Yet another shooting thread

[Jimmy Higgins]

Supreme Court to consider challenge to federal bump stock ban

WTAF!?!

Wow, that got to them pretty quick.

 

[ZiprHead]

The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them.

They do, however, provide a very effective cover indeed for anyone who does want to commit a crime with a gun.

If you see someone with a gun here, it's a big deal. Someone, probably several someones, will call the cops, and they will likely respond rapidly and in large numbers; Just merely having seen a gun is enough to get a massive police response.

There's a huge difference between "The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them" and "Anyone seen walking around with a gun will very quickly find themselves being questioned by the police".

It's irrelevant to the level of gun crime that a gun is easy to obtain, if merely possessing a gun puts you squarely in the sights of the police. You can get a gun, but you're very probably going to be arrested for having it, before you have the chance to commit a crime (other than unlawfully possessing it). So why would you want to carry one?

Our criminals generally do not openly walk around with a gun. The fact that they're not hiding it makes it virtually certain they're not a bad guy.

Except when they are.

Exactly. Having guns so readily available everywhere is a recipe for disaster. People who get cut off in traffic become dangerous criminals when normally they would just suck it up. "But there's the gun. Now I can get my revenge."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But that is okay because the number of people suffer Death by Cartman is much smaller yhan the people who willingly shoot themselves in the head.

Look, I know than people using vans full of weight to ram parades and busy sidewalks happens often, killing 1000 people a year, but that is nothing compared to people who commut suicide using a van by driving off a cliff.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Such a small fraction of the world’s population die each year it’s a wonder we even pay attention to it at all.

 

[ZiprHead]

But that is okay because the number of people suffer Death by Cartman is much smaller yhan the people who willingly shoot themselves in the head.

Look, I know than people using vans full of weight to ram parades and busy sidewalks happens often, killing 1000 people a year, but that is nothing compared to people who commut suicide using a van by driving off a cliff.

The deaths that really get to me are the ones by people concealed carrying a swimming pool.

 

[ZiprHead]

Does owning a gun change your behavior?

High-profile shootings often make people wonder if the victim or victims would still be alive if no guns had been available. But is that true? Are people more reckless simply because they have a gun?

science.howstuffworks.com

Guns and Suicide
But there is a connection between owning a gun and taking one's own life. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2004 survey of gun violence research published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that gun owners who committed suicide were more likely to use their guns rather than other methods, like pills. A 1992 study cited in the CDC survey discovered that people with a gun in the home were five times more likely to commit suicide overall. And a large-scale, national 2003 study found that access to a gun made a person more than three times more likely to commit suicide than someone without firearms [source: Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow].

Why would that be? Experts posit that suicide is often an impulsive act, occurring when a person is suffering an acute crisis. Eighty-five to 90 percent of people who shoot themselves succeed in dying, a much higher rate than with any other method of suicide. Arguably, if people did not have access to guns during that extreme period in their lives, it is likely they'd still be alive. In fact, the Israeli Defense Force found it lowered the suicide rate 40 percent among its soldiers simply by forbidding them from taking their weapons home over the weekend [source: Neyfakh].

Guns and Homicide
A lot of the government-funded research on gun violence comes from the early to mid-1990s. That's because in 1996, the National Rifle Association successfully lobbied Congress to cut funding for gun violence studies. But before that, the CDC found that having a gun in the home made homicide about three times more likely for family members in that house [source: Sapien]. This jibes with a 1992 study, which found that family disputes that turned violent were three times more likely to result in death when a firearm was present versus other weapons [source: Saltzman].

Most homicides aren't carefully planned events. Instead, an argument with a friend or family member -- maybe over money or infidelity -- turns violent. Add a gun to the mix and the chances of death are greater than say, using a baseball or a knife.
---
The change in behavior extends to the street. A 2009 study looked at 677 shootings in Philadelphia over two-and-a-half years and found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed as unarmed people. The study authors think that guns may give their owners a sense of empowerment that leads them to act rashly or go into dangerous situations or places they might otherwise avoid [sources: Callaway,Branas].

 

[TV and credit cards]

“You feel a sense of burning conviction that you, your family, and your community are safer and freer because you own and carry a gun.”
-David French, New York Times columnist

"The clothes make the man." works both ways. It's not just others perception of you but your perception of yourself. This is also true for guns and guns that are carried in public. Armed with a gun, we do not avoid dangerous situations, we seek them out. We are not cautious but emboldened, free in the knowledge that we can go where we want when we want in America. We invite confrontation.

"As the Church teaches, and this Nation's historical traditions demonstrate, the right to bear arms is not an unqualified license that must leave vulnerable family members to live in fear. Abused victims are precisely the people whom a just government is tasked with protecting. The Second Amendment does not stand as a barrier to their safety."
-United States Conference of Catholic Bishops amicus brief, United States v. Rahimi

How far can your right to own a gun encroach upon the rights of others to feel safe at home, social events, church, for our children to feel safe at school?

 

[marc]

And if a member of the public sees someone with a gun, they therefore do nothing.

Which is the entire reason why allowing people to be armed means more gun crime. Much more gun crime.

There was a mass shooting years ago. The person was seen prior to the shooting walking around with a rifle, and someone called the police. It was a open carry state so the police could do nothing.

So yes, in states where it is legal to walk around openly carrying a weapon, criminals will openly carry one.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them.

They do, however, provide a very effective cover indeed for anyone who does want to commit a crime with a gun.

If you see someone with a gun here, it's a big deal. Someone, probably several someones, will call the cops, and they will likely respond rapidly and in large numbers; Just merely having seen a gun is enough to get a massive police response.

There's a huge difference between "The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them" and "Anyone seen walking around with a gun will very quickly find themselves being questioned by the police".

It's irrelevant to the level of gun crime that a gun is easy to obtain, if merely possessing a gun puts you squarely in the sights of the police. You can get a gun, but you're very probably going to be arrested for having it, before you have the chance to commit a crime (other than unlawfully possessing it). So why would you want to carry one?

Our criminals generally do not openly walk around with a gun. The fact that they're not hiding it makes it virtually certain they're not a bad guy.

The other angle to this is how you love to justify shootings of people who might have had a gun.

 

[Worldtraveller]

You don't expect consistency, do you?

Ammosexuals like Loren are like religionists defending their favorite book. Consistency and logic don't matter, only ideology.

 

[laughing dog]

Driving a loaded U-haul into a crowd will generally kill more.

That's why we require licenses to drive trucks, and enforce relatively strict rules about how and when they are driven.

Most people have the required license. I'm talking a 27' U-Haul, not a big rig.

And most mass shooters are suicides. Rules don't matter.

Most people when they find themselves in an unwanted hole, stop digging.

This particular killer, like many others, could have used a sword or a machete or a uhaul or a truck filled with fertiliser or dynamite but choose to use a rapid firing firearm. Musing about alternative methods of murder seems to me to completely misinterpret reality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Driving a loaded U-haul into a crowd will generally kill more.

That's why we require licenses to drive trucks, and enforce relatively strict rules about how and when they are driven.

Most people have the required license. I'm talking a 27' U-Haul, not a big rig.

And most mass shooters are suicides. Rules don't matter.

Most people when they find themselves in an unwanted hole, stop digging.

This particular killer, like many others, could have used a sword or a machete or a uhaul or a truck filled with fertiliser or dynamite but choose to use a rapid firing firearm. Musing about alternative methods of murder seems to me to completely misinterpret reality.

Maybe we should pause for a moment and ponder whether it is easier to rent a van than to buy a gun like those often used in these mass murders.

 

[robnisch]

The Supreme Court seems likely to preserve a gun law that protects domestic violence victims

The Supreme Court seems likely to preserve a federal law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from having guns. The justices on Tuesday suggested they’ll reverse a…

www.orlandosentinel.com

How did this get to the SCOTUS? Seems like a no brainer. Oh, it's Texass!

 

[bilby]

And if a member of the public sees someone with a gun, they therefore do nothing.

Which is the entire reason why allowing people to be armed means more gun crime. Much more gun crime.

There was a mass shooting years ago. The person was seen prior to the shooting walking around with a rifle, and someone called the police. It was a open carry state so the police could do nothing.

So yes, in states where it is legal to walk around openly carrying a weapon, criminals will openly carry one.

And more importantly, police will not be bothered to respond to any public reports that a gun has been seen. If it hasn't yet been fired, it's not worthy of a response.

I carried a (licenced) long gun, in a gun case, through Leeds back in the 1990s, between two venues where it was wanted for historical displays. Despite the police being fully aware of the event, I was approached by them afterwards and asked to use a car next time (it was a very short walk, that would have taken longer by car due to the one-way system). They had received five emergency calls about me in the space of less than half an hour.

Only their knowledge of who I was and what I was doing avoided me being surrounded by armed tactical response units before I had gone half a mile.

That's the kind of response that makes it undesirable to criminals to have firearms. And it's only possible in an environment in which lawful guns in civilian hands are practically unheard of (at least in urban and suburban settings).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In good news an appeals court upheld an assault weapons ban in Illinois.

US appeals court upholds Illinois assault weapons ban

The appellate ruling also upheld several similar local laws in Illinois.

The Democratic-backed state measure bans the sale and distribution of many kinds of high-powered semiautomatic "assault weapons," including AK-47 and AR-15 rifles, and large-capacity magazines.

Opponents challenged the measure on grounds that it violated the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right for individuals to "keep and bear arms."

This is not going to be overturned by SCOTUS either. Essentially the court ruled that you can regulate without violating the constitution when it comes to firearms, which is in keeping with recent SCOTUS rulings referencing "historical" precedent. Good news.

 

[ZiprHead]

This is not going to be overturned by SCOTUS either. Essentially the court ruled that you can regulate without violating the constitution when it comes to firearms, which is in keeping with recent SCOTUS rulings referencing "historical" precedent. Good news.

I wouldn't be so sure considering the present court.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This is not going to be overturned by SCOTUS either. Essentially the court ruled that you can regulate without violating the constitution when it comes to firearms, which is in keeping with recent SCOTUS rulings referencing "historical" precedent. Good news.

I wouldn't be so sure considering the present court.

Why? Didn’t they say in their job interviews that precedent was very important to the court?

No one ever lies in a job interview! That would be inappropriate for goodness’ sake!

 

[Gospel]

Essentially the court ruled that you can regulate without violating the constitution when it comes to firearms,

Wow, that's quite the revelation! They should share this information with those opposed to gun law reforms posthaste—they'll likely be as astonished as I!!

 

[Derec]

This is not going to be overturned by SCOTUS either.

I do not think so, and neither should it be. It's a substantial restriction of gun ownership for a very limited to zero benefit. Small percentage of homicides is committed with these weapons and even those could easily be done with handguns or non-assaulty rifles. The OP shooting could easily have been accomplished with a Glock or two.

I really don't know why Democrats are so obsessed with banning so-called assault weapons instead of using their political capital pursuing more beneficial forms of gun control.

 

[robnisch]

This is not going to be overturned by SCOTUS either.

I do not think so, and neither should it be. It's a substantial restriction of gun ownership for a very limited to zero benefit. Small percentage of homicides is committed with these weapons and even those could easily be done with handguns or non-assaulty rifles. The OP shooting could easily have been accomplished with a Glock or two.

I really don't know why Democrats are so obsessed with banning so-called assault weapons instead of using their political capital pursuing more beneficial forms of gun control.

I see it as low fruit. Need to start somewhere, and these guns are the least useful for self defense and hunting.