NRA's top lawyer was convicted of murdering his girlfriend's mother in 1964

[Glitch]

@shaddack

And still, it keeps happening.

At what rate? Are you more likely to die in a police raid, or from choking on a pretzel? Things cannot be taken out of context - numbers have to be compared at appropriate scales.

[quote=“shaddack, post:59, topic:38055”]
On the other side of the equation, being unarmed does not guarantee not being killed.[/quote]
And by the same token, neither does being armed.

That said, if armed police are in your house, they’re a lot more likely to fire their weapons if they are threatened with lethal force than not.

There’s a whole body of study on the subject of Conflict Resolution that deals with how humans react to things like threats of force. Hint - they typically take threats of force badly.

This is why we have people like negotiators. A desperate idiot with a gun (which is far, far, far more common than a determined mass murderer) responds better to being talked to than they do to having guns pointed at or shot at them, and results in less damage and death.

[shaddack]

At this moment, qualitative data have to suffice. I don’t have the quantitative ones and don’t feel inclined to look for them.

[teapot]

I’d advise against playing the NRA’s favourite distraction: navel-gazing numbers games, since all they’re trying to do is muddy the waters and have ultimately made up their mind already.

Ask for research and studies conducted by people who know how to do research. You’ll find these people quickly run out of things to say, and eventually revert back to navel-gazing number games to prove their point.

(not that I’m suggesting you don’t already know this)

[robulus]

Yeah no worries. You could be quite right, I’m not arguing based on fact, just on my sense of how I’d fare against a SWAT team I was firing upon.

[teapot]

@Glitch

Advocating private gun ownership to protect people from shootings is like advocating having people carry fire escape equipment in case of a fire.

Or, like people carrying around a Pasteur-esque flamethrower so they could just burn the fire out for you.

[shaddack]

There is also the factor of a “global” disincentivization to forced entry. If there is a significant probability (which can be pretty low because people fear irrationally much the low-probability stuff) that an attempt to kick in the door will prompt a hail of projectiles, the perpetrators will think twice and may opt for a less-aggressive strategy.

[shaddack]

@Glitch

Advocating private gun ownership to protect people from shootings is like advocating having people carry fire escape equipment in case of a fire.

Duram COGO - Duram Products

@Glitch

I’d rather just work to prevent fires in the first place, wouldn’t you?

In an ideal world, this would be a viable strategy.

[shaddack]

@Glitch

‘We’re trying to do our jobs and people are shooting at us - we need more guns, more armor, more AFVs, more authority, more surveillance, more power to protect ourselves in the line of duty and keep the community safe!’

They are already screaming this and getting the toys. The “threat” has a long way to match them.

@Glitch

But turning these already ugly SWAT raids into full blown gun battles cannot possibly do anything but make them WORSE, and get MORE people hurt and killed.

This is based on a premise that there is no other way for the cops than to do the SWAT thing even when by far not needed. They are essentially cowards; a little disincentive and they may change behavior rather quickly. They are picking soft targets for a reason.

@Glitch

…nuclear brinskmanship…

The Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine quite likely prevented a major war between the superpowers. As odd as it is, I don’t think there was another viable way to cool the bellicose politicos’ hot heads, on both sides. In an ideal world, there would be an alternative…

[teapot]

You can’t compare the US to other places because our social, economical and cultural make up is completely different.

" because reasons "? This is not an argument for business-as-usual. There are factors that mean the US is different, but you’re not as different as you think. The biggest factor is that there are guns everywhere. Most places and most people are so similar that to an observing alien we would be impossible to easily differentiate.

You are for restricting millions of others because of the irrational fear of a very unlikely event

We have no fear of the item

But keep telling me I do.

Edit: I note in my haste to come home I misread your point. In any case your comparison to the TSA is inappropriate since the frequency of terror events combined with pre 911 security measures, that were already pretty good, is low compared to the frequency of gun crime events in the US combined with gun laws that are patchy and inconsistent at best.

Never mind no one ever bombed a plane with a shoe - lets make everyone take theirs off because they COULD.

Hey… Einstein… THIS IS YOUR COUNTRY WE’RE TALKING ABOUT. We don’t have a TSA so… what are you trying to say? You’ve got layers of terrible laws? Yes. I agree.

Moving the goal posts. I gave you legit examples.

legit: for America. Since most of the world agrees your gun laws are idiotic and inappropriate, citing examples from the land of the shooty is irrelevant. Compare yourself to the rest of the world (as I know you’re loathe to do). Even in nations where one can own such weaponry you will not find shooting comps for these weapons. (why?)

It comes down to “guns COULD hurt someone, so no one should have them”

Oh, thanks for charactetising my argument incorrectly. I’ve made clear that my argument it: “guns specifically designed for their ability to kill large groups of things very quickly WILL hurt innocent people in the future (will it be tomorrow? will it be next week?), so no one should have THOSE guns.”

We’re not talking about taking away all guns… but of course that’s how the tinydicks at the NRA set up the discussion, so unthinking people repeat it as if that’s what our side is demanding.

Anyone have something new?

Clearly not you guys.

[anon68287401]

The case predates Miranda by two years. We don’t know whether he committed the crime or not, because he was never tried so far on untainted evidence. Whole point of the fifth amendment is that innocent people in ambiguous circumstances can keep silent to avoid self incrimination. One reading of the events is that he’s guilty as sin, the other is that the police coerced a murder confession from a minor.

[euansmith]

@Glitch

…who had disapproved of their relationship…

I wonder why that was

@Boundegar

“… or instruments of torture…”

I prefer the term, “marital aids”

@chgoliz

There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States.

Imagine America’s population problems if 32,000 extra people survived to procreate each year. The Second Amendment is a form of birth control; which, given the apparent overlap between pro-gun and pro-life, is ironic.

@Kevin_Harrelson

And as to the 2nd Amendment being foolish, they had a reason to do so. Governments become more oppressive as time goes on, and the intent was to have an armed populace be the ultimate deterrent to an oppressive government.

So how’s that working out for you?

@Mister44

~20000 suicides

Geeze, what a miserable nation.

Edit: having said that I looked up the bumper fun table of national suicide rates, and the US is only about 0.4 suicides per 100,000 population ahead of the UK… so, I repeat, what a miserable nation

[Richard_Kirk]

So, there has been free exchange of DNA between the gun-nut community and the sleazy lawyer community for 50 years, and horrible hybrids like this are probably commonplace. And you thought ebola was bad?

[Nelsie]

@shaddack

So they can reduce the headcount of a SWAT team that swarmed in without bothering to check if they actually got a proper address.

Yeah, but no. Have you ever heard the term “arms race”? The SWAT teams do the swarming thing already because of the probability of armed resistance. If, say, HMGs were legal, the police would just up the ante to breaking in with an armoured car as a matter of course, with the possibility of flamethrower support. Or perhaps concrete warhead Hellfires fired from drones using GPS co-ordinates of the wrong bedroom. The authorities can always out-gun the individual; getting into an arms race with them is an ultimately losing strategy.

[peregrinus_bis]

Interestingly, the new Dodge Hellcat has various horsepower management modes specifically designed to retain usage within the parameters appropriate to circumstance.

How Dodge Packed 707 HP Into the Hellcat Without Destroying It

They’re of course being over-weeny careful, rather than sensible.

[Mister44]

[quote=“teapot, post:70, topic:38055”]
" because reasons "? This is not an argument for business-as-usual. There are factors that mean the US is different, but you’re not as different as you think. The biggest factor is that there are guns everywhere. Most places and most people are so similar that to an observing alien we would be impossible to easily differentiate.[/quote]

In a magical world where guns disappeared overnight, you are right you would see a drop in gun deaths, as it would take a lot more time and effort to illegally acquire them. But in reality that will never happen. Most new guns laws proposed would have little to no effect on gun crime because it further regulates channels that criminals do not use.

Your exasperation at all the guns clearly being the reason violence doesn’t stand the test of the data. Since the 90s we have had more guns, and in many place, expanded laws like CCW. And yet crime has steadily dropped. How is that possible? More guns should bring more violence, right? Notably strict areas like Washington DC and Chicago have some of the worst gun crime rates. In short, there is no hard data that gun laws or the number of guns have done anything to alter crime rates. THE REASONS for the violence are still there.

[quote=“teapot, post:70, topic:38055”]
legit: for America. Since most of the world agrees your gun laws are idiotic and inappropriate, citing examples from the land of the shooty is irrelevant. Compare yourself to the rest of the world (as I know you’re loathe to do).[/quote]

I’m talking about American gun violence. How is the rest of the world’s attitude relevant? Respect the culture. If I were say something they do in China was “wrong” because no other culture does it, I’d be labeled a bigot for not respecting their unique culture.

While I don’t know a lot about international shooting, but just looking at rifle matches for IPSC, they are using AR type rifles in Europe, South America, and South Africa. https://www.ipsc.org/matches/calendar.php

[quote=“teapot, post:70, topic:38055”]
Even in nations where one can own such weaponry you will not find shooting comps for these weapons. (why?)[/quote]
You mean like in Iraq or something? Because they are actually focused on killing each other, where most Americans use guns for sport. They probably still use horses for farming and transportation in areas, where here horses are luxury items. You’re point?

[quote=“teapot, post:70, topic:38055”]
Oh, thanks for charactetising my argument incorrectly. I’ve made clear that my argument it: “guns specifically designed for their ability to kill large groups of things very quickly WILL hurt innocent people in the future (will it be tomorrow? will it be next week?), so no one should have THOSE guns.”[/quote]

The problem with that is what people consider “specifically designed for their ability to kill large groups of things” is largely arbitrary. Never mind the fact that when it comes to the most “dangerous” AR type rifles are rarely used in crime.

@teapot

We’re not talking about taking away all guns… but of course that’s how the tinydicks at the NRA set up the discussion

Come on - you’re better than that.

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@Richard_Kirk

So, there has been free exchange of DNA between the gun-nut community and the sleazy lawyer community for 50 years, and horrible hybrids like this are probably commonplace. And you thought ebola was bad?

Ahhh, personal attacks with no facts whatsoever. Nice. I could make similar remarks about “gun-grabbers” and their army of lawyers, but I will refrain, being to civilized to engage in such juvenile name calling.

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@teapot

Those agencys’ activities aren’t consistent with human rights. Me not wanting assault rifles to be consumer goods is.

Once again, you speak out of ignorance. Can you even define an “assault rifle?” Hint: if I wanted an “assault rifle” then I would have to pay at least $10,000 for one and fill out a pile of federal paperwork. I do not know anybody who has one. The are rare. So, you have your wish. Almost NOBODY has an “assault rifle” as it is defined by people who actually know something about guns.

Now, I assume that you are against rifles that are black. So if a rifle has a wooden stock and no handles, it is OK, but if it is black with handles, somehow it is more dangerous? Little hint for you, if somebody is shooting at you, it is the BULLETS you have to worry about, not the handles or the color of the furniture. All semi-automatic guns operate pretty much the same way. Discriminating based on color works about as well for guns as it does for people.

@teapot

That’s not a comparison. That’s not perspective. This guy used a gun to kill someone. Kennedy had a car accident and fled the scene, a crime for which he was given a 2 month suspended sentence. To compare the two exposes your bias.

And yet people died, and there was no justice. Was Kennedy under the influence of alcohol? He claims not, but who knows. If it was a DUI, he would have been eligible for years in prison, had he not been rich and powerful.

@teapot

This Mother Jones article contains information that relates to a person’s history. If that information is incorrect, or being manipulated, then you’d be able to call bias. Since your argument of bias is based on your assertion that similar crimes would be dealt with differently by Mother Jones if it were a liberal figure in the crosshairs, but you’ve failed to give a comparable example of such a person, you’ve failed to illustrate bias.

No, YOUR bias is that he went to work for the NRA. Suppose that he went to work for the ACLU. Would you be so critical? Your negative attitudes are because of your bias against the NRA because they defend a part of the US Constitution that you happen to not like.

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@Glitch

Question one - how are they in my house?
Question two - why are they attacking me?
Question three - why do they have / how did they get a weapon?
Question four - why is diplomacy not an option?
Question five - is my waiting five minutes for police response in the event of an astronomically unlikely event the price I have to pay for a society in which any random idiot on the street isn’t allowed to carry a concealed murder device? Because I think I’ll take my chances if so.

Fine, you can do that if you wish. If somebody attacks me or my family, I would prefer to have the option to come out of it alive, thank you very much.

@Glitch

You have no basis for certainty as to what he would or would not agree with, since you literally know absolutely nothing about his personal views.

Here is what I know about this doctor:

1. He carried a concealed gun.
2. He watched a CRIMINAL murder a woman in front of him.
3. He managed to defend his life, subdue the criminal, and prevent others from dying
   Now, are you really suggesting that he regrets saving his own life and possibly those of others around him? Really? Is THAT what your logical arguments are reduced to? Take a step back and look at what you are arguing. That is so sad.

@Glitch

That said, as is so often the case with this sort of thing, the attacker was a mentally ill individual - this in a nation where mental health treatment is amazingly hard to come by, but where unlicensed firearms like the one involved in this case are supremely abundant.

First of all, guns generally do not have to be licensed. Show me your 1st Amendment license allowing you to speak. Second, this guy has a criminal background, making him ineligible to legally obtain a gun. Didn’t seem to stop him, however. I am just glad that the doctor DID have one. You are right about mental health care, but that is a separate, and much more complex, subject.

@Glitch

Personally, I think it’s far saner to push for better mental health care to prevent these sorts of events ever happening to begin with, rather than to arm people in some desperate hope that they can react to a violent situation.

And who says it has to be either/or? They are not incompatible. Let me spell this out so that you can understand. You have very little to fear from honest people, with guns or without. Criminal and the insane have proven that they can kill with or without guns. Plus, they have proven that they are willing to break the law to get guns, so the laws burden the honest people a lot more than the criminals.

@Glitch

Please note, despite being armed, Silverman was unable to prevent Hunts’ murder, was himself wounded, and didn’t even manage to subdue Plotts - that was accomplished by two separate unarmed individuals who weren’t present for the exchange of gunfire.

So, you know know that thing would have turned out exactly the same if Plotts had not had his gun. While you are at it, what are this week’s lottery numbers. Once again, please step back and look at what you are posting here. I cannot know what the Doctor thought about having a gun that saved his own life, but you know how events would have gone if he had not had one. Please.

@Glitch

Arming people is not an effective solution. It is by nature reactive, when what we need is a proactive solution.

Once again, the two are not incompatible.

@Glitch

Advocating private gun ownership to protect people from shootings is like advocating having people carry fire escape equipment in case of a fire. I’d rather just work to prevent fires in the first place, wouldn’t you?

So, having a fire extinguisher or sprinkler in building is a bad idea because everybody has a fire department within 15 minutes. Got it.

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@robulus

So gun control legislation in the USA is disproportionately skewed in favour of easy gun acquisition for the benefit of a massive multi-billion dollar industry, at the expense of even the most basic, common sense laws like a firearms registry.

No, it is in favor of easy acquisition because IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT HERE. That is like saying that free speech is there to benefit the book publishers.

@robulus

If they aggressively lobbied government to lift pool safety regulations just to make a buck then, yes, they would be fucking evil indeed.

Um, nobody has protested regulations that would actually make a difference. Gun locks are required to be included with all new gun purchases. Laws that put a burden on honest citizens but that criminals freely ignore is stupid.

Let me put it this way, Illinois and Chicago have TERRIFIC gun laws by your definition. Yet lots of shooting deaths in Chicago. Their solution? Make USA laws more like theirs. Wyoming does not have such a violence problem, so why is it logical to make them adopt Illinois laws which are so clearly effective. Hey, I have an idea! Let’s find the state with the worst schools and model our national education system around what they do. That will surely make things better, right?

@robulus

And if there is one thing I have noticed in these discussions, its that “numbers” that get posted are hotly contested on all sides, so don’t get too self-congratulatory about anything you think you may have “proved”.

Oh, yes. Everybody disagrees with the FBI murder statistics. Everybody disagrees with how mane people have died in swimming pools. And as to my other statistics, I used Wikipedia, which is a fairly neutral source. If you find any bias in Wikipedia numbers, feel free to edit the page and provide references. The Wikipedia editors appreciate all efforts to improve their site. And I used a number of 270,000,000 guns in the US. This is on the low side of the estimate. I could have used the higher number to make my murder statistics look better, but I was being as honest as I could be.

Really, is THIS the level that you are reduced to? You can find little real fault in my logic, so you attack my numbers, even though they come from government agencies and unbiased sources? You must really be desparate.

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@teapot

Au contraire, the delusion is yours. Everywhere with restrictions on gun ownership have lower rates of gun crime and death by firearm. My ‘delusion’ is known by most of the world as ‘reality’. I also made no such claims, but to pretend that restricting access to guns for all doesn’t reduce “bad guys” access to them in patently dishonest and ignorant.

Hey, I posted a link about showing you how to go to a Wiki page, grab un-biased numbers, put them into a spreadsheet, and PROVE that more guns does NOT equal more murder. So, your statement is a complete LIE. Prove it to yourself.

EDIT
OK. I read your post about you not believing in having spreadsheets or something like that. Your choice. However, your decision not to verify my facts for yourself do not make them untrue, despite how much you wish it could.
END EDIT

Oh, wait. You are right. No guns = no gun deaths. That is logical. And to all of the people beaten or stabbed to death, your deaths do not count.