3527

The civilian’s story is scary and sad. Just when you think you have it figured out – suicidal loners who kill themselves at the first sign of danger – they change the game. Rodger had a wide ranging gun battle and now they’re working in teams. I guess that was a risk since Columbine.

I think about these things, and it reinforces how if the bad guys give you an out, you should take it. If they order people out of Walmart without threatening anyone, there’s no need to confront them.

Not judging in hindsight. I admire his courage. I just try to learn things from these stories.

3528

From an AP story:

The married couple who police say killed three people in Las Vegas, including two officers, had been kicked off a ranch where anti-government protesters faced down federal agents earlier this year, rancher Cliven Bundy’s son said Monday.

…

He said that while details were still sketchy, the Millers’ conduct was the problem. He called the couple “very radical” and said they did not “align themselves” with the protest’s main issues.

“Not very many people were asked to leave,” he said. “I think they may have been the only ones.”
Protip for FBI/DHS/Sheriffs/etc: if someone is asked to leave the Cliven Bundy ranch protest for being too radical, you should probably keep an eye on them.

3529

Honestly, I think this kind of thing makes one thing clear: the “good guys with a gun” arguments get you nowhere. Crazy shit is crazy. It’s chaotic. Bad guys don’t wear villainous costumes and announce themselves. No one, including cops, can be ever vigilant and no one knows what the hell is going on in emergency situations like this.

Guns as tools and regulated sport equipment. Guns as self-defense in the home. I support the former and can at least understand the viewpoint of the later. Having guns all over the place while strolling around so that there’s a good guy with a gun to supposedly stop the completely unpredictable and rare shooting spree is stupid. It’s both an overreaction and ineffective, all at the same time.

3530

While that is a large part of the issue, the other part is whether easy access to guns and the utter lack of training required in getting them exacerbates the problem. You completely ignore this aspect of the issue, and that’s really the issue here. It’s not whether or not we are a violent society, but whether we can reduce the carnage through gun control. That. Is. The. Issue. Khan. Old…

…Friend. ;-)

Do we have other problems? Yes. But the one does not mean the other doesn’t exist.

3531

. . . and you’ve completely dodged the point about our non-gun murder rate. Please address why this would be positively affected by gun control. Nobody is arguing that guns aren’t the best tool for the job when it comes to noisy murder, there’s a whole other argument about the proliferation of guns in the US and what that means for reasonable controls. However, when we’re talking about Violence, then we’re talking about something bigger than guns.

3532

Holy crap. No kidding.

3533

“Do we have other problems? Yes. But the one does not mean the other doesn’t exist.” So, no, didn’t ignore it. I was just pointing out that you reached a false conclusion. It doesn’t matter what our murder rate is, or our violence rate is, in comparison with anyone else with regards to gun control. What matters is would that level of violence be reduced by some measure of gun control? Do we have additional issues to address? Yes. But I said that before, so please get off that high horse before you fall and injure yourself. Further, I’ve always advocated restricting gun ownership on the basis of proven ability and knowledge of how to safely handle firearms (i.e. gun control), which when mishandled injure and kill people irrespective of the violence issue.

Please address why this would be positively affected by gun control.

It’s a whole lot easier to effect mass carnage with firearms. You already know this - I’m not sure why you are pretending like I can’t answer the question. I’m not sure why you are pretending like you can’t answer the question. We do have measures of gun control in this country already (okay, maybe not Texas). The question is whether more will have any effect. Sure, that is a very debatable point. But my point is simply that you are proceeding from a false analysis. The question is not whether we have a violence problem (because we do), it’s whether we can curb at least some of that violence with gun control. We additionally need to deal with the propensity towards violence (but this is all the all purpose gun legislation thread, not the all purpose mental health thread), but in the meantime, your solution is to shrug and just accept it, or palm it off as guns having utterly nothing to do with issues stemming from violence. I respectfully disagree.

Nobody is arguing that guns aren’t the best tool for the job when it comes to noisy murder, there’s a whole other argument about the proliferation of guns in the US and what that means for reasonable controls. However, when we’re talking about Violence, then we’re talking about something bigger than guns.

“Nobody is arguing that guns aren’t the best tool for the job when it comes to noisy murder…”

I think you need to resolve which part of your statement you believe, because they are mutually exclusive. Either they are the best tool for noisy murder (and as pointed out, gun problems extend beyond murder) and you have successfully explained my own point (in which case you need to debate yourself and not me), or you ARE arguing that guns aren’t the best tool for the job, and that’s why we should completely ignore guns in relation to violence. Look, I’m just the messenger of your own conflicting claims - don’t shoot the messenger! ;-)

3534

My position is consistent. You’re working from an assumption that gun control will obviously have a positive effect and I am not. That’s how I can simultaneously acknowledge that guns are great for killing but gun control isn’t the answer to violence.

For logical fallacy, you just have to get a bit below the macro to see that gun control isn’t effective. Violence comes from areas that are in no way defined by gun laws but are very much defined by relative income and poverty.

If you want to sell me on gun control, you just have to make me understand why a heavy gun control city like Chicago still has two distinct areas where pretty much every murder happens. The law applies to the city equally, so it has to be something else.

3535

No, you are assuming that I am working from an assumption that gun control will obviously have a positive effect. I said it was a very debatable point (“The question is whether more will have any effect. Sure, that is a very debatable point.”). That sure doesn’t sound like I think it will “obviously” have a positive effect. It means I think it should be considered rather than swept under the table as if it isn’t an issue worthy of discussion. You want to remove any issue of gun legislation from a gun legislation thread.

For logical fallacy, you just have to get a bit below the macro to see that gun control isn’t effective.

“Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Violence comes from areas that are in no way defined by gun laws but are very much defined by relative income and poverty.

You fail to take the next step - is the violence reduced by gun control, and is it worsened by the lack of it? You entirely skip the logical question that needs to be asked even after you admitted that a gun is a great tool for the job.

If you want to sell me on gun control, you just have to make me understand why a heavy gun control city like Chicago still has two distinct areas where pretty much every murder happens. The law applies to the city equally, so it has to be something else.

Just imagine how worse it would be without gun control. So no, it doesn’t have to be something else - it may simply be an argument for more. That you figured out that there is a correlation between poverty and violence (something virtually every society has figured out for millenia) doesn’t mean that the means to enhanced violence should simply be dismissed out of hand. No, with the amount of guns this country is flooded with, you can’t truly stop a determined criminal from getting a gun, but you can slow him down, catch him out, or deter the less determined. It’s like locking your car doors. I’ve gotten people’s keys out of their locked cars in as little as a second. But they still deter the less determined. Your argument is that why bother with locks, because the violence to cars for theft because of poverty is going to happen and therefore that’s the correlation, and locks are irrelevant. So…do you lock your house? Your car? Your bike? If so, please explain to me why there should be nothing about locking up guns to one degree or another.

And I’m not trying to sell you on gun control. You have already made up your mind. I’m trying to point out to people who may not have made up their minds yet the holes in your approach. I was trying to get you to see that you perched yourself on too high of a horse and perhaps get you to come off it of your own accord, but I’m not above giving you a push to show the instability of your position if that what it takes. :-)

3536

You fail to take the next step - is the violence reduced by gun control, and is it worsened by the lack of it?

That’s a question I’ll leave it up to you to answer. At a less-than-statewide level my research suggests that it isn’t a correlated factor. If you have information to the contrary, let’s see it. We can even set up parameters and I’m perfectly willing to be swayed on the point if it comes out otherwise. My point on Chicago is that gun laws apply at the state level, and occasionally at the city level. If violence happens at the neighborhood level, then what are the laws doing? You suggest that we ignore that fact in favor of trying new and exciting forms of gun control to see if we can shift the pointer a bit to the left, while ignoring the order of magnitude between areas a few miles apart. If the house is burning down, it’s not going to help to turn on the air conditioner.

In fact, if you view it globally, the GINI coefficient correlates to violence even in countries where there are hardly any guns at all. Granted a machete is a bit tougher to use, but it doesn’t seem to knock these areas off of the trend line. When we have bustling metropolises like San Francisco enjoying a low murder rate and Oakland across the bridge experiencing four times as much with the same laws, it raises the question of what do laws have to do with it? The idea of controlling this sort of disparity with trying (and perhaps succeeding) to increase the difficulty in getting firearms is akin to filing down a doberman’s teeth a little and then screaming, “This is much better!” as it chews on your leg.

3537

That’s a wry image. You can be quite the writer Houngan.

3538

Back to normal now with the Oregon shooting. Young male – should we go ahead and assume he’s a depressed loner? – shoots schoolmates.

No word on connection to Slenderman.

3539

The Slenderman thing is overplayed, I’m betting the media falls back to video-game induced violence this time.

3540

It isn’t important within the context. I’m challenging you to follow a logical process. Feel free to claim whatever you want - I’m sure that there are statistics that simultaneously prove you right and wrong. But when you proceed from a logical fallacy, your conclusions aren’t right or wrong based on your methodology. So, Proposition H: Because violence is entirely about poverty or social conditions rather than guns, guns are not part of the issue. That’s your position. Proposition C: Violence is in large part tied to poverty/social conditions, but all gun injuries are not about intended violence, and guns enable the escalation of violence. You have admitted that they are the weapon of choice. So, which is closer to reality? I don’t think it’s a contest, Proposition C(orsair) knocks Proposition H(oungan) off its high horse. You don’t want to see the reality of it, because that then opens up the conversation on gun control, while your viewpoint conveniently handwaves it away.

At a less-than-statewide level my research suggests that it isn’t a correlated factor. If you have information to the contrary, let’s see it. We can even set up parameters and I’m perfectly willing to be swayed on the point if it comes out otherwise. My point on Chicago is that gun laws apply at the state level, and occasionally at the city level.

I’m not arguing the specifics of any given gun control approach. I’m talking about the basic logic and underpinnings of your position. Those need to be resolved before moving on to the specifics of any approach to gun control.

If violence happens at the neighborhood level, then what are the laws doing? You suggest that we ignore that fact in favor of trying new and exciting forms of gun control to see if we can shift the pointer a bit to the left, while ignoring the order of magnitude between areas a few miles apart. If the house is burning down, it’s not going to help to turn on the air conditioner.

If the house is burning down, it helps to throw water on it. You propose either watching it burn and shrugging, or throwing gasoline on. If violence happens at the neighborhood level, and it doesn’t happen in the next neighborhood, how in the world does that mean guns aren’t throwing gasoline on the fire? “But there’s no fire over there!” So? Doesn’t mean that the gasoline isn’t being used over here. You seem to be determined to think that I am somehow disagreeing that social issues aren’t a large part of the problem. I’m not. I’ve stated so many times. I’m saying that throwing guns into the equation is like throwing gasoline on the fire.

In fact, if you view it globally, the GINI coefficient correlates to violence even in countries where there are hardly any guns at all. Granted a machete is a bit tougher to use, but it doesn’t seem to knock these areas off of the trend line. When we have bustling metropolises like San Francisco enjoying a low murder rate and Oakland across the bridge experiencing four times as much with the same laws, it raises the question of what do laws have to do with it? The idea of controlling this sort of disparity with trying (and perhaps succeeding) to increase the difficulty in getting firearms is akin to filing down a doberman’s teeth a little and then screaming, “This is much better!” as it chews on your leg.

Well, why have any laws then? Laws have nothing to do with anything, clearly. Either you have just successfully overturned the entire basis of human existence, or you failed logic 101 in the most abysmal fashion ever.

I especially like where you essentially say, “Well, it might even work, but hell, it’s all bad anyway, so why bother!”

I feel like a Tymbrimi bouncing glyphs off a Thennanin…

3541

As I’ve said before in this thread, I’m a gun owner and a supporter of 2nd Amendment rights up to a point. I agree with Houngan that we live in a uniquely violent culture and that regulating firearms will not cure that. However, I also agree with his critics that reasonable regulation will serve as a palliative treatment for the uncured disease and thereby lower violent crime. It’s a stopgap, but still useful.

What would reasonable regulation look like? In my opinion, stringent background checks, a required firearms safety course, and a license. We require vehicle operators to prove they’re competent and license them because of the hazard inherent in car ownership, but that doesn’t eliminate the right to own and operate a car and the AAA doesn’t object. The same rationale would apply equally well to guns except for the fact that the NRA would absolutely lose it. They’re all about the “shall not be infringed” part of the 2nd Amendment and totally forget the “well-regulated milita” portion.

3542

I personally believe that the equivalent of the basic concealed carry class and a background check should be the bare minimum for gun purchase and ownership.

3543

Corsair,

You have made two false inferences. One is that I’m proposing that we do nothing. Rather I’m proposing that we concentrate on what matters most.

Second, that I think gun control is completely off the table. I know, I know, I said above the at it was useless, let me qualify that with a “relatively.” My beef is that whenever we talk about violence the immediate lament is, “Oh, when will we pass more gun control laws?” when we should be saying, “What can we do the break the violent nature of our society?”

I’m in favor of some forms of gun control, actually. Enhanced training and storage requirements would be an example. Cosmetic ban lists, nor so much. I’m always stumping for a NICS kiosk at gun shows, but it always gets lumped in with banning all private transfers.

But at the end of the day, I’m for science-based solutions, and I just don’t see the science (or as you say, there is always contradictory science) supporting most gun control proposals whereas the GINI correlation is strong, logical, and addressable by fixing a problem that reaches far beyond simple gun violence.

3544

Houngan - just curious, but how would you address income inequality in a real-world environment? If that’s the root of the cause for violence in America (and I’d agree that it’s at least a very strong component), how can it potentially get resolved in this political climate?

3545

Bear in mind that the Nordics have barely held the line, with their strong “People’s Socialism”, so you’re going to need even stronger efforts.

3546

Well, I had some ideas until you threw in those last 4 words. Quick and dirty would be to return to a progressive tax structure with an extremely high rate at the top. As to how best apply those funds, well, I’m no sociologist so I would defer to the professionals. State funded higher education and advanced vocational training would be a good idea, I think.