Side story on the recent gun spree [Archive]

Fuchs

12-19-2012, 12:37 PM

I had some fun after the recent shooting spree at an elementary school.
I went to a far left American blog with lots of visitors (American far left = centre of social democrats or left wing of conservatives on the German scale) and posted comments.

I didn't really argue for either side (except with some fatalism about how regulations could possibly have an impact on 200+M guns), but provided lots of fact.
"magazines", not "clips", how 30 rds is really the normal assault rifle magazine capacity, that tiny 5.56 mm bullets don't really do the most unbelievable things to a body, that assault rifles in military use are really not for killing many people quickly, that calling 30 rds mags "massacre magazines" is needless polemics and so on.

To my surprise, the blog posts I posted on ended up having a suspiciously small quantity of comments overall - as if the facts had somehow discouraged others from spewing easily refuted BS.
The one guy who tried to press back at me even quitted after a while, politely thanking for the discussion and wishing a good night.

I wonder if bringing more military- or guns-related facts to a public discussion could probably help a lot. We all know how often public discussions are almost devoid of facts and people with some actual knowledge can easily spot lots of fallacies among the arguments.
Now if even fact contributions on a most emotional topic, brought forward at a political far wing blog can score - shouldn't it be possible to succeed with the approach more often?

Shouldn't the national security-related institutions with all their more or less knowledgeable people contribute more regularly to public information?

So far their PR appears to be mostly about either recruiting, protecting their leader's careers or about securing a big(ger) budget for themselves.

Tukhachevskii

12-20-2012, 01:33 AM

I think I know the intended spirit of the post but this statement...

I had some fun after the recent shooting spree at an elementary school.
.[/I]

..just left too much of a bad taste in my mouth.

Backwards Observer

12-20-2012, 01:40 AM

Now if even fact contributions on a most emotional topic, brought forward at a political far wing blog can score - shouldn't it be possible to succeed with the approach more often?

No.

Historically, we’ve expected that once the din of theories, hypotheses, and manufactured realities had quieted, we could count on getting the real story (or at least part of it) when we heard the thump of the morning paper landing at the foot of that stoop. But these days, the thumping starts right away. Instead of patiently correcting the mistakes and hearsay understandably spewed by the emotion-filled masses, the mainstream media has joined the fray. The thump no longer clarifies, it obscures.

This is the shooter’s name. Thump. His mother worked at the elementary school. Thump. She was the teacher in that classroom where are those poor kids were killed. Thump. Thump. Thump.

As you’d expect, the various bits of false details about the Newtown shootings spread rapidly throughout our virtual front stoop. But they didn’t originate there. These “facts” were coming from (or at least being repeated by) the media sources most of us have come to trust the most. Instead of correcting our hyperactive distortions, the mainstream media added to them by mimicking the haste and inaccuracy of social media. The wildfire of burning inaccuracies needed to be doused by a pail of water. Instead we got a bucket of gasoline.

We’ve seen this trend coming. Gabrielle Giffords was prematurely pronounced dead after being shot in Arizona. Both CNN and Fox got the Supreme Court’s ruling on health care’s individual mandate exactly wrong. The standards once applied to reporting are now often reserved for correction writing.
(excerpt from post on Tweetage Wasteland: Get Off My Stoop)

Get Off My Stoop (http://tweetagewasteland.com/2012/12/get-off-my-stoop/) - Tweetage Wasteland - 12.17.2012 (via Boing Boing)

ganulv

12-20-2012, 04:45 PM

I didn't really argue for either side (except with some fatalism about how regulations could possibly have an impact on 200+M guns), but provided lots of fact. "magazines", not "clips", how 30 rds is really the normal assault rifle magazine capacity, that tiny 5.56 mm bullets don't really do the most unbelievable things to a body, that assault rifles in military use are really not for killing many people quickly, that calling 30 rds mags "massacre magazines" is needless polemics and so on.

Paul Barrett tried to say some things in the same spirit (http://www.npr.org/2012/12/16/167401103/we-have-to-act-on-gun-violence-but-how) this weekend on NPR.

Bill Moore

12-21-2012, 05:04 AM

Fuchs,

There are a number of variables, but the fact of the matter is a 5.56 round can create relatively massive injuries. I'm hesitant to post photos, but I'm posting one link to some graphic photos of leg wound. In the field I seen fairly large chunks of skull removed, and would hate to see that happen to 5-7 year old child anywhere. I'm confident you can do a Google search and find more photos. Again there are variables that will determine amount of tissue damage. I'm not making an argument on the pro's and con's of 5.56 for the military, but countering your argument that a "little" bullet doesn't do much damage. I can't imagine, or worse maybe I can, what those first responders saw.

Link to graphic leg wound photo:

http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=4nm1t65redubjveij8elrihsg3&topic=17111.msg157854#msg157854

A link that explains the how:

http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge

So one might ask; ‘How in the world can a smaller bullet be more lethal than a bigger one?” One word: cavitation. Cavitation is the rapid formation and collapse of a substance or material after an object enters it at a relatively high velocity. I guarantee you have seen cavitation before. Next time you are in the pool or on the boat, look at your hand as it passes through the water or the propeller spinning. In both cases you will notice bubbles on the trailing edge of each. You see this because the liquid water falls below its vapor pressure. Without getting into physics and the hydrodynamics behind it, I’ll just leave it at that. When a human body is hit with a 5.56mm 62-grain bullet traveling at 3,100 feet per second; essentially the same thing happens but much, much more violently. For a split second, the cavity created inside the human body by the round from an M-16/M-4 is about the size of a basketball (if hit dead center of mass). The 5.56 creates this massive cavitation by tumbling through the body initiated by inherently unstable flight.

Fuchs

12-21-2012, 10:29 AM

Your source buys into the school of terminal ballistics which pays much attention to the temporary cavity, while another school of thought pays more attention to the permanent cavity. Evidence supports the latter much more.

"It's designed to bounce around inside the body once it makes contact with bone."

I argued against the "designed to bounce around", which frankly reminded me too much of the needle projectile stories from the 80's. Told them about the tumbling and fragmentation issues and bullet on bone in general instead.
I also opposed talk about "hollow point", which was simply the wrong term.

So I didn't claim that the little bullets doesn't do much damage. I pointed out that most damage is usually done at some depth, and that skinny or particularly young humans usually don't have this depth.

The point was more about telling them that normal hunting bullets (7.62) are even more mean and that some horror stories about 5.56 were either exaggerations or not specific to 5.56.
I've seen 5.56 carbines with normal 30 rds mags been talked up to the biggest, meanest weapons there are, and this is an irrational build-up of a bogeyman in my opinion.

The idiot could have pulled off the very same massacre with two pistols, one home-made wooden carbine stock and 8 rds mags with soft lead bullets. The shooting distance inside buildings is mostly less than 10 metres and nobody had body armour, after all.

The hope that a ban of "high capacity" (=normal capacity) magazines and 5.56mm automatic weapons could actually prevent massacres is just as unfounded as claims that armed teachers would be a good idea (one of them might possibly stop a massacre sometime, but a couple others would till then probably have used theirs on the pupils!).

I personally don't care what gun legislation you guys have - Pandora's Box has been wide open for too long anyway. I just made an experiment on how some facts might be received in such a heated discussion.

Kiwigrunt

01-05-2013, 11:02 PM

It seems to me that the most important aspect of “assault weapons” (now there’s an emotionally laden term just begging for reactions) is often ignored. The haters usually hinge their rationale around the imagined physical effect of semi automatics with massacre magazines. The Newtown fuknuckle fired up to 11 rounds into each child. I submit he could have done at least the same amount of damage with just a .22 bolt action with enough 10 shot mags, with one aimed shot per target.

Same applies to the Norway fuknuckle. He already had a licence and a .308 bolt action. He went out of his way to get his grubby little hands on a semi. Given that his targets were sitting ducks on an island and he had all the time in the world, the semi would have given him no advantages to speak of.

The theatre shooting would be an exception.

The question is: why do they feel the need to use an evil gun? Is it because they too (often erroneously) perceive it to be of better effect? Or do the looks and stigma of these guns trigger something in their sick minds? I should think that the latter provides the gun haters with a much stronger argument. The question ‘would the Newtown shooter have done as much damage with a .22 bolt action?’ is the wrong one to ask IMO. The question is: would he have done it in the first place if he would only have had access to a bolt action? Consider also that they like to dress up like Ninjas.

I say this against my own agenda, because I too like me some AR15. In the same way that a car enthusiast might prefer a Ferrari over a Toyota Corolla.

On a side note, I almost feel sorry for Bushhamster; it always seems to be one of theirs… and the media know it!

Kiwigrunt

01-05-2013, 11:13 PM

...as another nutter shoots 3 in Aurora...

Fuchs

01-05-2013, 11:36 PM

It seems to me that the most important aspect of “assault weapons” (now there’s an emotionally laden term just begging for reactions) is often ignored. The haters usually hinge their rationale around the imagined physical effect of semi automatics with massacre magazines. The Newtown fuknuckle fired up to 11 rounds into each child. I submit he could have done at least the same amount of damage with just a .22 bolt action with enough 10 shot mags, with one aimed shot per target.

I made similar arguments until recently, also pointing out the video of the insane speedshooter who shoots (and hits) with a revolver faster than I can count the shots in real time (with the video's audio track quality).

I became more careful about such technical arguments recently, though. There was a growing unease inside me about the psychological issue. I believe now that many of those who commit mass murder with firearms need to reach a certain threshold of self-esteem and confidence in their firepower. Kind of "taxi driver" on steroids.
Note how often they pose with guns or certain clothes and stuff prior to their murders. The Norwegian nutjob with his fantasy uniform and ridiculous weapons load was an especially obvious case. I suppose he would probably not have dared to attack a couple hundred people with only a pocket pistol, a dual barrel hunting shotgun and a bolt action hunting rifle (an example of a rather reasonable firearms set in a rural setting).

Then again, other nutjobs go on a rampage with a fake Katana...

(It'll be interesting to see if "nutjob" passes the obscenity filter here. I still have no good grasp of which words are caught by such filters and which aren't.)

Dayuhan

01-06-2013, 02:25 AM

Having grown up steeped in the US gun culture and then left the country, I do notice a real and possibly significant change in the outlook and emphasis within that culture. My memory is that gun life in my youth revolved around hunting and the outdoors... competitive target shooting was a presence but was widely seen as preparation and training to be a more effective outdoorsman. Stalking and woodcraft were seen as goals equal to marksmanship. On the range bolt action rifles with telescopic sights dominated, and the goal was minute of angle accuracy. There was also a faction devoted to light, handy, brush rifles, with a fair bit of debate. Shotguns were for bird hunting. I don't recall ever seeing a centerfire semiautomatic rifle with a magazine above 3 rounds on a range or even in a shop.

Nowadays it seems like the culture revolves around actual or imitation military weapons. The adjective of the day is "tatical", and everything from your flashlight to your underwear is expected to be "tactical". The word, as far as I can tell, seems to have little meaning beyond intent, actual or pretended, to be used in killing people.

I'm not quite sure what to make of all that, but it does seem a rather unsettling shift... again, having been out of the country a long time highlights and possibly exaggerates such changes. I would note that in my entirely subjective opinion close contact with nature and the outdoors tends to produce a degree of sanity and calm, good things for heavily armed people. The idea of people accumulating weapons and other devices purely oriented toward use on people is on some level disturbing, though I wouldn't say prohibition is any answer.

(It'll be interesting to see if "nutjob" passes the obscenity filter here. I still have no good grasp of which words are caught by such filters and which aren't.)

The filters only do English. "Scheisskopf" passes.

Backwards Observer

01-06-2013, 03:01 AM

Tangentially related but of possible interest is the phenomenon of amok. A Malaysian acquaintance, who was incidentally married to an incomparably gracious Iban lady, once mentioned that the number of amok incidents were noticeably reduced when the practice became punishable by law. Whether his conversational statement is accurate or not, I don't know.

Running amok, sometimes referred to as simply amok (also spelled amuk, from the Malay meaning "mad with uncontrollable rage") is a term for a killing spree perpetrated by an individual out of rage or resentment over perceived mistreatment. The syndrome of "Amok" is found in the DSM-IV TR. The phrase is often used in a less serious manner in relation to someone or something that is out of control and causing trouble (e.g., a dog tearing up the living room furniture might be said to be running amok). Such usage does not imply murderous actions, and any emotional implications (e.g., rage, fear, excitement) must be gleaned from context.

[...]

Amok originated from the Malay word mengamuk, which roughly defined means “to make a furious and desperate charge”. According to Malay culture, amok was rooted in a deep spiritual belief. They believed that amok was caused by the hantu belian, which was an evil tiger spirit that entered one’s body and caused the heinous act. As a result of the belief, those in Malaysian culture tolerated amok and dealt with the after effects with no ill will towards the assailant.

[...]

Early travelers in Asia sometimes describe a kind of military amok, in which soldiers facing apparently inevitable defeat suddenly burst into a frenzy of violence which so startled their enemies that it either delivered victory or at least ensured what the soldier in that culture considered an honourable death. This form of amok appears to resemble the berserker of the Norse, the cafard or cathard (Polynesia), mal de pelea (Puerto Rico), and iich'aa (Navaho).

In contemporary Indonesia, the term amok (amuk) generally refers not to individual violence, but to apparently frenzied violence by mobs. Indonesians now commonly use the term 'gelap mata' (literally 'darkened eyes') to refer to individual amok.

In the Philippines, amok also means unreasoning murderous rage by an individual. In 1876, the Spanish governor-general of the Philippines José Malcampo coined the term juramentado for the behavior (from juramentar - "to take an oath"), surviving into modern Filipino languages as huramentado. It has historically been linked with the Muslim Moro people of Mindanao, particularly in the island of Jolo.

Norse berserkers and the Zulu battle trance are two other examples of the tendency of certain groups to work themselves up into a killing frenzy. The 1911 Webster Encyclopedia comments:

In 1634, the eldest son of the raja of Jodhpur ran amok at the court of Shah Jahan, failing in his attack on the emperor, but killing five of his officials. During the 18th century, again, at Hyderabad (Sind), two envoys, sent by the Jodhpur chief in regard to a quarrel between the two states, stabbed the prince and twenty-six of his suite before they themselves fell. (wikipedia)

Running Amok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok) - wikipedia

Running Amok: A Modern Perspective on a Culture-Bound Syndrome (pdf) (http://www.psychiatrist.com/pcc/pccpdf/v01n03/v01n0302.pdf) - psychiatrist.com

***

An immediate contention against the cultural specificity of amok is that equivalents occur in many other ‘cultures’. What is also notable is that modern, developed or First World phenomena that resemble amok in their ‘indiscriminate’ nature of their ‘homicidal frenzy’ are not considered equivalents of amok. These intermittent phenomena involving contemporary weapons such as assault rifles have been given names such as SMASI (sudden mass assault by a single individual), and the autogenic (self-induced) massacre. Reference to a likely European equivalent of as ancient repute, the fearsome Viking warrior’s rampage berserkgang is excluded. If amok really is truly is a highly verifiable scientific truth it can be argued that this syndrome is so widespread as to be found also in the developed societies of the West, rather than merely a Malay cultural artefact.

The running amok of the Malay: a mental ‘culture-bound’ syndrome or another myth of the ‘native races’? (http://www.othermalaysia.org/2007/02/17/the-running-amok-of-the-malay/) - The Other Malaysia

***

In the valley of the Cagayan, deep in the jungles of the Philipines, the Second World War had long been over.... except for one man... a monstrous Japanese soldier, seven feet tall, reduced to something less than human by his circumstances, a calculating killer the peasants call the amok..... (amazon blurb)

Amok by George Fox (http://www.amazon.com/Amok-George-Fox/dp/B0015Z7TNU) - amazon (Moderately popular business flight, page-burner from 1978)

***

Amok Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amok_Time) - star trek episode - wikipedia

Dayuhan

01-06-2013, 04:54 AM

In the valley of the Cagayan, deep in the jungles of the Philipines

Hey, that's my neighborhood....

Backwards Observer

01-06-2013, 05:29 AM

Hey, that's my neighborhood....

If the protagonist was a fictional former kempeitai in the seventies, he's probably even more fictional now. So you're probably okay. Unless...you're not over seven feet tall perchance?

The centerpiece of the plot - a Japanese holdout soldier named Kurusu - was probably inspired by a couple of discoveries of Japanese holdouts in the 70s. The most famous was a Lieutenant Onoda, found in the Philipines.

I'm not certain how to classify the book - historical fiction, action/adventure, etc - and it touches on several topics without going overboard, to its credit. These topics include the politics of a country dealing with having been a former colony, the former colonial settlers (in this case, American landowning farmers) who remained behind after independence, culture clashes (Japanese bushido juxtaposed with the tight American expatriate community and juxtaposed with the local Filipino culture, etc etc - you'll figure it out:)....

Its easy to view the book as a shallow 70s work (and a discerning reader will see some of that in the style; it has some elements of old chauvanism and "macho" mentality) but its main theme seems to be one of a search for belonging: outcast soldier Kurusu found it as a Japanese Kempentai warrant officer and maintained it while terroizing the locals for 30+ years as a holdout, American Mike Brandon's search for his place in life before he returned to his "home" (the Philipines), the American community's desperate charade of colonial power after the Philipines became independent, Capt Shimura's coming to terms with his wartime activities when he comes to search for Kurusu....etc etc. But none of this gets too deep - the action flows along and it all balances. There is also a minor romantic sub plot. (amazon reader review)

Amok (http://www.amazon.com/Amok-George-Fox/dp/0449239950) - amazon

Dayuhan

01-06-2013, 12:17 PM

If the protagonist was a fictional former kempeitai in the seventies, he's probably even more fictional now. So you're probably okay. Unless...you're not over seven feet tall perchance?

I probably look seven feet tall to some of the locals, but... no. I don't think anyone in the kempetai was either, but fiction carries a certain license. That reaches beyond improbable height: anyone terrorizing the locals in these parts would likely have ended up with their head on a spear, tall or not... but that might not have made such good fiction. The term "amok" is also not used in the local dialects, but that's picking nits.

I'd read the book if I had it, being interested in the period and the location!

Backwards Observer

01-06-2013, 04:08 PM

The term "amok" is also not used in the local dialects, but that's picking nits.

That may have been a marketing gambit to use a somewhat loaded term that was 'exotic' but still in fairly common parlance. The cover hype suggests the publishers were going for a Peter Benchley size audience (also see: James Clavell, Wilbur Smith, etc.) Nitpicking would've been questioning why the logically puzzling 'Jaws' comparison could be expected to hold much water. The weird thing is, it probably drove more than a few sales back in the day. Maybe.

carl

01-07-2013, 04:12 AM

The theatre shooting would be an exception.

The criminal in that case selected a theatre that had a posted policy stating that no firearms were to be taken into the building. Colorado is a concealed carry state...but, individual businesses can prohibit their customers from carrying a weapon into the establishment.

Nobody in the theatre tried to oppose, at all, this criminal. People all hid behind seats or ran. Nobody tried to oppose him and he went about his criminal task until he finished and then went out into the parking lot and quietly waited for the police to arrest him.

The question is: why do they feel the need to use an evil gun? Is it because they too (often erroneously) perceive it to be of better effect? Or do the looks and stigma of these guns trigger something in their sick minds? I should think that the latter provides the gun haters with a much stronger argument. The question ‘would the Newtown shooter have done as much damage with a .22 bolt action?’ is the wrong one to ask IMO. The question is: would he have done it in the first place if he would only have had access to a bolt action? Consider also that they like to dress up like Ninjas.

It is my opinion these criminals do what plays well. They study each others actions and they study how the newspapers react. Ninja suits play, tac gear plays etc. The Denver Post had an illustration of what the theatre criminal wore and carried. It looked like an illustration for an action figure, or one of those illustrations you saw of how spec ops people are equipped with all the cool equipment named. The papers have a role in these things that they should answer for in my opinion.

It wouldn't matter if all the ARs disappeared tomorrow. Anything a criminal used would be played up by the papers and immediately be labeled lethal cool. It could be a lever action rifle and it would be displayed on the action figure illustration, the effect would be the same.

carl

01-07-2013, 04:20 AM

I became more careful about such technical arguments recently, though. There was a growing unease inside me about the psychological issue. I believe now that many of those who commit mass murder with firearms need to reach a certain threshold of self-esteem and confidence in their firepower. Kind of "taxi driver" on steroids.

In the US these criminals seem to be very careful about choosing the place to commit their crime. They choose places where they can be almost certain that there will be no effective (read: firearm) opposition, a resistance free zone so to speak. They don't like to fight. They like to kill. If effective opposition is in the offing they kill themselves or give up. With that in mind, it doesn't matter at all what kind of firearm they have for they plan that they will have the only one.

If they err in that, like the criminal in the mall in Oregon, or the criminal at the theatre in Texas, they fail.

carl

01-07-2013, 04:29 AM

,,,unfounded as claims that armed teachers would be a good idea (one of them might possibly stop a massacre sometime, but a couple others would till then probably have used theirs on the pupils!)

Not unfounded at all. An armed teacher did stop a massacre at least once.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/larry-elder/do-gun-free-zones-encourage-school-shootings.html

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm

"a couple of others would have probably used theirs on the pupils!" Well good thing the school says they can't have a weapon on school property then. That will stop 'em.

Fuchs

01-07-2013, 10:58 AM

carl

01-07-2013, 01:42 PM

Carl, you think too much in 0% and 100%.

It would be better to think in terms of differences, of ceteris paribus changes of outcome.
Tolerance for firearms in schools would ceteris paribus lead to more use of firearms in schools. No good idea.

Teachers may occasionally risk their job and break the rules themselves, but they would clearly do the same thing more often if it wasn't forbidden.

Nonsense. First off, your original remark suggested that if teachers were allowed the option of having a weapon, that includes having one in the car, that would somehow result in teachers shooting students. Nonsense. Shooting people when not in self-defence is a crime. Criminals are not dissuaded by a rule. If a teacher decided that they were going to murder students, a rule prohibiting them from taking a weapon onto campus would not stop them. If they did murder students, they probably don't expect to get their job back anyway.

Second off, were teachers allowed the option of having a weapon available (they are in some states and districts), we would be talking about mostly middle aged women being armed. Middle aged women don't do violent crime, especially this kind of crime. Middle aged women mostly take care of people and two women teachers in Connecticut died trying to defend their students. They attacked bare handed and they died because they had nothing to fight with. I think giving teachers, mostly middle age women and men, something to fight with if needed would transform schools from no resistance zones into zones of possible resistance; and the possibility of resistance is something these types of criminals don't like to face.

Fuchs

01-07-2013, 03:41 PM

carl

01-07-2013, 04:37 PM

I've seen enough mad teachers who might do something in the heat of the moment which they would regret later. Some of them are ripe for retirement before they're 50, including anger management problems.

We've all seen angry teachers. Very few of us have seen teachers who were criminals or who would be inclined to be so no matter how angry they got.

What does your second sentence have to do with anything?

Fuchs

01-07-2013, 05:22 PM

I wouldn't want a person with anger management problem with a gun in a room full of loud, annoying children - 200 days a year, thousands of them. This #### would be bound to hit the fan.

The "arms for defence" line typically ignores that for every crime prohibited or interrupted thanks to a firearm, there's also a risk for one or maybe more suicides and crimes to happen (or become more severe and final) because a firearm is easily available for use.

For example, Americans have a high rate of 'success' with suicide attempts. It's much easier to kill yourself with a gun than with a blade (especially as long as video producers keep showing the wrong technique for the latter).

carl

01-07-2013, 06:37 PM

Fuchs:

I wouldn't want a person who is unable to control their anger in any classroom under any circumstances. I do want stable middle aged people, a description of most American teachers, to have the option of having the means to effectively defend their students and themselves if they so desire. It has worked.

The 'arms are going to cause crime and suicide' line first ignores that people have the natural right to defend themselves. And since most people aren't physically powerful, that means in order to exercise that right, they must have recourse to arming themselves with an effective weapon. They didn't call Colt's revolver the 'Equalizer' for nothing.

That line also ignores the fact that availability of firearms has no effect on suicide rate. Japan has a suicide rate almost double that of the US and they have draconian gun control over there, basically no weapons at all. I grant you that Americans may kill themselves more often with a gun than the Japanese do but more Japanese kill themselves gun or not.

That line also ignores the fact that violent crime went up substantially after Britain implemented severe gun control. In the US a burglars striking an occupied home doesn't happen often and when it does, it is a huge crime. The cops take notice. In Britain, most burglars hit when the homes are occupied because they know they don't chance facing an armed homeowner.

The 'arms for defence' line recognizes that the right of the law abiding to defend themselves trumps the possibility that criminals will use a weapon in their crimes.

Firn

01-07-2013, 07:30 PM

Having grown up steeped in the US gun culture and then left the country, I do notice a real and possibly significant change in the outlook and emphasis within that culture. My memory is that gun life in my youth revolved around hunting and the outdoors... competitive target shooting was a presence but was widely seen as preparation and training to be a more effective outdoorsman. Stalking and woodcraft were seen as goals equal to marksmanship. On the range bolt action rifles with telescopic sights dominated, and the goal was minute of angle accuracy. There was also a faction devoted to light, handy, brush rifles, with a fair bit of debate. Shotguns were for bird hunting. I don't recall ever seeing a centerfire semiautomatic rifle with a magazine above 3 rounds on a range or even in a shop.

You do pretty much picture the world of hunting in which I grew up. Shooting was just a very small part of it. Today I hunt within a community of roughly 70+ active hunters and most meet on May Day to check the zero of rifles. Most use a single bolt-action rifle with telescopic sight with the rest shooting with break-open rifles. So far I never saw a semi-automatic rifle used in all those years. Keep in mind that we are in an area not yet affected by the growing numbers of Sus scrofa. All in all I would say that the weapons are well suited for their tasks. Of course quite a few are based on military weapons of days gone by.

Nowadays it seems like the culture revolves around actual or imitation military weapons. The adjective of the day is "tatical", and everything from your flashlight to your underwear is expected to be "tactical". The word, as far as I can tell, seems to have little meaning beyond intent, actual or pretended, to be used in killing people.

School shootings and gun spress have certainly happened before this development. I became a bit curious what those criminals used after reading some posts here. Of course this is nothing scientific but just browsing through Wiki handguns are by a fair margin the most common murder weapons in Schools and universities. Short shotguns, mostly pum-guns come second followed by semiautomatic rifles. Bolt-action ones are quite rare.
The British ban on handgun seems to reflect in part the fact those weapons were used in almost all such shootings.

At last it is important to remind ourself that despite the rather unique US gun culture other countries suffer from much more gun violence per capita. A stable, peaceful state and society are much more important in safeguarding the people against crime and violence then any gun law. Of course the latter can have a positive impact on violence and it's consequences.

carl

01-07-2013, 07:37 PM

davidbfpo

01-07-2013, 07:56 PM

Just a thought. Given that some, if not the majority of shooters wear "ninja" or "men in black" or tactical gear do those who do not commit suicide. Is this an attempt to confuse and lessen their chances of being shot by the police or others who respond?

Personally I do find the idea of arming school teachers - well different. Mindful that a good number IIRC of children each year misuse parental guns and kill others or wound themselves, what will happen when a child at school finds a teachers gun?

slapout9

01-07-2013, 08:16 PM

Perhaps one reason 'tactical' is fashionable now is that we have been involved in active war for the last going on twelve years. Because of that gear perceived to be military may have a certain cachet. Gear perceived to be associated with 'spec ops' would have even more since for most of that time the media has been in love with spec ops and constantly highlight spec ops this and spec ops that.

I think there is something to that. Crockett's clothes(original Miami Vice) were basically Vietnam jungle fatigues ....... except they were pastel. Watch reruns of the first two seasons and I think you will see a strong connection. have no idea what that means, if it means anything but I think carl is on to something.

Take a look,link to Miami Vice images.
https://www.google.com/search?q=miami+vice&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=JynrUKmSLoaB0QHlnoGQAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CMEBEIke&biw=1366&bih=641

carl

01-07-2013, 08:43 PM

Just a thought. Given that some, if not the majority of shooters wear "ninja" or "men in black" or tactical gear do those who do not commit suicide. Is this an attempt to confuse and lessen their chances of being shot by the police or others who respond?

I don't think so. The first guys on the scene will be uniformed patrol officers, who look like uniformed patrol officers. Swat guys would almost certainly show up later and with plenty of radio notice that they were coming. Even if in the very unlikely event that a costumed up Swat guy was around quickly he would radio the hell out his location, what he was wearing etc.

At any rate if they did incorporate that into their planning, that would pre-suppose that they wanted to give themselves an advantage in a fight. They don't want to fight. They want to kill.

Personally I do find the idea of arming school teachers - well different. Mindful that a good number IIRC of children each year misuse parental guns and kill others or wound themselves, what will happen when a child at school finds a teachers gun?

It wouldn't be arming teachers. It would be allowing teachers who choose to do so to arm themselves. Basically you would be going back to what was before all the 'weapons free zones' nonsense took hold. If a teacher wanted to keep a weapon in the car they would be free to do so, as they were.

If they wanted to keep one in the school, schools could implement rules to make sure the weapons were secured until needed. The airlines do the same sort of thing right now. Volunteer pilots who meet the qualifications can carry a pistol on the airplane. They have to store it in a certain and secure way. You could do the same sort of thing. The purpose isn't to insure every teacher is strapped. The purpose is to cause criminals like the one in Connecticut to know that there was a good possibility that they would run into effective opposition. Right now, in most schools, they can be certain they won't.

slapout9

01-07-2013, 08:57 PM

If they wanted to keep one in the school, schools could implement rules to make sure the weapons were secured until needed. The airlines do the same sort of thing right now. Volunteer pilots who meet the qualifications can carry a pistol on the airplane. They have to store it in a certain and secure way. You could do the same sort of thing. The purpose isn't to insure every teacher is strapped. The purpose is to cause criminals like the one in Connecticut to know that there was a good possibility that they would run into effective opposition. Right now, in most schools, they can be certain they won't.

Yes, volunteer teachers should be screened and trained and weapons could be secured at certain strong points all through the school so that they could get to them if need be. That would also be pretty cost effective compared to some of the things being suggested. I don't think anybody is talking about teachers walking around with shoulder holsters....well maybe the left wing media nut jobs think that way but nobody else does.

Also besides clothing something that the NRA brought up but nobody else is talking about much is violent video games.Especially violent games they show criminals winning and just generally being destructive with no valid purpose bu to glorify violence itself. Mentally disturbed people often imitate people from the media both real and imaginary, both in how they act as in video games and in how they dress.

The head shrinkers need to start figuring this out and do something that could really be usefull as oppsed to this namby pamby guns are bad and grow wings and fly around all by themselves and hurt people bull stuff that will not solve anything.

Fuchs

01-07-2013, 09:08 PM

Also besides clothing something that the NRA brought up but nobody else is talking about much is violent video games.Especially violent games they show criminals winning and just generally being destructive with no valid purpose bu to glorify violence itself. Mentally disturbed people often imitate people from the media both real and imaginary, both in how they act as in video games and in how they dress.

Americans freak out at nipples, not violence on video. Europeans don't think nipples are outrageous, but are more sceptical about violence.

So while you guys on the west of the great pond discussed Jackson's nipple, many Europeans had been in a years-long national if not continental discussion about video games and their influence on violent behaviour.
The conclusion is pretty much that it's a bogus claim - there's was no causality found after many years of studies (once you weed out the non-scientific or statistically flawed studies).

As so often, Americans are late with a debate and begin at start instead of taking into account what others had learned about the subject before (same with biofuels, for example).
I understand it's a decoy by the NRA and half of the political and media spectrum in the U.S. is enthusiastic about having such a decoy in such times of highly inconvenient pressure, but it's still a decoy.

carl

01-07-2013, 09:12 PM

As so often, Americans are late with a debate and begin at start instead of taking into account what others had learned about the subject before (same with biofuels, for example).
I understand it's a decoy by the NRA and half of the political and media spectrum in the U.S. is enthusiastic about having such a decoy in such times of highly inconvenient pressure, but it's still a decoy.

Being lectured to by a European about European superiority always makes the day just a little bit brighter.

slapout9

01-07-2013, 09:15 PM

Americans freak out at nipples, not violence on video. Europeans don't think nipples are outrageous, but are more sceptical about violence.

So while you guys on the west of the great pond discussed Jackson's nipple, many Europeans had been in a years-long national if not continental discussion about video games and their influence on violent behaviour.
The conclusion is pretty much that it's a bogus claim - there's was no causality found after many years of studies (once you weed out the non-scientific or statistically flawed studies).

As so often, Americans are late with a debate and begin at start instead of taking into account what others had learned about the subject before (same with biofuels, for example).
I understand it's a decoy by the NRA and half of the political and media spectrum in the U.S. is enthusiastic about having such a decoy in such times of highly inconvenient pressure, but it's still a decoy.

You are at a disadvantage as you just don't understand violent American nipple hate....it is based on video games and is becoming epidemic.:D:D:D

Firn

01-08-2013, 02:12 PM

Being lectured to by a European about European superiority always makes the day just a little bit brighter.

May the warm rays of wisdom enlighten you my friend :D.

I did now read a bit more in the Wiki - how shocking and lazy - and the following bits have catched my eyes:

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.[42] The likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm.[43] For example, the mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[44]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png

Keep in mind that the US population has grown a lot so the recent downward trend has been remarkable.

The General Social Survey (GSS) is a primary source for data on firearm ownership, with surveys periodically done by other organizations such as Harris Interactive.[64] In 2004, 36.5% of Americans reported having a gun in their home and in 1997, 40% of Americans reported having a gun in their homes. At this time there were approximately 44 million gun owners in the United States. This meant that 25 percent of all adults owned at least one firearm. These owners possessed 192 million firearms, of which 65 million were handguns.[65] The number of American homes reporting have a gun in their homes was down from 46% as reported in 1989.[66] Cook suggested that increased numbers of female-headed households may have been a factor in declining household gun ownership.[26] A National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (NSPOF), conducted in 1994, indicated that Americans owned 192 million guns: 36% rifles, 34% handguns, 26% shotguns, and 4% other types of long guns.[67] Most firearm owners owned multiple firearms, with the NSPOF survey indicating 25% of adults owned firearms.[67] In the United States, 11% of households reported actively being involved in hunting,[66] with the remaining firearm owners having guns for self-protection and other reasons. Throughout the 1970s and much of the 1980s, the rate of gun ownership in the home ranged from 45-50%.[66]

The number homicides by handgun compared to those committed by rifles is surprisingly high. If we consider that there are actually more rifles then handguns in the US the ratio is 1:20! Obviously among the category rifles are typical bolt-action hunting rifles and semi-automatic carabines, both center- and rimfire.

All in all the percentage of homicides per captia, while high compared to other advanced countries is very low I dare to say if we compare it to some 'primitive' cultures. Phillip S. Meilinger (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/primitive-violence-culture-and-the-path-to-peace) on the SMJ has remarked on this, and I remember quite a good amount of sometimes scholarly aricles I read on the issue of violence in similar cultures.

So we are doing pretty well despite the Internet, violent video games, highly effective weapons, economic crisis and high unemployment, urban life & so forth and despite having almost certainly quite violent ancestors. Of course our massive advances in medicine, organisation, infrastructure and technology ( phones) have helped a great deal to reduce the numbers of deaths after violence.

carl

01-08-2013, 07:03 PM

Firn:

I am warmer already.

But anyway, your point is...?

Fuchs

01-08-2013, 07:14 PM

Firn:

I am warmer already.

But anyway, your point is...?

I aassume he merely wanted to inject some more facts. Very on-topic.

slapout9

01-08-2013, 07:43 PM

More people are killed in auto accidents then in the other so called "weapons" events combined. So should we ban Cars?

Fuchs

01-08-2013, 08:04 PM

More people are killed in auto accidents then in the other so called "weapons" events combined. So should we ban Cars?

First go after the tobacco companies. :D

Seriously, why so polemic now? Desperate for arguments? For that's what it signals.

It should be self-evident that non-linked topics need to have their costs and benefits looked at separately. One may argue the marginal rate (kind of "benefits per one accepted death") should be identical across the board, but such a mathematical view doesn't help in practice. Philosophy and other researchers have not delivered the means to pulls such a comparison off anyway.

So the state of the art is to look at separate topics separately, and to settle on an opinion of the optimum balance of costs and benefits based on preferences.

Dayuhan

01-08-2013, 09:36 PM

The number homicides by handgun compared to those committed by rifles is surprisingly high.

If you broke the data down with an urban vs rural distinction you might see that explained. I'd expect to see much higher rates of both homicide and handgun ownership (as opposed to rifle ownership) in urban areas.

I'd be curious about how often guns owned for protection (and thus kept loaded and conveniently accessible) end up being used to settle domestic or neighborhood disputes.

carl

01-08-2013, 11:20 PM

If you broke the data down with an urban vs rural distinction you might see that explained. I'd expect to see much higher rates of both homicide and handgun ownership (as opposed to rifle ownership) in urban areas.

Urban drug traffickers and gang bangers use handguns for obvious reasons. Most homicides are in the bad neighborhoods in urban areas. Crime in the US is not, repeat not, evenly distributed. It is concentrated in urban neighborhoods were civic society has collapsed.

I'd be curious about how often guns owned for protection (and thus kept loaded and conveniently accessible) end up being used to settle domestic or neighborhood disputes.

Slap probably has great experience in dealing with lethal domestics so I would be interested in what he has to say but, I think if a guy (and they are almost always guys) decides to take a domestic to a lethal level, it is not a spur of the moment decision. He has made the decision over the course of time and then carries it out. Loaded and convenient makes no difference. Besides, it take a whopping few seconds to load any cartridge firearm.

Same thing goes with neighborhood disputes.

Killers don't just 'snap'. That is a misconception promulgated by defense attorneys to garner sympathy for their clients. Killers have a history and they make the decision. They are evil. They are not 'there but for the grace of God go I' types. They make the decision, do the deed and are glad they did. They do regret being caught.

Dayuhan

01-09-2013, 12:02 AM

Urban drug traffickers and gang bangers use handguns for obvious reasons. Most homicides are in the bad neighborhoods in urban areas. Crime in the US is not, repeat not, evenly distributed. It is concentrated in urban neighborhoods were civic society has collapsed.

Yes, that's why I suggested the urban/rural distinction as a reason why handguns are used more than rifles. I'm guessing that rifles are more heavily concentrated in rural areas.

Slap probably has great experience in dealing with lethal domestics so I would be interested in what he has to say but, I think if a guy (and they are almost always guys) decides to take a domestic to a lethal level, it is not a spur of the moment decision. He has made the decision over the course of time and then carries it out. Loaded and convenient makes no difference. Besides, it take a whopping few seconds to load any cartridge firearm.

I'm guessing - and again, only a guess - that weapons intended for sporting use are more likely to be locked up, often with ammunition separately locked up, than weapons intended for defense, which would add a small level of opportunity for second thoughts.

I think a certain number of weapons nominally intended for "protection" are actually bought, owned, and all too often carried as ego props, as sort of a surrogate phallus. Typically this involves people who buy a gun but never bother to learn to use it. The ability to use it isn't that important to them, what they're after is the way having it makes them feel. That IMO is a dangerous combination.

Killers don't just 'snap'. That is a misconception promulgated by defense attorneys to garner sympathy for their clients. Killers have a history and they make the decision. They are evil. They are not 'there but for the grace of God go I' types. They make the decision, do the deed and are glad they did. They do regret being caught.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of killings are actually planned, in any coherent sense. i dislike the term "crime of passion" because it sounds like an excuse, but arguments do get out of hand and people do stupid things when they are angry. It may be different there, but here the "typical" murder - you can find them in the newspaper on almost any given day - is an argument that got out of hand, and often involves friends, neighbors, or family. Alcohol is consistently involved. Whether or not these people are "evil" is open to interpretation, but I'm not sure their actions are planned.

carl

01-09-2013, 02:12 AM

I'm guessing - and again, only a guess - that weapons intended for sporting use are more likely to be locked up, often with ammunition separately locked up, than weapons intended for defense, which would add a small level of opportunity for second thoughts.

Weapons are locked up, from my observation, for two reasons. The first is to keep the children from getting into unsupervised mischief when they are young. The second is to make it harder for burglars to steal them. Burglars LOVE guns more than just about anything because are easy to sell to other hoods. Nobody I ever knew stored ammo away from the gun for any reason other than convenience.

My point was killers don't have second thoughts about what they do. They want to do it. They don't snap. They kill because they want to. It makes them feel better. If they had a pile a parts and had to assemble the weapon they wouldn't have a second thought. They would just be ticked off at being inconvenienced. These aren't normal guys pushed too far. Normal guys pushed to far go and cool off at their brother's house. These are bad, bad people.

I think a certain number of weapons nominally intended for "protection" are actually bought, owned, and all too often carried as ego props, as sort of a surrogate phallus. Typically this involves people who buy a gun but never bother to learn to use it. The ability to use it isn't that important to them, what they're after is the way having it makes them feel. That IMO is a dangerous combination.

Perhaps they are used for ego props. But if they are I think that is going to be much more likely to be an action of a gang banger type. Yo, dude, I'm strapped. I'm something. That is the action of a a person who is already criminally disposed.

Most law abiding people buy weapons, in my opinion, because they are interested in shooting as a sport, hunting or protecting themselves or a combination thereof.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of killings are actually planned, in any coherent sense. i dislike the term "crime of passion" because it sounds like an excuse, but arguments do get out of hand and people do stupid things when they are angry. It may be different there, but here the "typical" murder - you can find them in the newspaper on almost any given day - is an argument that got out of hand, and often involves friends, neighbors, or family. Alcohol is consistently involved. Whether or not these people are "evil" is open to interpretation, but I'm not sure their actions are planned.

I hope Slap will get into this, but these actions don't come from nowhere. These killers almost always have a criminal past of some kind or a history of violence or something.. They aren't good guys. I read a book about the NYPD cold case squad and one of the detectives said most all killings have to do with face. The killer figured he got dissed and wants some back. Normal people don't murder because they got dissed.

I don't think much Filipino crime patterns have much to do with American ones.

Firn

01-09-2013, 07:53 AM

Natural curiosity and technological opportunities have driven me again:

Urban–Rural Shifts in Intentional Firearm Death: Different Causes, Same Results (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448529/)

Objectives. We analyzed urban–rural differences in intentional firearm death.

Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to 3141 US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category urban–rural variable.

Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95% CI=1.29, 1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban. The most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI=1.50, 2.40) times the adjusted firearm homicide rate of the most rural. Similar opposing trends were not found for nonfirearm suicide or homicide.

Conclusions. Firearm suicide in rural counties is as important a public health problem as firearm homicide in urban counties. Policymakers should become aware that intentional firearm deaths affect all types of communities in the United States.

Firearm suicide rates showed an increasing trend from urban to rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 2.09 times the firearm suicide rate of the most urban counties before adjustment. After adjustment, the most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95% CI=1.29, 1.83) times the firearm suicide rate of the most urban (P<.001). Conversely, firearm homicide rates showed a decreasing trend from urban to rural counties. The most urban counties experienced 3.04 times the firearm homicide rate of the most rural counties before adjustment. After adjustment, the most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI=1.50, 2.40) times the firearm homicide rate of the most rural counties (P<.001; Figures 1 [triangle] and 2 [triangle]).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448529/table/t1/

This case shows pretty well the law of small numbers (http://pirate.shu.edu/~hovancjo/exp_read/tversky.htm) as it is called by Kahnemann, and why we should be aware of it. This is the reason why cancer rater are both highest and lowest in small. poor rural areas voting Republican. Homicides happen thankfully very rarely even in the US, making it difficult to get big numbers for small counties. It would have very interesting to see the study without those two:

Code 10 Completely rural or less than 2500 urban population, adjacent to a metro area. 8.1 1.1
Code 11 Completely rural or less than 2500 urban population, not adjacent to a metro area. 17.0 1.5

Those 25% percent of the US counties contain just 2% of the population, bringing in the fearsome law of small numbers big time into the study. If you look closely this would mean however that we completely loss the only completely rural population codes. :D

A second paper, Deadly Violence in the Heartland: Comparing Homicide Patterns in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Counties (http://www.sagepub.com/oswcondensed/study/articles/13/Weisheit.pdf) shows the very danger of this approach.

Similarly truncated variation may be found with other variables commonly associatedwith homicide, including poverty and percentage of the population that is African American (Kposowa & Breault, 1993). By including rural cases in the study of homicide, many problems resulting from truncated variation can be resolved. Significantly,the authors also found that of the 30 United States counties withthe highest homicide rates, 23 had populations of fewer than 20,000 people. Thus, although the most rural counties had lower homicide rates overall, there was substantial variation amongrural counties in the rate of homicide, a range of variation unmatched in purely metropolitan samples.

Later there is a nod to that problem...

A second impediment is methodological and reflects the added measurement difficulties of including rural areas in analyses because of their small populations and relatively small number of rare but important events, such as homicide. The results of this study affirm that including such areas is analytically, as well as empirically, important.

Time has run out. So I just will throw a couple of questions into the virtual room about crime (and guns). Tend certain crimes to be more of an urban problem because it is there 'where the money is'? Do rural and semi-rural areas lack a critical mass of say young men and good criminal business opportunities? Does a demographic adjustment with age groups in mind change relationships between more or less urban counties?

slapout9

01-09-2013, 09:18 AM

Slap probably has great experience in dealing with lethal domestics so I would be interested in what he has to say but, I think if a guy (and they are almost always guys) decides to take a domestic to a lethal level, it is not a spur of the moment decision. He has made the decision over the course of time and then carries it out. Loaded and convenient makes no difference. Besides, it take a whopping few seconds to load any cartridge firearm.

Same thing goes with neighborhood disputes.

Killers don't just 'snap'. That is a misconception promulgated by defense attorneys to garner sympathy for their clients. Killers have a history and they make the decision. They are evil. They are not 'there but for the grace of God go I' types. They make the decision, do the deed and are glad they did. They do regret being caught.

I would say DV Homicides are all planned, never heard or seen one that wasn't, often over a fairly long period of time. Never heard of a snap I think I will kill my wife, or other close relative, just a big myth. That is correct they absolutely DO NOT SNAP!!!!It is more like the "straw that broke the camels back." The pressure builds and builds until it blows.

slapout9

01-09-2013, 09:38 AM

I hope Slap will get into this, but these actions don't come from nowhere. These killers almost always have a criminal past of some kind or a history of violence or something.. They aren't good guys. I read a book about the NYPD cold case squad and one of the detectives said most all killings have to do with face. The killer figured he got dissed and wants some back. Normal people don't murder because they got dissed.

Just take a look at the most recent school shooting. The suspect had a long history of mental problems and had been in and out of treatment until his mother became so disenchanted with the supposed treatments she attempted to take care of her child herself. Hopefully more will come out about the total lack of appropriate public psychiatric care in this country.

Dr. Park Dietz has been one of the lone forensic Psychiatrist with the courage to come out against the Republican budget cutters who are the REAL PROBLEM to the mass violence problem, not gun control and not the NRA. As Dietz has bravely pointed out this started with the Reagan revolution to destroy the public mental health system and give tax cuts to rich people and has continued on to create the problem we have now, up to the point where we basically no longer have a public mental health system worth anything.

If you haven't noticed this is real sore spot with me. To include my own Governor who just recently closed one of the last physical mental health hospitals that LE would have access to as far as getting people the treatment they needed and keeping THE PUBLIC TRULY SAFE by controlling sick people and criminals instead of this left over commie gun control stuff. The greatest threat to Americans is not people with guns it is pinheads with college degrees that can make or influence public policy in this country.

Since the most recent shooting several people have asked for my opinions and advice and I still give the same advice which is something I learned long ago from a training officer. "Never fear the weapon, but always fear the man, because a man can always find a weapon" still very true and still very good advice. The only thing I would add is to be especially scared of people with college degrees that think they are smarter and know what is best for you and know more about making the proper policies of this country............they don't.

Roll Tide....

Ken White

01-09-2013, 03:26 PM

carl

01-09-2013, 03:35 PM

Slap:

To further what Ken said, the de-instutionalzation (sic) movement was in full force long before Reagan came. It started just after WWII gained steam in the 50s and 60s (thank you Ken Kesey) and really took off in the 70s.

http://www.crimeandjustice.org/councilinfo.cfm?pID=55

Firn

01-09-2013, 04:05 PM

However, in fairness to the Politicians, Republican and Democratic, their failures in this regard were broadly supported. One shouldn't forget that the Psychiatric and Psychologist communities were broadly but actively and decisively supportive of that dismantling for 'professional' -- or financial due to our terribly flawed medical insurance model (and the ever changing, ever interesting DSM) -- reasons... :rolleyes:

Like any foul up, there's egg for a lot of faces

I wonder what kind of system is in place in the US to help persons with mental problems and thus also society as a whole. Here in Italy, as far as I know it is not seen as terribly effective and it is very difficult to 'measure' that 'objectively'. The recent cuts have also put considerable strain on it.*

*Public organisation seem sometimes more prone to cut effective elements to make a statement for more funds rather then becoming more efficient. I have no idea if this is the case right now.

Homicide Trends in the U.S (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/city.cfm#vcity)

As it is per a 10000 capita, the demographic change is partly fitted in. I guess the urban population is younger, which would affect of course the rate of urban homicide relative the rural ones and thus also gun violence.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/vcity.png

The urban areas certainly suffer much more from various crime forms.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/int_urb.png

The biggest differences:

..................Urban Small City Sub-urban Rural
Drug related 67.4% 9.9% 18.1% 4.5%
Gang related 69.3% 13.1% 16.9% 0.7%

Intimate 40.7% 14.5% 28.0% 16.8%
Family 38.7% 13.2% 29.1% 19.0%
Workplace 31.4% 13.4% 37.2% 17.9%

Note: Large cities have a population of 100,000 or more while small cities have a population of less than 100,000.

Firn

01-09-2013, 04:25 PM

As I have too much images posted I have to double-post:

Check how the overall fall in handgun homicides coincides with the fall of homicides in larger cities. There are of course other factors at work, but there seems to be a pretty strong relationship, which would be not surprise much. To honest it looks like too good of a fit which makes me almost doubt graph 1. I guess that is the result if you had correct the works/papers of other students...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/urban.png

Firn

01-09-2013, 05:15 PM

A look at Canada:

Study: A comparison of urban and rural crime rates (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070628/dq070628b-eng.htm)

Of the 658 homicides in Canada in 2005 with a known location, 427 were committed in large urban areas, 95 in small urban areas and 135 in rural areas.

Taking population into account, the homicide rate of 2.5 homicides per 100,000 people in rural areas was actually higher than the rate of 2.0 in large urban areas and the rate of 1.7 in small urban areas. This pattern has held constant over the past decade.

However, robbery and motor vehicle theft were much more likely to occur in big cities than in small cities or rural areas. The robbery rate for large urban areas was more than double that for small urban areas and almost 10 times that for rural areas. The motor vehicle theft rate in large urban areas was about 25% higher than in small urban areas and 80% higher than in rural areas.

If you read the bit about the laws of small numbers and keep in mind the differences in (medical) infrastructure between the larger urban areas compared to say rural areas then you will be quite careful at reading too much into this result as well. It is much safer from a statistical point of view to work with (much) larger samples. So it is important to be sceptical when faced with this kind of graphs - without going too far into the other extreme.

Handguns are the firearm of choice in big-city homicides

In 2005, just over one-third of all homicides in both large urban areas and rural areas were committed with a firearm, compared with less than one-quarter of homicides in small urban areas.

Handguns were the weapon of choice in large urban areas, used in 76% of all firearm homicides. In rural areas, rifles or shotguns were the most prevalent; they were used in 65% of firearm homicides.

Weapons more common in large urban areas in Quebec and Ontario

In Quebec and Ontario, the only provinces where data on weapon use in violent crimes were available for both urban and rural areas, about 1 in 6 violent incidents involved a weapon of some sort, most commonly a knife.

Weapons were present more frequently in large urban areas than in small urban areas and rural areas of these two provinces. About 1 in 5 violent incidents in large urban areas involved a weapon, compared with about 1 in 8 in small urban areas and rural areas.

The proportion of violent crimes involving a firearm was about two to three times higher in large urban areas. In 2005, 3.2% of violent crimes in the large urban areas of Quebec and Ontario involved a firearm, compared to 1.1% in small urban areas and 1.4% in rural areas.

When a firearm was present, handguns were more prevalent in large urban areas than in the other areas. Handguns were used in three-quarters of crimes committed with a firearm in big cities compared to about half in small cities and one-third in rural areas.

The difference between the use of firearms in homicides between Canada and the US is very considerable indeed. Firearms account for the clear majority of US homicides, while in Candada it is roughly a third. Rifles and shotguns seemed to used much more in relative terms in rural Canada compared to the US but we need more data on that.

Note to readers

Large urban areas are defined as Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs). A CMA represents one or more adjacent municipalities centered on an urban core of at least 100,000 persons. Based on police boundaries, large urban areas accounted for 65.5% of the Canadian population in 2005.

Small urban areas are defined as any urban area not part of a CMA that has a minimum population of 1,000 persons and a population density of at least 400 persons per square kilometer. Small urban areas accounted for 17.4% of the population in 2005.

Rural areas are defined as all areas of the country not falling into either the large urban or small urban categories. In 2005, rural areas accounted for 17.1% of the population.

All in all it is remarkable how little violence is done by so many humans with so many weapons. The drop in homicides in larger cities, especially those over a 1,000,000 is highly interesting and IIRC another topic discussed it already. NYC and Los Angeles account of course for a majority of the population of those 9 cities with the effectivness of it's policies having a massive impact on the aggregate.

KenWats

01-09-2013, 05:17 PM

Dr. Park Dietz has been one of the lone forensic Psychiatrist with the courage to come out against the Republican budget cutters who are the REAL PROBLEM to the mass violence problem, not gun control and not the NRA. As Dietz has bravely pointed out this started with the Reagan revolution to destroy the public mental health system and give tax cuts to rich people and has continued on to create the problem we have now, up to the point where we basically no longer have a public mental health system worth anything.

A bit of a thread derailment, and I apologize in advance.

As a man whose wife has worked as a psychologist in both a State Prison and now, a State Mental Institution, I can agree with you that the system needs to be improved somehow. It's scary and sad to me who ends up out in the community. It's also very surprising to me who ends up "sane enough for trial". There's a lot of crazy in prison. Also, a lot of sane jerks (she uses a different word) trying to look like they're crazy. I don't know which stories she tells me are funnier.

slapout9

01-09-2013, 08:09 PM

slapout9

01-09-2013, 08:11 PM

A bit of a thread derailment, and I apologize in advance.

As a man whose wife has worked as a psychologist in both a State Prison and now, a State Mental Institution, I can agree with you that the system needs to be improved somehow. It's scary and sad to me who ends up out in the community. It's also very surprising to me who ends up "sane enough for trial". There's a lot of crazy in prison. Also, a lot of sane jerks (she uses a different word) trying to look like they're crazy. I don't know which stories she tells me are funnier.

Not a derailment at all!!! It is spot on, and it is much more of a step to finding a solution then just saying...... It's all the Guns fault it!

slapout9

01-10-2013, 08:23 PM

Everybody needs to watch this for some real truth about gun violence.
You are far more likely to be killed by a medical error than any type of gun violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK7WrsnuDPc

Fuchs

01-10-2013, 09:01 PM

Everybody needs to watch this for some real truth about gun violence.
You are far more likely to be killed by a medical error than any type of gun violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK7WrsnuDPc

Rankings of causes of death are useful for a rational allocation of attention (I attempt to divert attention away from errorists with 'em).

This specific video on the other hand has a strong smell of propaganda and partiality.

streamfortyseven

01-10-2013, 11:57 PM

Gun prohibition only works if there aren't many guns in circulation to begin with, and it's quick and easy for law enforcement/military to pick up those guns, and the law enforcement/military people aren't corrupt or infiltrated by criminals. For example, Mexico has nearly absolute gun control, with only one legal gun store in the country, but it's pretty easy to get a gun (illegally) there - you just go to a cop, pay the requisite amount of money and the cop delivers the gun and ammo to your door, and he'll even teach you how to fire it. There's a separate marketplace for drug gangs, some of which have infiltrated the army or local police forces, or both.

That's not the situation in the US, we have an estimated 300 million guns in circulation, almost one for every person in the US. A "War on Guns" would have the same success as the "War on Drugs" and enforcement would be costly in terms of dollars and human lives, not to speak of the political effects amongst the population. With gun prohibition, there'd probably be a resurgent militia movement, and troops going house to house to seize guns might kick off a domestic insurgency, especially if people were killed in the process.

School shooters tend to be individuals who are socially isolated, odd, intelligent, and who have been severely bullied, and it's that last part which is not really being mentioned in the most recent controversy. In the case of Adam Lanza, when he was still in school, when he'd walk down the hall, if he encountered students walking towards him, he'd flatten himself against the wall, and hold his briefcase up in such a manner as to shield himself. It strikes me that this is a learned behavior - probably he'd been repeatedly punched.

A rabbi in Newtown stated that:
I personally know from a classmate and neighbor of Adam Lanza that he was brilliant, odd and severely bullied.

From:http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/newtown-rabbi-gun-control-anti-bullying-policies-are-vital)

Lanza was referred to a school psychologist because it was thought that he *might* be a target for bullies, but it strikes me that there is a good amount of denial going on here, in retrospect. Instead, Lanza, like the other school shooters, is characterized as "evil" and the blame is set squarely on him. That's the easy way out.

Here's another case which, thankfully, did not result in a school shooting:
I stood out like a black thumb; I was the most bizarre-looking kid in town. My style was met with equal parts disgust and fascination by my classmates, and the bullying predictably escalated—I was verbally and physically assaulted on a regular basis, receiving death threats at least once a month. Teachers not only didn’t bother to defend me, they would often chime in with comments about my appearance, maybe in an effort to impress the more popular kids, who were usually the offspring of the grown townspeople with high standing in the community.

The bullying was not only halted by the people whose job it was to do such things, it was actively encouraged. Once again, the victim of the bullying was sent to the school psychologist:
I was also informed that I was emotionally disturbed and I was ordered to undergo sessions with the school therapist twice a week. I hated him. He was smarmy and condescending, and when I told him I was tired of being harassed he told me that the other kids were just blowing off steam, that their reactions were normal. He also claimed that people probably weren’t picking on me as much as I imagined. When he walked me out after that session, two people yelled “psycho” at me in front of him.

The bullying didn't stop, with this result:
Thus, my clothing and behavior became increasingly bizarre—I felt that upping the ante was the only reasonable solution to the cards I had been dealt. I wanted to create a persona that would help to minimize my harassment, which I figured would be a hyper-real, meaner version of myself. I grew tired of trying to do damage control so I figured I may as well give them what they wanted. Every step I took caused a scene—all I had to do was show up at a school function and people would get visibly upset. I once made a brief 15-minute appearance at a formal dance wearing a short silver dress, and those 15 minutes resulted in weeks of chatter—tales of my “insane” dress circulated until it was said that it had spikes and squares sticking out of it. It was like being a celebrity. A PTA meeting was held, and one of the topics debated was whether I could be banned from all dances and after-school functions.

Luckily, she was able to get out of that town, and get some insight as to what she had gone through, and was able to make a decent life for herself. Here's the whole article: http://www.vice.com/read/i-was-a-suspected-school-shooter

It's not gun control which needs to be addressed here, because desperate people, people driven crazy with a need for revenge, will always find a means to bring it about. Mental health screenings might help, but as above, if the underlying causes of the problem are not addressed, those will be of little use as well.

carl

01-11-2013, 03:38 AM

Welcome aboard streamfortyseven.

Many, many people are bullied in school. Not many turn into criminal murderers. To that extent the bullying victims who turn to mass murder can, and in my opinion should, be considered evil. They most certainly are cowardly. The planning and execution of their crimes show that with certainty.

I don't know how many of these criminals have been bullied. I do know that the two criminals who murdered at Colombine were not. Within the school crowd they fit in pretty well. The problem was one of them was very well developed psychopath/sociopath and the other was a follower. They formed one of those criminal pairs that sometimes occur.

The approaches to bullying that I have read about go after the wrong targets. Bullies can't be got to. They have to much fun doing it to give it up sans some kind of immediate penalty or possibility of an immediate penalty. Adults won't be on the scene when they are needed. I think what should be concentrated on are the good kids and this is where the adults come in.

The adults, teachers and parents, should make it clear that we are all our brothers keeper and if somebody is bullied somebody else should stand up for them. There is honor in that. Honor in the strong protecting the weak. That is the key to the thing. For if the bullies know that some of the other kids are going to intervene if they cross the line, they won't do it.

My Mom told me a story once about bullying. She was in 5th or 6th grade and was walking home with my aunt who was two years younger. They saw a 7th or 8th grade boy picking on a 2nd grade girl. They told him to knock it off or else. He didn't think much of that coming from two girls so he continued bullying. They then lit into him beat him some. He stopped his bullying. That is the kind of thing that should be encouraged.

(The 8th grade boy told his brother that the bruises on his face came from a fall. His brother was friends with my uncle and when my uncle heard the 'fall' story he said 'Well let me tell you what really happened.' That 8th grade boy didn't do much bullying after that.)

The other thing that can work is teaching the bullying victims to fight. I don't mean turning them into Seagal, I mean some judo or boxing lessons. That gives them just enough confidence that they are more likely to stand their ground which has a hugely dissuasive effect on bullies, who are cowards.

Adults can help with that too. Another story, I like stories.

My aunt (see above) was a phys ed teacher in the 60s and 70s. She taught the boys boxing and set up some intramural matches. She, not by accident, matched a bully with his victim. The victim had the advantage of some fighting lessons and a situation that encouraged him to fight. He whaled on the bully. Of course my aunt didn't happen to see any infractions that might have been committed against the bully. "Ain't ya gonna call that?" "Shut up and fight." The bully didn't pick on the former victim after that.

Those old fashioned things worked. I don't know if they can be done any more.

carl

01-11-2013, 03:50 AM

This specific video on the other hand has a strong smell of propaganda and partiality.

Here ya go Fuchs. A Wall Street Journal article quite soberly written. 98,000 annual deaths in the US from preventable medical mistakes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444620104578008263334441352.html

Firn

01-11-2013, 01:32 PM

As Fuchs says proper ranking is important to support an efficient allocation of ressources. I remarked how little homicides are actually comitted with the vast arsenal of firearms dispersed in Western countries. Still far far more then by terrorists but overall we have surprisingly peaceful societies, at least compared to the some in which our ancestors lived.

In this context the graphics I posted show that for some reasons gun homicides dropped a great deal roughly twenty years ago. Almost all of it is due to fewer killings done with handguns in bigger cities, especially the biggest, with both the victim and shooter relative likely to have a criminal record. From a police and political point of view curbing this type of homocide should be the 'easiest' to target for obvious reasons. In this case focused gun control and police/government action can be quite efficient.

It is much more difficult to curb the type of shooting which has restarted the debate about gun laws. Far fewer dots to connect, no links to typical criminals. Health care and social support are of great importance. A low amount of firearms per capita makes it obviously much harder for such mentally disturbed persons to do such terrible things, but in a country like the US simply the vast amount of firearms in circulation makes it very difficult that moderate laws reduced that risk by a significant degree. (Especially since the most commone homicide weapon is a simple, run-of-the-mill handgun which works well enough without some easily banable evil feature.) The harsh UK approach on handguns must have consumed very considerable public ressources. Maybe somebody with knowledge on it could step in.

Fuchs

01-11-2013, 04:58 PM

The focus on 'assault weapons' is probably a cultural one.

"Team pro AR-15" appears to have in part a mindset that the a powerful government if powerful against its people, not for its people. They seek to weaken this government by making themselves more powerful, albeit hoarding mere rifles is clearly an illusory attempt at it.

The less extreme part of "Team pro AR-15" seems to have simply developed a huge affection for warlike and automatic weapons, and the area of convergence seems to be the market for the 'tacticool' equipment that flooded the arms market after the appearance of the picatinny rail (and thus the realization that guns can be pimped by laymen, too). Same for "hello kitty" or generally pink-themed AR-15s.

Team "counter AR-15" doesn't see an actual use for such weapons except killing people. They don't have an affection for the guns and seem to prefer the modern European view that in a civilised country the individual gives up his armament (so for example doesn't carry a dagger when he enters a bar as was usual only 200 years ago even in European metropolises). They bet instead on being safer when others aren't armed to the teeth because the state has a monopoly on force and almost-monopoly on firearms. A conversion to this state is probably hopeless with about 200 million firearms in private hands, but the least tolerable threat -the 'assault weapons' - is a logical target for an at least partial implementation.
They don't stare at their own (non-existing)AR-15 as provider of security, but are scared by the others' AR-15s as sources of insecurity.

There also seems to be a rural-urban divide, with rural people having good reasons to not trust the timely reaction of government security officials in case of emergency and having good practical uses for firearms (hunting, self-protection against animals). Urban people meanwhile have emergency services ~ 5 minutes away (or could at least), not going hunting much but experiencing a lot of firearm-empowered crime (on their TV screen).
___________

I wonder why the U.S. got the crime and firearms thing so wrong. I've yet to hear about rural Frenchmen placing much emphasis on having semi-auto spitzer bullet carbines (and they're got some really lonely places!).
Quite the same goes for Canada; they don't happen to have such a huge conflict either as far as I know.

carl

01-11-2013, 06:59 PM

Fuchs:

That is not such a bad analysis. I would add that one of the reasons for the popularity of the AR-15 in the US is that it is fun to shoot. People take it to the range and enjoy shooting it. One of the reasons they discovered that it is fun to shoot was the 'assault weapons ban' of the mid-1990s. As soon as it was suspected that limits of some kind would be placed on ARs, they flew off the shelves, just as they are doing now. People who had a mild interest in owning and shooting the weapon bought it because they figured it was then or never. The same thing is happening now I am sure. So the irony of trying to limit that type of weapon is that it increased the sales initially and then the quality of the product insured that sales would continue to grow. If they had never put limitations on it, many of those people's mild interest would have remained a mild interest instead of being transformed into a purchase.

There also seems to be a rural-urban divide, with rural people having good reasons to not trust the timely reaction of government security officials in case of emergency and having good practical uses for firearms (hunting, self-protection against animals). Urban people meanwhile have emergency services ~ 5 minutes away (or could at least), not going hunting much but experiencing a lot of firearm-empowered crime (on their TV screen).

The rural-urban divide is more than that. It is a very large cultural divide also. The divide that you missed is the divide between the South and the rural states and the Northeast, the West Coast and the states dominated by huge cities like Illinois.

People in the country, I believe, who have weapons for self defense are mostly concerned about defending themselves against humans. Dangerous animals just aren't that widely distributed in the US.

Very good point about people being frightened by what they see on TV.

I wonder why the U.S. got the crime and firearms thing so wrong. I've yet to hear about rural Frenchmen placing much emphasis on having semi-auto spitzer bullet carbines (and they're got some really lonely places!).
Quite the same goes for Canada; they don't happen to have such a huge conflict either as far as I know.

You know Fuchs, you were doing so good but then the supercilious Euroweenie escaped. Myself, I wonder how Europe got the government, political, economic thing so wrong, since most all of the Americans have ancestors who came from Europe because life there really sucked.

Fuchs

01-11-2013, 07:29 PM

You know Fuchs, you were doing so good but then the supercilious Euroweenie escaped. Myself, I wonder how Europe got the government, political, economic thing so wrong, since most all of the Americans have ancestors who came from Europe because life there really sucked.

Kind of, but we also kind of evolved ;)
Canadians, Australians and Kiwis are not known for the same problems as Americans from the U.S..

So I DO wonder what went wrong and why. Out of curiosity.
As far as I am concerned, my life would not change if there was a gun rampage in a school in the U.S. every day. I have curiosity, though. News from foreign countries feeds my appetite for learning just as does history.

So what did go wrong?

Firn

01-11-2013, 07:43 PM

I think this will be my last post on this thread, which has been quite an interesting journey:

1) After looking up the UK laws concerning guns and knifes I know now that I could risk up to 4 years in prison and a fine of 5000 pounds if I carry my Swiss Huntsmen knife in public with no good enough reason. Length over 3 inches and a lockable blade too. Sounds rather harsh for my taste, just like in case of the mere possession of handguns in the UK.

(At 18 we stayed with our schoolclass in Berlin for a couple of days and I even entered the Bundestag with Swiss Army kife in the rucksack. IIRC the officer/guard asked us to pass through the metal detector and I said before that I had an Army knife and if I could leave it there. Until I saw the sign I actually forgot about it. Asked why I need one I said well, to cut salami and so forth. :D Somehow sometimes you think that, well, you are just a harmless guy and not look upon you from the other side.

Of course I got it back )

2) The gun laws are quite a legal maze around the world, within entities like the EU and Italy. For example in some areas of Italy boar hunting is mostly done with 12' slugs, increasingly often with semi-automatic shotguns. This goes especially for driven hunts in the macchia. That makes perfect sense considering the distances, the lack of complicated game ID and the fact that many are well used to the gun by birding. In my region slugs are completely banned for hunting and we are considered as hunters in an 'alpine environment' a species apart. :rolleyes:

Homicides comitted with hunting/ long firearms are indeed very rare. Handguns are clearly the weapon of choice and no doubt the organized crime makes it's impact felt also in this statistic. If we discount the dead connected to it suddendly knifes and tools are used almost as often as guns.* (The mafia makes up for roughly half of the body count!). It does sadly not surprise me that a southern region like Campania leads even in absolute numbers.

*Meno omicidi di Mafia, ma cresce l’allarme criminalità comune. Con 128 vittime (155 nel 2007) il 2008 è l´anno in cui la criminalità organizzata ha fatto meno vittime negli ultimi 30. Ma è allarme criminalità comune, che ha ucciso 135 volte. Dal 2000 al 2008 l´aumento è stato del 25,7%. Un terzo delle vittime della criminalità comune (45 casi) è stato ucciso nel corso di una rapina o di un furto. I pensionati sono le principali vittime (17 omicidi), seguiti da operai e braccianti (14).

Arma da fuoco fa più vittime. Il 53,2% delle vittime (317) é stata uccisa con un´arma da fuoco; seguono le armi da taglio (142 casi) e quelle improprie (55). Il killer è un uomo nove volte su dieci; la vittima un maschio in tre casi su quattro.

Most from this link (http://www.metropolisweb.it/Notizie/Campania/Cronaca/in_italia_calano_omicidi_volontari_record_nero_e_c ampania.aspx).

P.S: My grand-grandfather who worked in US gold mines was according to my paternal grandma entrusted by his comrades with their single revolver, sleeping with it under the pillow while sharing the whole room with his fellow countrymen. He was the biggest of the bunch and said to be quite fearless. On day he was attacked by a robber which clearly misjudged his man as he was choked and handed over to a police officer. Of course I don't know if the weapon was illegal and carried on that occasion. Certainly America was considered to be a violent country at that time. Back in Europe in the nick of time for the great war he was thrown into the meatgrinder and was picked more dead the alive from a wagon headed to the pits. All healed more or less apart from a leg. After seeing him in this state his mamma remarked in the typical dry humour of that area: "at least you will remain now at home" ...

slapout9

01-11-2013, 09:26 PM

Fuchs:

That is not such a bad analysis. I would add that one of the reasons for the popularity of the AR-15 in the US is that it is fun to shoot.

Colt Firearms used to have an advertising slogan that said "The Gun You Grew Up With" that was and is pretty true. Look at how many people were exposed to the M-16 because of the draft in the 60's and early 70's, then when the civilian version became available this same large market was already well trained with how to shoot and maintain it, it was a natural purchase selection.

carl

01-11-2013, 11:26 PM

Kind of, but we also kind of evolved ;)

Well I should hope so. You Euros started out pretty low what with two world wars and two of the most murderous political systems/regimes in history...and that's only in the 20th century.

There now that we've traded cheap shots...

So what did go wrong?

Nothing went wrong. Things have been going right, over the long term.

http://thepublicintellectual.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Violence-Stylized-2.png

http://thepublicintellectual.org/2011/05/02/a-crime-puzzle/

So American murder rates have been decreasing over the years as have European rates. The article above states that the drop in violent crime in the US was not as fast or consistent as it was in Europe after 1850. One of the reasons for that should be obvious, in 1850 and for a long time after there was still a frontier in the US. There wasn't in Europe.

As for the short term problem, the most important thing in my view is the utter collapse of the black family in the US since in the second half of the 20th century. That has gone very wrong. "Between 1950 and 1996, the percentage of Black families headed by married couples declined from 78 percent to 34 percent." "Between 1950 and 1980, the proportion of Black households headed by never-married Black women increased from 3.87 to 69.77 per 1,000." ( http://www.americanvalues.org/html/consequences.htm This is a press release. You'll have to read the report to find the quotes I cited. My computer won't let me link directly.) Being a product of a single mother family is the best single predictor for social pathology.

That has resulted in these stats for 2011. There were 12,664 murder victims. Of those victims 5,825 were white, 6,329 were black and 510 were other or unknown race. ( http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-1 ) Blacks make up about 12% of the US population.

So that is what has gone wrong in the recent past, the collapse of the black family has resulted in a murder rate in the black community that is wildly disproportionate with the rest of the US.

carl

01-11-2013, 11:38 PM

And since a lot of this discussion centers around AR-15s, which are rifles, here is a table that show the number of murders by weapon type.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

It is notable because the number of murders committed with sharp objects, hands and feet and other objects considerably outnumber those committed with rifles of all types.

Fuchs

01-11-2013, 11:58 PM

in 1850 and for a long time after there was still a frontier in the US. There wasn't in Europe.

Depends on whether one counts the whole of Russia in such statistics.

So that is what has gone wrong in the recent past, the collapse of the black family has resulted in a murder rate in the black community that is wildly disproportionate with the rest of the US.

Others (who rather don't work in 'values'-centric organisations) tend to point a lot at drugs, or the 'war' on the same.
One could also point at a crisis of the middle class or at urbanisation, albeit neither is really unique to the US.

carl

01-12-2013, 12:09 AM

Depends on whether one counts the whole of Russia in such statistics.

Good point about Russia...but I talked about Europe and I don't believe much of Eurpean Russia would have been considered a frontier.

Others (who rather don't work in 'values'-centric organisations) tend to point a lot at drugs, or the 'war' on the same.
One could also point at a crisis of the middle class or at urbanisation, albeit neither is really unique to the US.

They may do that, but that leads to the question of what leads to the proclivity to drug use and criminal behavior? In the US, the best predictor for both is families headed by un-wed mothers.

No you can't point to the crisis of the middle class (whatever that is) because the middle class doesn't commit many murders, the underclass does. And the US has been pretty urbanized for a long time.

Besides you asked what went wrong. I gave you my opinion in response.

davidbfpo

01-23-2013, 07:56 PM

Bill Bratton, the once famous Police Commissioner in New York and Los Angeles, is the only US veteran police leader often cited in the UK media, partly due to his influence on UK police leaders.

On the 18th the WSJ published an article based on speaking to him: 'William Bratton: The Real Cures for Gun Violence':http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323968304578246721614388346.html

Mr. Bratton predicts that "the most successful focus is going to be on the licensing and background checks. Because that's the heart of the problem—who gets access to the guns?...Clearly a large number of people who shouldn't have firearms actually apply through the process and obtain firearms." He also argues that Congress ought to confirm a permanent director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the first time since 2006.

But the gun reform that truly gets Mr. Bratton fired up is one you don't hear much about these days. It is what he calls "certainty of punishment," or stricter gun-crime sentences.

jmm99

01-24-2013, 02:01 AM

Mr. Bratton (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323968304578246721614388346.html) (inadvertently ?) disclosed, in his comments on ammo "clips" (his usage), what he really wants:

He says he'd support "anything that reduces the number of rounds in a clip." In an attack like the one in Newtown, Conn., Mr. Bratton says, the faster a deranged killer can shoot, the more damage he can do—and the less time is allowed for the police to arrive. "Oftentimes it is in the changing of a clip that the opportunity presents itself for stopping. What's the right number—seven, 10, 15? Who knows? The right number is no bullets in the clip, but that's not going to happen."

No bullets mean an inoperable firearm; which equals a firearms ban - e.g. (sort of like) Australia, or where New York (state and city) may well be headed.

However, he did bring up two points which I believe are worth discussing; that is, he and I have at least a common framework in them.

One was a very brief comment (allegation) of prevalent failed background checks:

"Clearly a large number of people who shouldn't have firearms actually apply through the process and obtain firearms."

That assertion is unsupported in the WSJ article. I'd like to know the "large number"; but more so, the reasons why felons (etc.) are slipping through the bureaucratic process. If Bratton speaks factually, this is then one area where substantial improvements can be made - without passing a passle of new laws.

His other point (finding my agreement) was the current failure to prosecute crimes of illegal possession and illegal use under existing gun laws:

But the gun reform that truly gets Mr. Bratton fired up is one you don't hear much about these days. It is what he calls "certainty of punishment," or stricter gun-crime sentences.

"People are out on the streets who should be in jail. Jail is appropriate for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of an act of violence. Some cities have a deplorable lack of attention to this issue," he says, citing Philadelphia.

In Chicago, where the murder rate rose 16% last year, "to try to put someone in jail for gun-related activity you really have to go the extra mile," he says. "If there's one crime for which there has to be a certainty of punishment, it is gun violence." He ticks off other places where help is needed: "Oakland, Chicago, D.C., Baltimore—all have gangs whose members have no capacity for caring about life and respect for life. Someone like that? Put 'em in jail. Get 'em off the streets. Keep people safe."

Again, new laws are not required, but prosecutions under existing laws are.

Unfortunately, gun prosecutions are uneven and generally down-trending. These stories (one 2011, one 2013) are exceptions which seem to prove the trend. Kan. ranks 3rd nationally in gun prosecutions - U.S. Attorney: Turn over the armed felons to us (http://cjonline.com/news/2013-01-11/kan-ranks-3rd-nationally-gun-prosecutions) (AP, Roxana Hageman, January 11, 2013):

WICHITA — The U.S. attorney’s office in Kansas has filed so many firearms cases that the state ranked third last year among the 93 judicial districts nationwide in the numbers of gun prosecutions, Justice Department figures show.

Only Puerto Rico and the Western District of Texas had more federal gun prosecutions than Kansas in the fiscal year ending September 2012.

Kansas was first in the nation in gun prosecutions in 2011, but fell to third place in 2012 despite prosecutors filing even more cases.

U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom credits the growing number of gun prosecutions in the state to his office urging local law enforcement agencies to refer to federal prosecutors cases of convicted felons who are unlawfully in possession of firearms — even when they do not have enough evidence to pursue other state charges.

Grissom told the Wichita Pachyderm Club on Friday that he told the local agencies, “If they are felons and you can pull them over and they are armed, give them to us and we will cut them out of your community. You can have a huge impact on the crime rate.”

Federal prosecutors in Kansas filed gun-related charges against 447 people last year, up nearly 85 percent from the average of the four previous years. Firearms prosecutions nationwide remained relatively flat during that time, with 11,728 defendants charged last year.

and Federal firearms prosecutions decline in U.S., but surge in Mobile; why? (http://blog.al.com/live/2011/05/guns_guns_guns_federal_firearm.html) (Brendan Kirby, Press-Register, Monday, May 16, 2011):

MOBILE, Alabama -- Federal firearms prosecutions, on a steady decline nationwide in recent times, hit a decade-long low in January. Not in Mobile, though, where U.S. prosecutors brought more guns cases in 6 months than they did the entire previous fiscal year.

For 4 of those months, the judicial district that includes 13 southwest Alabama counties had the nation’s highest per capita rate of firearms prosecutions.

To prosecutors and law enforcement leaders, the data shows that federal-local cooperation is taking dangerous criminals off the streets. To some defense lawyers, it demonstrates an overreach by a justice system that’s trying to burnish its reputation.

U.S. Attorney Kenyen Brown said, “I think it sends a clear message: If you are a felon and you have a gun, law enforcement will investigate you and the U.S. Attorney’s Office will prosecute you.”

http://media.al.com/live/photo/firearm-prosecutionsjpg-7f23a5d0998fc5b9.jpg

The down trend extended through FY 2010. Based on the SU TRAC database, FY 2011 continued the downtrend, but FY 2012 appeared to show an upswing.

FY 2011 (http://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.111024.html)
Decline in Federal Prosecutions from ATF-Led Investigations

(24 Oct 2011) During the first ten months of FY 2011, federal prosecutions credited to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have fallen almost 7 percent from the previous fiscal year. This continues a downward slide that began six years ago, according to TRAC's analysis of timely Justice Department data.

So far this fiscal year, the number of ATF-led investigations that resulted in prosecution have totaled 7,282. If the same pace continues for the remaining two months, criminal filings should reach 8,738. This would be 18 percent fewer than the peak in FY 2005 of 10,715 ATF prosecutions during the Bush Administration.

FY 2012 (http://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.120731.html)
ATF Prosecutions Turning Around in FY 2012

(31 Jul 2012) The latest available data from the Justice Department show that, during the first eight months of FY 2012, the number of prosecutions for weapons and other offenses referred by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has staged a turnaround. While these prosecutions have fallen steadily after reaching a peak in FY 2005, the latest government figures show an upward trend, with 6,258 new matters filed so far during FY 2012. If this pace continues, FY 2012 will see 9,387 ATF prosecutions, an increase of 5.9 percent over FY 2011.

With 142 ATF prosecutions per million population, the Southern District of Alabama led the nation on a per-capita basis, with more than four times the national average. The Eastern District of North Carolina saw 242 ATF prosecutions, more than any other judicial district, followed by Kansas with 232.

The US attorneys in Mr Bratton's targets (Philadelphia, Oakland, Chicago, D.C., Baltimore) may argue they have more important things to do.

The bottom line is that even a gun-banner (Mr Bratton) and a very retired small time target shooter (JMM99) can find points of agreement.

Regards

Mike

motorfirebox

01-24-2013, 07:27 AM

It's worth pointing out that "enforcing existing laws" means more than simply getting law enforcement off its ass. The ATF--the primary federal organ for dealing with illegal firearms--has been without permanent leadership for six years due to, bluntly, the NRA's meddling. You've got the USA's office in Reno actually refusing to prosecute ATF cases. ATF funding has been cut and cut and cut, again at the behest of gun lobbyists. There is a roadblock to enforcing existing gun laws, and that roadblock is the NRA.

Steve Blair

01-24-2013, 02:42 PM

Sorry...but there's no single roadblock (be it the "evil" NRA or the "evil" ATF) to enforcing firearms laws. Cook County Illinois has a track record of either early release or pleading down cases involving firearms (Second City Cop has much on this). JMM points this out quite well above.

Firn

01-24-2013, 07:09 PM

slapout9

01-24-2013, 08:28 PM

The trend is certainly interesting and a bit surprising. As we have seen according to the stats felons with (hand)guns are responsible for a high percentage of the gun violence, especially murders in big cities. So a seemingly relative simple tool in the fight against it would be a strict enforcement of the laws concerning felons and their most dangerous tools.

I was part of the ATF-ICE(Isolate The Criminal Element) program under the higher DOJ funding program Project Safe Neighborhoods and yes it works exactly as advertised so naturally the politicians pulled the funding which caused crime rates to go back up. The Original ATF-ICE program was based upon the ATF/NRA model called Project "Exile" which focused on removing violent felons with firearms and it was hugely successfully and most people have never heard of it. This is nothing but a progressive political agenda it has nothing to do with stopping gun violence or they would fully and permanently fund programs that work. Backround on Project Exile program http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/earlatt.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

jmm99

01-24-2013, 09:34 PM

machts nicht, even if this is what Mr Bratton "meant":

from Firn
BTW: As I understood Mr.Bratton he was talking that in the case of a deranged killer no bullets in a clip would be the best option as it makes it more cumbersome to kill many persons. I can fully agree with that scenario.

Bratton's point of regulation here is "clip" capacity. That regulation has to apply to everyone - to the deranged killer and to JMM target shooter (a 5-round or 10-round "clip" being used by him in every offhand sporting rifle competition). Thus, a 0-round "clip" is necessarily Bratton's regulation point.

They don't make "deranged killer clips" (0 rounds) and "target shooter clips" (5 or 10-rounds).

Regards

Mike

Fuchs

01-24-2013, 09:36 PM

Could we speak at least here of "magazines" instead of "clips", please !??

jmm99

01-24-2013, 10:09 PM

but former police chief Bratton spoke in terms of "clips" - his usage, not mine.

And being eminently fair and balanced to those on the opposite side from me, I felt it only fair and balanced to continue his usage.

Regards

Mike

Firn

01-25-2013, 07:38 PM

machts nicht, even if this is what Mr Bratton "meant":

Bratton's point of regulation here is "clip" capacity. That regulation has to apply to everyone - to the deranged killer and to JMM target shooter (a 5-round or 10-round "clip" being used by him in every offhand sporting rifle competition). Thus, a 0-round "clip" is necessarily Bratton's regulation point.

They don't make "deranged killer clips" (0 rounds) and "target shooter clips" (5 or 10-rounds).

Regards

Mike

Di niente and macht nix indeed, dear Mike. I think in this case the interpretation is in the mind of the beholder and we have to agree to disagree.

Regards

Firn, who is quite happy with his 5-rounds target shooter/hunting clips. They help the standing shooting stance by letting the palm rest lower, a bit Biathlon-like and are not as much in the way of the 10-round version when shooting from a rest. :D

P.S: A quick glance to youtube shows that even Biathletes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGx03PheuUw) are using clips. They are everywhere. In any case she overall explains the challenges quite well. The only biathlon though I'm competing in is our regional 'hunters' competition.

jmm99

01-25-2013, 10:51 PM

in using my Remington 541-S, which accepts either a 5-thingee whatchacallit:

http://forum.gon.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=230842&stc=1&d=1231590356

or a 10-thingee whatchacallit:

http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2010/03/13/25809_01_remington_541_s_640.jpg

I simply failed to use the 5-thingee whatchacallit as a palm rest. :)

I won't do a Brent Musburger (http://deadspin.com/5974000/brent-musburger-is-a-bit-too-infatuated-with-aj-mccarrons-girlfriend-katherine-webb) ... ; I won't do a Brent ...; I will not do a Brent ....

But, Annalies Cook (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annelies_Cook) can say "clips" and "bullets" all that her blessed little heart desires. ;)

Regards

Mike

PS: Pics are accurate depictions of the model, but not pics of my rifle.

slapout9

01-26-2013, 11:47 AM

5 thingee and 10 thingee whatchamacallits. Don't you guys ever say anything about Alabama again.;)

J Wolfsberger

01-26-2013, 02:02 PM

Could we speak at least here of "magazines" instead of "clips", please !??

As long as you promise to never again use the phrase "semi-auto spitzer bullet carbines." :D

On a serious note, all clips are magazines, but not all magazines are clips. The subject of the ban, as discussed so far, is focused solely on clips. Please don't put ideas in their pointy little heads.

jmm99

01-27-2013, 06:08 AM

Actually, the concept of a "removable magazine", or "detachable magazine" - and establishing a "pointy head" legal definition of the same - is already out of the bag, the toothpaste tube and the barn.

For example, last year, State Sen. Leland Yee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee) (D, San Francisco) defined a "detachable magazine" (in SB 249) as:

...any ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action.

I read definitions in criminal law statutes literally - in other words, criminal laws are strictly construed (standard rule).

Does removal using a screwdriver meet the "readily removed" test ? The internal box magazine for a Mauser 98:

http://www.brownells.com/userdocs/products/p_684098101_1.jpg

and its variants (such as my Ruger .308 M-77, manual (http://www.ruger.com/products/_manuals/m77-above79.pdf) p.15 pdf), is "readily removed" as a screw in assembly; it clearly is an "ammunition feeding device"; and its removal does not require "disassembly of the firearm action".

Now, Sen. Yee might say that's not what he "meant" to attack in SB 249 - that is, what he intends to ban are whatchacallits, and not whatchamacallits.

The devil is in the details.

Regards

Mike

Fuchs

01-27-2013, 11:34 AM

J Wolfsberger

01-27-2013, 03:38 PM

That's what preamble and interpretation by judges is for. The law people have their theories for the interpretation of laws, and one of them means you shall go with what the lawmaker thought at the time. This requires reading notes, preamble, possibly interviewing.

That requires that the lawmaker "thought" to begin with, or that he wrote the law in good faith.

I'm becoming ever more convinced that falls into the legal category of "facts not in evidence."

As jmm99 points out, Sen. Yee wrote a law that applies to every firearm except single shot pistols, rifles and shotguns (and, I guess, double barreled shotguns). That was not an accident. Had he intended it to apply to clips, the wording would have been: "... any device that can be readily replaced to reload the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action."

Sen. Yee may actually be as stupid as he's pretending to be, but that's not an explanation for such a clumsy attempt to ban all firearms.

jmm99

01-27-2013, 08:25 PM

Actually, I'd "interpret" SB 249 (despite being unfamiliar with Californianese :)), as presently written, as being meant to apply only to semi-automatic actions (whatchacallits - what you call it). It could, of course, be easily amended to apply to bolt actions, pump actions and lever actions (whatchamacallits - what you may call it).

As I said:

Now, Sen. Yee might say that's not what he "meant" to attack in SB 249 - that is, what he intends to ban are whatchacallits, and not whatchamacallits.

All of this type of regulation beats around the bush if one's point of regulation is going to focus on regulation of firearms (as to specific types and components); as opposed to regulation of the persons possessing firearms (criminals and mental cases), or as opposed to protection of places where firearms might be used for mass murder.

So, I tend to some flippancy when discussing that sort of gun control (e.g., I've often said that "gun control" means a near-perfect grouping at 1000 yards ;)). Probably, I shouldn't, but I do.

Bill Bratton, in the article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323968304578246721614388346.html) that currently set me off, points up the real problem - for which, neither he nor I demand a solution:

The problem with the gun and ammo bans, he offers, "is that that's going forward." They do nothing about the 350 million firearms, including assault weapons, and hundreds of thousands of extended clips already in circulation. "You can't deal with that retroactively."

That is also a problem that is long out of the bag, the toothpaste tube and the barn. And, I (like Bill Bratton) would not elect to tackle that ex post facto problem.

However, it could be (as opposed to should be) dealt with in the US, albeit at God knows what costs. Australia, with impetus from Gun Control Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Australia), did its gun control program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia) after the 1987 Melbourne killings, et al. The first step in the program is gun confiscation - phrased in terms of a gun buyout program:

Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997. [23] (http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/1997-98_Audit_Report_25.pdf) The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.

In the US, the logical justification (possibly without compensation) could be a combination of public health and national security issues (with liberal application of John Yoo's memos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo) on inherent presidential powers in domestic matters - here's one (http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/memomilitaryforcecombatus10232001.pdf)). Of course, there's the little matter of the Second Amendment; but court cases take a long time - and the Supreme Court of today is not necessarily the Supreme Court of tomorrow.

The second step is a tight regulation of the much fewer firearms that are left - as well as tight restrictions on where they are stored, and who can use them:

Firearms categories

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories determined by the National Firearm Agreement with different levels of control. The categories are:

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.

Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.

Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.

Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. (Albeit both SA and WA do not require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after the deactivation process has taken place. This situation was the catalyst in QLD for the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black-market – the loophole shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.

These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.

Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.

Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

Certain Antique firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.

All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).

I don't applaud the Aussies' result (in my eyes, a horrible situation), but I do appreciate their straight-forwardness in doing it.

Regards

Mike

Fuchs

01-28-2013, 02:24 AM

I don't get why anyone would see a need to restrict access to air rifles or paintball markers.

The rimfire rifles thing is also strange. It's quite easily possible to create a powerful rimfire cartridge rifle - especially with reloading and DIY bullets.

Kiwigrunt

01-28-2013, 03:55 AM

I don't get why anyone would see a need to restrict access to air rifles or paintball markers.

A few people have been killed or wounded with air rifles in NZ in recent years (accidents).

(Paintball) toys look so indistinguishable from the real thing that an increasing number of crims are using them. A cop shooting a thus 'armed' crim is in kakstreet.

The rimfire rifles thing is also strange. It's quite easily possible to create a powerful rimfire cartridge rifle - especially with reloading and DIY bullets.

Most of the classifications and restrictions are irrational knee jerks IMO. They satisfy the 'something must be done' syndrome. The silliest one being the restriction of meggaclippythingies. Will a nutcase on a shooting spree really be measurably disadvantaged with a smaller capacity, given that no one is shooting back? How long does it take to slap a new mag on? Context dependent (the theatre shooting might be an exception), I could argue that the nutcase could be in a disadvantage if he had a full auto with 30 rnd mags. He would waste most of the rounds. Being limited to 7 rnd mags might make him conscious of the necessity to conserve and aim. But again, a reload is often only a disadvantage when rounds are going in two directions.

That grossly outdated (you can tell I’m not a yank) second amendment is IMO the greatest impediment to more rational control, as much as it is a safeguard against excessive control. Instead of enforcing security checks for each purchase, a licensing system should be introduced.

In NZ, the screening and security checks happen at licencing stage. Specific endorsements are required for collectibles, pistols, and MSSE (Military Style Semi Auto; our police were wise enough not to call them assault rifles. They get some things right.) The single biggest measure of control that the authorities have on MSSEs is that for every one imported, an old one has to be surrendered. A quantitative alternative to the grandfathering-in principle.

We have however had the same silliness with regards to ways of circumventing the definition of MSSE as in many other countries. A thumbhole stock does not require an MSSE endorsement, as long as you restrict the mag to 7 rnds and comply with other cosmetic trivialities like no muzzle flash eliminator or bayonet lug. The police recently tried to tighten up on that and cut their own fingers. The court decided that the police could not redefine what constitutes a pistol grip at their leisure. So now we have gone a step back, in a sense, because now an 'aftermarket ergonomic pistol grip' is allowed on non-MSSEs. When I first discovered this, I spoke to an arms-officer to confirm. The first thing he said was: “Yes, we do stupid things”. AR15s are now streaming into the country at an alarming rate of knots. We will pay a price for that in more that one way.

Fuchs

01-28-2013, 03:58 AM

(Paintball) toys look so indistinguishable from the real thing that an increasing number of crims are using them. A cop shooting a thus 'armed' crim is in kakstreet.

No, they don't. That other kind of gun which fires half gram pellets does. I forgot how they're being called.

Paintball/Gotcha weapons usually have a prominent gravity feeder device on top.

carl

01-28-2013, 04:52 AM

Fuchs and Kiwigrunt:

I think you guys are speaking of what are known as airsoft guns here in the US.

http://www.hobbytron.com/ElectricAirsoftRifles.html

Many are made to look exactly like the real thing. They shoot, I believe little plastic pellets or BBs.

The only time I ever ran into them as an officer was when hoods would buy them in order to frighten other people without the danger of being charged with felon in possession of a gun.

They are basically adult toys that people use to shoot up (dent at best) tin cans in the basement.

Kiwigrunt:

Whatever controls you put on weapons will only be complied with by law abiding people. Hoods would not bother getting licensed.

jmm99

01-28-2013, 05:28 AM

Kiwigrunt

01-28-2013, 09:09 AM

I have pondered over that question a bit myself. I don’t know of any examples. It would depend on a lot of variables. In the US the most prolific variable would be the second amendment. I don’t think anything like it exists anywhere else. As such, I don’t think that the sense of right and entitlement associated with it exists as strongly anywhere else. In NZ, owning guns is really more of a privilege than an absolute right.

For what it’s worth, the gun laws in NZ are still among the more lenient in the world (I’m pretty sure the next massacre here will put an end to that). This is starkly contrasted by Aus where they are among the most draconian. (Ausies come here to play with SLRs.)

I should think that in democratic (Western) countries, the democratic discourse and system are now so entrenched that significant resistance outside of courts is unlikely….but for that tipping point…

It is also a matter of conditioning and mindset. When I first got my licence I did not apply for any endorsements. As much as I was interested in evil guns, I was happy to just play with bolt actions. I then got one of those thumbhole FALs with a 7 shot bullet box. When the police attempted to close that loophole, I was forced to either get rid of it, or apply for the appropriate endorsement along with a higher level of storage security. Needless to say, I chose the latter. My mindset is now conditioned to that….uhmmmm….right. Had I stayed in Holland (22 years ago) I would probably never even have considered a licence. I know full well that I need to enjoy my guns while I still can. It is not a matter of if; it is a matter of when.

Given the very strong conditioning and rights mindset in the US, I should think that a radical approach to control like that in Aus will ruffle some feathers and invite reactions beyond just the legal variety. If the US govt was to have intentions of going anywhere near that far, then they would have to implement changes in stages, proportionate to the extent to which people are ‘willing’ to have their conditioning affected at any given time. But, even if this round of control is not a planned first stage, it will become one by default. NY may already be an example of that.

In NZ, I doubt we would even see much of Mike’s point 1, even with sudden radical control.
In the US, I would not be surprised to see some of point 2, but I can’t see how it would support a larger political effort.
I deem point 3 very unlikely both here and in the US. We like to think that we are right and in our right and all of that, but no one in their right mind will want to go that far. We have it too good and there is far too much to lose. And think about it, what law abiding citizen wants to shoot at our soldiers or police (even if delusional enough to think they stand a chance)? After all, they are us and we are them. Also, to stand even the slightest chance, large numbers are necessary. I think our democratic mindsets and comfort levels preclude us from uniting to an extent required for any form of armed revolution. All of that said; there may still be some individual nutcases willing to give it a go. They will lose more that their guns.

davidbfpo

01-28-2013, 11:35 AM

At what point in the weapons control spectrum will law abiding people resist and refuse to comply by:

1. Non-violent resistence ala Gene Sharp, which could get quite confrontational; or
2. Selective violence in support of a larger poltical effort; or
3. Confrontation with military forces if those forces are ordered to quell the "insurrection".

In the US, resistence has been via the courts and the ballot box.

Is there any history in other countries where weapons control programs (including confiscation by whatever name) have been resisted in any of the three escalating ways described above ? AUS and NZ seem to have accepted the gun controls without substantial adverse struggle. Has that also been the case in Europe ? - my knowledge of response to gun control there is frankly minimal.

Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.

In recent UK experience legislation to implement further weapons control has come after massacres, Dumblane in 1996 with sixteen dead children and one adult teacher (at a school) and the 1997 Firearms Act:
which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom. and Hungerford in 1987, with seventeen killed in the streets of a small town, and the 1988 Firearms Act:
banned the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges (in magazine plus the breech).

Links for Dunblane:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre and Hungerford:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

Which came first is a moot point, public concern and revulsion or a political response "to show control". My recollection is that the legislation was largely unopposed in parliament and public opinion was so in favour extra-parliamentary opposition could easily be ignored.

Actual implementation was easy, as all the weapons legally held were registered with the police and so the vast majority were surrendered. Needless to say not all, as this curious incident shows:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-20994897

It is noteworthy that the Cumbria incident in 2010, with twelve dead shot in a rural area, by a man with a legally held shotgun and bolt action rifle, led to no further weapons control:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

There is a substantial minority here who see that weapons control has disarmed the rural population and reflects the views of an urban elite whon have pursued other laws, notably around "field sports". See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countryside_Alliance

Has weapons control been effective in the UK? For legally held, declared weapons I'd say yes. Much of that success comes from the simple fact gun ownership is so small, farmers, enthusiasts and rural dwellers. As for illegal firearms that is quite different, I'd say no. The complicated array of legislation is a hindrance and pro-active LE investigations are rare. Anecdote suggests obtaining ammunition is the problem, not having a gun.

Firn

01-28-2013, 07:23 PM

@jmm99: Here we have the fastest gun in Biathlon, the Austrian Simon Eder:

http://static3.kleinezeitung.at/system/galleries_520x335/upload/2/0/7/2230919/eder_apa_726.jpg

The stock is of course shaped one the shooter according to his will and purse. His rifle can easily very naturally on his open hand which forms a very stable support down to the elbow resting on the hip bone. A center-fire rifle which a stable magazine of the right lenght and width ( 5 rounds of a slight staggered 308 is fine to me) can be held in a similar way, especially if it is a bit front-heavy.

Being left-eyed dominant I shot on targets mostly with my left, but while hunting I use my right for the action. Still sometimes I switch as it makes shooting from 1 to 3 o'clock much easier from a stand or behind some cover.

---

@davidbfpo:

In quite some areas of northern Italy a considerable quantity of old bolt-action carabines were hidden in the last days of WWI and especially during WWII with the dispersal of many Italian regiments in 1943, the partisan war and the German retreat. Those, in addition of 'civil' weapons of older date were mostly simply not registered and quite a few were used for poaching in the lean years after the war.

If you talk at the right occasions to the right people, who know whom they can trust, one might get a lot of sometimes very similar stories of the weapons of now usually dead people. Keep in mind that the Italian law allows you to keep 'discovered' weapons if they are no 'military' ( think automatic) weapons if you follow the due legal process. (The irony is of course rather obvious, considering that most are infact rifles used during the last big war). The law enforcements and the courts usually don't bother the person in question too much. This mostly relative lax approach has certainly helped to make a good amount of those old firearms legal - and registered. The lack of interest or the silence of others has likely made sure that a good deal of them remain hidden, with many already rendered useless by rust.

P.S: At least in my region I know of no murder comitted by such a weapon.

jmm99

01-29-2013, 06:22 AM

David,

I don't quite understand the logic of this:

Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.

Who, in their right mind, would employ any of the three resistence methodologies before a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control ? Even Gene Sharp's non-violent resistence methods often are illegal or involve some illegal acts. Hence, even they are a last resort.

When legislative and executive decisions are pending (as is now ongoing in the US), resort to political and legal methods (ballot box, lobbying, civil court actions, etc.) are the acceptable methods. Then, it depends ...

I'd not be surprised that little or no resistence has been offered against gun control measures adopted in European countries, or in the UK and its colonies. As I understand the history there, Kiwigrunt's comment is quite valid:

... owning guns is really more of a privilege than an absolute right.

The American experiences (and its pieces of paper) are quite different.

As an example, I'd suggest Lexington-Concord (April 19, 1775), which was an attempted seizure of illegal weapons by soldiers of the lawfully-constituted civil authority. From the British Documents (http://www.winthrop.dk/reports.html):

Orders from General Thomas Gage to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot, Boston, April 18, 1775

Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.

One can find in Massachusetts of that time (even before shots were fired at Lexington) examples of:

1. Non-violent resistence.

2. Selective violence in support of a larger political effort.

3. Confrontation with military forces.

Those methods were just as unlawful then as now. The American patriots were well aware that, if one commits sedition and treason, one had best win - or be prepared to suffer the consequences of losing, including the loss of one's own life.

So, American experiences and ideology (as framed by the Second Amendment) may be unique - as any country has some unique aspects that are material to insurgency and counter-insurgency.

Regards

Mike

PS: Examples of point 2 ("selective violence") are easily found in the era of Reconstruction, Redemption and Restoration (1866-1906). The major efforts by all sides in that complex struggle were political and legal ("lawfare" with some vengence). However, violence was strewn throughout the period - in aid of the political and legal efforts which were the primary focus.

That violence often centered on who was to possess and use firearms. In McDonald v Chicago (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf), Justice Thomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas) (pp. 67-122) did a bangup job in presenting this history of selective violence and its materiality to the Second Amendment; e.g.:

Take, for example, the Hamburg Massacre of 1876. There, a white citizen militia sought out and murdered a troop of black militiamen for no other reason than that they had dared to conduct a celebratory Fourth of July parade through their mostly black town. The white militia commander, “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman, later described this massacre with pride: “[T]he leading white men of Edgefield” had decided “to seize the first opportunity that the negroes might offer them to provoke a riot and teach the negroes a lesson by having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable.” S. Kantrowitz, Ben Tillman & the Reconstruction of White Supremacy 67 (2000) (ellipsis, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). None of the perpetrators of the Hamburg murders was ever brought to justice.[22]

[22]Tillman went on to a long career as South Carolina’s Governor and, later, United States Senator. Tillman’s contributions to campaign finance law have been discussed in our recent cases on that subject. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (slip. op., at 2, 42, 56, 87) (discussing at length the Tillman Act of 1907, 34 Stat. 864). His contributions to the culture of terrorism that grew in the wake of Cruikshank had an even more dramatic and tragic effect.

McDonald, p.119.

The selective violence in 1775 Massachusetts was on a lesser scale than such scenes as the Hamburg Massacre of 1876. It was more intimidation and assaults on civilian and military agents of the lawfully-constituted civil authority.

slapout9

01-29-2013, 08:14 AM

Link to a recent blog over at Fabius Maximus on the regulation of gun ownership(probably better defined as possession since ownership was never revoked) in the Wild West.

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/24/guns-wild-west-48208/

Steve Blair

01-29-2013, 02:52 PM

Bloody shame they didn't actually check the history before they posted that. Or actually checked with historians as opposed to legal scholars.

J Wolfsberger

01-29-2013, 03:26 PM

You might also consider that the United States is the result of several hundreds of years of self selection for people from Europe who did not much care for European social structure.

That we should believe that the means to self defense are a right belonging to the people, not a privilege granted by the King, should surprise no one.

That today's Europeans and our self selected elites believe that firearms should be denied the common people and be solely the privilege of their class should also surprise no one.

davidbfpo

01-29-2013, 03:47 PM

JMM responded to my post:
David,

I don't quite understand the logic of this:

My original post (in part) stated:Interesting questions posed here, but maybe too reflective of the American situation since the three options for resistance are after a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control.

Who, in their right mind, would employ any of the three resistence methodologies before a legislative or executive decision is made to implement weapons control ? Even Gene Sharp's non-violent resistence methods often are illegal or involve some illegal acts. Hence, even they are a last resort.

I was curious that JMM had jumped to the resistence or resistance options without mentioning what came beforehand. So I commented accordingly and being mindful of the US debate over weapons control - in which I am an interested observer. Even though I live close to Europe I am not familiar with what individual nations do on weapons control, hence recourse to examples from the UK.

What I do find perplexing about American attitudes is that some additional weapons control is clearly needed, but there is no national consensus on this. Indeed politicians appear to express anguish after events like Newtown, Conn. and then hope the issue goes away. Or in the case of the NRA stay silent and then make a statement after a "decent" pause.

Fuchs

01-29-2013, 03:50 PM

You might also consider that the United States is the result of several hundreds of years of self selection for people from Europe who did not much care for European social structure.

It's funny how many shapes this nonsensical idea has. Only one is in common; the nationality of the people sharing such an idea.

There was no self-selection.

The felons, the losers, the hungry Irish, the African captives of war, a handful greedy guys intent on robbing natives early on, a couple of his/her majesty's servants from UK/France/Spain and a few fugitives make up the bulk of the immigrating ancestors of the modern U.S. population.

Almost nobody emigrated from Europe because of dissent with social structures which a young European of today would recognise.

davidbfpo

01-29-2013, 03:58 PM

John W. posted:
You might also consider that the United States is the result of several hundreds of years of self selection for people from Europe who did not much care for European social structure.

That we should believe that the means to self defense are a right belonging to the people, not a privilege granted by the King, should surprise no one.

That today's Europeans and our self selected elites believe that firearms should be denied the common people and be solely the privilege of their class should also surprise no one.

Yes in historical terms the USA has taken its own course, influenced by the waves of European migration and deciding on self-determination. I am not a sociologist, but you can make a valid argument the USA has ended up with just a stratified social structure, not with kings and queens, as Western Europe.

It is that the argument and viewpoint on weapons possession as being a means of popular, public 'self defense' against elite government is from "across the water" difficult to accept. There are limits to 'self defense' and having weapons, those limits appear strange and do not fulfil defence rather increase the chances of harm. If the American public are willing to have that, then incidents like Newtown will happen.

J Wolfsberger

01-29-2013, 04:38 PM

John W. posted:

Yes in historical terms the USA has taken its own course, influenced by the waves of European migration and deciding on self-determination. I am not a sociologist, but you can make a valid argument the USA has ended up with just a stratified social structure, not with kings and queens, as Western Europe.

It is that the argument and viewpoint on weapons possession as being a means of popular, public 'self defense' against elite government is from "across the water" difficult to accept. There are limits to 'self defense' and having weapons, those limits appear strange and do not fulfil defence rather increase the chances of harm. If the American public are willing to have that, then incidents like Newtown will happen. (Emphasis added.)

Of course, because different cultures and societies find different ways to accomplish certain goals. Which is why your statement "What I do find perplexing about American attitudes is that some additional weapons control is clearly needed, ..." doesn't carry the same connotation as it would coming from a U.S. citizen. You aren't an American, and viewing the situation from a different country, with limited information on the foreign country, and a perspective shaped by your own culture and society, you assume that the answer is obvious - more gun control. It isn't the obvious answer to most Americans.

The same statement made by an American politician (or activist) is an attempt to rhetorically seize the moral high ground in order to foreclose any debate.

To many Americans, the proposals for gun control are nothing more than an attempt to capitalize on national grief in order to implement some first steps on the road to an outright ban. And we have all the "progressive" nations previously cited as examples of how that process works, as well as examples from our own states and municipalities.

To give just one example of why none of us believes that would work, ask yourself how we can prevent gun smuggling if we can't prevent drug smuggling, especially considering the considerable overlap in the customer base. When we talk about "only criminals will have guns," we are stating the eminently foreseeable consequence of the gun ban - and instead of hearing a reasoned, fact based response, we get snickers and sarcasm.

On top of which, no one on the gun control side has ever addressed the real elephant in the room: the perpetrators, and victims, of the overwhelming majority of gun violence come from minority communities. If you look at gun violence by race, and just at "white" gun violence, the numbers are actually better than almost all of Europe. But this aspect is not only completely ignored, any effort to bring it into the discussion is almost immediately branded and racist and shut down. (Someone needs to explain why I'm a racist for wanting Americans of African decent to be able to purchase the means to defend themselves, but that's definitely off topic.)

Bottom line, I have yet to hear or read any honest, open case for increased regulation on firearms.

carl

01-29-2013, 04:51 PM

The felons, the losers, the hungry Irish, the African captives of war, a handful greedy guys intent on robbing natives early on, a couple of his/her majesty's servants from UK/France/Spain and a few fugitives make up the bulk of the immigrating ancestors of the modern U.S. population.

Almost nobody emigrated from Europe because of dissent with social structures which a young European of today would recognise.

All those felons and losers did pretty good over the years don't you think? A lot better than their betters who stayed behind, since those felons and losers had to save their betters from themselves 3, count 'em 3 times in the 20th Century. (Normally I hate bringing that up but sometimes it needs to be done.)

In any event, I think you are incorrect in your assertion. Many of the Jews came over here because they disliked pogroms, which could be considered a facet of the social structure. Many Germans came here because they didn't want to do compulsory military service, another facet of the social structure. And I believe most of the rest could be viewed as coming here to improve the economic positions of themselves and especially their children. They did that, quite spectacularly. You could view them as losers I guess, they probably viewed themselves as being held back in Europe (by the socio/economic structure perhaps) so they went someplace where they wouldn't be held back. Their judgment was pretty good I think, for felons and losers I mean.

Fuchs

01-29-2013, 07:11 PM

All those felons and losers did pretty good over the years don't you think? A lot better than their betters who stayed behind, since those felons and losers had to save their betters from themselves 3, count 'em 3 times in the 20th Century. (Normally I hate bringing that up but sometimes it needs to be done.)

Seriously, hadn't you messed up the first one thee outcome would have been quite bearable and there would have been no 2nd time, much less a third.

BTW, I also have some cans ready to serve, only need to open them. :D

"The only thing approaching a unifying theme for this cataclysm we call “WW II” is the United States, THE major allied participant in the Pacific (think logistics all you commonwealth coalition guys that are thinking “what about us” as you read this) and the United States becomes the principal partner in the Western alliance which is handling, admittedly only 20-30% of the European War duties against the background of the massive Soviet-German war. I have written this before but will write it again, we say at CGSC that Overlord was simply a deception operation to support BAGRATION and the destruction of Army Group Center!

En Avant!

Dr. John T. Kuehn
CDR USN (ret)
Associate Professor of Military History
Adjunct Professor, Norwich University
CGSC Ft Leavenworth"

The Jews fit what I meant with the "fugitives" although I should have written "refugees".

I was taking aim at the U.S.-borne idea that Europeans left Europe and went to the U.S. to build a better country, without socialism and regulations and stuff. That's a modern myth.
Most left Europe in search of opportunities to get rich easily (by exploiting others, say natives) or because of economic distress (such as starving Irishmen). Rather few were religious or political refugees, and even while some were; Prussia was also a destination for such refugees (see the Huguenots).
Europeans also went to Africa and Latin America and Australia and Siberia in a quest for additional natural resources. This was simply a function of European societies being able to raise more children than being able to feed and clothe them as adults.

I've seen enough Americans use this myth (of Americans being supposedly the ones who left Europe in disagreement in order to build a superior nation) in a context of jingoism. I'm tired of this nonsense. Americans (from the U.S.) excuse too many stupid policies and society defects with a supposed exceptionalism and how their model is supposedly superior, damn the evidence.
Any policy that needs support by such a line of argument has a bad odour.

carl

01-29-2013, 08:16 PM

Seriously, hadn't you messed up the first one thee outcome would have been quite bearable and there would have been no 2nd time, much less a third.

Ah. The good old "It your fault. What did you expect us to do?" argument, very popular amongst hoods. And I believe it was also popular amongst Euro pols in days gone by.

I was taking aim at the U.S.-borne idea that Europeans left Europe and went to the U.S. to build a better country, without socialism and regulations and stuff. That's a modern myth.

Most left because they didn't like life in Europe, kings, aristocrats, starvation, near starvation etc. They left and built a better country.

Most left Europe in search of opportunities to get rich easily (by exploiting others, say natives) or because of economic distress (such as starving Irishmen). Rather few were religious or political refugees, and even while some were; Prussia was also a destination for such refugees (see the Huguenots).

If by "to get rich easily" you mean being able to get ahead at all, something they evidently judged they couldn't do in Europe, you're right.

This was simply a function of European societies being able to raise more children than being able to feed and clothe them as adults.

That is a breezy way of saying those children would be locked in grinding poverty and starvation or near starvation throughout their lives. Good reason to leave I'd say.

I've seen enough Americans use this myth (of Americans being supposedly the ones who left Europe in disagreement in order to build a superior nation) in a context of jingoism. I'm tired of this nonsense. Americans (from the U.S.) excuse too many stupid policies and society defects with a supposed exceptionalism and how their model is supposedly superior, damn the evidence.
Any policy that needs support by such a line of argument has a bad odour.

Speaking for myself, I don't really care if Euros sniff and put their noses in the air when discussing things we Americans do. Our ancestors left Europe because they didn't like it there. They came here and made something better. Why should we care if the Euros they didn't like then don't like what we do now?

Firn

01-29-2013, 08:42 PM

I think we get a little off the track here, even for a side story on the recent gun spree.

Still I offer a nice, pseudo-latin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60MKSBT_wWM) song about a little journey of a fellow countryman, sponsored by a royal house. :D

Quite a big part of the reason why so many Euros are now on the western side of the pond...

slapout9

01-29-2013, 09:33 PM

Bloody shame they didn't actually check the history before they posted that. Or actually checked with historians as opposed to legal scholars.

Yes, I had some questions on accuracy myself and since you are one of our resident historians perhaps you could give your historical analysis on the subject?

slapout9

01-29-2013, 09:39 PM

Stan

01-29-2013, 09:48 PM

In the last 35 years of living abroad I have seen more examples of extreme patriotism (jingoism) abroad than I ever experienced in the military or United States.

It seems too easy for a European to adapt to American ideals for whatever the reasons and it is just as easy for someone like me to adapt to relatively simple gun-related lifestyle changes here in Europe.

The argument that European standardized gun laws are far more stringent than that of the USA is nonsense. I took the safety tests and met with all the local ordinances and still own and possess all the weapons I have owned since the early 70s. It took no longer to do so than it would have in Maryland. Not one time did someone ask me if I was on the verge of blowing a fuse, or was I crazy?

One can obtain a fully automatic AK in Europe faster than one can purchase a pathetic semi-auto AK in the States. It is pure Bravo Sierra to think that all these so-called EURO regs have made the world a safer place. If we are to spout stats to support our point of view, I recommend a few days with our units on this end of the globe.

BTW, it's also against the law to possess and employ explosives in most of the free world and most of the laws prohibiting that have really had an impact on that issue here in Europe !

Steve Blair

01-29-2013, 10:02 PM

Yes, I had some questions on accuracy myself and since you are one of our resident historians perhaps you could give your historical analysis on the subject?

Many towns passed "no-carry" ordinances at various times, but simply passing such a regulation didn't mean that it would be enforced. Most of the Kansas cattle towns had these ordinances, but they were often only enforced during the off season as a way to raise revenue. There was also a reasonable amount of what might be called "wedding shooting" in some parts of the world that might get recorded as simple disturbing the peace as opposed to assault or something that a legal eagle would notice.

Seeing laws on the books isn't the same thing as seeing them enforced. It also ignores the social conditions that existed in many of those frontier towns. In the earlier days of the mining communities, banishment was a powerful threat that could be used to control or moderate violent behavior, and there was also the penchant of the local populace to string up those who got too carried away (granted this didn't happen all that often, but when it did word traveled fairly fast as the myth took on a life and weight of its own). Cattle towns in Kansas tended to be dominated by leftover passions from the Civil War (since most of the cattle ranchers were Texans), which led to sporadic outbreaks of violence (mainly during the late summer months when the herds were moving toward trailheads). In a number of cases, shootouts in Western towns can often be traced back to a local feud of some kind or another (think gang-bangers shooting it out for a prime street corner and you're close, but on a lower scale).

Checking your guns with a bartender or such had mixed results, obviously, and often the "do not carry" language didn't apply to men with reputations or quick tempers (most lawmen at this time were amateurs at best and weren't likely to press the point). Celebrities always get a pass, so some things haven't changed that much.

As for some of the other Bravo Sierra in the thread...let's just say that your perspective on many things tends to shift when any sort of emergency response time is measured in many minutes or over an hour. Also, I seem to recall reading about a spike in home invasions in Australia after they pushed through some of their more strict regulations.

As an aside, good to see you, Stan! Hope all's well.

jmm99

01-29-2013, 10:18 PM

from Fuchs
The felons, the losers, the hungry Irish, the African captives of war, a handful greedy guys intent on robbing natives early on, a couple of his/her majesty's servants from UK/France/Spain and a few fugitives make up the bulk of the immigrating ancestors of the modern U.S. population.

Keep chucking your 50 mph fastballs at me, boyo.

Regards

Mike - the descendent of some felons convicted of treason and attainted with corruption of blood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attainder#Corruption_of_blood).

carl

01-29-2013, 10:22 PM

And for some additional insight when I was ambushed in my own front yard in 1999 the FULL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN was in place and it did not do one damn thing to stop the attack. The attacker did what they will do in the future and that is just carry several guns because any criminal knows that the fastest reload and highest capacity magazine is another gun or several guns in my case. Absolutely fascinating how criminals and deranged people know this but policy makers with college degrees just cannot grasp the facts of violent situations so they just make stuff up in order to punish law a biding citizens and protect the criminals ability to conduct mayhem on an unarmed and uneducated public.

Not only multiple weapons but multiple attackers. Home invasion crews in Chicago I read were crews, multiple attackers. And any home invader will have the element of surprise on their side. So a home owner unfortunate enough to be confronted by a home invasion is quite likely to face multiple attackers and have very little time to react. But then we are told that that a 10 round mag in that Glock will be just as good as that 17 round mag.

Those policy makers know perfectly well the facts of violent situations. But this is why I figure they act the way they do. In the very back of their well educated minds, where the thoughts they dare not express out loud dwell, they know that criminals can never be a political threat to them. Hoods are hoods and no matter how well armed they are, being hoods they will never be able to organize themselves well enough to pose a threat to their power.

Law abiding citizens on the other hand, can and do organize themselves such that they pose a threat to the political power of the elite policy makers. So if you are an elite policy maker interested in hanging on to power, naturally enough you don't really care that hoods are armed because they pose no real threat. But you are very interested that people who can pose a political threat be unarmed.

jmm99

02-01-2013, 08:23 PM

Well, the Brits were to the east of British America, weren't they ?

Seriously, I ran into this article, How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1967702) (by David B. Kopel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Kopel), 6 Charleston Law Review 283, 2012) (50 pp.), and thought it was material to this thread:

Abstract:

This Article chronologically reviews the British gun control which precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gun powder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gun powder, from individuals and from local governments; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events which changed a situation of rising political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

From the events of 1774-75, we can discern that import restrictions or bans on firearms or ammunition are constitutionally suspect — at least if their purpose is to disarm the public, rather than for the normal purposes of import controls (e.g., raising tax revenue, or protecting domestic industry). We can discern that broad attempts to disarm the people of a town, or to render them defenseless, are anathema to the Second Amendment; such disarmament is what the British tried to impose, and what the Americans fought a war to ensure could never again happen in America. Similarly, gun licensing laws which have the purpose or effect of only allowing a minority of the people to keep and bear arms would be unconstitutional. Finally, we see that government violence, which should always be carefully constrained and controlled, should be especially discouraged when it is used to take firearms away from peaceable citizens. Use of the military for law enforcement is particularly odious to the principles upon which the American Revolution was based.

I thinking about that era, I found it an interesting question (for which, I've no ready answer) as to why the American Revolution had no traction in the rest of British America (e.g., Canada and the West Indies).

Regards

Mike

Fuchs

02-01-2013, 09:10 PM

It's ridiculous how much many Americans read into guns. This goes way beyond rational needs, for all superficially rational arguments face an avalanche of contradicting evidence.

I considered guns as a fringe's weird hobby, and those who read very much in mere individual firearms as part of the ~5% crazy men every country has. I have to concede now; this group is either vastly bigger than 5% or extraordinarily loud.

If only these people could hear themselves with foreign ears, to hear the ridiculousness.

I suppose it's to be filed under "anecdotal evidence for the hypothesis that the U.S. is leaving Western civilisation".
Go on at this pace and the Europe will be less culturally in synch with the U.S. than with the Japanese and South Koreans long before 2030.

jmm99

02-01-2013, 10:09 PM

I actually use you as something of a barometer for the eastern segment of "Western Civilization" :D - ah, the joys of being a "ridiculous" and "crazy" westerner.

That there is a gulf between Europe and the US should be no surprise to anyone. Thus, this might be an interesting idea for further exploration:

Go on at this pace and the Europe will be less culturally in synch with the U.S. than with the Japanese and South Koreans long before 2030.

if you intended to say that the US-Europe gap is likely to widen, and the US-Asian gap is likely to narrow by 2030 (your sentence as written is ambiguous).

Maybe I'll post something about the US-Europe gap in some other thread - and re: more limited subject matter in which I've some competence.

Since I have no fear of either a "Yellow" or a "Brown Peril", I am losing no sleep over closer ties to Latin America (an obvious given), and to Asia from India to Japan (a probable outcome).

Regards

Mike

carl

02-01-2013, 10:35 PM

A fringe member, a weirdo and sounding ridiculous to them furriners. A three fer. It's a good day.

Oh yeah, and crazy too. An even better day.

slapout9

02-02-2013, 09:45 AM

is what you get as this poor girl found out in Chicago. As the investigation continues LE believes she was shot with a REVOLVER not an assault weapon nor any kind of weapon with the so called high capacity magazines just a plain old six shooter in the control of a thug. THUGS kill people not gins and THUGS will always find a weapon. We need THUG control not gun control!

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16771949-walking-angel-girl-who-performed-at-obamas-inauguration-shot-dead-in-chicago?lite

Fuchs

02-02-2013, 12:17 PM

THUGS kill people not gins and THUGS will always find a weapon. We need THUG control not gun control!

You don't feel ashamed to simply parrot NRA talking points verbatim?

Don't you have higher standards, such as intending to contribute your own thoughts or even better, a selection of your best thoughts?

slapout9

02-02-2013, 03:06 PM

You don't feel ashamed to simply parrot NRA talking points verbatim?

Don't you have higher standards, such as intending to contribute your own thoughts or even better, a selection of your best thoughts?

No I don't feel ashamed:p,I feel very proud to be an American where we understand the value of self defense as a right and as a personal responsibility instead of waiting for the Pseudo Euro-Trash government to save us. As to the NRA if those are the NRA talking points verbatim then they stole them from me because I have been saying that for a long, long time, but God bless them for saying it ,if they actually did and I freely give them my permission to continue using them. And yes the NRA is right about violent video games to!!!

slapout9

02-02-2013, 03:30 PM

Fuchs

02-02-2013, 04:04 PM

(1) Self-defence is no responsibility, but a legitimate choice.
Inventing responsibilities which are none merely muddles the language and discourse.

(2) The video games bogeyman is but another example of the U.S. lagging behind Europe in society development by a decade or more. We've had this discussion long ago and for a long time. Fact is the video games haters have not been able to produce meaningful empirical analysis to back up their claims after complaining about video games for more than a decade. It's a classic bogeyman racket and by now most interested Europeans are aware of it.
(It's totally not surprisingly that the NRA picked it up as decoy to channel the outrage away from their pet guns.)

The 'violent video games are evil' racket is about as nonsensical and obsolete as the 'bio fuels' racket the Democrats are falling for.

ganulv

02-02-2013, 05:36 PM

(1) Self-defence is no responsibility, but a legitimate choice.
Inventing responsibilities which are none merely muddles the language and discourse.
I believe a civilized society could reach a consensus that self-defense is or is not first and foremost an individual responsibility and be just as right in either. The trouble is that in the United States we do not tend to do consensus well. Everyone’s opinion is equally valid an’ all that. :rolleyes:

Fuchs

02-02-2013, 06:21 PM

The invention of rights and less often so responsibilities that actually don't exist or are a gross exaggeration or misinterpretation is a phenomenon which I only remember from encounters with Americans.
It appears to be a cheap trick in American rhetoric, but it may be more widespread. My evidence is anecdotal.

Another example is a confused person who believed his freedom of speech extended to getting whatever comment he has published on my blog.
His freedom of speech didn't even extend to say his opinion like that in public due to its limits in regard to libel!
More importantly, he had no claim to get his opinion published in the medium and place of his choosing, but rather to not be sanctioned for expressing it in whatever way he manages to express it (sans the libel).
______

In this case, the team "pro guns" denies that self defence without guns is sufficient and goes on to claim a responsibility to self defend. In combination this asserts the team "contra gun" is not meeting its responsibility, a ludicrous implication. Moreover, asserting a responsibility where there is none provides additional (imagined) weight to the team "pro gun"'s case.
A rational, mud-free discussion looks differently.

slapout9

02-02-2013, 06:28 PM

(1) Self-defense is no responsibility, but a legitimate choice.
Inventing responsibilities which are none merely muddles the language and discourse.

Spoken like a true Obsolete Euro-Communist. You have never been a free citizen, you have never known individual rights and responsibilities, all you have ever known is what the Government told you to think.

ganulv

02-02-2013, 07:37 PM

The invention of rights and less often so responsibilities that actually don't exist or are a gross exaggeration or misinterpretation is a phenomenon which I only remember from encounters with Americans.
It appears to be a cheap trick in American rhetoric, but it may be more widespread. My evidence is anecdotal.
Sometimes it is a cheap rhetorical device, but in my experience it tends to be due to the fact that most Americans have not spent much time deciding where they stand on whether rights are natural or socially constructed, which is a conclusion one needs to come to before having an opinion worth opining as regards legal rights current or proposed. In defense of my fellow Americans, that stuff is not all that difficult to muddle. And we do not really have an illustrious ancestor like Herr Nietzsche who has sketched out the difference beforehand to help guide us in our thinking. :p

carl

02-02-2013, 08:13 PM

It seems to me that that Founding Fathers came down pretty forcefully on the side of natural rights. That is the basis upon which our laws and gov are established. Some progressive thinkers don't like that at all but that is the way it is. And just to make sure that everybody was clear on that, the Founders reiterated things in the Bill of Rights.

Self defense is a responsibility, not a choice. If as a free citizen, you expect somebody else to help you with criminals and thieves, you have to help them help you. You aren't a employer of servants who commands and expects people to come help them out without a concomitant responsibility to try and help yourself. You want help, you better be willing to pitch in.

Now if you don't expect anybody to come to your aid when you call, then it is a choice. You want to stand there passive while somebody cuts your throat, that is your choice. But if that is your choice you can't legitimately expect others to help you if you won't try to help yourself.

Self defense without guns is ineffective. What are you Fuchs, anti-women? A petite, 110 pound 55 year old women with a gun, is as formidable an opponent as 3 NFL all pro linebackers. If you take that gun away from her, then she is unable to defend herself against most of the people out there, and especially against groups of people. You have deprived her of her right to self-defense. That is a right conferred upon her by her simple existence. Nobody can legitimately take that away from her.

slapout9

02-02-2013, 08:18 PM

Pretty good training film on accepting personal responsibility in an active shooter situation produced by Houston,Texas government with a grant from Department OF homeland security.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4IJA5Zpzz4

carl

02-02-2013, 08:30 PM

This is how I was taught to become self reliant as part of learning to become a good citizen back in the days when Real Americans accepted the responsibility for the difficult situations that everyone would face as part of life itself. Instead of falling for some left over pseudo commie euro trash philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ6EwJFLJ34&playnext=1&list=PLCoP6iqMqNo8NaWJ1EBz0cb8wgF1Q5hZ2&feature=results_video

Slap: Check this one out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZSS3yxpnFU

The nuns showed us this more than once. I am forever grateful that they did. It had a genuine effect on me and I still remember.

Surferbeetle

02-02-2013, 08:43 PM

It seems to me that that Founding Fathers came down pretty forcefully on the side of natural rights. That is the basis upon which our laws and gov are established. Some progressive thinkers don't like that at all but that is the way it is. And just to make sure that everybody was clear on that, the Founders reiterated things in the Bill of Rights.

Agree

Self defense is a responsibility, not a choice. If as a free citizen, you expect somebody else to help you with criminals and thieves, you have to help them help you. You aren't a employer of servants who commands and expects people to come help them out without a concomitant responsibility to try and help yourself. You want help, you better be willing to pitch in.

There is indeed a real and ongoing cost/responsibility that comes with accepting the goodies that a society offers: security, infrastructure, rule of law, etc. This includes flesh and blood individuals as well as 'paper' individuals (corporations).

A petite, 110 pound 55 year old women with a gun, is as formidable an opponent as 3 NFL all pro linebackers. If you take that gun away from her, then she is unable to defend herself against most of the people out there, and especially against groups of people. You have deprived her of her right to self-defense. That is a right conferred upon her by her simple existence. Nobody can legitimately take that away from her.

Free markets and natural rights are interesting to think about and experience in this context.

During my travels in Iraq it was my observation that free markets very much in effect. I was aware of various 'impromptu' bazaars that had a number of items on offer to include long rifles and handguns. Tribal and personal responsibility was not an abstract topic to many, on either side. ;)

It was my observation that 'rights' that we take for granted here in the West were not won/kept there solely through discourse.

As to violent video games and movies, perhaps they are a deep societal response to the bicycle helmet/pads/safety belt/risk averse forces of darkness? :wry:

slapout9

02-02-2013, 08:44 PM

Slap: Check this one out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZSS3yxpnFU

The nuns showed us this more than once. I am forever grateful that they did. It had a genuine effect on me and I still remember.

Yep, that is a good one. I am not Catholic but I had many friends that went to Catholic schools and the reputation of Nuns was always the same....they don't mess around!

slapout9

02-02-2013, 08:46 PM

Fuchs

02-02-2013, 08:47 PM

Spoken like a true Obsolete Euro-Communist. You have never been a free citizen, you have never known individual rights and responsibilities, all you have ever known is what the Government told you to think.

My people do not tolerate that our government claims authority to execute us after trial or even without trial by order f the head of government. We cannot be interned indefinitely legally or be tortured legally.

Stuff your "free citizen" stuff where it belongs; Germany is a more free society than the (U.S.) American one.
We're not that ambitious and stubborn in our delusions, though.

Besides, you obviously have no clue about Germany or what "communist" actually means, which is also very typical of U.S. people.

Your part about "individual rights and responsibilities" is so obvious nonsense, I wonder if you are that ignorant or rather reached the point of desperation in the discussion where you don't really care about the real world any more.
Yet another thing usually associated with - guess who.

I suppose your nonsense and behaviour in this thread clearly shows everyone how much weight your opinion should carry in discussions. None.

carl

02-02-2013, 08:52 PM

It was my observation that 'rights' that we take for granted here in the West were not won/kept there solely through discourse.

That is critical. The chattering elites, the superzips, think that what we have now is the normal course of things. This is how it was and this is how it will always be no matter what is done. Guys like you and Slap have seen the face of the world as it really is and know different. But those people, raised in safe places, surrounded by kind people and never having seen the ferocious side of life, they don't have a clue. That wouldn't be so bad but they don't know they are clueless, assume the rest of us are and away they go.

Surferbeetle

02-02-2013, 08:56 PM

It's always good to read your posts Slap. MOM: motive, opportunity, and method...thanks for that way back when. ;)

Have noted a shortage of 9mm out this way of late and that the firearms counter at Wally World is a very, very popular place. That's ok, got some stashed, there is still plenty of .38 available, and target practice is good for the soul. :D

carl

02-02-2013, 08:56 PM

My people do not tolerate that our government claims authority to execute us after trial or even without trial by order f the head of government. We cannot be interned indefinitely legally or be tortured legally.

Stuff your "free citizen" stuff where it belongs; Germany is a more free society than the (U.S.) American one.
We're not that ambitious and stubborn in our delusions, though.

Besides, you obviously have no clue about Germany or what "communist" actually means, which is also very typical of U.S. people.

Your part about "individual rights and responsibilities" is so obvious nonsense, I wonder if you are that ignorant or rather reached the point of desperation in the discussion where you don't really care about the real world any more.
Yet another thing usually associated with - guess who.

I suppose your nonsense and behaviour in this thread clearly shows everyone how much weight your opinion should carry in discussions. None.

Now Fuchs, calm down.

Let us return to basics. Do you believe in natural rights?

carl

02-02-2013, 08:58 PM

carl

02-02-2013, 09:01 PM

As to violent video games and movies, perhaps they are a deep societal response to the bicycle helmet/pads/safety belt/risk averse forces of darkness? :wry:

Beetle, you might be on to something there!;)

Sort of like Catholic girls once they got out of school in the years gone by? I am being serious. The dynamic would be the same.

jmm99

02-02-2013, 10:05 PM

As a normal rule, sheep don't like the sheepdog. The sheepdog looks something like a wolf, and acts something like a wolf. But, the sheepdog is not a predator of prey (the sheep); the sheepdog is a predator of predators (the wolves).

Even knowing that the sheepdog will never intentionally harm a sheep, the sheep still don't like the sheepdog. The mutt reminds them that wolves do exist, do attack sheep and do eat them all up. The best sheeply thing to do is to simply forget about the problem.

So, the mild-mannered grazers plod along in their state of denial until the wolves attack. The sheep then turn to their second operational mode - they stampede. Some are lucky enough to find refuge behind the sheepdog; some are not.

Self-defense and defense of others are not a sheep's forte.

Obvious HT to Dave Grossman for the concept.

-------------------------------
ganulv:

...whether rights are natural or socially constructed, which is a conclusion one needs to come to before having an opinion worth opining as regards legal rights current or proposed. ... that stuff is not all that difficult to muddle.

I'd say election between natural rights, or socially constructed rights (are you saying the latter ~ to positive law), is not the crunch point. That distinction does enter into distinguishing the bases for the various arguments on bearing arms and self-defense. Both sides argue natural rights and positive law rights.

The crunch points as to both issues are:

1. Right vs privilege

2. Duty vs choice

"Duty" ~ "responsibility".

Maybe more on those points later - it gets a bit "weedy".

Regards

Mike

motorfirebox

02-02-2013, 11:45 PM

The video games flap is just another moral panic. In the 50s we had comic books turning kids gay, in the 80s we had Dungeons and Dragons leading to devil worship, in the oughts and teens we have vidja games causing spree shootings.

I think the right to firearms occupies an important spot in the protection of personal freedom as that concept is understood in the US. I'll note, however, that the threat to personal freedom that the right to firearms was intended to protect is best represented, in modern times, not by the national military but by local and federal law enforcement.

It's quite clear, however, that we need to work pretty hard on our ability to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of those who should not have them. In large part that will involve "enforcing the laws that are already on the books", as the NRA rallying cry goes. But it will also involve new legislation, since NRA lobbying has effectively gutted law enforcement's ability to fight black market firearms (witness that the ATF hasn't had a permanent director for six friggin' years). Legislation to restrict weapon types is not needed; the types of weapons that Feinstein and others want to ban--"assault weapons", to use the ridiculous term being bandied about--participate in something like 2% of gun violence. What we need instead is, among other things, heftier penalties for straw buyers, relaxed standards on warrants for straw buyers (currently, investigators must show specific criminal intent for each and every gun in a suspected straw buy--that a particular buyer purchases well over their yearly income in guns every month, and that guns purchased by that buyer show up with great frequency at crime scenes in Mexico, is not currently considered to be enough evidence to prosecute), and universal background checks.

The complaint that is lobbied most frequently against such measures--especially universal background checks--is that it will make it easier for Obama to collect our guns when he finally makes his move. These complaints are completely ####ing retarded. There's no other description for it.

carl

02-03-2013, 12:21 AM

But it will also involve new legislation, since NRA lobbying has effectively gutted law enforcement's ability to fight black market firearms (witness that the ATF hasn't had a permanent director for six friggin' years).

Why? And why should the lack of a permanent ATF director hinder enforcement of firearms laws? The ATF should be able to go on with their job without a permanent director, who is only as permanent as his political acceptability anyway I believe. No matter what you do with the ATF, the bulk of gun law enforcement is going to be done by local and state agencies.

We have universal checks here in CO at least for commercial and gun show sales. The concern that people have about that isn't so far fetched. Universal check done, no permanent record kept, no problem. Universal check done, no permanent record kept, (permanent record kept on the sly), big problem. What they say and what they do may differ. The phone companies rolled over for the NSA in the past I believe.

Fuchs

02-03-2013, 12:25 AM

Let us return to basics. Do you believe in natural rights?

That's totally unrelated. I certainly have never heard of gun possession being called a "natural right", and don't think "right to live" is particularly useful for a firearms policy discussion since the value of life should be obvious anyway.

I have thoughts about natural rights that could contribute to an interesting philosophical discussion about rights in general, but not here.

Why? And why should the lack of a permanent ATF director hinder enforcement of firearms laws?

What I read about the issue points at gazillions of small provisions inserted by NRA's representatives in Congress into bills. These provisions ban this ATF action, exclude that, de-fund something else and so on.
Up front the NRA appears to call for enforcement of existing laws before any new laws be considered while behind the scenes they make sure there's not going to be such an effective enforcement, thus the argument never goes away.

@motorfirebox:
That's a defect of many if not all Western democracies.
The general public has limited attention resources, and spectacular issues as well as issues pushed by effective special interests are most likely to capture this attention.
Meanwhile, the parliament can do its routine business largely unobserved, and not necessarily in our best interests.

The assault rifle-related and other gun rampages of heavily armed madmen capture the attention, and political activism leads to proposals aimed against this spectacular stuff.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of deaths in the statistics is being caused in a less spectacular way, and public attention is no help against it.

Same as with 9/11 and tobacco-related massacres. The average tobacco industry worker puts shame on the average AQ terrorist in regard to lethality.

carl

02-03-2013, 12:30 AM

That's totally unrelated. I certainly have never heard of gun possession being called a "natural right", and don't think "right to life" is particularly useful for a firearms policy discussion since the value of life should be obvious anyway.

I have thoughts about natural rights that could contribute to an interesting philosophical discussion about rights in general, but not here.

Please Fuchs, answer the question. Do you believe in natural rights?

motorfirebox

02-03-2013, 12:47 AM

What I read about the issue points at gazillions of small provisions inserted by NRA's representatives in Congress into bills. These provisions ban this ATF action, exclude that, de-fund something else and so on.
Up front the NRA appears to call for enforcement of existing laws before any new laws be considered while behind the scenes they make sure there's not going to be such an effective enforcement, thus the argument never goes away.
Essentially, but it also directly taxes their ability to act. For instance, without a guy in Washington to stick up for them, it's difficult for the ATF to get US Attorneys to hand out warrants or to do so in a timely fashion. Straw buyers face hilariously small penalties, and the burden of proof against them is insanely high--prosecutors have no real incentive to go after them.

carl

02-03-2013, 01:08 AM

Essentially, but it also directly taxes their ability to act. For instance, without a guy in Washington to stick up for them, it's difficult for the ATF to get US Attorneys to hand out warrants or to do so in a timely fashion. Straw buyers face hilariously small penalties, and the burden of proof against them is insanely high--prosecutors have no real incentive to go after them.

Why would the NRA oppose prosecution of gun criminals? They were very great supporters of Project Exile as related last week by Slap.

I suspect, given my small knowledge of the way bureaucracies work, there are probably many other things at play when it comes to not vigorously enforcing existing laws. Fashion trends you might say. For example, at the place I worked, if money was requested for going after drunk drivers or drugs, it fell from the skies. Anything else, not so much.

slapout9

02-03-2013, 01:13 AM

Don't always agree with Lind but sometimes the guy really nails it.

http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm

carl

02-03-2013, 01:40 AM

Slap:

That was good. I always wondered why people like that were for the Communists, say in Vietnam, even though the Communists killed innocents by the millions and allowed no rights at all. It seemed logical that they were for one side vs. the other, humanity be damned, but the why eluded me. That piece puts it together nicely.

motorfirebox

02-03-2013, 01:49 AM

Don't always agree with Lind but sometimes the guy really nails it.

http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm
Oh, good grief.

carl

02-03-2013, 02:02 AM

Oh, good grief.

Slap, I don't believe motorfirebox is impressed.

jmm99

02-03-2013, 02:16 AM

I start with Kopel, The Natural Right of Self-Defense - Heller's Lesson for the World (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1172255) (Syracuse Law Review, 2008).

Kopel primarily looks to "natural law" in this article, but also deals with some statutory law - e.g., the 1689 English Declaration of Rights (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2?view=plain) (aka "English Bill of Rights"; actually a Royal-Parliament Compact). That important document (a partial model for the Declaration of Independence) was interpreted differently in the UK and the "US" prior to the American Revolution. That divergence has only increased after that; not only re: gun control, but also with respect to the limitations of legislative power.

The American interpretation re: self-defense speaks of "right", not "privilege". E.g., Kopel, p.5, from Gray v. Combs, 30 Ky. (7 J.J. Marsh) 478, 481 (Ky. 1832):

... the right of necessary defence, in the protection of a man’s person or property, is derived to him from the law of nature, and should never be unnecessarily restrained by municipal regulation. However proper it may be for every well ordered community to be tender of the public peace, and careful of the lives of its citizens, there can be neither policy or propriety in extending this tenderness and care so far as to protect the robber, the burglar and the nocturnal thief, by an unnecessary restraint of the honest citizen’s natural right of self-defence.

Sir Matthew Hale, in speaking on this subject, says, “the right of self-defence in these cases is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be superceded by the law of society. Before societies were formed, the right of self defence resided in individuals, and since, in cases of necessity, individuals incorporated into society, can not resort for protection to the law of society, that law with great propriety and strict justice considereth them as still, in that instance, under the protection of the law of nature.”

In our "modern" times, "cases of necessity" are easy enough to find.

However, Kopel's view is certainly contested by Vera Bergelson (https://law.newark.rutgers.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/vera-bergelson), Professor of Law and Robert E. Knowlton Scholar, whose background is:

Professor Bergelson earned her diploma in Slavic languages and literatures with distinction from Moscow State University and her Ph.D. in philology from the Institute of Slavic and Balkan Studies in Moscow, Russia. She earned her J.D. cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she was on the Law Review and was named to the Order of the Coif.

Professor Bergelson has been a lecturer at Moscow State University, the Polish Cultural Center, and the Literary Institute in Moscow. Before joining the Rutgers faculty in 2001, she was an associate with Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton in New York for six years. She is fluent in Russian and Polish and has a reading proficiency in Bulgarian, Belorussian, and Ukranian.

Ms Bergelson is well-rooted in Russian jurisprudence, which is not close to that of the US.

Kopel quotes her at p.13n.55:

All public officials - a policeman performing a valid arrest, a sheriff taking possession of the debtor’s property pursuant to a court judgment, or an executioner giving the prisoner a lethal injection in accordance with the execution order - act under the right to act that way. In contrast, people acting in self-defense, or pursuant to necessity or parental authority, act merely under a privilege.

Needless to say, police states anywhere in the World are happy enough to see that public officials act as a matter of right, and that their people act as a matter of privilege. One should recall Dr Zhivago's rebuke: "That law gives you the power, not the right."

As we shall soon see, Ms. Bergelson's view is one shared by the UN and most (all ?) European countries.

cont. in pt. 2

jmm99

02-03-2013, 02:23 AM

We now turn to a subject discussed often enough at SWC, especially in the context of Africa.

We start with Kopel et al., Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right ? (http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/genocide.pdf) (Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 81:4, 2006):

Abstract:

Closely examining the Darfur, Sudan, genocide, and making reference to other genocides, this Article argues that the genocide prevention strategies which are currently favored by the United Nations are ineffective. This Article details the failures of targeted sanctions, United Nations peacekeepers, and other anti-genocide programs. Then, this Article analyzes the Genocide Convention and other sources of international human rights law. Because the very strong language of the Genocide Convention forbids any form of complicity in genocide, and because the Genocide Convention is jus cogens (meaning that it prevails over any conflicting national or international law), this Article concludes that the Genocide Convention forbids any interference, including interference based on otherwise valid laws, against the procurement of defensive arms by groups which are being victimized by genocide.

Without even reading the article (or abstract), I would have thunk that the answer to the question "Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right ?" would be "yes". But, I would have been wrong - at least so far as the UN is concerned.

We turn to Barbara Frey, Special Repporteur, Prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/45c30b560.pdf) (2006):

II. THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DEFENCE WITH REGARD TO HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED WITH SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS

19. This report discusses and recognizes the principle of self-defence in human rights law and assesses its proper place in the establishment of human rights principles governing small arms and light weapons.[13] Those opposing the State regulation of civilian possession of firearms claim that the principle of self-defence provides legal support for a “right” to possess small arms thus negating or substantially minimizing the duty of States to regulate possession.[14] The present report concludes that the principle of self-defence has an important place in international human rights law, but that it does not provide an independent, legal supervening right to small arms possession, nor does it ameliorate the duty of States to use due diligence in regulating civilian possession.

[13] Because of the severe limits on space and the breadth of issues that need to be covered in this study, the author does not attempt here to undertake a full legal discussion of the principle of self-defence in international law. For an authoritative discussion of this complex topic, see Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law (2003). In addition, the legal concepts discussed herein assume a non-conflict setting. Situations of mass human rights abuse and armed conflict involve international humanitarian law and security law principles that require an extended if not completely separate set of legal and policy considerations. For the Special Rapporteur’s findings and recommendations regarding role of small arms and light weapons in violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in armed conflict, see her progress report (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/37).

[14] David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, “Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right?” Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 81, No. 4 (2006), p. 1 (“… The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the existence of a universal, individual right of self-defense, and also a right to revolution against tyranny … Taken in conjunction with Anglo-American human rights law, the human rights instruments can be read to reflect a customary or general international law recognizing a right of armed resistance by genocide victims”.).

A. Self-defence as an exemption to criminal responsibility, not a human right

20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.

Thus, the Kopel position is expressly quoted and rejected by Ms Frey.

Instead, she invokes the "protective State" - no surprise:

41. States must take effective measures to reduce the need for people to arm themselves by ensuring an atmosphere of public safety supported by law enforcement that is committed and trained to protect the rule of law and to prevent illegal acts.

42. States must also take effective measures to minimize violence carried out by armed private actors. States are required to enforce criminal sanctions against persons who use arms to violate the law. States are further required, under the principle of due diligence, to prevent small arms from getting into the hands of those who are likely to misuse them. Under the due diligence standard, international human rights bodies should require States to enforce a minimum licensing standard designed to prevent small arms from being used by private actors to violate human rights.

43. Other effective measures consistent with due diligence include the prohibition of civilian possession of weapons designed for military use; the sponsoring of effective amnesty programmes to decrease the number of weapons in active use; requirement of marking and tracing information by manufacturers; and incorporation of a gender perspective in policies regarding small arms. States have an affirmative duty under international human rights law to protect groups that are most vulnerable to small arms misuse, including victims of domestic violence.

To advance these objectives, we have "The Checklists" (pp.22-41) - they are the laws that Ms Frey wants to be in effect. They are remarkably similar to "gun control" measures suggested in the US.

I don't think these differences (illustrated by Kopel and Frey) can be bridged: A "right" is too much different from a "privilege"; a "duty" is too much different from a "choice".

Regards

Mike

Fuchs

02-03-2013, 03:41 AM

Why would the NRA oppose prosecution of gun criminals? They were very great supporters of Project Exile as related last week by Slap.

I googled a bit in order to find some websites detailing the NRA's behind the scenes stuff against enforcement, but it proved impractical to find non-partisan sources within my time budget. Too bad everything goes partisan in the U.S..

I found some (in part quite old and thus not affected by the recent debate) items, though:
http://www.potowmack.org/enffable.html
http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/criminals-best-friend.pdf
(I didn't read them fully, as it's quite late. In case you think they're too partisan on the 'other' side, keep in mind it's not advisable to avoid cognitive dissonance by consuming friendly partisan's products only.)

Concerning your assumption of NRA consistency and non-hypocrisy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNUDJuC4Bc4#!
_________________________

Sometimes I wonder why lobbyism in the U.S. is so very little subtle.
There's a lot of lobbyism everywhere, and to be expected everywhere, but the U.S. keeps producing a lot of extreme examples.
Maybe it's the importance of money in politics, maybe it's because they get away with it, maybe it's simple poor lobbyist professionalism?
We have a couple of lobbyism scandals per year in Germany, but in my opinion they're about relatively subtle methods - save for a few usual suspects.
There's no lobbyism organisation with a central and overtly powerful role like NRA or AIPAC in Germany. The Catholic and Protestant churches, the labour union top organisation and the car driver club probably come the closest, but they couldn't keep a single major politician from being re-elected (might work with unknown backbenchers maybe).

motorfirebox

02-03-2013, 04:15 AM

Sometimes I wonder why lobbyism in the U.S. is so very little subtle.
Simple answer, we've taken the concept of capitalism and applied it to governance. What saner heads might refer to as "oligarchy" we refer to as "free market".

jmm99

02-03-2013, 04:37 AM

"Please walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

Not all aggression is criminal;
A defense reaction is for the human race,
What the wind is for navigation;
The result depends on the direction.
The most moral violence is that used in legitimate self-defense,
The most sacred judicial institution.

"Please walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind is blowing.
Regards

Mike

1) Kipling
2) V.V. Stanciu, Reflections on the Congress for the Prevention of Genocide, in 7 YAD VASHEM STUDIES ON THE EUROPEAN JEWISH CATASTROPHE AND RESISTANCE 185, 187 (Livia Rothkirchen ed., 1968).
3) Univ. of Michigan SDS

jmm99

02-03-2013, 05:36 AM

The Brady Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign) is alive and well in 2013 at its website, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (http://www.bradycenter.org/). You can even donate to its cause - thereby, offsetting my life membership and donations to the NRA. :)

The term "lobbyist" is really an anachronism for organizations such as the Brady Center and the NRA. As you should know, the approval ratings for Congress (which represents the two political parties) have been roughly 5-15%. Of course, individuals do much better - President Obama hit 54% today (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll). Generic Congressional Ballot: Democrats 45%, Republicans 37% (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot).

On What America Thinks this weekend, former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint says, “Both parties have failed the country.” DeMint, who recently resigned from the Senate to serve as president of the Heritage Foundation, expressed strong view about his own party’s leadership. “"Republicans [in Washington] don't stand true to their beliefs, or at least what they talk about. I found that when I ran on reforms that ... party leaders were not nearly as interested in the reforms as they were in getting earmarks for everybody and redistricting to hold power and raising money. So I think the public has every reason to be disenchanted.”

Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/) runs a good polling service, What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week’s Key Polls (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/weekly_updates/what_they_told_us_reviewing_last_week_s_key_polls2 ).

Given the default of the two political parties, we have what could be called "special interest groups", or perhaps better, "mini-political parties" (there are thousands of them - I belong to about a half-dozen). Technically, an arm of each group has to be legally registered as a "lobbyist" - if it "lobbies" government; other arms do not (lots of "5xx orgs").

I think you have a lot to learn about the U.S.A., its politics and people. These links are given as a good faith effort (a one timer). Your choice - no duty.

Regards

Mike

Surferbeetle

02-03-2013, 05:59 AM

Mike,

Greatly appreciate the informative/educational breakouts as always.

Just finished a marathon/binge drama-a-thon regarding American political culture via apple tv and netflix. Found it to be an interesting commentary on perception, reality, and poll numbers.

House of Cards (U.S. TV series), From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series)

Meanwhile, out in the field...

2013 Edelman Trust Barometer Finds a Crisis in Leadership, Less Than One in Five Trust Leaders to Tell the Truth, http://www.edelman.com/news/2013-edelman-trust-barometer-finds-a-crisis-in-leadership/

Today: four stores, no 9mm, and only one box of .38 to be found...:eek:

slapout9

02-03-2013, 07:28 AM

Slap, I don't believe motorfirebox is impressed.

John Wayne on how to handle Political Correctness!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-a7KPmOnok&feature=fvwp&NR=1

slapout9

02-03-2013, 07:39 AM

This is even better just listen to how all the politically correct arguments just fall completely apart but brain washed female liberal just can't handle it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY

motorfirebox

02-03-2013, 10:21 AM

John Wayne on how to handle Political Correctness!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-a7KPmOnok&feature=fvwp&NR=1
Yes, well, John Wayne is dead and buried, and soon too will be the generations promulgating the hatred, ignorance, and xenophobia exemplified by your earlier-linked article.

Kiwigrunt

02-03-2013, 12:20 PM

Slap, I don't believe motorfirebox is impressed.

I don't think Kiwigrunt is either. What a mind numbing load of drivel that was.

slapout9

02-03-2013, 01:23 PM

Outstanding article by retired Marine Office Michael D. Wyly on Fourth Generation Warfare, Gun Control, the Constitution , and how it concerns all Marines......actually All Americans. This was the best copy I could get which unfortunately is attached to several blog comments which are NOT part of the article but the main article is still very distinct.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/825219/posts

slapout9

02-03-2013, 01:27 PM

I don't think Kiwigrunt is either. What a mind numbing load of drivel that was.

I am not surprised we are Americans and have an advanced form of Government that requires personal responsability to work properly and it isnot suitable for everyone as the next post by Colonel Wyly points out..... America and Americans are special!

motorfirebox

02-03-2013, 04:56 PM

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with guns.

slapout9

02-03-2013, 05:36 PM

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with guns.

Did you read the article? It has everything to do with guns.

motorfirebox

02-03-2013, 06:00 PM

In that it could be equally applied to any article in the Bill of Rights, I suppose it does have slightly more to do with guns than attempting to equate homosexuality with communism(!?). Of course, given that your most recent link directly refutes your previous link, I think I could be forgiven for not know what in tarnation you're on about.

Fuchs

02-03-2013, 07:42 PM

I am not surprised we are Americans and have an advanced form of Government that requires personal responsability to work properly and it isnot suitable for everyone as the next post by Colonel Wyly points out..... America and Americans are special!

Advanced form of government?

Since when is "dysfunctional" the same as "advanced"?

By the way "personal responsibility" is a code word for "left alone, but still facing bad luck and more powerful people".

The personal responsibility of negotiating a wage alone instead of doing this through a labour union merely serves the purpose of transferring almost all of the economic rent of the agreement to the almost always more powerful employer, for example.

There are organisational / institutional remedies to certain problems, and much of the "deregulation" / "personal responsibility" stuff only serves to reject such a remedy in favour of maintaining the problem (which usually serves someone's interests).

Those "personal responsibility" / "the government is the problem" folks are puppets serving others' interests and they're being fed fear and bogeymen in order to distract them from who incites and controls their outrage.

Same stuff with the outrage about even firearms control legislation. It serves the gun industry, which in turn finances the NRA with a similar amount of money as the NRA's lobbying budget. It also serves the firearms accessories industry which sprang up during the last generation (first with lights, later with lots of "tactical" clothes, upgrades). It serves the firearm instructor industry.
It hardly serves the general population.

Adding a guard to every school is one of the dumbest ideas possible. What's next? For every kindergarten, public place, cafe, bus, train?
There are economic studies about the costs of providing security in the U.S., some of them looking at it from a firearms-related angle, others from a crime-related angle and others from an inequality-related angle.
Now if you add up the extra expenses for security including the jail network, the extra expenses for the military, the extra expenses for the inefficient health care system and the extra expenses for paying the bloated financial industry - what's left?
Less GDP/capita than in France.

There's much broken in the U.S., and the people's readiness to get fooled and turn stupid on reasonable proposals and serious issues is an important reason for this.

slapout9

02-03-2013, 08:04 PM

jmm99

02-03-2013, 08:27 PM

These are two brief comments on Slap's links.

First looking at Col Michael D. Wyly, USMC (Ret), Fourth Generation Warfare: What Does It Mean to Every Marine? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/825219/posts) (1995). To me, these points are very material to this thread:

What then is fundamental to our Constitutional concept, so fundamental that every Marine must understand it? First, that the laws of the land govern human conduct. We have a new concept grown up since the 1960s called "civil disobedience." It is all right to believe in it, but it is against the law to practice it. Offenders must expect to be prosecuted. It is an issue Marines need to grasp.
...
In a fourth generation situation Marines would need to know that people have a right to assemble and assert themselves against abuses of power. Denying that right to Americans makes them demand it more strongly. Strong resistance by civilians raises the issue of gun control. Gun control is a very touchy subject today. But, since arms are crucial to Marines' profession, we cannot evade the issue. It is a constitutional issue that is likely, someday, to involve us.

Understanding the issue is fundamental to Marines' understanding the Constitution. We live in a country where the people enjoy a unique right to bear arms. Marines should know there is a reason for that. Of course there is the history of Indian wars followed by the threat of armed redcoats. Those threats have disappeared. However, the fourth generation threat includes armed criminals in numbers Americans have not had to reckon with before. Marines, like all Americans, are free to favor some kind of gun control or eschew it altogether up until laws are passed. What is crucially important, however, is that they understand there are serious constitutional ramifications. Taking the right away from Americans, or enforcing such a restriction, could quickly make us the enemy of constitutional freedom. It is this sort of understanding that separates citizens from "all the rest."

Col. Wyly doesn't address the ultimate question: Will Marines obey orders to shoot down their fellow Americans; or, are there some "tipping points" beyond which they will not go ?

Given that Marines have a strong tradition of following orders, I personally wouldn't bet on a "Marine mutiny". Nor, would I bet on an "Army mutiny". Thus, my preference for a Gene Sharp approach (http://www.aeinstein.org/) in addressing non-compliance.

As to William S. Lind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Lind), I've read both his "4th Gen Warfare" stuff (leave that on the shelf, please) and his "utopian" (cultural conservative) stuff. Lind is something of a Luddite, a reactionary (used in the sense that he would like to travel back in time), and occasionally sounds notes that seem strange to me; e.g.,:

In his On War column of December 15, 2009, Lind announced that he was leaving the staff of the Center unexpectedly and that his series of On War articles was on hiatus for the moment. "Once I am re-established, either with a new institution or in retirement, I intend to re-start the column. When that will be I do not know. It also depends on obtaining connection to a telegraph line, which is not available everywhere."

I've not the foggiest as to how or why a telegraph line comes into play. I've mentioned Lind in 7 previous posts, starting here, A Lawyer's View (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=55371&postcount=15) (which is part of a conversation with Slap - remember when we at SWC actually had real conversations :cool:).

Enough of Lind personally, but to his What is Cultural Marxism? (http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm) As to that, my only comment is to this snip:

... the members of the Frankfurt School - - Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important ...

I'm ignorant of Horkheimer and Adorno; I've read some Reich, Fromm and Marcuse (mostly Fromm). Perhaps, because I do not rate them very high in my pantheon of political theorists, I can't give them (esp. Marcuse) credit for destroying USAian culture.

That being said, there has been a real break in our USAian cultural framework. So, Slap and Carl are on to something there. That framework break also is material to this thread; but I have to write something offline - and think it over and re-write before posting. Wouldn't want Kiwigrunt to call it "drivel". :) That word reminds me of Wilf (too bad he's too busy elsewhere).

Regards

Mike

carl

02-03-2013, 08:58 PM

I don't think Kiwigrunt is either. What a mind numbing load of drivel that was.

Ok, fair enough. But please, tell me you like John Wayne lest the Yank/Kiwi bond be rent asunder.

carl

02-03-2013, 09:05 PM

Yes, well, John Wayne is dead and buried, and soon too will be the generations promulgating the hatred, ignorance, and xenophobia exemplified by your earlier-linked article.

To be replaced by the new generations who have love for all, tolerance for everything and who know all about all because they were educated by our fine public schools...no, wait...most people who go to modern public schools don't know anything...ok, amend that.

To be replaced by new generations who have love for all, tolerance for everything and who are guided by people who know all about all because they went to Ivy League schools (to include Stanford and Berkeley) and so of course are just a better sort.

carl

02-03-2013, 09:48 PM

Col. Wyly doesn't address the ultimate question: Will Marines obey orders to shoot down their fellow Americans; or, are there some "tipping points" beyond which they will not go ?

Given that Marines have a strong tradition of following orders, I personally wouldn't bet on a "Marine mutiny". Nor, would I bet on an "Army mutiny". Thus, my preference for a Gene Sharp approach (http://www.aeinstein.org/) in addressing non-compliance.

Here is a link to a Naval Postgraduate School thesis done in the mid 1990s.

www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a293790.pdf

It was quite controversial at the time because question 46 asked this of about 300 serving Marines:

"The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizens groups refuse to turn over their firearms.

Consider the following statement: `I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'."

They were then given 5 choices of response ranging from Strongly agree to no opinion.

On page 79 of the thesis the author states that about 26% of the Marines would fire on fellow citizens but about 66% would refuse. The author concluded that "The response to this scenario suggest that a complete unit breakdown could occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

That being said, there has been a real break in our USAian cultural framework. So, Slap and Carl are on to something there. That framework break also is material to this thread; but I have to write something offline - and think it over and re-write before posting. Wouldn't want Kiwigrunt to call it "drivel". :) That word reminds me of Wilf (too bad he's too busy elsewhere).

As I keep saying, Charles Murray has a lot to say about that break in the cultural framework in his book Coming Apart, though the book mainly demonstrates the extant and growing gap between the superzips and the rest of us. He doesn't get much into what it might mean for the future. Question 46 might give an inkling about what might happen if things go badly awry. (It also concerns me that cultural and political differences are lining up geographically and regionally.)

motorfirebox

02-03-2013, 11:14 PM

carl

02-03-2013, 11:31 PM

I dunno. Once, maybe. But even a one-time event would have a drastic effect on the political landscape, to the point of a coup. After that, I think political leadership would be in such flux that it'd be an open question who would be in a position to give further such orders. I can't imagine any of the people I served with obeying such an order, unlikely as it is that the HHT of an Apache squadron would be picked to carry something like that out.

That was why the author of the report I cited said such a mission may result in the breakdown of the unit. But that could be got around by picking and choosing who would go into a unit asked to do something like that, long before it was actually called upon to do it. One thing that I believe history tells us is that you can always, always find throat cutters if you want to find them. There are more than a just a few people who will do anything, and I mean anything if an authority figure gives them the ok. We were able to find people to torture with no trouble that I am aware of. And we were able to get average soldiers to help beat people to death (I am talking about the Afghan who was hung from the ceiling and subjected to very numerous leg strikes until his muscles macerated and he died). So if the powers that be cared to, they could find the people they wanted.

But as you say, it would cause big trouble. I don't think it would come as a coup. I think it would come about with state governments challenging the fed government. Something along the lines of the feds tell the state of Texabama that we are going here and doing this. The fed agents are met by members of the Texabama State Police who tell them you will not do that and if you do we will arrest you. That would be some kind of trouble.

Surferbeetle

02-04-2013, 12:08 AM

I dunno. Once, maybe. But even a one-time event would have a drastic effect on the political landscape, to the point of a coup. After that, I think political leadership would be in such flux that it'd be an open question who would be in a position to give further such orders. I can't imagine any of the people I served with obeying such an order, unlikely as it is that the HHT of an Apache squadron would be picked to carry something like that out.

Don't conflate some of the third and second world s###holes that we have served in with a 1st world country.

Recall the basics please. :wry:

Institutions are favored over individuals because they help to diffuse power and provide some level of inertia/institutional wisdom which serves to circumvent radical and ill thought out moves. 1st world countries are chock full of institutions.

On to American culture and mores. Illegal orders are just that, illegal. People are put in charge because they have a pair and are willing to make the right call. NCO and Warrant systems help to constrain and guide those Officers who are, shall we say, confused. Our legal and judiciary system would have a frigging Christmas/Hanukah/Eid party with whomever would be so stupid. Criminal and civil systems would salivating.

Kent State shootings, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

jmm99

02-04-2013, 03:35 AM

To Carl for a 206 page study, which I'll gum.

More generally,

On the other hand, we have Kent State and the Detroit Riot (National Guard ops), and Ruby Ridge and Waco (Fed ops) - realities, as opposed to a hypothetical. I suppose those four could be set aside as cockups; or are they simply examples of how confrontations can quickly get out of hand?

On the other, other hand, 25% of a Marine company is still a lot of firepower - and, what if a company is fired on first? I'd expect the non-firing Marines would flip their switches very quickly.

Thus, I'd still stick with a Gene Sharp approach as the default means of non-compliance - although that is not a life assurance policy.

All that being said, a question might be how many of the 3 million or so NRA members would engage in some form of "civil disobedience" ? I've no idea whether that's been studied. And, how many others (not NRA members) would join them ? Again, I've no idea.

Finally, Carl, thanks for reminding me of Charles Murray, Coming Apart - which reminded me of Rasmussen's polls to the same effect. I'll work them in.

Regards

Mike

carl

02-04-2013, 04:22 AM

Mike, the author suggests that the problem wouldn't be the 26% or the 66%, it would be the interaction between the two if that nightmare scenario ever came to be.

No matter how you cut it, or what would or would not happen, for the civilian or military leaders to ever let it get anywhere close to that would be a disaster for the military as an institution, for civil-military relations and especially for the serving soldiers. You would have situation where soldiers, who are citizens, would be asked to perhaps fire on fellow citizens to enforce a political dictate. If they didn't, then they disobey orders. If they did, regardless of the circumstances, the would have killed Americans, the circumstances would only make the difference between bad and nightmarish. There is not a way that could come out good. The long term effect on unit cohesion, as the author alludes to, would be very, very bad.

Surferbeetle

02-04-2013, 05:04 AM

Mike, Carl,

Although I am not a lawyer, I am of the opinion that American legal and cultural constraints would prevent the scenario from occurring.

On the legal side of things, the Posse Comitatus Act circumscribes federal military actions within US borders and requires Presidential and Congressional concurrence for exemptions to the Act. Congress has not been able to balance a budget in years; passing a weapons ban to be enforced by the military is even less likely and has no historical precedent (that I am aware of).

On the cultural side of things our nation is great in large part due to an informed and armed citizenry which is deeply committed to democratic principles. Despite the visible indicators of a diffuse general concern (such as increased weapons sales, ammunition shortages, and various ongoing propaganda efforts), I do not envision that a majority of Americans will request that their representatives enact a weapons ban and have our military enforce it.

:wry:

Posse Comitatus Act, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Timeline of United States military operations, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_actions_by_or_within_the_United_S tates

The Constitutional Amendment Process, National Archives, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

carl

02-04-2013, 05:32 AM

Surferbeetle:

I am just tossing around an ill formed idea now, but. What if federal law enforcement agencies were stymied by the Texabama State Police and called upon the federal armed forces for help? And further what if for several years prior to something like that occurring, the senior leadership of the military had been selected based upon informal inquiries as to their willingness to order their men to do something like that? Something along those lines already happened in Arkansas.

Mike:

I don't understand the legal basis upon which Ike was able to do that.

Surferbeetle

02-04-2013, 05:59 AM

Carl,

What you are suggesting goes against everything an officer is trained, educated, and stands for. ;)

An officer who would be likely to do such a thing would be run out (and rightfully so) early in his/her career. :cool:

As a case study perhaps it would worthwhile to study/determine what happened to Maj. Gen. Sylvester T. Del Corso the Ohio TAG at the time of the Kent State shootings, as well as the officers in the chain of command at that time. I do not know the answer to this question, but have found a few links to help shed some light on historical precedent:

State adjutant general, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_adjutants_general

Sylvester Del Corso, 85, Head Of Guard at Kent State Attack, By WOLFGANG SAXON Published: April 11, 1998, NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/11/us/sylvester-del-corso-85-head-of-guard-at-kent-state-attack.html

slapout9

02-04-2013, 06:11 AM

As part of Civil Disturbance Training in the 82nd Airborne Division you would be screened out of any deployment to your "home state" as part of Army policy. This was really serious stuff back then because of us(82nd) being involved with both Presidential Conventions (Miami,Fl)as part of the overall security situation because of what had happened at the 68 Democratic Conventions in Detroit.

jmm99

02-04-2013, 06:32 AM

Attached are three pdfs of relevant pages of the 1995 Cunningham Survey of 300 Marines.

pdf 00 is the question and allowed answers.

pdf 01 is the results by grades of E1-E5 and E6-E7, O1-O3.

pdf 02 is a footnote (#68) of individual comments.

The upshot is that NONE of 13 persons in grades E6-E7, O1-O3 agreed with the shoot order - 7 strongly disagreed; 6 disagreed.

I'm happy to be proved wrong on this point (and gratified as to the 300 Marines surveyed).

But, I still think the Martin Luther King approach is better if the issue is pushed - as it appears it will be. Mark Kelly (who will be an as articulate or more articulate spokesman for gun control as Sarah Brady) was certainly in a push on mode in today's interview with Chris Wallace (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mark-kelly-on-fox-presses-for-background-checks-this-isnt-about-the-second-amendment-anymore/): "This Isn’t About The Second Amendment Anymore."

Now, as to enforcement (and who BTW will enforce the gun control mandates), Andrew Jackson supposedly said privately in effect: "John Marshall has entered his mandate. Now let him enforce it."

I suppose gun controllers do not expect anything but voluntary compliance with their mandates. They will look at Australia, etc.; and not see it likely that the law-abiding (hence, in their eyes, sheeply) gun owners will put up any sort of fight once the mandate is entered by someone.

That COA (IF there is substantial "civil disobedience", much less any USG "shoot orders") would rip this country apart. On this and many other issues, the country is not really neatly divided blue and red. It is purple with interlaced blue and red boxes.

I think there is a cultural disconnect here.

Regards

Mike

PS: Note the comment in pdf 03 "Only if fired upon". I'd keep that in mind.

Posse Commitatus is no real legal bar. It can be waived by Presidential Order - and there are many options to follow in doing that.

As to Carl's Texabama situation, the President issues a finding that Texabama is in rebellion - and away we go with Civil War II.

Ike and Little Rock - his speech on it, “Mob Rule Cannot Be Allowed to Override the Decisions of Our Courts” (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6335/):

Whenever normal agencies prove inadequate to the task and it becomes necessary for the Executive Branch of the Federal Government to use its powers and authority to uphold Federal Courts, the President’s responsibility is inescapable. In accordance with that responsibility, I have today issued an Executive Order directing the use of troops under Federal authority to aid in the execution of Federal law at Little Rock, Arkansas. This became necessary when my Proclamation of yesterday was not observed, and the obstruction of justice still continues.

Ike and Earl Warren were on better terms than Jackson and Marshall. ;) Ike's legal authority was probably under one of the Force Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_Acts), as updated to that time. I didn't look up which one.

carl

02-04-2013, 03:49 PM

Mike:

Are you sure you read that right? The tables I am looking at show one E-6 and one O-1 agreed that they would fire. One O-1 and one O-3 said they had no opinion. A 'no opinion' guy may go with the wind and somebody from on high pushing would be a pretty strong wind. But a sample of 13 isn't really reliable.

An interesting part of the survey was the most willing to fire or with no opinion were the E-2s and E-4s. 43 of E-2s said they would fire or had no opinion vs. 50 who said they would not. 32 of the E-4s said they would fire or had no opinion vs. 35 who said they would not.

No wonder the author of the study said the unit might break up.

This study was done almost 20 years ago and I know of no other similar study done since. There probably won't be one either.

Do guys out there think think attitudes have changed much since the study was done? Why were there such variations in attitudes amongst the enlisted men? Are brand new soldiers more likely to do anything they are told? The cultural disconnect Mike spoke of is, I think, getting more pronounced in the civilian world. Is that reflected at all in the military?

I know there is probably no hard data out there on any of this so I seek subjective opinions.

carl

02-04-2013, 04:02 PM

Carl,

What you are suggesting goes against everything an officer is trained, educated, and stands for. ;)

An officer who would be likely to do such a thing would be run out (and rightfully so) early in his/her career. :cool:

I know the ethos of the officer corps in the US is pretty strong, but everything can be broken down. If the civilians were to select higher officers with a certain criterion in mind and do that over the years, that would have an effect.

Two examples, Tim Lynch at Free Range International told a story of the USMC commandant or some next to God guy coming to an officer training class in the 90s and challenging all there to tell him how a woman couldn't do anything a man could do and adding that if he did, he didn't belong in "my" Corps. So he taught everybody there to lie about things the seniors wanted lies told about.

And Gen Dempsey recently said this about women in combat jobs and standards “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?” Which means of course standards are nothing when compared to politically desirable numbers.

Those two guys were selected by the civilian leadership partially because they were going to toe the politically correct line and, make other officers toe the politically correct line. The big question is, is answering agree on question 46 part of the politically correct line, or will it be?

Surferbeetle

02-04-2013, 04:37 PM

I know the ethos of the officer corps in the US is pretty strong, but everything can be broken down. If the civilians were to select higher officers with a certain criterion in mind and do that over the years, that would have an effect.

The US officer corps is a fairly cohesive, quantifiable, and predictable tribe.

Political parties on the other hand are defined by their volatility and stochastic behavior.

I would be more inclined to bet upon on a political party fracturing and perhaps reshaping/reallocating scarce resources to efforts more representative of the populace it hopes to represent.

There are historical precedents for the latter scenario.

Progressive Party (United States, 1912), From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_%28United_States,_1912%29

Stan

02-04-2013, 04:44 PM

Carl,
In general, I would argue that if a unit and its leadership have task cohesion such breakdowns rarely occur.

Social cohesion or interaction certainly causes breakdowns, but I doubt they would affect a unit's task cohesion.

I used to watch our detection dogs and teams under stressful situations and free time, as if they were merely switched on (duty) or off (free time).

jmm99

02-04-2013, 06:42 PM

The moral of the story is never do something else in the last 7 minutes of that kind of Super Bowl. :o

The correct pdf 01a (pp.196-197 of survey) is attached.

I'm not as gratified. The 1 E-7 still is col. 1 (strongly disagree); so also, the O-2. But, the O-3 is col. 5 (no opinion).

Thus, still Gene Sharp, MLK, etc.

Regards

Mike

slapout9

02-04-2013, 08:39 PM

Marine PAO ask on camera about Gun Confiscation. To include a Marines right to refuse an unlawful(unconstitutional order).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tbp1hERZjI

Fuchs

02-04-2013, 08:53 PM

It's quite telling how much you guys are obsessed here with discussing a possible hostile / illegal action of the government.

This is the old "government is the problem" attitude, and I suppose you know that's some 30ish years old propaganda and those who use it to ride to power afterwards either disregarded their own propaganda or ensured incompetent government agency leadership in order to prove their point.

carl

02-04-2013, 10:46 PM

Fuchs:

Since the US was established in reaction to hostile illegal actions of the government, it isn't surprising that we are very concerned with possible hostile/illegal actions of the government.

There are quite a few people here who have first hand experience with government as a problem. I talked to a guy yesterday who may have to close his two small convenience stores because of increased taxes. A woman I know had a very successful small business, one woman, that she could have easily expanded. She didn't because the government paperwork required to do so seemed overwhelming. And here's a nice little story about an 11 year old being accosted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for rescuing a woodpecker.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-20088063.html

You know when you say something about us Americans is quite telling, you should step back for a second and consider what it might tell other than we are primitives not up to the level of Europeans.

carl

02-04-2013, 10:48 PM

The moral of the story is never do something else in the last 7 minutes of that kind of Super Bowl. :o

It was quite a game. I am not a fan anymore but I thought is was vastly entertaining and interesting.

Kiwigrunt

02-05-2013, 12:35 AM

There are quite a few people here who have first hand experience with government as a problem. I talked to a guy yesterday who may have to close his two small convenience stores because of increased taxes. A woman I know had a very successful small business, one woman, that she could have easily expanded. She didn't because the government paperwork required to do so seemed overwhelming. And here's a nice little story about an 11 year old being accosted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for rescuing a woodpecker.

I’m not sure if that is an issue with elected govt or with the established and snowballing bureaucracy. It appears that in all Western countries that bureaucracy has outgrown the reach of govt. and grown a life of its own. As a side story of the side story of the side story, I’ll raise you this one. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/employment/news/article.cfm?c_id=11&objectid=10861284):mad:

carl

02-05-2013, 01:26 AM

Kiwigrunt:

I figure it is both, but the legislation passed by legislators comes first.

We have recently subjected ourselves to Obamacare. That piece of legislation comes in at over 2,000 pages. All of that is going to result in policies, procedures and interpretations that will be inflicted on us by bureaucrats. There will be thousands and thousands of pages on top of the law itself. But they could not have been created unless the law passed first.

Fuchs

02-05-2013, 01:42 AM

Fuchs:

Since the US was established in reaction to hostile illegal actions of the government, it isn't surprising that we are very concerned with possible hostile/illegal actions of the government.

Yeah, tell the world when your country mentally made it to the 19th century. later on, we'll surely encourage you when your country mentally reached the 20th century and so on.

Seriously, the Irish have had much more of a struggle with oppressive government and their attitude is not this dysfunctional. The U.S. is clearly in the global top three regarding popularity of paranoia.
So yes, it is 'surprising' that a country with a 200+ years record of kind-of-democracy, gazillions of nukes and gatrillions of military spending is still so paranoid about both domestic and foreign threats. There are countries facing actual threats which are totally relaxed by comparison.

A government is an institutional tool to address a societies' troubles (by setting and enforcing rules and providing public goods). The less support this idea has, the lesser will no doubt be government's ability to do its job.

carl

02-05-2013, 02:00 AM

A government is an institutional tool to address a societies' troubles (by setting and enforcing rules and providing public goods). The less support this idea has, the lesser will no doubt be government's ability to do its job.

Ah yes. That is a fine idea. Doesn't always work out in practice though. And it is those examples of it not working out in practice, and the tens of millions of people killed by governments in just Europe in the 20th century when it didn't work out, that make us...let's see if I can get all this in...dysfunctional, paranoid, backward Americans with a 200 year record of kind-of-democracy very suspicious of government.

As far as the Irish go, that's easy. Most of the smart ones came here.

Fuchs

02-05-2013, 03:51 AM

Ah yes. That is a fine idea. Doesn't always work out in practice though. And it is those examples of it not working out in practice, and the tens of millions of people killed by governments in just Europe in the 20th century when it didn't work out, that make us...let's see if I can get all this in...dysfunctional, paranoid, backward Americans with a 200 year record of kind-of-democracy very suspicious of government.

Yeah, sure. Slavery, Native Americans, joining a World War needlessly after everyone else understood it's a folly, having had a messy civil war, torture, wars of aggression, oppressing Latin America for a century, propping up evil dictators abroad by the dozens ... all was fine in the U.S..

Look, the problem is the American society is simply not working well, and paranoia as well as a huge susceptibility to distraction from what's important why fantasy and unimportant stuff is part of the mess.
Keep your military from developing stuff like this (http://youtu.be/13BahrdkMU8), disband militarised SWAT teams, repeal the Patriot Act if you want to be cautious about the government.
Don't get locked into power fantasies like assault rifles being what keeps the government from turning to Stalinism.

Guns are not decisive against an evil government (if there's one). Relevant is whether this government has the required support and tolerance from the people. If it has not, soldiers will allow civilians to plunder weapons depots and there are the real guns. The Romanians and Syrians did not need lots of AR-15s under their beds to turn violent against their dictators.
The U.S. is pushing more than any other country the development of technology that lowers the threshold for required support (by making surveillance that much easier and more effective) and it's the world leader in pushing for acceptance (tolerance) of evil government practices, such as torture.

On top of this, it has developed the approach for how to capture a large share of a population in a bubble of fantasyland where the people don't listen to dissenting news sources any more, think their president is a foreigner, think Iraq had WMD and so on. Until this development, it was much harder if not unknown to create such an encompassing fantasyland without the propaganda means of a dictatorship.

Yeah, but you guys think having an AR-15 under your bed is an insurance. Ridiculous.

carl

02-05-2013, 04:49 AM

Yeah, sure. Slavery, Native Americans, joining a World War needlessly after everyone else understood it's a folly, having had a messy civil war, torture, wars of aggression, oppressing Latin America for a century, propping up evil dictators abroad by the dozens ... all was fine in the U.S..

Well I could respond to this in kind, about Europe in general and some European countries in particular, but that would serve no real purpose so I won't. No, I won't. Oh no. Like hell I won't. Joining WWI may not have been viewed with favor by Germany but France and Great Britain thought it a fine idea.

Look, the problem is the American society is simply not working well, and paranoia as well as a huge susceptibility to distraction from what's important why fantasy and unimportant stuff is part of the mess.

Oh.

Keep your military from developing stuff like this (http://youtu.be/13BahrdkMU8), disband militarised SWAT teams, repeal the Patriot Act if you want to be cautious about the government.

All modern militaries with the wherewithal are developing technologies such as the one linked to. SWAT teams with military appearing equipment have their uses, though there are probably far too many. But that is sort of the police dept equivalent of keeping up with the Jones'. Repealing the Patriot Act or large portions thereof is a good idea. But we ain't perfect, just better than most European countries in most ways.

Don't get locked into power fantasies like assault rifles being what keeps the government from turning to Stalinism.

This is a bit of a surprise coming from a guy like you. In many or your past posts you have displayed a very well developed sense of the human factor in things and yet you miss the psychological importance that having a weapon has to a human. A human with a weapon, especially a serious one, is much more likely to think of themselves a person with some control over their life. Humans can't fight sans weapons. A human without a weapon in a society where other humans are permitted weapons, is a servant, a person of no real worth or stature in that society. The import of being actually able to defend yourself if need be, isn't in the technical comparison of a having a rifle vs an infantry platoon with MGs and small mortars, the importance is that you are a person who, if they are to be taken, can at least make a fight of it, and also a person whose personhood merely in and of itself gives the right to defend themselves and possess the means to effectively do so.

Besides if 'assault rifles' aren't all that important, why do you care so much that us Yanks have them?

Guns are not decisive against an evil government (if there's one). Relevant is whether this government has the required support and tolerance from the people. If it has not, soldiers will allow civilians to plunder weapons depots and there are the real guns. The Romanians and Syrians did not need lots of AR-15s under their beds to turn violent against their dictators.

If weapons aren't decisive, why do people try so hard to get them when trouble comes? Because you can't fight without weapons.

Whether that evil gov has the required support and tolerance from the people?! I think it is more a matter of how strong the apparatus of the police state is. You have talked to some former East Germans about what it was like there I hope. Well developed police states are extremely difficult to overthrow from within.

Of course with us backward Yanks, we prefer to keep weapons available to the people to discourage the development of a police state. It may not be a foolproof thing but the Founders thought it would be helpful and might have a dissuasive effect. So do I.

The U.S. is pushing more than any other country the development of technology that lowers the threshold for required support (by making surveillance that much easier and more effective) and it's the world leader in pushing for acceptance (tolerance) of evil government practices, such as torture.

Tech has nothing to do with the efficacy of a police state. The history of the 20th century proves that. There are lots of European examples to choose from.

We had a brief and horribly shameful flirtation with torture in the early 2000s. It is a blot on our national honor and will be there forever. But I would note, that we officially gave up that tool of the weak and twisted years ago and I pray to God we don't go back. It is interesting, and disturbing, that the prime pusher of torture in the US now is the entertainment industry, an industry that marches almost in political lockstep with the superzip establishment.

On top of this, it has developed the approach for how to capture a large share of a population in a bubble of fantasyland where the people don't listen to dissenting news sources any more, think their president is a foreigner, think Iraq had WMD and so on. Until this development, it was much harder if not unknown to create such an encompassing fantasyland without the propaganda means of a dictatorship.

Translation: Fuchs disapproves of Fox News and figures it has mind melded with most of the Americans and brainwashed them.

Yeah, but you guys think having an AR-15 under your bed is an insurance. Ridiculous.

I'll tell you what. You come over here, live in a place somewhat remote or maybe not so remote that it will take 20, 30 or 45 minutes to an hour for the cops to show up after you call them (if they can find the place) and you tell me it might not be such a bad idea to have an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and a good optic propped in the corner.

Besides, having that about will save the trouble of breaking into an armory if the need arises.

Fuchs

02-05-2013, 10:44 AM

This is a bit of a surprise coming from a guy like you. In many or your past posts you have displayed a very well developed sense of the human factor in things and yet you miss the psychological importance that having a weapon has to a human. A human with a weapon, especially a serious one, is much more likely to think of themselves a person with some control over their life. Humans can't fight sans weapons.

This particular 'importance' is none. I'm not a particularly fearful guy, and I feel safe without a gun.
Besides, I CAN fight without a weapon. Not having a weapon and still being ready to fight means to have the advantage of surprise.

If weapons aren't decisive, why do people try so hard to get them when trouble comes?

You didn't get what 'decisive' means.
Enough popular support for rebels = government is doomed, the means to complete its demise will be found.
Not enough popular support for insurgents = government will massacre the rebels, doesn't matter how well they're armed.
The armament of rebels is a superficiality.

Tech has nothing to do with the efficacy of a police state. The history of the 20th century proves that.

A sample without the agent cannot disprove the agent's effectiveness.
What you meant to say was that a police state does not needs high tech. Well, I agree, but what I really said was that a police state needs less support (by people) with labour-saving surveillance high tech.

Translation: Fuchs disapproves of Fox News and figures it has mind melded with most of the Americans and brainwashed them.

Not "most", but too many, and they are loud. I barely hear the sensible majority across the pond any more.

I'll tell you what. You come over here, live in a place somewhat remote or maybe not so remote that it will take 20, 30 or 45 minutes to an hour for the cops to show up after you call them (if they can find the place) and you tell me it might not be such a bad idea to have an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and a good optic propped in the corner.

An optic for home defence? Tacticool has taken over.
Seriously, your reply was to a quote which spoke against weapons as insurance against evil government (context!). That is ridiculous.

slapout9

02-05-2013, 02:39 PM

Steve Blair

02-05-2013, 02:45 PM

Not "most", but too many, and they are loud. I barely hear the sensible majority across the pond any more.

Of course you don't. You get your news through a set of filters, which in turn colors your perception. News is far more concerned with ratings than truth, and that's a given no matter which country you happen to be in.

Fuchs

02-05-2013, 03:03 PM

The prominence of a loud minority which has gone of the rails is not a universal symptom, though.

It's in my opinion a society's essential requirement to keep dangerous people from power (not from voting, of course). Many Western countries are much less about to fail spectacularly in this regard.
Just look at the current firearms regulation debate:
The NRA's leadership which represents a minority of NRA members (in regard to its stance concerning universal background checks, loopholes etc.) who are in turn a minority of the citizens effectively plays the role of representing one half (side) of the debate. It does even so after an obvious record of fearmongering, hypocrisy, inconsistency and distortions.

A society working well would not have paid much attention to the NRA leadership and would instead have moved on with overwhelmingly popular measures such as universal background checks a long time ago.

It's dysfunctionality that dominates, not some supposedly unique "freedom" to be proud of.

Sadly, this dysfunctionality extends to foreign policy and eve the question of war or not war. This is where it becomes important to foreigners.

M-A Lagrange

02-05-2013, 03:48 PM

Good Job Carl!!!!This thread is a good example of why logic,college degree-ism, and empty euro-trash philosophy are the ultimate threats against mankind. Criminals-Terrorist don't care about any of the logical arguments as to why you should or should not own guns. All they care about are WHO has the force and Who has a counter-force. And that is why Europe had to be bailed out by the Superior American Philosophy 3 times in the last century, probably more if you count the entire cold war. They are incapable of any kind of Free thinking based upon reality as opposed to thinking along the lines of some dead German guy they were taught about in school. They don't understand Freedom and Responsibility and the Force that is required to protect such brilliant Philosophy.

Slap,

I think you are falling in the pit of the image d'Epinale about Europ, just as other are about USA.
I do not see where the right to own a M60 at home is a valid argument in the debat about are you free or not to think and believe what you want.

My only contribution will be that in most (if not all) western europ countries you can send your kids to school without worrying about is there or not a crazy guy with a gun who will kill him. And I believe that is, in Europ but also in USA, what a vast majority of the people are looking for.
That said the internal/domestic debat in the US over fire armes looks quite surreal seen from where I am, in the dark heart of Africa...

J Wolfsberger

02-05-2013, 04:40 PM

It does even so after an obvious record of fear mongering, hypocrisy, inconsistency and distortions.

On this I agree with you. Despite all of the things you cite coming in a never ending stream from Democrats and other Leftists, the NRA is still a very widely respected organization. Incidentally, part of your confusion is due to the fact that many more millions of people look to the NRA to protect their rights than actually join. (Of which, last I heard, they were getting close to 5 million members [1 million new in the past couple of months]. Hats off to Obama for running such a successful membership drive on their behalf.)

A society working well would not have paid much attention to the NRA leadership and would instead have moved on with overwhelmingly popular measures such as universal background checks a long time ago.

I realize that growing up in the old DDR makes it difficult to understand what a lot of terms mean. A "society working well" does, in fact, pay a lot of attention to the leadership of organizations that represent sizable portions of its membership. What I think confused you is the hard Left definition of "society" as "the properly indoctrinated Leftists" who make noise out of all proportion to their membership in that society.

It's dysfunctional that dominates, not some supposedly unique "freedom" to be proud of.

Likewise with your use of the term "dysfunction." It does NOT mean "refuses to rubber stamp the majority opinion." What dominates in the U.S. is a dynamic tension between different points of view. That does, indeed, make it very difficult for one side to impose its will on the other. Again, given that you grew up in the DDR it's understandable you'd be confused about this.

Incidentally, I read one of those constitutions you recommended as a modern, responsible constitution. They "granted" the citizens the "right" to food, clothing shelter, jobs, health care, etc. (I suspect a right to free puppies was in there somewhere, but I didn't look.) They also "granted" government the "right" to levy taxes. I was underwhelmed.

I think you need to work on understanding the distinction among the concepts of "right," "privilege" and "desires." One thing you could try that might help along those lines would be to put some effort into understanding the 2000+ years of philosophical and theological reasoning that underpins the U.S. Constitution (with particular attention to Plato, Cicero, St. Thomas, Spinoza, and a whole library of English and French philosophers). Another would be to understand why that "modern" constitution looks, to this U.S. citizen, to lie somewhere between infantile and childish.

carl

02-05-2013, 04:49 PM

This particular 'importance' is none. I'm not a particularly fearful guy, and I feel safe without a gun.
Besides, I CAN fight without a weapon. Not having a weapon and still being ready to fight means to have the advantage of surprise.

You miss the point about individuals having the recourse to arms, two points actually.

The first is a member of society in which the individual has recourse to arms, is a member of a society that recognizes the intrinsic rights of individuals. That is a society worthy.

The second is a person who has recourse to arms is a person who can effectively defend themselves. They are not a victim in waiting. That is hugely critical to individual morale.

Thirdly is, you, Fuchs, may be an entirely fearsome fellow able to take on all comers. But it isn't just about you. It is also about the petite 55 year old woman with a bad knee that I mentioned before. If you deny her recourse to arms, you deny her the right to self defense. You can't do that.

That was three points.

You didn't get what 'decisive' means.
Enough popular support for rebels = government is doomed, the means to complete its demise will be found.
Not enough popular support for insurgents = government will massacre the rebels, doesn't matter how well they're armed.
The armament of rebels is a superficiality.

I know perfectly well what decisive means. If you have arms, you can fight. If you don't, you can't. That is pretty decisive.

A sample without the agent cannot disprove the agent's effectiveness.
What you meant to say was that a police state does not needs high tech. Well, I agree, but what I really said was that a police state needs less support (by people) with labour-saving surveillance high tech.

You know there is a contradiction in what you say when you comment about police states and popular support. Police states exist because popular support isn't great enough to ensure their survival without police state measures.

Not "most", but too many, and they are loud. I barely hear the sensible majority across the pond any more.

See Steve Blair's comment. Listening to the BBC, watching CNN and reading the New York Times doesn't get you very close to understanding the US.

An optic for home defence? Tacticool has taken over.
Seriously, your reply was to a quote which spoke against weapons as insurance against evil government (context!). That is ridiculous.

Hardly. An optic greatly increase your ability to make hits in low light, when adopting awkward positions and it will allow you to make hits much faster. Most people who have used one will attest to that. Very handy for defending oneself and one's family.

That is the beauty of an AR-15 as I described, it is dual purpose. Good for tyrants and hoods.

carl

02-05-2013, 05:10 PM

Slap,

I think you are falling in the pit of the image d'Epinale about Europ, just as other are about USA.
I do not see where the right to own a M60 at home is a valid argument in the debat about are you free or not to think and believe what you want.

My only contribution will be that in most (if not all) western europ countries you can send your kids to school without worrying about is there or not a crazy guy with a gun who will kill him. And I believe that is, in Europ but also in USA, what a vast majority of the people are looking for.
That said the internal/domestic debat in the US over fire armes looks quite surreal seen from where I am, in the dark heart of Africa...

Just a technical note to start with. People legally can and do have fully automatic belt fed machine guns in the US. They are limited in number and are subject to more laws. They, except for one time I think, have never been used in a crime since the 30s.

There have been several school shootings in Finland and Germany in the last 10 years or so. Plus the incident in Norway.

You are right, people in both places are looking for physical security. But many more people in the US would rather look more to themselves for that security than to the government. Governments can't be fully trusted.

In that part of Africa, most of the people living there could probably attest to that.

Fuchs

02-05-2013, 06:06 PM

The first is a member of society in which the individual has recourse to arms, is a member of a society that recognizes the intrinsic rights of individuals. That is a society worthy.

That's ideological blather, nothing you'll be able to prove with logic by providing conclusive evidence. In fact, it's easily falsified by mere pointing at countries such as Taliban Afghanistan and Saddam's Iraq.

The second is a person who has recourse to arms is a person who can effectively defend themselves.

This is factually wrong. That high profile guy who got shot yesterday was a trained soldier, had recourse to arms and was still unable to defend himself.
There's no defence against surprise attacks other than vigilance, and vigilance all life equals a horrible life.

Thirdly is, you, Fuchs, may be an entirely fearsome fellow able to take on all comers.

I'm not, albeit I have some martial arts background to exploit opportunities with a devastating surprise attack when I see them. Normal hostiles face resolution, while I let violent hostiles think they're safe, meanwhile being ready to strike.

Guess what? I had no fight in ages. People with enough self-confidence (and this includes curiously almost all martial arts practitioners) rarely get into fights involuntarily. There's experimental psychological research backing this up. Actual robbers on parole were used in an experiment to pick targets for assault, and they reliably picked people who signalled a victim attitude with certain gestures. (I doubt that such people could make good use of a gun.)

It is also about the petite 55 year old woman with a bad knee that I mentioned before. If you deny her recourse to arms, you deny her the right to self defense.

(1) The petite 55 year old woman with a bad knee would not be kept from buying a pistol by universal background checks (= you used a strawman),
(2) even a pistol would not ensure her safety (in fact, it would even add risks to her life due to accidents, illegal use by others and a mcuh higher lethality of suicide attempts)
(3) you badly distort the right to self defence here. The right to self defence does not entitle you to the possession of weapons of your choice. It entitles you to use weapons already at your disposal, within limits of proportionality.
A crazy neighbour who owns a Cessna may threaten to crash into you house with full gasoline tank - this does not entitle you to the possession of anti-air missiles. There are limits, and this talk about a at best misinterpreted "right" is again a mere propagandistic distortion. It's not about the actual right to self defence.

I already wrote here about the distortion of actual rights for propaganda. It totally messes up thinking and yields stupid opinions.

I know perfectly well what decisive means. If you have arms, you can fight. If you don't, you can't. That is pretty decisive.

You don't get it. The gun fights are in such a case a mere confirmation of the decision, they aren't decisive. Rebels rarely employ much firepower.

The defence of Berlin in 1945 had hundreds of tanks, thousands of artillery pieces and mortars, hundreds of thousands of troops with guns. None of that had any influence on the decision, for the decision fell not in the fight, but prior to it.
The Red Army of June 1941 had many times as many tanks and guns as the Germans, but other factors decided that they would suffer millions of casualties in short order.
The Soviet coup d'tat ~1992 wasn't about tanks or AKMs or Frogfoots, for example; it was about the troops turning against the coup generals.

Likewise, rebels rarely win through battles, but through disruption of and by gaining of support. That's why they often win even in face of a lasting material superiority of government forces.

You know there is a contradiction in what you say when you comment about police states and popular support. Police states exist because popular support isn't great enough to ensure their survival without police state measures.

You insist on not getting it. The more effective the tools of a police state and the more tolerable it is, the less supporters (% population) the regime needs to maintain its grip. This may be as little as 5 or 15% support (probably even less; see Apartheid regimes, South Africa).
The police state may be so effective the rebels would probably need 80% instead of 40% support to overthrow the government (the remaining shares being neutral people). Numbers were made up to show the thought behind it, I suppose that's more readable than mathematic variables and formula.

Hardly. An optic greatly increase your ability to make hits in low light, when adopting awkward positions and it will allow you to make hits much faster. Most people who have used one will attest to that. Very handy for defending oneself and one's family.

For starters, defence is first and foremost about firing a warning shot which requires no aiming (and does not accidentally kill your daughter coming back from a date late at night).
Second, in the case when this doesn't suffice in one way or another, the combat range will still be less than 10 metres in almost all self defence scenarios. I'd rather want a handgun with a clean, long and straight upper side for natural aiming than any kind of reddot sight in such a situation.

That is the beauty of an AR-15 as I described, it is dual purpose. Good for tyrants and hoods.

It's good for or against neither. Someone who wants to kill you can kill you, and knowing you have an AR-15 will only tell him to attack you when you don't carry it.
If I wanted to kill somebody, I would spend 99% of my preparations on getting away with it, as the kill itself is quite simple (independent of the person being gun nut or not).
When on the other hand someone wants to steal from you, then he wants to steal and the proper defence is to scare him away, leaving him a route of escape.

In regard to "tyrants"; ridiculous. This is not the 18th century where army troops had inferior muskets while farmers had Pennsylvania rifles. Even then, the Whiskey tax revolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion) clearly showed what to think of people who believe that individual firearms give them the ability to resist the (then still weak) government; the rebels disappeared when Washington arrived with the well-regulated, musket-armed militia (which was used to oppress the tax revolt, not the other way!).

Those people who talk about AR-15s being an insurance against government overreach are either selling guns, nuts, loudmouths or simple fools.
Spend your energy better on pushing for good governance than dwelling in individual power fantasies.

Fuchs

02-05-2013, 06:07 PM

Governments can't be fully trusted.

Nor can guns.

I can tell you who of either kills more innocent U.S. citizens per year, though.

carl

02-05-2013, 06:46 PM

Nor can guns.

Oh you're wrong. If you get a good gun it can be trusted. If you get a Glock it will go bang when you pull the trigger and it won't go bang if you don't.

I can tell you who of either kills more innocent U.S. citizens per year, though.

That is the first time I've heard of an inanimate object referred to as a 'who'.

Fuchs

02-05-2013, 07:13 PM

Oh you're wrong. If you get a good gun it can be trusted. If you get a Glock it will go bang when you pull the trigger and it won't go bang if you don't.

There's no reason to trust that a gun is a reliable defence or even protection. Many times, having a gun will not protect you at all.

May I remind you at a certain man who possessed firearms, knew how to handle them, had them with him and still got shot dead recently?

A call for the police is no guarantee, pepper spray is none, a noise tool is none, a central lights switch for the entire house is none ... and guns are none.
________________

I totally skipped this so far:

Again, given that you grew up in the DDR it's understandable you'd be confused about this.

Ridiculous.
For starters, you don't know where I grew up and second, I didn't grow up in the DDR.

It shows how little you care about the difference between knowledge and fantasy, or about reality in general, though. You just didn't care that you were ignorant about my birthplace and simply moved on assuming your fantasy was real.

Now about who's the confused one here... :rolleyes:

Fuchs

02-05-2013, 07:22 PM

This explains your comments about optics like Red Dot - you really don't have a clue about firearms, let alone using them in any sort of life or death situation. Now I'm actually surprissed you didn't make some equally silly comment about "shoot to wound" or "shoot the gun out of his hand."

And again you're living in fantasyland. I served in the military, "you really don't have a clue about firearms" is hardly a defensible statement.
You have no clue whatsoever about my firearms knowledge or experience, and still you blather on as if you weren't ignorant.

The latter part of your statement was of course a strawman, reinforcing the negative impression about the level of your contribution here (and about how much you're living in fantasyland; reality surprises you).

J Wolfsberger

02-05-2013, 07:24 PM

For starters, you don't know where I grew up and second, I didn't grow up in the DDR.

I thought you used to reference a web site where you posted long form essays. I recalled comments about growing up in East Germany, and a few comments on the fall of the Berlin Wall. I tried to check, but couldn't find the link anymore, so went with my recollection. Maybe I had you confused with some other poster from Germany.

It was bad memory, not your accusations.

Fuchs

02-05-2013, 07:29 PM

OK, fine. Everybody errs sometimes.
I can indeed figure out how this happened; prejudices.
__________________

regarding warning shots

According to Germany's Der Spiegel, German police shot only 85 bullets in all of 2011, a stark reminder that not every country is as gun-crazy as the U.S. of A. As Boing Boing translates, most of those shots weren't even aimed anyone: "49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/52162/

That's competence, not an "invitation to criminally negligent homocide".
Supposing people should go for the kill with the first shot (or salvo) is such a thing instead.

Steve Blair

02-05-2013, 07:35 PM

I'm seriously considering locking this thread. Very little is occurring in terms of productive discourse, and I see no sign of that improving in the near future.

carl

02-05-2013, 07:39 PM

I just read Steve's post so I deleted everything I wrote. Thank you Steve for saying a good thing and I apologize for the part I had in making things less than they should be.

J Wolfsberger

02-05-2013, 07:44 PM

I just read Steve's post so I deleted everything I wrote. Thank you Steve for saying a good thing.

Ditto.

Stan

02-05-2013, 08:06 PM

regarding warning shots

According to Germany's Der Spiegel, German police shot only 85 bullets in all of 2011, a stark reminder that not every country is as gun-crazy as the U.S. of A. As Boing Boing translates, most of those shots weren't even aimed anyone: "49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/52162/

That's competence, not an "invitation to criminally negligent homocide".
Supposing people should go for the kill with the first shot (or salvo) is such a thing instead.

Just my pesky self from this little corner of the earth ;)

Did you read that link at Boing Boing ? Strange place for supporting information, but then, I have a few too :D

The only thing I really worry about when it comes to warning shots, is, they generally return to earth nearly as fast as they left. Serving in Africa where everything was a warning shot on full auto, I fear a lot more innocent people were shot than that of those actually being aimed at.

In defense of this post, I will only say that the BPOL as well as the German Border Guard (we work and train with both) are a tough crowd and have never appeared friendly. They mean business and using a firearm is the least of your worries. They do have some sweet looking H&Ks :cool:

jmm99

02-05-2013, 09:24 PM

Good to see you're reading this thread - buttering you up like brioche. :)

In this post, Some Chasms are Too Wide to Bridge - pt 2 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=144372&postcount=149), I linked to two monographs: Dave Kopel (http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/genocide.pdf) and Barbara Frey (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/45c30b560.pdf), to illustrate the gulf between the positions of Kopel and Frey (UN S.R., etc.). I did not discuss them substantively as they bear on genocide issues in Central Africa.

Discussing "gun control" and "gun possession" in Central Africa in this thread would take it far beyond its reasonable limits (HT to Steve Blair). However, your expertise in this area would be appreciated because both Kopel's and Frey's arguments are of interest to me.

So, if you want to, please take a look at the monographs and get back to me in a PM.

My personal view on the UN position (as applied to the US) is obviously negative. I think Dave (despite all his mastery of 2nd Amendment history here; and his being a Michigan Law grad and a Law Review editor ;)) is playing Pollyanna with respect to genocide (but, perhaps not).

Thanks in advance.

Regards

Mike

Fuchs

02-05-2013, 09:30 PM

Just my pesky self from this little corner of the earth ;)

Did you read that link at Boing Boing ? Strange place for supporting information,

I actually read the Spiegel article when it was published. It's citing a official report. The numbers have been similar in earlier years.
We're a nation of 80+ million people for whom needing guns to solve anything is such an exception that it's almost a rounding error. We've found better ways even for dealing with violent criminals.
I consider this a success.

I will only say that the BPOL as well as the German Border Guard (we work and train with both)

Strange. Bundespolizei and Bundesgrenzschutz are the same, for the latter was renamed into the former several years ago. I assume you thought of some state police.

Dayuhan

02-05-2013, 11:21 PM

The only thing I really worry about when it comes to warning shots, is, they generally return to earth nearly as fast as they left. Serving in Africa where everything was a warning shot on full auto, I fear a lot more innocent people were shot than that of those actually being aimed at.

The standard script for a Manila coup d'etat used to be that the rebellious soldiers would occupy a piece of urban real estate, the loyal soldiers would surround them, and at some point they would conduct what was called "acoustic warfare", which meant firing vigorously over the heads of the nominal antagonists. The law of gravity being what it is, this was not always a healthy thing for the surrounding neighborhoods.

motorfirebox

02-06-2013, 04:55 AM

Bleh. I'd have hoped that this board, at least, could avoid the usual ideological traps that this debate inevitably slides into.

The issue most immediately facing the US, with regards to firearms, is criminal gun violence. That includes outliers like the recent spate of spree killings, but it mostly consists of criminals shooting each othe and, to a somewhat lesser degree, criminals shooting non-criminals.

Guns as a means of revolution isn't a real concern at this point. For those who want them, guns of the desired type are still readily available, limited only by manufacturing capacity; that is unlikely to change in the near future, and even if it does, the guns we already have will still be legal even in a worst-case scenario.

The guns most frequently used in crime (and even non-crime gun violence) are overwhelmingly cheap semi-automatic pistols. "Assault weapons" make up anywhere from 1-2%. There is absolutely no good reason to go after "assault weapons". It makes zero sense, from the perspective of attempting to solve the US's most pressing gun-related problem, to try to ban "assault weapons". I'm putting that phrase in quotes because it's a truly ridiculous phrase.

Again, what we need to focus on is keeping guns from getting into the hands of people who should not have them. That means un-castrating the ATF, it means monetizing gun busts for local law enforcement the way drug busts are handled now, it means enacting stronger penalties for straw buyers (here's a thought: jail time! We put guys in jail for years for ounces of weed, but we hand out light fines for pounds and pounds and pounds of guns?), it means lowering the evidence threshold to prosecute (again, currently you must show separate, concrete criminal intent for each and every gun in an alleged straw buy--it's ridiculous).

carl

02-06-2013, 05:31 AM

The guns most frequently used in crime (and even non-crime gun violence) are overwhelmingly cheap semi-automatic pistols.

I am not so sure about the "cheap" part. Most of the guns hoods had that I saw were stolen and thieves stole what people had, and a lot of what they had was good. Slap would know much more about this.

Again, what we need to focus on is keeping guns from getting into the hands of people who should not have them. That means un-castrating the ATF, it means monetizing gun busts for local law enforcement the way drug busts are handled now, it means enacting stronger penalties for straw buyers (here's a thought: jail time! We put guys in jail for years for ounces of weed, but we hand out light fines for pounds and pounds and pounds of guns?), it means lowering the evidence threshold to prosecute (again, currently you must show separate, concrete criminal intent for each and every gun in an alleged straw buy--it's ridiculous).

Sounds sensible to me. I don't know how castrated the ATF actually is but the idea of adding crook guns to the preferred list (what I saw) of drunks and drugs is great. I think that many if not most of those guns are stolen. A program to help owners record and remember the serial numbers of their weapons would be of immense help. Perhaps a voluntary program whereby the owner is given a stiff laminated document with the serial number of the gun and a photo of it upon purchase would help, anything that will enable them to report a serial number if the thing is stolen.

slapout9

02-06-2013, 07:02 AM

Slap,

I think you are falling in the pit of the image d'Epinale about Europ, just as other are about USA.
I do not see where the right to own a M60 at home is a valid argument in the debat about are you free or not to think and believe what you want.

My only contribution will be that in most (if not all) western europ countries you can send your kids to school without worrying about is there or not a crazy guy with a gun who will kill him. And I believe that is, in Europ but also in USA, what a vast majority of the people are looking for.
That said the internal/domestic debat in the US over fire armes looks quite surreal seen from where I am, in the dark heart of Africa...

Hi M-A Lagrange,

The trap that needs to be avoided is the one where we accept some of the most intrusive searches ever devised in order to be safe on our Airlines but refuse to propely fund and train an armed security force for our schools. It is this course of action that is being recommended by the same people who have their own children protected by armed secuity forces, that is the trap that needs to be avoided. Hope you are having a good time over there in Africa.

motorfirebox

02-06-2013, 07:05 AM

I am not so sure about the "cheap" part. Most of the guns hoods had that I saw were stolen and thieves stole what people had, and a lot of what they had was good. Slap would know much more about this.
Theft from legal, private owners accounts for a tiny share of criminal weapons--around 1%, depending on which source you pick (I often reference Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers--a 2000 report, from back when the ATF was still allowed to do their job). The primary sources are corrupt FFL dealers, gun show/flea market purchases, and straw buyer rings.

slapout9

02-06-2013, 07:12 AM

Slap,

I think you are falling in the pit of the image d'Epinale about Europ, just as other are about USA.
I do not see where the right to own a M60 at home is a valid argument in the debat about are you free or not to think and believe what you want.

My only contribution will be that in most (if not all) western europ countries you can send your kids to school without worrying about is there or not a crazy guy with a gun who will kill him. And I believe that is, in Europ but also in USA, what a vast majority of the people are looking for.
That said the internal/domestic debat in the US over fire armes looks quite surreal seen from where I am, in the dark heart of Africa...

Hi M-A Lagrange,

The trap that needs to be avoided is the one where we accept some of the most intrusive searches ever devised in order to be safe on our Airlines but refuse to propely fund and train an armed security force for our schools. It is this course of action that is being recommended by the same people who have their own children protected by armed secuity forces, that is the trap that needs to be avoided. Hope you are having a good time over there in Africa.

jmm99

02-06-2013, 07:15 AM

I expect there will be some action regarding background checks and "gun" databases in general. These are solely my thoughts and solely based on political factors (which may be totally different 6 mos. from now):

1. The ATF should not be in the firearms record keeping business. It should be an investigative and enforcement agency. Regardless of how pristine one thinks the ATF will be, another will think the opposite. Save some lives and create an independent agency, with appropriate firewalls for inquiries and referrals for investigations and prosecutions - the devil will be in those details.

2. Get the criminal records, "terrorist" records, and mental health records into that database. The criminal records and "terrorist" records will be easy; the mental health records, many absent from the present system, will be more difficult. The devil again will be in the details, especially as to appropriate firewalls for inquiries and referrals for investigations and prosecutions - and for expungement of incorrect or antequated records.

3. Enforcement of existing laws is obvious; but a review of existing laws is needed. Some "gun" laws are stupid or obsolete; some violate Heller and McDonald. Get rid of those. Take a look at proof requirements for "straw buyers". I've not looked at those statutes. Way back when (I was a young man), cases charging receipt of stolen goods, especially at the end of a chain, were easy to defend. I expect "straw purchase" chains are similar. But, problems like that are usually solvable.

4. Someone has to pay for all this. Over the last 50 years, I've seen bunches of criminal law and mental health programs proposed, with some enacted but not really implemented. Both Federal and state governments are strong on mandates and weak on providing funding for the mandates.

5. As an example, polls indicate that very high percentages (constitutional majorities or better) want criminal and mental background checks on all sales and transfers of firearms, components (e.g., mags) and ammunition. Again, the details matter; but here the details really matter as to the exact process to be used and the funding to be allocated for it. The regulations have to be in the bill. Regardless of how pristine one thinks the agency will be in drafting regulations which it puts in effect, another will think the opposite.

6. My experience (the 1968 statute and after) is that "gun control" proponents tend to overshoot - that is, they tend to insert added provisions which make the bill unacceptable to "gun control" opponents. Currently, I'd suggest that Sens. Feinstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein) and Shumer (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer), and Congresswoman McCarthy (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_McCarthy), have the floor. They might accept points 1 through 5 as part of a bill, but will still want "assault weapons", "super magazines" and "universal background checks" included.

7. Thus, if I were the NRA honchos (I'm not), I'd not introduce any legislation; but simply push for the "gun control" legislation to have full hearings (no last minute 2000-page bills), and then be brought up for an up or down vote. We would then see how many NRA A-rated legislators do not have wobbly knees. Points 1 through 5 are not really my cause. When they are combined with the adverse "assault weapons", "super magazines" and "universal background checks" (I need the details on that one) provisions, I'd ask my congressman, Dan Benishek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Benishek), to vote against the hypothetical "Feinstein-McCarthy" package.

Benishek's announced position on the Second Amendment (http://benishek.house.gov/press-release/dr-benishek-leads-effort-protect-northern-michigan-gun-owners) (25 Jan 2013):

“I oppose the Obama Administration’s plan to limit the Second Amendment rights of law abiding gun owners in Northern Michigan. Attacking our constitutional rights will not make our society any safer. We must ensure that citizens in Northern Michigan - and throughout this nation - have the ability to protect themselves and their families,” said Dr. Benishek, an avid sportsman, gun owner and lifelong resident of Northern Michigan.
...
“Like many Americans, I believe we need to have a national conversation about ways to prevent violence in our society. But I don’t believe this is done by disarming good people. As a doctor, I believe we need to look at mental health issues in this country. I think we can make important steps to stop criminals from hurting innocent people without taking away anyone’s Second Amendment rights,” added Dr. Benishek.

Regards

Mike

slapout9

02-06-2013, 07:36 AM

jmm99,

This past weekend the NRA spokesman said there are already 9,000:eek: laws and regulations dealing firearms on the books but they are seldom enforced because the prosecutors just don't want to do it. Your expert thoughts on this?

motorfirebox

02-06-2013, 08:21 AM

I think it's fair to say that both sides overshoot. I mean, preventing a permanent director from being appointed for six years? What's that about?

jmm99

02-06-2013, 09:10 AM

We're both staying up too late. :)

I've no real SMEese on the statitics re: firearm laws and regulations. 9,000 laws and regulations sounds a plausible number to me. Anyway the number is not that material. The laws and regs are already divided into classes for the most part. So, general paradigms can developed for each class: delete, amend, leave as is. After that, it's basically legal scut work.

The stats on prosecutions are from TRAC at Syracuse Univ., which I linked in an earlier post here. I know what its database knows.

I live in a back-woods, conservative, populist, gun-owning county. We do not have that many gun problems. We are neither Detroit nor Milwaukee. I'd say that a felony + gun (using gun in commission) = enhanced penalties, as also a felon + gun (no other felony) = enhanced penalties. Other violations (say of conservation weapon regs) would likely be soft-pedeled. I've looked (a little bit) for Detroit and Milwaukee stats on illegal weapons prosecutions (Fed and state), but came up empty.

A couple of months ago, Ed Flynn (Milwaukee CoP and a "gun controller plus") stated there were just south of 12,000 illegal firearms seized in Milwaukee over the last 4-5 years. He didn't say how many cases (if any) were prosecuted. Last week, Dave Clarke, the Milwaukee County sheriff (pro-gun), advised every citizen to purchase a firearm and become proficient in its use; to which Chief Flynn responded.

Milwaukee County Sheriff: 'You Have A Duty To Protect Yourself' (http://www.npr.org/2013/01/31/170727538/milwaukee-sheriff-advises-residents-to-arm-themselves).

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/01/31/clarke-24eb9549601b1445be75635d22c9bf4e726af1ac-s2.jpg

Milwaukee Police Chief says Sheriff Clarke trying to 'terrorize' city (http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/189230441.html)

http://mctaxpayer.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/flynn.jpg

So, all sorts of controversy between the "gun controllers" (Mayor Barrett & Chief Flynn) and the "gun rightser" (Sheriff Clarke). I'll stand with the sheriff, who keeps Justice Thomas' McDonald opinion well in mind.

BTW: the City of Chicago and a suburb paid the court-ordered $1.4 million in McDonald legal costs to the NRA - Chicago payment checks signed "Raum Emmanuel".

Thought you might enjoy this sidebar - which proves there's a lot of division 350 miles south of us.

Regards

Mike

jmm99

02-06-2013, 09:16 AM

provide the links pro and con for this:

... preventing a permanent director from being appointed for six years? What's that about?

and I'll read them.

Regards

Mike

J Wolfsberger

02-06-2013, 12:35 PM

I think it's fair to say that both sides overshoot. I mean, preventing a permanent director from being appointed for six years? What's that about?

The Obama administration keeps trying to appoint gun control activists. There's some concern about how that would work out.

On different note, you cited some firearms statistics earlier. Have you run across any data on firearms smuggled into the U.S.?

slapout9

02-06-2013, 02:31 PM

We're both staying up too late. :)
Thought you might enjoy this sidebar - which proves there's a lot of division 350 miles south of us.

Regards

Mike

Yea we are staying up too late but that is about all I can do anymore(see PM). Really did like the sidebar and I think it is very revealing. Sheriff's are usually elected and have their own constituencies where as Police Chiefs are appointed by elected Mayors. Been my experience at least down here that Sheriffs are more open and direct with the population where a Police Chief is going to toe the party line of the elected Mayor and often ends up just like your sidebar Sheriff vs. Police Chief. And so it goes;)

Stan

02-06-2013, 04:26 PM

I actually read the Spiegel article when it was published. It's citing a official report. The numbers have been similar in earlier years.
We're a nation of 80+ million people for whom needing guns to solve anything is such an exception that it's almost a rounding error. We've found better ways even for dealing with violent criminals.
I consider this a success.

Fuchs, indeed success... I agree. My point was also just how the BPOL and BGS perform their jobs and the way they intimidate (look) with an H&K dangling from their necks with hand on weapon and index finger at the ready. Only an idiot would beg for trouble. Behind the scenes is yet another matter.

Strange. Bundespolizei and Bundesgrenzschutz are the same, for the latter was renamed into the former several years ago. I assume you thought of some state police.

Back when I first went to school with the Germans, the Border Guard was a separate entity. When we restructured in 2005 so did the BPOL and BGS. At my age we tend to remember how things were before some politician decided on restructuring what already worked. As my BGS instructor told me, "we simply have more responsibilities and the same pay".

Stan

02-06-2013, 04:31 PM

The standard script for a Manila coup d'etat used to be that the rebellious soldiers would occupy a piece of urban real estate, the loyal soldiers would surround them, and at some point they would conduct what was called "acoustic warfare", which meant firing vigorously over the heads of the nominal antagonists. The law of gravity being what it is, this was not always a healthy thing for the surrounding neighborhoods.

Talk about a walk down memory lane circa 1985 in then Zaire. The louder, the better. Fierce looking Presidential Division soldiers (DSP) would down load hundreds of rounds with nearly every round a tracer... Independence day Zairian style :rolleyes:

My garage had a cement roof and even our dog knew that was a safe bet with armageddon on the way.

Deep Sigh !

Stan

02-06-2013, 06:54 PM

Discussing "gun control" and "gun possession" in Central Africa in this thread would take it far beyond its reasonable limits

Moi Mikka,

Mitä kuuluu ?

I would add (albeit dated info from the 90s) that genocide in Africa has very little to do with firearms. Of the estimated 800,000 in Rwanda and Zaire, most suffered far worse fate at the blade of a machete than that of any firearm.

There are barely any gun controls and firearms possession outside of the military and even then, are limited to the very elite, and they have no clue how to operate said.

Kopel argues that the UN tools in place are ineffective. Couldn't agree more. But he also likes to inject that "human rights" thing as if the players even cared. No good reasons to preach international law to people that never made it past 6th grade, dictator or otherwise.

We then wander off into what a State's obligation is regarding human rights.

They contend it seems that, civilians under no controls, possess firearms. Anyone that has been in Sub-Sahara can tell you that civilians do not possess anything and the military arm of the regime possesses and controls everything.

Regards, Stan

Fuchs

02-06-2013, 07:24 PM

jmm99

02-06-2013, 08:22 PM

considering that, 12 Jan my driveway was bare concrete and half of the front yard was green. Since then near 100 inches of snow; it's great for Michigan Tech's Winter Carnival this week, though.

Cheers

Mike

carl

02-06-2013, 08:31 PM

Theft from legal, private owners accounts for a tiny share of criminal weapons--around 1%, depending on which source you pick (I often reference Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers--a 2000 report, from back when the ATF was still allowed to do their job). The primary sources are corrupt FFL dealers, gun show/flea market purchases, and straw buyer rings.

I checked the report you referenced. It is a report that covered 1,530 firearms trafficking investigation done by the ATF during the period July 1996 to December 1998. Of that number 1,470 investigations resulted in the recovery of 84,128 firearms. Page 41 of the report states that at least 500,000 firearms are stole annually from residences, on top of which you have to add weapons stolen from gun stores and common carriers. So in that 2 1/2 year period during which the investigations that are the subject of the report recovered 84,128 firearms, about 1 1/2 million firearms were stolen from just residences, according to that report

Now here is a link to a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm

The press release for the report states that during the six year period from 2005 to 2010 about 1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes.

In 1998 and 1999:
more than 27,000 firearms were reportedly stolen from licensed gun dealers and more than 3,700 hundred stolen from common carriers who transport guns. That comes from a fact sheet done by the Bloomberg School of Public Health.
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/ (go down to 2003. I don't know how to put a link directly to a pdf on my computer.)

And this reference
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1861&page=269

states that:
Theft—from licensed dealers, from residences, and from other criminals—is an important source of firearms used in felonies. Moore (1981) reports the results of manufacturer-to-user traces by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of 113 handguns used in Boston felonies during 1975-1976. Of the guns whose histories could be traced, 40 percent were stolen at some point: 12 percent of those used in assaults, and 56 percent of those used in other crimes, which presumably were more likely to involve advance planning.

And then we have this
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/03/20/illegal-guns-firearms-part1

This is a story about illegally obtained guns on the streets of Minneapolis. It is interesting because on the one had an ATF guy says:
Most guns used in crimes are obtained through straw purchases or from traffickers.. And on the other hand the the Minny police chief at the time said:
the bulk of guns used in crimes are stolen from lawful gun owners.

So from all of this I conclude that stolen guns comprise far, far more than 1% of guns used in crimes. The problem with using ATF stats like the ones in the study you cited is that the ATF is only interested in guns that violate federal laws and in that study federal trafficking laws specifically. If guy steals a gun from a home, and the homeowner reports it but didn't know the serial number of the gun and then the thief is found with that gun and says nothing about how he got it, that gun is invisible to the ATF. Most stolen guns recovered are most likely recovered by local and state police. But there is no way to know because, take this from personal experience, most victims don't know the serial numbers of their firearms. That is the key, the serial number. Unless that is reported by the victim of theft, if or when that weapon is recovered it is just a weapon in limbo.

When you look into all this, there isn't all that much known that is concrete. Hoods are going to lie. Without a serial number, the ATF can't trace anything. Domestic violence criminals who use firearms are going to skew the data and on and on. The big thing for me is, hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen each year. Those guns are most all going to go into the criminal underworld. One of the reasons criminals like guns is it makes it easier to do crime. Ergo,...

You have to be careful when using ATF reports.

slapout9

02-06-2013, 08:40 PM

Ted Nugent tells off refugee news reporter Piers Morgan that he will never understand!!!! God Bless Ted!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkjIMxf0VyU&feature=player_embedded#!

Stan

02-06-2013, 08:55 PM

Stan, the GSG9 guys are only a tiny part of the German police special team s realm.

The police in German cities has what's known as MEK and SEK, with SEK being remotely similar to GSG9 (though not tasked to care about cases like kidnapped airliners, for example) while MEKs are a kind of reinforcement for arrests and also mobile observation units (for lengthy observations).
MEKs do their arrests when the suspect is moving in the public, while the SEK does so if much resistance is expected and in static (barricade, hostage) situations.

Fuchs,
Those are in fact who we work with now, but on a much smaller scale under the guise of the European Bomb Techs network. We are not part of a commando unit, but by law, we support the commandos here (very similar to your SEK). A strange relationship that requires cooperation if we are to succeed. All of us carry government issued firearms and most of us have at least one personal firearm.

Again, the very existence of the MEK shows that German police work isn't much about guns. A MEK policeman can spend years in such a unit without ever needing to draw his weapon and aim at somebody.
Their surprise arrests are more about Ju Jutsu (a German-collected, Japanese-named collection of unarmed close combat techniques including plenty submission techniques; official German police sport) than about pointing guns.

MEK seems to be more of a specialized SWAT support team and their skills are certainly in high demand and perhaps a bit expensive to operate. Just my opinion. My brother in law has been with the Capital police EOD for over 20 years and also acknowledges that SWAT teams as well as under cover CID form an intricate part of many sting operations that often work out without the outward use of firearms. Regarding martial arts: generally speaking you can have no way of knowing how you will actually react during a reside position. I spent a year with Koreans on the MDL practicing tae kwon-do and it's not as simple nor effective as drawing a weapon - especially when you already have an AK pointed at you.

The American approach is much more loose in regard to pointing guns at people (and more), and it shows in the quantity of shots fired at people. This is mirroring the civilian approach, and I consider this reliance on guns very unsatisfactory, to say the least.

We may disagree on this point and so be it.
I look back on instances in the USA such as the 1997 shootout in Hollywood and 2007 Virginia Tech massacre where everyday patrolmen were simply outgunned and had to wait for SWAT to come in. German police would have perhaps tackled this situation differently and we can argue that til the dogs come home. To no avail, we will simply disagree !

I conclude we have a much larger, and, at times, more severe problem with gun-related criminal incidences than some of Europe experiences (having lived abroad more than 35 years). The examples above involved some real firepower and the police were simply outgunned. It's no surprise that our law enforcement and public are more apt to pulling a firearm than taking self defense classes.

Fuchs

02-06-2013, 09:30 PM

I spent a year with Koreans on the MDL practicing tae kwon-do and it's not as simple nor effective as drawing a weapon - especially when you already have an AK pointed at you.

Unarmed defence is intricate (see PM), but I submit that someone pointing an AK at me would shoot me if I drew a handgun. Don't see how that helps.

Firn

02-06-2013, 09:33 PM

A functional integration of various groups/levels of police force could and should certainly increase the efficiency and effectivness. It is of course of great importance that the 'right' group is able to get there in time to do the required job. Utoya sadly docet.

I did reflect a bit on the 'hot spot' approach to policing which was brought up in the cited NYT article. The idea behind it might be surprisingly simple and quite easy to model.

Think of a crime hot spot as an efficient market of crime, where the costumer meets the supplier and the competitor the other. Staying out of that area of criminal exchange will hurt your bottom line or make it harder to get your drug or sex fix. If the police starts to turn up a lot at irregular but often narrow intervals and interrupts that efficient exchange of goods and violence it will induce some criminals to stay away and to shift away to another spot.

The key success from a police point of view is that this disrupts many supply chains and criminal nets which take some time (if at all) to reach the old efficiency in new hot spots. When you look at the big picture with many hot spots forced to undergo this process it is clear that those drops in efficiency can lower the overall crime rate by a good degree.

(Some violence, like inter-gang one, might increase after the shift away from the hot spot, as they might fight over the new territory. It depends of course on the relative gains and falls. )

Stan

02-06-2013, 09:53 PM

Unarmed defence is intricate (see PM), but I submit that someone pointing an AK at me would shoot me if I drew a handgun. Don't see how that helps.

Fuchs,
Yes, the age old theory of Tae Kwon Do is unarmed defense and under the circumstances from 1955 that may have applied well in Korea. There are however limitations to an art that never evolved or took into account scenarios following the 1950s or America.

I would see many more instances of weapons pointed in my face when it was clear I had a side arm. I believe (since I am still alive) that by being armed presented my opponent with a situation he was not mentally prepared for, and backed down.

PM received. Thanks.

Steve Blair

02-06-2013, 09:54 PM

Stan

02-06-2013, 09:59 PM

carl

02-07-2013, 02:33 AM

This (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/?single_page=true) is one interesting look at what might be a contributing factor in the uptick in violence in Chicago last year. The article deals with Memphis, but Chicago was doing away with some of its housing projects in the 2010-2011 timeframe. It's a long article, but worth the read.

I read that a long time ago and forgot about it. It was very good. When I skimmed it this time what popped out at me was the mention that NYC and DC by doing this kind of thing are essentially exporting their crime. Perhaps an unintended way to speed gentrification and making those superzip codes that much safer for their denizens.

slapout9

02-07-2013, 04:45 AM

Sheriff Clark from Milwaukee (jmm99 part of the country) owns that immigrant reporter Piers Morgan again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwltduVrvuY

J Wolfsberger

02-07-2013, 02:51 PM

Sheriff Clark from Milwaukee (jmm99 part of the country) owns that immigrant reporter Piers Morgan again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwltduVrvuY

That would only be an accomplishment if it wasn't so easy to do. :D

jmm99

02-07-2013, 04:25 PM

Here's the CNN transcript of Piers Morgan's interviews of Neil Heslin (a Sandy Hook parent) and then Dave Clarke (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/29/pmt.01.html).

Cold black & white often gives one an opportunity to reflect on what is said.

Heslin about 1/3 down; Clarke about 2/3 down.

Regards

Mike

Stan

02-07-2013, 05:16 PM

Now why in God's name (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/feb/06/piers-morgan-fires-browning-machine-gun-video) would you go on TV and dump .50 ammo only to discover what everybody else in America already knows ?

I swore he was gonna cook the barrel :rolleyes:

I thought this Delta Hotel was voted out of our country ?

Firn

02-07-2013, 05:23 PM

Firn,
But security is little more than making the situation more secure or uncomfortable enough that the problem simply moves on to someone else's backyard. In rural USA, that may only equate to shifting the thugs several hundred yards into an adjacent neighborhood where the same local law enforcement will still have to deal with the very same problem. No ?

Their goods may end up being more expensive, but we still did not get rid of them.

Why not just terminate the problem where it grew roots instead of sending them into the neighbor's yard ?

Well I just highlighted the not so obvious and intuitive effects of that NY policy referred to in the NYT. The police did of course often not just take a look around as cruising only along would have hardly made a big impact on the behaviour in this criminal market place. Beside specific missions the (in)famous stop-and-frisk was seemingly especially often adopted around such hot spots.

Wiki:

The stop-and-frisk program of New York City is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the officer reasonably suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons. The rules for stop and frisk are found in New York State Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio[1][2] About 684,000 people were stopped in 2011.[1][3][4] New York residents have questioned whether these stops are based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.[5] According to NYPD statistics, almost one in five stopped were guilty of a crime.[3] The vast majority of these people were African-American or Latino.[1][3][4]

From a criminal's point of view such activities can be of course more then a hassle, as you could be stopped with a decent probability, possibly while 'just' carrying some illegal stuff or having an outstanding warrant without doing anything 'wrong'.

In the end it is all about the opportunity costs and the specific circumstances. In a world where the criminal markets places are 'sticky' - shift not easily - and suffer a considerable drop in efficiency when disturbed such a policy could be up to a point more effective at curbing crime then the same relative amount of police routine.

P.S: Just read that piece in the Guardian...

Lieberman says that in 2010 she noted a disproportionate concentration of NYPD stop-and-frisks among young men of color: "African American and Latino men between the ages of 14 and 24 are 7.2% of the population and 41% of police stop-and-frisks."

Patrick Jones, a 25 year-old African American living in the Bronx, was first stopped by the police at age 12 while hanging out near an NYPD precinct. At the time motorcycles were being stolen out of a police garage, and officers accused Jones of the crime. He was handcuffed, taken to the precinct, questioned and released without charge.

Jones has dealt with police stop-and-frisks ever since. Many of those encounters, he says, have resulted in beatings.

When asked what age stop-and-frisks tend to begin for residents of his neighborhood Jones was frank, "Soon as you're able to go outside on your own. It doesn't matter how old you are."

Jones says young people in his area are targeted for little more than their appearance. "We're kids from the hood. We dress a certain way. We have certain things that we do, so we all look like criminals to them."

"Sometimes they just sweep people," he explained. "There are a bunch of people just standing somewhere; sweep. Somebody's gotta have something. Nine times out of ten they're right."

Stan

02-07-2013, 05:33 PM

Well I just highlighted the not so obvious and intuitive effects of that NY policy referred to in the NYT. The police did of course often not just take a look around as cruising only along would have hardly made a big impact on the behaviour in this criminal market place. Beside specific missions the (in)famous stop-and-frisk was seemingly especially often adopted around such hot spots.

In the end it is all about the opportunity costs and the specific circumstances. In a world where the criminal markets places are 'sticky' - shift not easily - and suffer a considerable drop in efficiency when disturbed such a policy could be up to a point more effective at curbing crime then the same relative amount of police routine.

Agreed. But, with our liberal system of 3 strikes and you're out (for example) all the while chasing legal gun owners for shake downs, I don't see much coming out of this scenario.

If we're to be tough on legal gun ownership, so be it. We should be just as vigilant with prosecuting gun-related crime. In two weeks you will be prosecuted and sent to death row. Fairly simple especially when you consider that most of us really don't want to pay to have that idiot fed 3 squares while he watches reruns of Dallas :mad:

jmm99

02-08-2013, 02:38 AM

Piers dances with Ma Deuce, and with Ted Nugent, a Michigan expatriate. :)

I have to confess my TV is on at 6pm and off at 8pm, unless there's a decent movie or sporting event somewhere in America's Wasteland. Thus, the world of CNN Transcripts (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/) has been essential to my understanding of what the hell you guys are talking about.

In any event, here's Piers, Interviews with Gun Advocates (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1302/04/pmt.01.html) (Aired February 4, 2013 - 21:00 ET):

PIERS MORGAN, CNN HOST: Tonight, gun advocates say that I just don't get it when it comes to guns and one of the main reasons is I've never fired before, hardly at all. So I've come to gun country, to Houston and Texas to one of the most successful and popular gun stores in the state. And I'm going to find out why so many Americans demand the right to be able to use one of these. By far, one of the most powerful weapons in America's arsenal and they're all legal.

I'll talk to the Texas attorney general and the owner of this store which has become a Mecca to many Texans with guns and ammunition.

And my one-on-one with the Motor City madman himself, Ted Nugent. It got pretty lively last time and I'm sure it will again tonight.

The long, long segment of our maestro's visit to the Texas gun store was, to this reader, well, painful to read.

The short segment with Ted Nugent (at the end of the transcript) was, at its end, informative as to the two personalities:

MORGAN: When you say this kind of bull, and that's what it is, people believe it. And Yemen is not the safest country in the world.

NUGENT: Are you prepared to admit that your dream of a gun free zone in Mexico is working? A gun free zone in Chicago is working? A gun free zone in all these cities where the slaughter rate is the highest of anywhere, including Yemen?

MORGAN: Let me give you some countries, Australia, Britain, Japan, Canada.

NUGENT: They don't have a Second Amendment, Piers.

MORGAN: Your Second Amendment, Ted, doesn't entitle you to have an armored tank outside or an RPG on your should. You accept gun control already.

NUGENT: Are you sure of that?

MORGAN: I wouldn't want you in a tank. But there are already over 50 gun controlled measures in this country. We're not talking about bringing in gun control. We're talking about extending it to cover the --

NUGENT: -- measures are violated by all these perpetrators every time. What makes you think that the 51st law is going to stop this kind of slaughter? I'm here to tell you it will not. I believe an armed society is a polite society.

MORGAN: The mood is changing, Ted. And something has to change. I respect your opinion. I respect you coming down to talk to me.

NUGENT: Back at you.

MORGAN: Ted Nugent. And we'll be back...

Regards

Mike