Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Pattern Ghost]

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

Also, I do not consider access to high powered weaponry a fundamental right

 

I'm not going to get into the technical aspects of weapons, but if by "high powered weaponry" you mean civilian semi-auto rifles like the AR-15, then we're not talking high powered. Efficient at killing would be a better term. But when you start calling 5.56mm NATO a high-powered caliber, you're ignoring the design characteristics that make it a wholly appropriate round for self defense purposes. And since you're replying to me, I stated that self-defense is a fundamental right. Because of this, I'm of the opinion that we must be careful in any efforts to limit access to the tools of self defense. The AR, as a weapon, is one of the better options for self defense tools for weaker or smaller-statured people.

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

6 hours ago, Old Man said:

I would apply this to handgun calibers as well simply because handguns kill twice as many people in mass shootings as assault rifles. 

 

Handguns are terrible at stopping an attack, so I don't think we should limit them to single digit capacities without looking at other issues first, such as police tactics.

[Pattern Ghost]

59 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

There is a credible argument that reducing access to firearms reduces the homicide rate.  

 

I've never seen that argument made in a credible way. If you've found someone that's done so, I'd be more than happy to consider changing my opinion on it.

[Lord Liaden]

The argument that defensive use of a firearm is a statistically-significant reason for firearms to be accessible to the public, and firearm possession by common citizens makes them safer, fascinates me. It's an argument I haven't heard used in any other developed country. Here in Canada the only citizen protection issue ever raised in relation to guns is the use of long guns in rural areas where encounters with dangerous animals are possible. In urban environments for encounters between people, I can't remember the last time anyone publicly even brought up the subject for discussion. We haven't yet felt the necessity for an arms race between citizens and criminals.

 

I wonder if this says more about the unique American relationship to guns, that it does about their actual safety benefits.

[Pattern Ghost]

I have read in the past that the UK only reports convictions in its crime statistics. For example, the US murder rate would be reported based on the number of victims, vs. the UK reported based on the number of murder convictions. Which seems like an entirely improbable situation. So, I tried to look it up, and came across this article:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/25/homicides-in-england-and-wales-hit-highest-level-in-a-decade

 

So, violent crime is currently on an uptick. This goes back to the argument about underlying causes needing to be prioritized over a tools-first approach.

[Pattern Ghost]

4 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

It's an argument I haven't heard used in any other developed country.

 

It's almost as if different countries have different issues.

 

 

 

[megaplayboy]

20 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I've never seen that argument made in a credible way. If you've found someone that's done so, I'd be more than happy to consider changing my opinion on it.

You do know that the homicide rate dropped steadily after the passage of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban, right?

[Lord Liaden]

21 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

It's almost as if different countries have different issues.

 

Respectfully, that's a facile answer over being unique in such a detrimental area. Like me saying that maybe other countries don't have as many gun-nuts. 😛

[Sociotard]

The gunman in Philadelphia (that shot six officers, all of whom survived) is now in custody.

 

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/philadelphia-shooting-08-14-19/index.html

 

Reminds me of this article from Vox

 

Police shootings are also part of America’s gun problem

[csyphrett]

4 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

I feel like this is a straw man argument. We're not trying to reduce the homicide rate to 0.  We're trying to reduce it below its current rate.  There is a credible argument that reducing access to firearms reduces the homicide rate.  

Why not try to reduce it to zero? There are more suicides with guns than homicides including the mass shootings we're talking about in America. Why not try to reduce all of that to zero?

CES

[csyphrett]

4 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

My actual view on the issue is that we need federally funded, unrestricted scientific research on all aspects--how criminals acquire guns, characteristics of mass shooters, medical aspects of the issue, etc.  I think existing research is wholly inadequate and tends to be cherry-picked by both sides without proper scrutiny of methodology.  We need peer-reviewed scientific, medical and social science research on all aspects of the problem, so that policy-makers can make informed decisions using the best data available.  

I think both PG and I have said something like this. When ViCap became a thing, police departments were given a checklist to see if the mo of offenders could be matched nationwide. I don't see why the same type paperwork could not be placed for gun crimes.

CES

[Pattern Ghost]

3 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

You do know that the homicide rate dropped steadily after the passage of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban, right?

 

You seem to be missing some data there. Those had nothing to do with the crime trend, it was already on a downward trend that continued after the AWB sunsetted.

[Pattern Ghost]

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Respectfully, that's a facile answer over being unique in such a detrimental area.

 

Sorry, I'm just getting tired of repeating myself. Because I've repeatedly pointed out the differences that are unique to the US situation in this thread, over the last couple of days, and I keep getting repeatedly asked the same question.

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Sociotard said:

Reminds me of this article from Vox

 

Police shootings are also part of America’s gun problem

 

Just the title of that piece is a massive goal post move, IMO. (Reading it now.)

 

Interesting graphic from article, spoilered for size:

 

[Pattern Ghost]

An interesting point of view from a CBS legal expert:

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

13 hours ago, archer said:

 

To be clear, they had one-shot handguns.

 

The Founding Fathers, I believe, would be considering muzzle loading, and breach-loading, one-shot firearms.  In the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, General Wolf (who famously ordered the British troops " Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" some years before Bunker Hill; the concept dates back into the 17th century, though, as noted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bunker_Hill )also ordered his men to load two, rather than one, bullet, making their opening salvo twice as effective.  Those firearms required a cartridge, with a bit of powder priming the shot (breech loaded), and the rest, including the shot, poured down the barrel and pushed down with a rod.  A cap was then used at the breech to strike a spark.  In a demonstration talking through the process, it took about a minute to ready and fire, but British soldiers were drilled, and expected to be able to fire three times a minute.

 

So what if gun control permitted unrestricted ownership of anything that was available when the Second Amendment was passed?  That would seem to be very consistent with the issues the Founding Fathers would have considered.  Would that include a cannon firing 6 lb cannonballs, or were there limits on military hardware ownership by private citizens, even back in the 18th century?

 

The Founding Fathers also did not need to factor in barrel rifling, which only became common in the 19th century and ended the utility of stone fortifications.

 

There's an interesting discussion on the link between the right to bear arms and the "well regulated militia" at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment .  A 1939 SCOTUS decision definitely did not support the right of each individual to have unregulated access to firearms.

 

10 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Handguns are terrible at stopping an attack, so I don't think we should limit them to single digit capacities without looking at other issues first, such as police tactics.

 

So, your position is that we should not restrict firearms due to their defensive uses, but we should not limit handguns which you say are terrible at stopping an attack.  I'm not sure I understand your position.

[ScottishFox]

18 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I don't see a big cultural divide (which differentiates us from, say, India or South America). 

 

Read up on India.  It is wildly different than North America in ways that will shock and awe you.

 

My female employees in India - in a large metropolitan, upscale area - were not allowed to work the noon to 9pm shift for safety reasons and had to be bused too and from the work site for their own protection.

 

And India is so massive and the less developed areas are like trips into actual Fantasy HERO settings.

 

I've literally seen guys from India talking to each other in broken English because they didn't share a common language from India due to the areas they came from.

 

My employees from India, like anywhere else, have ranged from awesome to awful, but here's a brief summary of a conversation (dulled by memory) I had with one of them one day:

Me:  Do they still have a caste system where some people are just forced to be dirt poor?

Ramesh:  Yes.

Me:  Like no electricity poor?

Ramesh:  Yes, but their lives are less stressful since they don't have to worry about having possessions?

Me:  Like food??

Ramesh:  ~chuckle~

 

This is not a condemnation of of India, either.  They are making remarkable progress.  But, they are still developing and  have a wildly different set of cultures.

 

Respectfully, and I mean it, if you don't see a big cultural divide you haven't looked.

[ScottishFox]

38 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So what if gun control permitted unrestricted ownership of anything that was available when the Second Amendment was passed?  That would seem to be very consistent with the issues the Founding Fathers would have considered.  Would that include a cannon firing 6 lb cannonballs, or were there limits on military hardware ownership by private citizens, even back in the 18th century?

 

The most reasonable limitation, imo, is to cap the individual off at the level of infantryman.  That is the role that fighting age men served in the militia and each guy was expected to have a firearm and personal weapons (knife, cutlass, hatchet, whatever).

 

You can't time period bind the equipment any more than you could say freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet, telephones or any other medium that wasn't invented at the time of the founding.

Would you limit the 4th amendment in this way?  Well, see, they didn't have thermal imaging that would let us watch you through the walls of your house day & night without a warrant back then so your constitutional protections don't extend to this new technology...

 

So I would say a semi-automatic rifle, sidearm and some sort of melee weapon should be fine.  Howitzers, drone mounted missiles, etc., would not.

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I'm not sure I understand your position.

 

I'm not sure if you want to. If you really want me to lay it out again (for the umpteenth time), then I will. Otherwise, I'll spare the rest of the forum from the repetitiveness. Also, you've misstated my opinion, which I've reiterated many times on this board. I really think you're falling asleep in class here.

[Pattern Ghost]

25 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

The most reasonable limitation, imo, is to cap the individual off at the level of infantryman.  That is the role that fighting age men served in the militia and each guy was expected to have a firearm and personal weapons (knife, cutlass, hatchet, whatever).

 

Well, at least when I was in, the infantry had grenade launchers, surface to air missiles, wire-guided missiles, machine guns up to at least .50 caliber, and hand grenades. Plus their rifle, possible sidearm and possible knife.

[Hugh Neilson]

9 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I'm not sure if you want to. If you really want me to lay it out again (for the umpteenth time), then I will. Otherwise, I'll spare the rest of the forum from the repetitiveness.

 

To clarify, I specifically indicated:

 

Quote

So, your position is that we should not restrict firearms due to their defensive uses, but we should not limit handguns which you say are terrible at stopping an attack.  I'm not sure I understand your position.

 

If your rationale is that firearms should  not be restricted due to their defensive uses, and handguns are not useful defensively, why should there be no restrictions on handguns?  Surely not to encourage a false sense of security in owning one. 

 

32 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

The most reasonable limitation, imo, is to cap the individual off at the level of infantryman.  That is the role that fighting age men served in the militia and each guy was expected to have a firearm and personal weapons (knife, cutlass, hatchet, whatever).

 

If the purpose is to maintain a well-prepared militia, would you also concur that those owning (or even permitted to own) these arms should also be subject to activation as part of a state or Federal militia?  It's funny how we consider the rights, but not the responsibilities, that those who penned these documents had in mind.  The phrasing of the Second Amendment seems pretty clear that the right to bear arms was not viewed as existing in a vacuum, but rather was directly linked to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.

[ScottishFox]

7 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Well, at least when I was in, the infantry had grenade launchers, surface to air missiles, wire-guided missiles, machine guns up to at least .50 caliber, and hand grenades. Plus their rifle, possible sidearm and possible knife.

 

Look, when I play with my little green army men they mostly only have rifles.  You can't use the fancy bazooka guy as your standard!

[ScottishFox]

3 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If the purpose is to maintain a well-prepared militia, would you also concur that those owning (or even permitted to own) these arms should also be subject to activation as part of a state or Federal militia? 

 

We do have Selective Service though the age range is pretty limited.

[Pattern Ghost]

19 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If your rationale is that firearms should  not be restricted due to their defensive uses, and handguns are not useful defensively, why should there be no restrictions on handguns?  Surely not to encourage a false sense of security in owning one. 

 

[De-snarked] Since you replied, I'll assume you actually want me to clarify things for you. I'll try to give you the short version, though I've posted this info before. So, here's my current thinking on the subject of firearms regulation in the US, in list format, and attempting a logical progression of ideas:

 

1. The right to self defense is a basic human right.

2. In order for one to be able to exercise this right, it may be necessary to use a weapon as a force multiplier.

3. In US law, the 2nd Amendment guarantees (the right) private (of the people) ownership (keep) and ability to carry around (bear) arms (weapons). This is upheld by DC vs Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago.

4. Also upheld is that self defense is included, and that the government cannot ban weapons commonly used in self defense. The Heller case determined that the total ban on handguns in DC was unconstitutional.

5. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Rights can be limited for the public good.

6. When considering gun control as an option, it's important that any new laws don't infringe on any of the above. 

7. Any new law (for anything) should be effective, not a feel good measure, not a political posturing.

8. We do not have a general "gun violence" problem in the US that needs to be addressed by gun legislation. The numbers and statistics bear out that the vast majority of gun violence is concentrated in small areas and that the vast majority of gun violence is criminal on criminal.

9. Suicide rates aren't affected by the availability of firearms.

10. This leaves the trend of mass public shootings (those not related to gang activity) we have in the US as the final major area of concerns as it pertains to US gun violence.

10a. Gun control doesn't play a useful role in preventing these events. Prevention has to take a different form, and we still haven't gotten the tools nor the compliance in reporting and enforcement to the level they need to be at. Red flag laws might be effective, though, and some may place them under the gun control umbrella. I see them as interventional, and as long as there are sufficient (if unfortunately post-facto) due process protections in the red flag laws, I don't have a major issue with them.

10b. Gun control might be worth considering in addressing part of the problem of mitigation of these events. There are other areas that still need consideration as part of mitigation, including improving police responses to mass shootings. We're getting there, but it's going to take time for departments to be pushed into putting good resource officers (like the SWAT team member who eliminated a school shooter) in place instead of cowards.

10c. TIME is the most critical factor in mitigating mass shooting casualties. The area needs to be clear to bring in medical aid as quickly as possible. This is fundamental to trauma care.

 

Now, let's look at [De-snarked] Rifles vs pistols.

 

Rifles send bullets into a body with massive kinetic energy. Not only does the projectile tear through tissue in its path, but the hydrostatic shock from a rifle round is sufficient to destroy tissue, including organ tissue.

 

Handguns of any non-magnum caliber simply drill a hole through tissue, crushing tissue in their path. They typically have poor expansion compared to rifles, so even if the caliber (diameter) of the bullet and weight are the the same or greater than a rifle round, they crush considerably less tissue. Hydrostatic shock from handguns creates a temporary wound cavity that's not sufficient to tear tissue. Tissues stretch and rebound.

 

So, as another document from our activist AG here in WA that I posted way upthread points out: Patients shot in an organ with a handgun end up with an operable wound that's basically a hole in the organ. Those shot in the same organ with a rifle have a destroyed organ.

 

Now, let's look at the problem of limiting the tools of mass shooters in such a way that it helps mitigate the damage they can do, while still preserving the ability of an ordinary citizen to defend themselves. Oh, and don't get confused here and think that I'm talking about general gun control or gun safety measures, like safe storage so that unauthorized persons can't get their hands on a relative or friend's weapon. I am specifically talking about limitations on the tools themselves.

 

The old Assault Weapon Ban limited guns based on their features. These were largely cosmetic or ergonomic in nature, and therefore stupidly easy to engineer around. There was also a magazine capacity limitation component, down to 10 rounds. Pre-existing firearms and magazines were grandfathered in. So, once the law was announced people stocked up. And they've been stocking up ever since.

 

In my professional opinion, the main feature that we should be looking at in regards to mitigation (keeping in mind, I don't believe we should look here first, but that I never said we shouldn't look here . . . one of your apparent points of confusion in the above quote) is the magazine capacity. Now, in that reply you quoted to Old Man, he had said he'd limit both pistols and rifles to single digit magazine capacities. Let's break that down.

 

Does limiting magazine capacities to this low number make the tool so ineffective for self defense that it infringes on that aspect of someone's rights? For a rifle, not so much. For a handgun, possibly. Now, why would I say that?

 

Well, the goal of a self defense shooting is to stop the attack. Period. If someone has the means, motive and opportunity to kill you or do you great bodily harm, you have the right to engage them with lethal force. But although the force is lethal, the goal of its employment is to prevent harm to the victim. So, how does that work?

 

In an ideal world, the presence of the firearm makes the assailant reconsider his life's choices an leave.

 

Next best outcome is that a wound is inflicted, which is non-fatal but makes the assailant stop attacking.

These are both called psychological stops. The assailant has only stopped the assault because they have decided for themselves to stop the assault. What if they don't? Then you need a mechanical stop. That means your shot has inflicted enough damage to cause loss of consciousness or ability to act by either blood loss, shock, or a direct CNS hit.

 

So, this [De-snarked] is the difference between limiting capacities of rifles and pistols: Rifles are very good at creating a mechanical stop. You don't need a very large capacity magazine in most self defense situations calling for a mechanical stop for a rifle to get the job done. Pistols, on the other hand, suck at achieving mechanical stops. You need to bring as many rounds to the fight as you possibly can if you're using a pistol for self defense. Limiting the capacity of a service caliber handgun (9mm, .40S/W, .45ACP, .38SPL) severely limits its ability to effect a mechanical stop.

 

So, why is it OK to let potential mass shooters have higher round counts in pistols? Because you have other components to mitigation. Barring a CNS hit, the vast majority of pistol shooting victims (upward of 80%) survive if given prompt medical treatment. It is TIME that is larger factor in handgun shootings.

 

I hope this answers your question.

 

EDIT: It's close to my bed time, and on a re-read it seems my natural sarcasm has rendered some parts of this post as snarky. My apologies for that, and I'll go back over it and de-snark it later, after I've had some sleep.

[Iuz the Evil]

Quote

Suicide rates aren't affected by the availability of firearms

This is inaccurate as written. Restricting individual access to firearms is an established and effective deterrent to suicide, it's one of the reasons for the legal standards around firearm access in 5150 code. If you are indicating that suicide rates are not affected by availability of firearms in society, which I gather by the context of the rest of this, that's entirely possible. I don't have expertise in that area. 

 

I found your list of reasoning around your position thoughtful and articulate, and while I do not reach the same conclusions ("rational minds may differ") I appreciate your explanation.