Yet another shooting thread

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe Loren is arguing that there's already a law against robbery, so increasing the penalty, for gun laws, won't make a difference. The risk-reward calculation for criminals wouldn't change, and it wouldn't matter because Loren knows everyone's hearts and minds. However, I might be wrong about the argument being made.

Well that makes more sense but it is s shift from “ a law that is not meaningful enforceable doesn’t matter.”

You're both missing the target.

What I'm saying is that the proposed law will realistically only be enforceable when the person is caught doing other serious misdeeds. You can't walk down the street with a hidden gun means nothing if the cops can't see the hidden gun.

It's like some places have passed laws about allowing guns to be easily stolen from vehicles--but the only people who would get caught are those who confess as part of reporting their gun being stolen. Thus it catches nobody, just makes them either not report or lie about the details.

What is the scenario where they currently get away with it but would be caught if this change were made??

(And if you want to change the risk-reward calculation you can change the penalties without having to create a new law.)

Laws don’t catch, prosecute or imprison people: people do that. Laws define unacceptable behavior and the potential consequences of such behavior. Laws provide guidance.

Laws do not prevent crime a priori. Laws deter crime a priori.

Hence your analysis is based on a flawed conception of the legal system.

You're completely avoiding the point. I'm not saying laws prevent crime. I'm asking what criminal scenario is covered by this proposal and can reasonably be enforced and that is not already covered by existing laws. The requirement is not merely showing wrongfulness, but showing that it's a superior solution for addressing the wrongfulness.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

AR-15s and similar guns make very poor self defense weapons.
Their bullets can penetrate numerous walls and cause innocent deaths far away from the crime scene. Blasting away with such a weapon might get one in trouble if an innocent person gets hit by a stray bullet.

Small, fast bullets tend to tumble once they hit anything. They'll punch through the wall--but are greatly weakened in the process.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You haven't addressed the fact that the Australia gun law change can't be detected in the broad picture.

You haven't demonstrated that the Australia gun law change can't be detected in the broad picture.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Particularly as it is completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion, which is US gun culture.

I have shown it before.

Go find a graph, take something with a straight edge and line it up with the murder rate. No fancy statistical analysis needed.

Australia's laws were changed in response to a single tragic event, in the context of that event being unique and novel. The purpose was to avoid a recurrence; That purpose has so far been completely achieved.

The US response to a similarly tragic event is to shrug and say "Is it Tuesday again already?".

Before you can start on the road to recovery, first you must accept that you have a problem. But you are still deep in denial, and every time another mass shooting occurs, you utterly fail to do anything at all. See you next Tuesday.

You already had a policy where victims are not allowed to prepare defense, thus you do not have the benefit. We don't believe in making people just sit and be slaughtered, the result is that eliminating those mass shootings you would end up with even more deaths, just spread out.

 

[bilby]

We don't believe in making people just sit and be slaughtered

...unless they are schoolchildren.

Don't you fucking DARE try to claim any kind of moral high ground.

Guns are not defensive devices, and that popular myth, that lethal force is an ethical response to a minor threat, is responsible for thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of American deaths each year.

I know, I onow, you don't care.

Because you genuinely believe that a person being killed, because they attempted to steal property of trivial value, is not immoral; But as most people don't share that frankly evil stance, you are poorly advised to behave as though it were a universally accepted position.

 

[barbos]

AR-15s and similar guns make very poor self defense weapons.
Their bullets can penetrate numerous walls and cause innocent deaths far away from the crime scene. Blasting away with such a weapon might get one in trouble if an innocent person gets hit by a stray bullet.

Small, fast bullets tend to tumble once they hit anything. They'll punch through the wall--but are greatly weakened in the process.

I recently watched MythBusters episode about shooting into water.
And surprising result was that handguns performed better than high power rifles. Apparently the faster the lead bullet the faster it disintegrates in water, whereas slow but somewhat bigger handgun bullets travel faster.
And it looks like all bullets available in US are made of lead, steel core bullets are illegal?

 

[barbos]

Guns are not defensive devices, and that popular myth, that lethal force is an ethical response to a minor threat, is responsible for thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of American deaths each year.

True, but on the other hand there is hardly any petty theft in US. Whereas in Europe it's the first thing that happens to visitors.

 

[laughing dog]

I believe Loren is arguing that there's already a law against robbery, so increasing the penalty, for gun laws, won't make a difference. The risk-reward calculation for criminals wouldn't change, and it wouldn't matter because Loren knows everyone's hearts and minds. However, I might be wrong about the argument being made.

Well that makes more sense but it is s shift from “ a law that is not meaningful enforceable doesn’t matter.”

You're both missing the target.

What I'm saying is that the proposed law will realistically only be enforceable when the person is caught doing other serious misdeeds. You can't walk down the street with a hidden gun means nothing if the cops can't see the hidden gun.

It's like some places have passed laws about allowing guns to be easily stolen from vehicles--but the only people who would get caught are those who confess as part of reporting their gun being stolen. Thus it catches nobody, just makes them either not report or lie about the details.

What is the scenario where they currently get away with it but would be caught if this change were made??

(And if you want to change the risk-reward calculation you can change the penalties without having to create a new law.)

Laws don’t catch, prosecute or imprison people: people do that. Laws define unacceptable behavior and the potential consequences of such behavior. Laws provide guidance.

Laws do not prevent crime a priori. Laws deter crime a priori.

Hence your analysis is based on a flawed conception of the legal system.

You're completely avoiding the point. I'm not saying laws prevent crime. I'm asking what criminal scenario is covered by this proposal and can reasonably be enforced and that is not already covered by existing laws. The requirement is not merely showing wrongfulness, but showing that it's a superior solution for addressing the wrongfulness.

What point is that? You were the one babbling about "catching" not me. You are the one who ignores almost the entire content of a post (see the bold-faced italicized portion above that your response shows absolutely no recognition of). Prohibiting a hidden gun sends the NEW message that hiding them will increase the penalty WHEN ONE IS CAUGHT.

Yes, it has the same function effect of increasing penalties of existing laws for armed robbery etc... Which raises the interesting question of why you feel the need to argue over its efficacy.

 

[laughing dog]

You haven't a

You already had a policy where victims are not allowed to prepare defense, thus you do not have the benefit. We don't believe in making people just sit and be slaughtered, the result is that eliminating those mass shootings you would end up with even more deaths, just spread out.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. You need to make a step by step argument. Otherwise it looks like NRA propaganda.

 

[Elixir]

Loren doesn’t make sense to me on this topic either fwiw.
Failure to communicate?

 

[bilby]

Loren's argument is that if guns were not ubiquitous, nobody would be able to employ lethal force in self-defense, and so more people would be shot, because guns are ubiquitous.

He further argues that self-defense is acceptable as a use of lethal force, because he likes the idea of summary capital punishment on suspicion.

Of course, he is careful to use lots of emotionally loaded language about "bad guys", "good guys", and "innocents", in an attempt to conceal his support for extrajudicial killing of anyone who has the temerity to put themselves outside the protection of the law by being "scary", which I presume his sources use as a euphemism for "black", and which crypto-racism he is apparently too naïve to notice.

And the whole thing is wrapped up in unthinking authoritarianism, whereby a fundamental axiom is that the police are always justified in killing anyone at any time - which is a bizarre contradiction: Loren firmly believes that people simultaneously have the absolute legal right to carry a gun for self defense, AND that police have the right to kill anyone they see carrying a gun, without hesitation, much less arrest, charge, trial, and/or conviction.

 

[Elixir]

Loren's argument is that if guns were not ubiquitous, nobody would be able to employ lethal force in self-defense, and so more people would be shot, because guns are ubiquitous.

He further argues that self-defense is acceptable as a use of lethal force, because he likes the idea of summary capital punishment on suspicion.

Of course, he is careful to use lots of emotionally loaded language about "bad guys", "good guys", and "innocents", in an attempt to conceal his support for extrajudicial killing of anyone who has the temerity to put themselves outside the protection of the law by being "scary", which I presume his sources use as a euphemism for "black".

And the whole thing is wrapped up in unthinking authoritarianism, whereby a fundamental axiom is that the police (and anyone else who is a part of the ruling class, but is scared) are always justified in killing anyone at any time.

That’s pretty harsh. But I agree. There is no good argument for NOT doing everything possible to regulate and if possible, ban as many guns and classes of firearms as possible.
Right now I’d like expanded mandatory firearms safety training, regular required proficiency testing and psych exam to be licensed to own, store and use guns.
The fucking things KILL people by enabling lethal accidents, mistaken reactions, lack of anger control, illusions of the power to commit crimes and so much more.
Virtually nobody needs them and they’re fucking up this society. BIGLY.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Loren's argument is that if guns were not ubiquitous, nobody would be able to employ lethal force in self-defense, and so more people would be shot, because guns are ubiquitous.

It is herd immunity... with guns. Because there are so many guns we don't need to worry about them being used.

 

[Gospel]

Random Info: The country with gun laws most similar to those of the United States is Yemen.

 

[Elixir]

Loren's argument is that if guns were not ubiquitous, nobody would be able to employ lethal force in self-defense, and so more people would be shot, because guns are ubiquitous.

It is herd immunity... with guns. Because there are so many guns we don't need to worry about them being used.

Good call. Just imagine what a utopia we would have if everyone had personal nukes.

 

[marc]

Loren's argument is that if guns were not ubiquitous, nobody would be able to employ lethal force in self-defense, and so more people would be shot, because guns are ubiquitous.

It is herd immunity... with guns. Because there are so many guns we don't need to worry about them being used.

The "an armed society is a polite society" argument... of course it is being polite because of fear that anyone getting offended might be a psycho that will shoot you on the spot.

 

[bilby]

Loren's argument is that if guns were not ubiquitous, nobody would be able to employ lethal force in self-defense, and so more people would be shot, because guns are ubiquitous.

It is herd immunity... with guns. Because there are so many guns we don't need to worry about them being used.

The "an armed society is a polite society" argument... of course it is being polite because of fear that anyone getting offended might be a psycho that will shoot you on the spot.

That's (yet another) argument that depends on the erroneous conflation, much favoured by mobsters, of "fear" with "respect".

A polite society is one in which people try to avoid offending others, because they like living in a society in which deliberate offensiveness is rare.

A society in which people try to avoid offending others, because they fear for their lives, is many things; But "polite" isn't one of them.

 

[Toni]

What can I say? Throw my hands up?

Statistically speaking, you are already more dangerous than somebody with an AR15.

in the US, 85.7% of all homicides were committed using firearms.

You are being a bit disingenuous.

 

[Elixir]

85.7% of all homicides were committed using firearms.

Bbbbut you said AR15!
The holy relic of Rittenhause!
Dey dindunuffin!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What can I say? Throw my hands up?

Statistically speaking, you are already more dangerous than somebody with an AR15.

in the US, 85.7% of all homicides were committed using firearms.

You are being a bit disingenuous.

But not by an AR-15. See, if we break it all down to models of guns, the number killed by any type of design is negligible. Never happened.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What can I say? Throw my hands up?

Statistically speaking, you are already more dangerous than somebody with an AR15.

in the US, 85.7% of all homicides were committed using firearms.

You are being a bit disingenuous.

But not by an AR-15. See, if we break it all down to models of guns, the number killed by any type of design is negligible. Never happened.

And the number killed by any individual gun is vanishingly small. It’s a wonder we even worry about these things at all.