Side story on the recent gun spree

[carl]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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...

[Fuchs]

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]

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]

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/globa...le-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]

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]

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]

I just read Steve's post so I deleted everything I wrote. Thank you Steve for saying a good thing.

Ditto.

[Stan]

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/globa...le-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

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

[jmm99]

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, I linked to two monographs: Dave Kopel and Barbara Frey, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.