s what you get when you use militia to enforce law. He is nothing new. As for future super weapons, we ain’t seen nothing yet, have some imagination atleast.

Three words

Magic Surrender Grenades

[Soapyfrog]

Americans, by and large, abhor violence. Look at the opposition to the military on the West Coast and in New England. By the opposite measure, look at per capita enlistment rates in the South and in the Mountain West.

Enlistment rates are tied pretty much directly to poverty rates and unemployment. For that matter, so is violence in general.

Far from opposing the military, the militarization of America enjoys broad support, and as far abhorring violence, we all abhor violence (right?) but that doesn’t stop the US from leading the way in violent crime amongst developed countries.

[Janster]

Find this funny, in the rest of the known world, plus tons of research, poverty and ignorance is easily linked to increased violence, but in the south it’s “honor”.?

[Incendiary_Lemon]

Find this funny, in the rest of the known world, plus tons of research, poverty and ignorance is easily linked to increased violence, but in the south it’s “honor”.?

Shrug if you will.

Enlistment rates are tied pretty much directly to poverty rates and unemployment. For that matter, so is violence in general.

That doesn’t describe the US military, or our experience over the last decade. The idea of the military as the refuge for the poor isn’t born out by the facts. The poor are actually under represented in the Armed Services while the Middle Class are over represented. That was true before the War in Iraq and the disparity actually increased as the war lengthened. The Armed Forces are better educated than the workforce at large.

As a whole, the U.S. military is far better educated than the American population it defends. 82.8% of U.S. military officers in 2010 had at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 29.9 percent of the general population. 93.6% of enlisted soldiers had at least a high school diploma, compared to 59.5% of America.

Link

Who Are the Recruits

as far abhorring violence, we all abhor violence (right?)

Do we though? In the South we honor the man who kills the home intruder. In the North we question his use of violence, we question his refusal to wait for the police. The South has its own attitude on violence that crosses class and race lines. We expect violence in certain circumstances and we would judge a man who refused to defend his home.

[Janster]

The us army educates well, free education is a good incentive, should try that with the rest of the population.
However, I want to talk about this honor, you see the big problem with this self justice is that others may not agree with you, in the old days such behavior could spark long blood feuds, which could be very destructive, to avoid this one tries instead to enforce a law which is more accepted, thus justice s measured out in less black/white fashion.

It takes a great person to turn the other cheek, it requires courage, this other version is just being a coward.

[Gus_Smedstad1]

I’m a gun owner. I have 5 pistols and “large stash of ammunition” (aka a couple hundred rounds in each caliber).

I do not understand answering the door with a weapon. I do not understand concealed carry. I’ve never been afraid of anyone knocking at my door. Tremendously annoyed when it’s a sales, political, or religious pitch, but never afraid. I cannot imagine being so afraid that I need to carry a weapon with me at all times. Hell, even though I own holsters for each pistol, I’ve never used them - when I’ve gone to the range, I’ve always brought them in a locked box.

I know there are neighborhoods in the US, generally in the poor inner city areas, which are dangerous enough that carrying a concealed weapon makes sense. I don’t live in one, and neither does anyone I know personally.

[Telefrog]

What the Hell kind of useless statistic is this?

82.8% of U.S. military officers in 2010 had at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 29.9 percent of the general population.

You need either a college degree or be working towards one to even begin Officer Candidate School. The only path to becoming an officer that does not involve a college degree will eventually result in a degree anyway. This statistic is like saying 100% of college graduates have a degree compared to 0% of people who did not graduate college. It’s a stupid bit of information.

[Soapyfrog]

That doesn’t describe the US military, or our experience over the last decade.

Who Are the Recruits

Well I think you are definitely correct that the military is not the refuge of the poor, a strong part of the reason for this is that the military preferentially recruits high school graduates (if you have never gone to high school you have almost no chance of being accepted, the US Army selects a maximum of 10% of volunteers who do not have a high school diploma, and the other services have much stricter requirements). Moreover you can be rejected if you have bad credit or are in significant debt, or if you have 2 or more dependents, and you cannot enlist if you are a single parent.

The high preference for a high school diploma alone will lockout a large swathe of the poorer population and skew icnome statistics.

So you are right about the makeup of the army, but it’s not because of who is trying to enlist, it’s because of who they choose to accept.

[Houngan]

I’ve been writing about honor and culture for most of the semester - which brings me back to this thread.

You can see a clear split between those who believe in the principle of self defense, and those who do not. In the South, it’s assumed that you will do whatever it takes to defend your home. As a man it is your responsibility. The idea that you would simply call the police, that you would find an interior room and hide, would be unmanly unseemly. Violence, and using violence to assert your authority, is a cornerstone of male identity. If someone challenges your person then you have every right and indeed every obligation to respond. There is even an element of might makes right, your willingness to engage in risk validates your argument.

Critics would point to the higher death rates for men in the south, especially white men, and they would certainly be correct. We engage in riskier behavior, and we pay a price for it. It’s also a foundation of our identity and one we will not part with willingly. The pacifism that runs through much of America is an anathema here.

Coming from the sorta-South, it’s a pretty good premise. I think it’s often stated more offensively than necessary, that we want to “appear tough” or some such, but when I think about such things it doesn’t have anything to do with toughness, it just has to do with capability. My pride is much more centered around broad competence than any sort of notion of toughness. On the contrary, I see firearms as enabling those who aren’t tough to still be competent at defense.

But in the broad strokes I agree with the article, especially when I take my childhood classmates into consideration. That same attitude is reflected among African Americans as well, see "Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun"which points out the same thing, but loses the plot at the end by suggesting that the fix is to pass more gun control rather than address the cultural problems directly.