View Full Version : Not this crap again...
datachicane
05-24-17, 06:37 PM
So don't worry about terrorism until it happens to you? Great advice.
People are afraid because it is becoming clear that their governments cannot protect them against this growing and continuing threat. Their only recourse is to put us in smaller and smaller cages in a failed effort to 'keep us safe'.
Oh, BS. Cameraman called it. You want to be safe? Great- pay attention to things that are really, truly, mathematically likely to kill you, and that would by definition exclude terrorism. There's political hay to be made, though, so there's not nearly as much hand-wringing about the comparative raging bloodbath that results from eating cheese or driving on the Interstate.
Humans really suck at assessing probable risk. Statistically, you're far more likely to be crushed by falling furniture or to date a supermodel than be killed by terrorists.
Insomniac
05-24-17, 07:50 PM
So don't worry about terrorism until it happens to you? Great advice.
People are afraid because it is becoming clear that their governments cannot protect them against this growing and continuing threat. Their only recourse is to put us in smaller and smaller cages in a failed effort to 'keep us safe'.
I don't think anyone gave that advice, but that would treat it the same as all of the many other ways people die at much greater rates and no one cares until it affects someone close to them. The amount of coverage, the amount people care and the amount of money spent as a result is completely disproportionate to other causes of death. If you're afraid of being killed by a terrorist, there's a list of way more things that should scare you more. People are putting themselves in cages.
So don't worry about terrorism until it happens to you? Great advice.
I think there's a difference between not being fearful of leading our normal lives and not giving it any thought or consideration. Certainly everyone should be aware of the danger, be alert for warning signs, and prepared to react. But it's a foolish to let it keep you away from the things you enjoy or to think that there's any way that the state can provide anyone with the complete security that some seem to crave.
The Manchester bombing is pretty horrific, and follows what appears to be the new strategy: focus on entertainment, revelers, people gathering to enjoy something and therefore perhaps not on their guards (like people are today at airports).
I also wonder whether this attack indicates a shift in strategy to attack after events. Even though there are still large crowds after events you often see a relaxing of the security posture as they shift from guarding against someone coming in to maintaining order as everyone is leaving.
I also wonder whether this attack indicates a shift in strategy to attack after events. Even though there are still large crowds after events you often see a relaxing of the security posture as they shift from guarding against someone coming in to maintaining order as everyone is leaving.
I think this has to be giving security professionals pause. It takes for some events hours for the crowd to arrive. But nearly all empty quickly.
opinionated ow
06-03-17, 11:56 PM
So let me get this straight...we've got a marauding band of nut job murderers around the globe. We have a pretty good idea who they are, we know exactly what they believe and why they go around slaughtering other people yet we always have to notch it up to "extremism," "mental illness," or "toxic masculinity." Give Me A Break.
datachicane
06-04-17, 11:31 AM
So let me get this straight...we've got a marauding band of nut job murderers around the globe. We have a pretty good idea who they are, we know exactly what they believe and why they go around slaughtering other people yet we always have to notch it up to "extremism," "mental illness," or "toxic masculinity." Give Me A Break.
I agree, absolutely, especially after what happened in Portland. Oh, wait...
stroker
06-04-17, 01:10 PM
I'm thinking that at some point the remnants of the IRA are going to have had enough... Then it's going to get real interesting in the UK...
opinionated ow
06-04-17, 08:09 PM
I agree, absolutely, especially after what happened in Portland. Oh, wait...
The events in Portland are disgusting, inexcusable, horrific and heart breaking. One swallow does not however a summer make. You can't get to the root cause of any of these things unless you at least identify what they are and whilst the religion in itself is not to blame for the rest of these attacks it's undeniably a common link.
That bloke in Portland will hopefully see not much else more than the inside of a cell for the rest of his life.
I agree, absolutely, especially after what happened in Portland. Oh, wait...
He did say global. Whatever group you want to place the Portland murderer in doesn't even move the needle when it comes to global terrorism.
http://imgur.com/Yo79euZl.png
(http://i.imgur.com/Yo79euZ.png)
Insomniac
06-05-17, 08:05 AM
While I didn't like the term "War on Terrorism" because it was overly broad, we should really be calling it what it is: war. They aren't a nation state (thankfully), but they are too large to simply be terrorists. The purpose of their organizations are always evolving, but their means to an end are very clearly death and destruction. I can't think of any parallel, but has there ever been something where simply being a member was illegal? I know we basically treated suspected communists this way, but I'm talking about legitimately. The mafia was organized crime, but it wasn't necessarily illegal to just be a proven member, there had to be an ancillary crime.
Also, when you say we have a pretty good idea who they are, that profile encompasses way too many people to be useful in prevention. We know this because we often see the perpetrators were at some point under surveillance or known to law enforcement/intelligence agencies, but we did not have the resources to monitor all of them. It would engender more problems than it would prevent to expand that to include more people. It's a global problem that requires a global solution.
Shortly after the Sat attack a dozen others were arrested. That seems to be the norm in sitautions like this. A raid the next day and several are hauled away. What happens to these people? Are they eventually charged with a crime? I think there should be severe, quite severe, in fact, penalities for those who are associated to these attacks. Even penalties for those who knew but did nothing. That's the kind of tolerance that cannot be tolerated.
opinionated ow
06-05-17, 09:37 AM
Shortly after the Sat attack a dozen others were arrested. That seems to be the norm in sitautions like this. A raid the next day and several are hauled away. What happens to these people? Are they eventually charged with a crime? I think there should be severe, quite severe, in fact, penalities for those who are associated to these attacks. Even penalties for those who knew but did nothing. That's the kind of tolerance that cannot be tolerated.
I believe under British law that if they arrest them under anti-terrorism legislation it means they can hold them longer for questioning hence they round up a whole group, many of whom are let go fairly quickly.
datachicane
10-03-17, 02:19 PM
Hardly even warrants mentioning anymore, sadly.
Nothing will come out of any of it, and nothing will change, of course, because we've established that everyone's super cool with the status quo. It's just the price we pay, over and over again apparently.
Me, I've got a problem with it, but that's just me.
Insomniac
10-03-17, 03:19 PM
Hardly even warrants mentioning anymore, sadly.
Nothing will come out of any of it, and nothing will change, of course, because we've established that everyone's super cool with the status quo. It's just the price we pay, over and over again apparently.
Me, I've got a problem with it, but that's just me.
I don't think everyone is super cool with it. There are majority polls for some stricter/smarter regulations but the people don't run the policy anymore.
I also thought about posting, but it's just the same posts over and over. Resigned I guess.
datachicane
10-03-17, 04:15 PM
I disagree. Clearly Americans are super cool with it- how else do we explain the push going on right now to legalize silencers (on the rationale that earplugs are some kind of an unreasonable hardship for sport shooters) and make it easier to purchase armor-piercing rounds for, yknow, sporting purposes?
We obviously haven't been through nearly enough of this yet.
There's not a glimmer of hope on the horizon that we'll make any attempt to learn from the experience of other countries, or, if you're convinced that the problem is actually mental health rather than firearms, to actually spend a dime on addressing mental health. Heck, we can't even muster up enough national will to keep a ban on firearm purchases in place for folks with mental health issues so profound that they can't even be trusted to manage their own Social Security benefits.
Apparently it's all groovy, aside from a few wet blankets. They won, we lost, marketplace of ideas and all that.
Insomniac
10-03-17, 06:59 PM
You're just wrong there. Americans don't think that way. I'll restate, American's views and policies do not match currently on guns.
89% support preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns
84% support requiring background checks for private gun sales at gun shows
83% support barring gun purchases by people on no-fly or watch lists
71% support creating a federal government database to track all gun sales
68% support banning assault style weapons
65% support banning high-capacity magazine that hold more than 10 rounds
81% oppose allowing people to carry concealed guns without a permit
64% oppose shortening waiting periods to buy guns legally
55% oppose allowing teachers and officials to carry guns in K-12 schools
54% oppose allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places
And how many people were aware of the Hearing Protection Act before yesterday?
After Newtown, it became beyond clear that the public/Americans have no influence over gun policy. That is firmly in the control of lobbyists and special interest groups and the politicians who rely on their support (or at least on them to not supporting someone else) to win elections.
cameraman
10-03-17, 07:12 PM
I present you with an advert for the technology that allowed the Vegas gunman to get off 90 rounds in under 10 seconds using a semi-auto gun.
hCCT8JtwQeI
Listen to the voice over. That right there in under two minutes is why the laws will never change...
datachicane
10-03-17, 09:11 PM
Nope, it's all dead and buried, pardon my insensitivity.
Even if, as you say, it's not what Americans want, we're so easily manipulated by our petty fears and tribalism that it makes little difference in the end. The NRA and Wayne by God LaPierre himself were vocal proponents of gun registration programs, until they weren't, and we're not supposed to remember any of that. Oh, yeah, he's just a lone wolf, or what we really need is more and bigger guns for the good guys, or Freedom, or prayers and condolences, or we can't stop all of it anyway, or whatever, over and over and over again, anything at all to preserve the status quo.
We've all seen the drill, we've been here before, the sweet, smarmy sympathy that sits on its hands and pretends.
Four diplomats die in Benghazi and we'll move heaven and earth to get to the bottom of it, because it's just that important, but this? This is different, because we've already won. This is exactly what we want, and we've got it. There's all kinds of excuses, all of which are carved from pure comedy. We can't futz with an interpretation of the Constitution that didn't even exist not that long ago, despite radical changes in technology, and despite the fact that the drafters of that very document were among the most pragmatic, forward-thinking thinking of men who would have laughed in your face at the thought that their problem-solving should be constrained by the limitations of their predecessors. Those men would have recognized the problem and taken the matter in hand, not hide behind platitudes and prayers and convention. Those men, however, are dead.
What makes any rational person think that things will be different this time? What's different about this one vs. the sickeningly countless other opportunities we've endured? Six hundred people- six freaking hundred- shot in minutes, and I guarantee you the result won't be anything beyond a hardening of the already present fault lines. If even a single senator or congressman alters his position, you can officially color me shocked. Given the limitations of our tiny little monkey brains I suppose I should be grateful that things aren't much, much worse, but I'm not exactly in the mood for gratitude.
You're just wrong there. Americans don't think that way. I'll restate, American's views and policies do not match currently on guns.
89% support preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns
84% support requiring background checks for private gun sales at gun shows
83% support barring gun purchases by people on no-fly or watch lists
71% support creating a federal government database to track all gun sales
68% support banning assault style weapons
65% support banning high-capacity magazine that hold more than 10 rounds
81% oppose allowing people to carry concealed guns without a permit
64% oppose shortening waiting periods to buy guns legally
55% oppose allowing teachers and officials to carry guns in K-12 schools
54% oppose allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places
And how many people were aware of the Hearing Protection Act before yesterday?
After Newtown, it became beyond clear that the public/Americans have no influence over gun policy. That is firmly in the control of lobbyists and special interest groups and the politicians who rely on their support (or at least on them to not supporting someone else) to win elections.
Fortunately we don't live in a pure democracy so you can't conclude from a nationwide poll that representatives aren't listening to their constituents.
We're less than a year out from an election where the lines on this issue were very clearly drawn. The candidate at the top of the anti-gun ticket outspent their rival by nearly two to one. And yet just months after the Pulse nightclub attack voters turned things over to the pro-gun party lock, stock and barrel. In addition to winning the executive branch and its key to the Supreme Court, they largely held their ground in Congress and made gains practically across the board at the state level.
It's just not valid to suggest that pro-gun representatives aren't being true to their constituents based on a nationwide poll. Such a poll will naturally be skewed by populous states which are deeply anti-gun. The representation we have now is the result of a 20 year decline in overall support for gun control. That trend has reversed somewhat around major events, but polls give good reason to think those changes may be a short-term response.
961962
I present you with an advert for the technology that allowed the Vegas gunman to get off 90 rounds in under 10 seconds using a semi-auto gun.
hCCT8JtwQeI
Listen to the voice over. That right there in under two minutes is why the laws will never change...
It seems clear to me that this contravenes the intent of the machine gun ban that has been in place for decades. If we had been talking about his for the last six years maybe we could have gotten somewhere. I don't think you can justify this for any legitimate sporting or self defense use.
Insomniac
10-04-17, 07:49 AM
Fortunately we don't live in a pure democracy so you can't conclude from a nationwide poll that representatives aren't listening to their constituents.
We're less than a year out from an election where the lines on this issue were very clearly drawn. The candidate at the top of the anti-gun ticket outspent their rival by nearly two to one. And yet just months after the Pulse nightclub attack voters turned things over to the pro-gun party lock, stock and barrel. In addition to winning the executive branch and its key to the Supreme Court, they largely held their ground in Congress and made gains practically across the board at the state level.
It's just not valid to suggest that pro-gun representatives aren't being true to their constituents based on a nationwide poll. Such a poll will naturally be skewed by populous states which are deeply anti-gun. The representation we have now is the result of a 20 year decline in overall support for gun control. That trend has reversed somewhat around major events, but polls give good reason to think those changes may be a short-term response.
I didn't say representatives aren't listening to their constituents. They come out and say they are because the gun rights supporters are way more organized than the gun control supporters. That is why now is not the time to discuss policy. Need time for the people who are once again outraged that nothing changes to move on and the story is just another mass shooting. That's how stuff like the American Hearing Act happens.
So every voter who voted for a Republican (or Democrat backed by the NRA) was a single issue voter who believed gun control is way too restrictive? They're fully informed and in no way believe Democrats are a moment away from taking away everyone's guns? The entire election was about gun control? The election where the winner had 3M less votes? The election where the House Republicans got 50.5% of the votes and 55.4% of the seats? The election does not indicate support for every issue on the platform. In fact, neither party can agree on the platform.
So you think Pew's polling is inaccurate? Why would a poll be naturally skewed to populous states? Is Texas not on this list? Florida? 7 of the top 10 most populous states are Red. You are discarding the results of specific polling on discrete actions on gun laws and throwing them out because polling on a broader question doesn't match up. That broader question is not treated or answered in anywhere close to the same way. I left out the pew numbers from the same poll that showed the red-blue divide to avoid this becoming a red-blue discussion, but I think I should include them now to show there are clear areas of agreement on some specific issues on guns.
And this is why Congressman get tons of calls to oppose any bills. It's a general opposition to gun control. Until people start having honest discussions about these topics, nothing will change.
Insomniac
10-04-17, 07:57 AM
It seems clear to me that this contravenes the intent of the machine gun ban that has been in place for decades. If we had been talking about his for the last six years maybe we could have gotten somewhere. I don't think you can justify this for any legitimate sporting or self defense use.
I didn't know this until yesterday, but a ban on those were part of the bill that failed after the Newtown shootings. So people were aware and thinking about them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2013
datachicane
10-04-17, 10:02 AM
Fortunately we don't live in a pure democracy so you can't conclude from a nationwide poll that representatives aren't listening to their constituents.
We're less than a year out from an election where the lines on this issue were very clearly drawn. The candidate at the top of the anti-gun ticket outspent their rival by nearly two to one. And yet just months after the Pulse nightclub attack voters turned things over to the pro-gun party lock, stock and barrel. In addition to winning the executive branch and its key to the Supreme Court, they largely held their ground in Congress and made gains practically across the board at the state level.
Hey, now, at least be gracious winners. No need to spike the football- you won! We all know it. It's your world we're living in. While you enjoy the fruits of your victory, have a thought for those who might find this sort of thing unacceptable, who might imagine a world where their friends and neighbors might be upset enough about the prospect of 600 people being shot within minutes to actually do something to prevent it, who might see it as an actual problem. It's a fantasy, sure, since the status quo is super awesome.
cameraman
10-04-17, 12:25 PM
Bump fire videos are always better when done by blondes.
U7DTjSla-O8
Seriously, every deer hunter needs that kit...
7 7
I didn't say representatives aren't listening to their constituents. They come out and say they are because the gun rights supporters are way more organized than the gun control supporters. That is why now is not the time to discuss policy. Need time for the people who are once again outraged that nothing changes to move on and the story is just another mass shooting. That's how stuff like the American Hearing Act happens.
These politicians were elected based on a pro gun stance, yet they should change their position now because of impassioned people who didn't feel the same when they were elected and probably won't feel the same two years from now?
What really needs to happen now is a very focused effort to outlaw bump stocks. It's only not covered by existing laws because of the loophole that a finger is still technically pulling the trigger. The mistake will be to try to leverage this into another assault rifle ban which will coalesce opposition to something that all sides might be able to agree on.
So every voter who voted for a Republican (or Democrat backed by the NRA) was a single issue voter who believed gun control is way too restrictive? They're fully informed and in no way believe Democrats are a moment away from taking away everyone's guns? The entire election was about gun control? The election where the winner had 3M less votes? The election where the House Republicans got 50.5% of the votes and 55.4% of the seats? The election does not indicate support for every issue on the platform. In fact, neither party can agree on the platform.
What you're saying works both ways as far as single issue voters, etc. Laws in cities that are completely and permanently under control of anti-gun forces demonstrate that without strong Constitutional protection they will ban everything they can.
The other numbers that you're talking about are the result of the fact that we (thankfully) don't do elections as a single mass of people, but rather as a union of States. Large states are constrained in the amount of influence that they can wield over smaller states. Some people like that when it suits them and hate it when it doesn't.
So you think Pew's polling is inaccurate? Why would a poll be naturally skewed to populous states? Is Texas not on this list? Florida? 7 of the top 10 most populous states are Red. You are discarding the results of specific polling on discrete actions on gun laws and throwing them out because polling on a broader question doesn't match up. That broader question is not treated or answered in anywhere close to the same way. I left out the pew numbers from the same poll that showed the red-blue divide to avoid this becoming a red-blue discussion, but I think I should include them now to show there are clear areas of agreement on some specific issues on guns.
I think polling in general has problems. First, when you're comparing it to legislative action it's not representative because we are represented by regions, not as one nationwide group. Second, the latest election has shown that their sampling methods have serious problems. There is only one type of poll that really matters, and that's the ones that elect leaders.
You make my case for me above. A 3M popular vote win is actually a 77 vote Electoral loss because California doesn't get to pick our President or set national policy with its 4M vote, two to one margin. The total margin of victory in the three most populous blue states was nearly 7 million votes. That's compared to a total margin of victory in the seven most populous red states of less than 2 million. So again, populous blue regions are so deeply blue that they skew popular vote and nationwide poll results.
A couple of specifics from the poll you cite.
* State and Federal laws blocking the purchase of guns by the mentally ill already exist covering all fifty states. So what does this prove?
* Barring sales to people on no-fly or watch lists is the most heinous suggestion in decades from a civil liberties standpoint. The government will create secret lists of individuals whose civil liberties are revoked with no due process? Oh that's right, we've become accustomed to that with the NSA. This is a perfect example of why perfect democracies are a bad idea.
* A Gallup poll taken just six months earlier found support for bans on assault rifles to be at a twenty year low. I'm skeptical that there was a real, long term shift in attitudes so quickly. http://news.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx
* Background checks? As I've said before, I have no problem with it. But 21 states already have such laws which probably comprise the majority of this support.
* Federal database? Here again, an innocuous poll question that sounds good but is rife with opportunities for abuse.
In this tragedy there is exactly one thing that that put this incident outside of the intent of all existing gun laws and which clearly made a difference in the harm that was done - the bump stock issue. Everything else is window dressing. This killer passed every background check and wouldn't have been under any mental health restriction. If he can install a bump stock he can defeat any restriction on magazine size or changes.
The only reason to pack more restrictions into a simple bill to outlaw bump stocks would be to ensure its defeat, preserving it as an issue for the next election.
I didn't know this until yesterday, but a ban on those were part of the bill that failed after the Newtown shootings. So people were aware and thinking about them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2013
The 2013 bill didn't ban bump stocks. It banned folding, telescoping, or detachable stocks on guns with detachable magazines. But every stock is by definition detachable so that presumably this means "without tools". Bump stocks aren't mentioned so it would still be possible to create one that requires tools to attach to or replace the existing stock.
stroker
10-05-17, 01:50 PM
Don't anyone hold your breath waiting for the ATF to reverse itself on the legality of Slide Fire stocks and for the head to resign in disgrace... Those stocks were specifically approved by the Federal gummint. This isn't some radical technology slipping through a crack in the system.
Hey, now, at least be gracious winners. No need to spike the football- you won! We all know it. It's your world we're living in. While you enjoy the fruits of your victory, have a thought for those who might find this sort of thing unacceptable, who might imagine a world where their friends and neighbors might be upset enough about the prospect of 600 people being shot within minutes to actually do something to prevent it, who might see it as an actual problem. It's a fantasy, sure, since the status quo is super awesome.
I was addressing a very specific assertion that "the public/Americans have no influence over gun policy". That's untrue, we have the gun policy that we have voted for over the last two plus decades.
The Federal government ruled bump fire devices as legal in 2010. What should have followed was a very targeted campaign to specifically ban devices that make semi-autos capable of automatic fire rates. Instead they chose to ignore them and continue to engage in exactly the kind of demagoguery you're displaying here. I have to wonder whether there was some reluctance there because it would have cast light on fallacy of their favorite tactic of confusing the difference between automatics and semi-automatics.
datachicane
10-05-17, 02:05 PM
A dispassionate observer might find it odd that public safety needs trump individual liberty when it comes to flying with a tube of toothpaste or buying haggis, but that hardware not only capable of, but designed specifically to shoot hundreds of people in minutes is perfectly groovy.
Tribalism is one helluva drug.
stroker
10-08-17, 12:26 AM
Bad Supreme Court decisions have consequences. Read US v Miller 1939.
Insomniac
10-12-17, 09:23 AM
7 7
These politicians were elected based on a pro gun stance, yet they should change their position now because of impassioned people who didn't feel the same when they were elected and probably won't feel the same two years from now?
What really needs to happen now is a very focused effort to outlaw bump stocks. It's only not covered by existing laws because of the loophole that a finger is still technically pulling the trigger. The mistake will be to try to leverage this into another assault rifle ban which will coalesce opposition to something that all sides might be able to agree on.
What you're saying works both ways as far as single issue voters, etc. Laws in cities that are completely and permanently under control of anti-gun forces demonstrate that without strong Constitutional protection they will ban everything they can.
The other numbers that you're talking about are the result of the fact that we (thankfully) don't do elections as a single mass of people, but rather as a union of States. Large states are constrained in the amount of influence that they can wield over smaller states. Some people like that when it suits them and hate it when it doesn't.
I think polling in general has problems. First, when you're comparing it to legislative action it's not representative because we are represented by regions, not as one nationwide group. Second, the latest election has shown that their sampling methods have serious problems. There is only one type of poll that really matters, and that's the ones that elect leaders.
You make my case for me above. A 3M popular vote win is actually a 77 vote Electoral loss because California doesn't get to pick our President or set national policy with its 4M vote, two to one margin. The total margin of victory in the three most populous blue states was nearly 7 million votes. That's compared to a total margin of victory in the seven most populous red states of less than 2 million. So again, populous blue regions are so deeply blue that they skew popular vote and nationwide poll results.
A couple of specifics from the poll you cite.
* State and Federal laws blocking the purchase of guns by the mentally ill already exist covering all fifty states. So what does this prove?
* Barring sales to people on no-fly or watch lists is the most heinous suggestion in decades from a civil liberties standpoint. The government will create secret lists of individuals whose civil liberties are revoked with no due process? Oh that's right, we've become accustomed to that with the NSA. This is a perfect example of why perfect democracies are a bad idea.
* A Gallup poll taken just six months earlier found support for bans on assault rifles to be at a twenty year low. I'm skeptical that there was a real, long term shift in attitudes so quickly. http://news.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx
* Background checks? As I've said before, I have no problem with it. But 21 states already have such laws which probably comprise the majority of this support.
* Federal database? Here again, an innocuous poll question that sounds good but is rife with opportunities for abuse.
In this tragedy there is exactly one thing that that put this incident outside of the intent of all existing gun laws and which clearly made a difference in the harm that was done - the bump stock issue. Everything else is window dressing. This killer passed every background check and wouldn't have been under any mental health restriction. If he can install a bump stock he can defeat any restriction on magazine size or changes.
The only reason to pack more restrictions into a simple bill to outlaw bump stocks would be to ensure its defeat, preserving it as an issue for the next election.
I took a break from this because I was disappointed in myself for getting dragged deeper into this, so I am going to try and extricate myself. I started by simply responding that Americans are not OK with the status quo on gun laws to datachicane's post. I cited a poll by a respected scientific polling company.
I never stated scientific polling was perfect, but no one has shown me any better method. You have a belief that national polling is biased towards large states and that polling has issues because they missed the last election. I don't see how any of that would allow for an error rate to negate the entire set of results, but that's just me.
I strongly disagree that the only "poll" that matters are elections. My primary reason being that an election does not represent all Americans, it represents a subset of Americans that voted. It's a fair criticism that people should not complain about their elected leaders if they didn't participate in the first place. However, that does not mean that if an American did not vote they should be ignored and/or have no voice. You could extend that further and say no constituent should be ignored whether they didn't vote or voted for another candidate.
I don't have a specific idea of how elected officials should act. There isn't a framework for that. Would I expect someone to vote against a truly, deeply held belief that they had made known to the voters? No. Would I expect someone to consider new information that may challenge their beliefs? Yes. I don't think there are many simple issues. You can be a gun rights supporter and support some restrictions. You can be a gun control advocate and not want to ban and take away all guns.
I'm not seeing how it works both ways assuming that every person who voted for a candidate that supports gun rights also supports the same gun rights of that candidate and local gun laws. Are you saying that just because someone who wanted certain gun laws won, that the people who elected them didn't necessarily support the gun laws they enacted? If so, that was my point.
I'll circle back to my original point to datachicane and that was that Americans are not OK with the status quo. I listed those examples as things Americans (albeit, in this poll, represents Americans 18+ only) have broad agreement on in polling. There are clearly nuances to the issue that the polling did not go into that you mention. I wasn't trying to engage in a debate over the merits of such laws/actions. However, I'm certain that if they wanted, they could write and pass laws to address each specifically and take your specific concerns into account. There could be unintended consequences, but again, they can write and pass laws to address them.
Banning bump stocks specifically is reactionary to this one incident. We are pros at legislating reactionary. It takes vision, though, and cooperation to legislate proactively which sadly many in Congress neither have the will or ability to do.
I have purposely ignored further discussion of elections, popular vote, representational democracy and the electoral college because it's off topic.
Insomniac
10-12-17, 09:36 AM
The 2013 bill didn't ban bump stocks. It banned folding, telescoping, or detachable stocks on guns with detachable magazines. But every stock is by definition detachable so that presumably this means "without tools". Bump stocks aren't mentioned so it would still be possible to create one that requires tools to attach to or replace the existing stock.
That was my mistake. I was intending to say they were aware of bump stocks at the time.
The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:
Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.
o Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi-automatic
weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/561603/feinstein-automatic-weapons-ban-2013-summary.pdf
It was in the outline, but not in the final bill, which is baffling unless the text you outlined made that a broader ban.
Gangrel
10-14-17, 06:40 PM
Folks, if I am mistaken here, someone speak up and let me know that I am not the only firearms instructor here.
Ok, with that aside, many of you have seen me around here for years. Pretty much through all of the CCWS years. Some of you have even met me at the track or at gatherings. Hopefully, most will attest to the fact that I am not a look. The federal and state background checks I went through to be approved as a concealed carry instructor in two different states so support that.
That said, I am going to you something many of you won't like. No gun control law is going to prevent stuff like this. Period. Want proof? Pretty sure murder is highly illegal everywhere.
Bump stocks are not the same thing as full auto. Full auto is highly related (not completely illegal. Bump stocks a re e not related. Why is this important? Because this is the first time I know of a bump stock being used in a mass casualty incident. But what else do we know? The shooter had a squeaky clean record, started acquiring large nu.bers of firearms (for an individual collector) around October of last year, and allegedly was filthy rich. My point? If he was planning to do something like this, I see no reason he couldn't have applied for and received a type 7 FFL, cleared intensive federal background check, applied for and received the $200 ATF tax stamps, purchased (at prices well into 5 figures a piece) actual, real full auto battle rifles (not AR15s and AR10s fitted with toys like bump stocks) gone through the 6 month waiting period, and accomplished the same carnage or worse.
Now in my book, bump stocks are useless toys that allow you to go to the range and throw $20 bills at the backstop without actually hitting your target. I do not support banning them, but would shed no tears if they went away. But you need to remember who are writing these bills, and that they have agendas. They hate guns, and have been looking for an opportunity to stick it to gun owners for years. These bills don't just say "bump stocks and slide fire will be banned." They have verbiage about making modifications to triggers which would put my by action competition rifle in jeopardy. They don't do this accidentally or out of ignorance, they do it out of spite. They contort what it is they want to ban to get the public in agreement, then define in the bill what that means and go way beyond what they lead the public to support. The same is true of "universal background checks."
The Newtown and San Bernardino shootings were in states that already have very strict laws when it co.es to "assault weapons" (another heavily contorted term). So what good would more laws have accomplished? Bad people will find ways to do bad things. A year ago, 86 people died and 466 were injured in Nice, France by an ISIS whackjub in a stolen truck. In 2011, Anders Brevik killed 77 and wounded over 300 in heavily gun controlled Norway. A major contributor in this case was an unarmed police force that was unable to respond. This latest nutcase in Vegas had 50lbs of ammonium nitrate in his car, and appears to have planned to get out. If he didn't have guns, what do you think his plan might have been?
In closing, let me say if you are in the Chicago and have a distaste for guns, I would strongly recommend you contact me and go spend a morning or afternoon on the range. I am not trying to sell training here. This one is on me, and training is not the word I would use. "Familiarization" is more apt. I am a strong believer that if you are going to have strong feelings on an issue lime this, regardless of which directions those feelings lean, you owe it to yourself to at least have a bit of first hand experience with the items you have those feelings about
Anyhow, rant off. My pm is open to anyone who wishes to take me up on my offer.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Now in my book, bump stocks are useless toys that allow you to go to the range and throw $20 bills at the backstop without actually hitting your target. I do not support banning them, but would shed no tears if they went away. But you need to remember who are writing these bills, and that they have agendas. They hate guns, and have been looking for an opportunity to stick it to gun owners for years. These bills don't just say "bump stocks and slide fire will be banned." They have verbiage about making modifications to triggers which would put my by action competition rifle in jeopardy. They don't do this accidentally or out of ignorance, they do it out of spite. They contort what it is they want to ban to get the public in agreement, then define in the bill what that means and go way beyond what they lead the public to support. The same is true of "universal background checks."
But this is why I think pro-gun forces need to vigorously take the high ground on this issue. They need to craft an amendment to the federal firearms act to classify these devices the same as machine guns without a lot of additional fluff. They have no reasonable purpose in sport shooting or self defense.
nissan gtp
10-16-17, 08:19 AM
But this is why I think pro-gun forces need to vigorously take the high ground on this issue. They need to craft an amendment to the federal firearms act to classify these devices the same as machine guns without a lot of additional fluff. They have no reasonable purpose in sport shooting or self defense.
Agree totally. The NRA has become an extremist organization (and there are the like on the left). I wish they would to temper the public discourse. Seems like supporting training would be a good place to start.
Gangrel
10-16-17, 11:14 AM
But this is why I think pro-gun forces need to vigorously take the high ground on this issue. They need to craft an amendment to the federal firearms act to classify these devices the same as machine guns without a lot of additional fluff. They have no reasonable purpose in sport shooting or self defense.
An amendment to do what, exactly? Ban a device that someone can make out of stuff they have in their garage and a quick trip to the hardware store? The opposition doesn't come from an unwillingness to regulate, but from the futility of such regulation and the propensity to overreach with such legislation. The left and their influence on the medical profession is what keeps many gun owners from seeking professional psychological help when, let's be honest here, we all need it from time to time. When they use Obamacare as an excuse to have psychologists and psychiatrists ask patients if they own guns and document the answer (yes, they did), then start playing around with the definitions of terms like "danger to self and others" instead of focusing on support and treatment, all they accomplished to cause some who might need help to instead hide their problems.
The NRA has actually requested that the ATF review the need to regulate bump stocks, as they were the ones (during the Obama administration, no less) that made the determination of their legality in the first place. This is more than what is called for, but I am personally ok with it.
An amendment to the Federal Firearms Act"? Not sure what you are talking about there. If you are referring to adding slidefire stocks to the list of items regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1932 (NFA), that would rest on an administrative determination made by the BATFE, not on any kind of legislation or "amendment."
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Gangrel
10-16-17, 11:24 AM
Agree totally. The NRA has become an extremist organization (and there are the like on the left). I wish they would to temper the public discourse. Seems like supporting training would be a good place to start.What you write above is ripped word for word out of the anti deal that the media had been spoonfeeding to the masses. Let's get one thing straight here. The NRA is PRIMARILY a training organization, and one of the most recognized training organizations in the world. They provide the training to the law enforcement officers that most are comfortable coexisting with on a daily basis. The vast majority of states that require some form of training to obtain a concealed carry license either recognize or require training from an NRA training program. In states that license the instructors and approve the curriculum, an NRA instructor cert almost the universal prerequisite.
Now, if you are saying they should be pushing for training as a requirement to obtain a firearm, I would then ask you, where did you get your free speech training? I am not talking about English language education, I mean the required training to safely exercise your right to speak freely. Because, when it comes to unalienable individual rights, you might want to be careful what slippery slope you start sliding down.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
datachicane
10-16-17, 03:12 PM
Like I said, it's all groovy.
https://i.imgur.com/c4jt321.png
An amendment to do what, exactly? Ban a device that someone can make out of stuff they have in their garage and a quick trip to the hardware store? The opposition doesn't come from an unwillingness to regulate, but from the futility of such regulation and the propensity to overreach with such legislation.
So? The risk they present isn't justified by any legitimate purpose. Pipe bombs are easily made. Guns can be converted to full auto. Just because it can be done doesn't mean that it should be legal when there's no legitimate purpose for accepting the risk. Just like the anti-gun people can lose the high ground not this by over-reaching, pro-gun forces will lose it if they try to argue, for any reason, that this specific thing shouldn't be banned.
You keep talking about what the anti-gun forces are doing or have done wrong but that's irrelevant in this case. Pro-gun forces have the votes to create the bill they want and force a vote on it.
The NRA has actually requested that the ATF review the need to regulate bump stocks, as they were the ones (during the Obama administration, no less) that made the determination of their legality in the first place. This is more than what is called for, but I am personally ok with it.
An amendment to the Federal Firearms Act"? Not sure what you are talking about there. If you are referring to adding slidefire stocks to the list of items regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1932 (NFA), that would rest on an administrative determination made by the BATFE, not on any kind of legislation or "amendment."
The ATF declared the devices legal because the Firearms Act (and its later updates) is very specific in what it bans. There's no legitimate grounds to just declare bump stocks illegal based on those existing laws.
Its foolish and hypocritical for the NRA to argue that BATFE should just regulate these devices into illegality. That's exactly the kind of regulatory overreach that shouldn't be encouraged. Existing law doesn't provide justification for it and pretending it would be okay opens the door to massive abuse in the future.
nissan gtp
10-17-17, 09:02 AM
What you write above is ripped word for word out of the anti deal that the media had been spoonfeeding to the masses. Let's get one thing straight here. The NRA is PRIMARILY a training organization, and one of the most recognized training organizations in the world. They provide the training to the law enforcement officers that most are comfortable coexisting with on a daily basis. The vast majority of states that require some form of training to obtain a concealed carry license either recognize or require training from an NRA training program. In states that license the instructors and approve the curriculum, an NRA instructor cert almost the universal prerequisite.
Now, if you are saying they should be pushing for training as a requirement to obtain a firearm, I would then ask you, where did you get your free speech training? I am not talking about English language education, I mean the required training to safely exercise your right to speak freely. Because, when it comes to unalienable individual rights, you might want to be careful what slippery slope you start sliding down.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
My words are my own, I don’t pay attention to the “ban them all” kooks.
The the NRA is their own worst enemy. In public discourse, I NEVER hear a single word about the benefits of training. All I ever hear is variations of “from my cold dead hands”. Clear and visible participation in advocating safer ownership and responsible use of guns, which should encompass 99% of gun owners, would be a smart way steer the conversation in beneficial ways. But the radical NRA leadership is on a political power trip, a high many find it hard to step away from.
Your comparison with speech isn’t valid. as I can’t kill anyone with my words.
datachicane
11-07-17, 04:27 PM
Sounds about right. Satire really is dead.
We all need to take a deep breath, gather as much information as we can, and then sit with our hands folded indefinitely.
Nation To Wait For More Facts On Texas Shooting Before Doing Absolutely Nothing About It (https://www.theonion.com/nation-to-wait-for-more-facts-on-texas-shooting-before-1820186609)
Insomniac
02-19-18, 12:51 PM
This thread is a nice microcosm of how mass shootings are being normalized.
However this shooting is a little different.
1. The FBI had a clear tip about the shooter and it did not get to the right people
2. The Parkland community/students seem to be pretty vocal on wanting change, or at least there seems to be more coverage of it
(But nothing will be different.)
datachicane
02-19-18, 01:27 PM
Yep, all we can do is shrug our shoulders and make random guesses about the nature of the problem and how best to address it, since humans never bothered to develop analytical tools to help us understand not-so-complex data sets.
Oh, wait.
"Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html
Huh. Math and stuff. Sure, it's groovy when you're building terrifying machine learning robots or throwing automobiles into orbit, but it gets all controversial somehow when it starts contradicting arbitrary preconceived notions. Unfortunately for humans, it's relatively easy to persuade us of pretty much anything, based on the flimsiest of evidence, but almost impossible to dissuade us of something once we've got our teeth in it. We're one-way BS valves.
(https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html)
Insomniac
02-19-18, 04:57 PM
Yep, all we can do is shrug our shoulders and make random guesses about the nature of the problem and how best to address it, since humans never bothered to develop analytical tools to help us understand not-so-complex data sets.
Oh, wait.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html
Huh. Math and stuff. Sure, it's groovy when you're building terrifying machine learning robots or throwing automobiles into orbit, but it gets all controversial somehow when it starts contradicting arbitrary preconceived notions. Unfortunately for humans, it's relatively easy to persuade us of pretty much anything, based on the flimsiest of evidence, but almost impossible to dissuade us of something once we've got our teeth in it. We're one-way BS valves.
(https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html)
We're really good at confirmation bias. But one thing we can do is at least make changes where there is agreement. It's a mental health problem? Great, let's address that. It's a video game and entertainment violence problem, let's provide parents more information and adjust ratings and violence warnings accordingly. It's a security problem? Let's raise taxes to provide more security and get more metal detectors everywhere. Keep on going until the problem is reduced, maybe solved/eliminated. At some point, maybe we'll find out if all that is left to do is gun control measures when all the other problems are fixed. We should just spend $trillions to know for sure.
Do you think it’s just the rate of gun ownership? There no other factors? The gun is not a recent invention.
I’ve carried a pocket knife for as long as I can remember, probably starting in Cub Scouts (I’m 67). Today I can’t take my knife into some public buildings. Have Swiss Army knives become more deadly?
There’s a sickness in our county.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.