|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#511
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/14/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:12:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:20:47 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote: As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. ... From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons. Yes, it appears they were. The massacre happened in a state where almost anything to do with guns is legal. Frank, the laws I quoted are U.S. government laws... applicable in every one of the 50 states. But regarding the "not a simple matter": Where do you live again? What's the gun murder rate? How often does your country have mass shootings? How do they define legal firearms? ISTM that this problem, like so many others, is claimed to be just too difficult for the U.S. Yet somehow, it's a problem that'sbeen largely solved in every other advanced country. - Frank Krygowski Sure it is. But is it gun control that caused it? You seem to be ignoring the fact that in a number of instances in the U.S. that States with minimal gun laws also have minimal murder rates. I'm not ignoring that. I'll point out (again) that an island of gun control, so to speak, can't get excellent results in a sea free of gun restrictions. Canada is next to a gun-crazy nation. That's a problem for them. They manage it pretty well by strongly resisting guns crossing the border. Your handgun may be legal in Vermont, but that cuts no ice when you try to take it into Quebec. Britain's gun violence data is even better. I'm betting that it's at least partly due to the fact that they are, indeed, an island. No American nut-jobs are driving their with pistols under their car seats. Yes, I know that you argue it is the pressures of urban living but that argument doesn't seem to hang together either. Example: New York City population of 8,550,861 murder rate of 3.0 rape rate of 14.0 Robbery of 198.2 crimes against property 1518 Los Angeles population of 3,962,726 murder rate of 7.1 rape rate of 55.7 Robbery of 225.9 crimes against property 2359 L.A. has less then half the population and more then double the crime. I know that New York City has very strict gun laws. I don't know about Los Angeles. But things like this might make some difference: http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#512
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
|
#513
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/14/2017 12:41 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:50:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2017 2:04 AM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:59:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/12/2017 9:39 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:59:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/12/2017 4:46 AM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:38 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:29:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:42 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:54:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote: It seems unlikely, at best, to believe that you didn't understand the content of the original posts between Frank and I where he commented that punching holes in a paper target with a gun and thinking you were a big, bad, man was childish. I then replied "like a 60 year old guy on a CF racing bike". I can only assume that you are interjecting your off topic remarks deliberately. So yes, goodbye. Walking off in a snit again John? Really, get over yourself. You're beginning to sound like Frank who denies that where the strongest guns laws are we have the highest rates of gun crimes and where the least gun laws are in effect the murder rates are insignificant. You mean like Canada vs. the U.S.? Or like Windsor vs. Detroit? Got numbers? Even a casual look shows little correlation between gun ownership in the U.S. and homicides. Gun ownership http://tinyurl.com/ybnxnu8x States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners (more than 50%) 1. Wyoming - 59.7% Homicide rate 2.7/100,000 2. Alaska - 57.8% 8.0 3. Montana - 57.7% 3.5 4. South Dakota - 56.6% 3.7 5. West Virginia - 55.4% 3.8 6. Mississippi - 55.3% 8.7 6. Idaho - 55.3% 1.9 6. Arkansas - 55.3% 6.1 9. Alabama - 51.7% 7.2 10. North Dakota - 50.7% 2.8 States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners 40. Delaware - 25.5% Homicide rate 6.7/100,000 41. Florida - 24.5% 5.1 42. California - 21.3% 4.8 42. Maryland - 21.3% 8.6 44. Illinois - 20.2% 5.8 45. New York - 18% 3.1 46. Connecticut - 16.7% 3.3 47. Rhode Island - 12.8% 2.7 48. Massachusetts - 12.6% 1.9 49. New Jersey - 12.3% 4.1 50. Hawaii - 6.7% 1.3 Homicide rate from http://tinyurl.com/gp9usuy The State with the lowest homicide rate is New Hampshire (1.1/100,000) and gun ownership of 30%. I've been generally aware of that data for quite a while. Digging deeper, here is what I think it shows: States with lower population density, and especially with a greater percentage of their population living in rural areas, tend to have more people who own rifles and shotguns used for hunting and "varmint" control. They also have much less of the social stress derived from mixed cultures in dense cities. Whether it is lower density or whatever I'm fairly sure that the people are the major problem area. Well, I'm sure that's true. As I understand it, places with no people have very little crime! But please note: I'm strongly in favor of hunting with guns. I'm strongly in favor of most varmint control. I'm not talking about reducing the number of guns in general. Instead, I'm talking about reducing (or ideally, eliminating) the number of guns specifically designed for killing other people. Those would include guns designed or modified to shoot rapidly and to shoot many rounds without reloading. And to further infuriate the gun nuts, I'd be in favor of eventually reducing the number of handguns, since almost all of those are intended as people killers. The problem is, as I tried to point out, is that any configuration of a "gun" can be used to kill people. Wild Bill Hickok kill at least 8 people with a .36 caliber cap and ball revolver, which is classified as an antique and can be legally owned by anyone today. From what I've just read, Hickok did kill several people, during a time when lawlessness and drunken shootings were quite common. In most cases, he killed them as a law officer acting in self defense, although several of those seem to be questionable. But they were almost always one-on-one situations. I don't see that having a gun that fired only once in five seconds would have made a difference. In any case, "Other things can kill so don't ban guns specially designed for killing people" seems a specious argument. We do ban other things specially designed for killing people, and no sane person thinks it's an attack on their second amendment rights. (Thank God the National Hand Grenade Association isn't as flush with money as the NRA.) So: If we could correlate the number of non-hunting guns with gun homicide rates, I suspect we'd see much different results. I think the number of people-killing guns correlates pretty well with the rate of gun deaths. But I doubt that information is out there. The NRA has successfully purchased laws that prohibit studying gun violence too closely. I'm not so sure about that... Really? See http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html ... as without very much effort I seem to find a considerable amount of official data regarding shootings. Find me the data I asked about: the correlation between the number of guns designed specifically for killing people vs. homicide rates. The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use. Ah Frank, now you are down to one shot per second :-) But more to the point, why should I - a law abiding citizen - be deprived of my right to use a pistol to shoot deer with? Or woodchucks for that matter? To my personal knowledge no one in my family has shot a human for five generations. Why should you be deprived of that "right"? For the same reason that an avid admirer of explosives of all kinds is not allowed to possess hand grenades. Heck, it's getting really difficult to find a place to buy C-4 plastic explosive material, just because of the oppressive and unjust anti-explosive laws! (Fun fact: I have a friend who bought some C-4 from a local guy as part of a sting operation, which sent the seller to prison. After his release, in a completely unrelated event, I got to meet the guy with the prison time. He remarked at one time "These things are so strong you couldn't even blow them up!" My friend said "Yep. He would know.") Getting back to the point: Why should handguns, grenades and explosives and rapid-fire people killers be highly controlled? It's a matter of benefits vs. detriments. Regarding the handgun, the benefit is some dude gets to brag "I took that buck with a handgun!" (IOW "Wow, I am highly skilled and manly!") the detriment is thousands of handgun deaths per year, far more per capita than any other advanced westernized country. The detriment is far greater than the benefit. It might also be noted that of the large "gun death" numbers quoted in many articles about the dangers of gun ownership, that for the past 35 years (as of 2015) the majority of the "gun deaths" have been suicide. Yes, depending on the article. Some data counts gun deaths, some data counts homicides. I suppose some might say "If someone wants to shoot themselves, that's no problem." But society as a whole tends to disagree. Much work is done to prevent suicide. Lots of money is spent on 911 operator training, counseling centers, psychiatry and psychology etc. A lot of that is employed after a failed suicide attempt, and the near-victims are often glad they got a second chance to avoid the "permanent solution to a temporary problem." But with guns, there usually is no second chance. You appear to keep ignoring my point(s) that none of your suggestions, i.,e. 5 seconds between rounds, big magazines,etc., are at all practical. What are the laws where you're living? Here, firearms seem to be divided into two categories, I can't provide the exact translation but in broad terms they would be "war weapons" and "not war weapons". An M-16 or a .45 colt, 1911, pistol are war weapons and a 9mm pistol is not. Military hand grenades are war weapons while a ping-pong ball full of black powder is not. The difference seems to be in the penalties imposed. War weapons seem to get jail sentences while not-war may or may not. What are the laws in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, etc.? http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...ere-this-36131 Motor vehicles: http://www.newsweek.com/2015-brought...0-years-427759 38,300 deaths and 4.4 million injured Bicycles: http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm 818 deaths and 45,000 injured http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...g-mandalay-bay 59 deaths and 527 injured A: Logic problems. You're comparing annual deaths for motor vehicles and bicycles to deaths from ONE nut case on one evening in Las Vegas. B: As has been stated, motor vehicles, bicycles, stairs, beds and other items causing death have valid uses. The deaths they cause are regrettable side effects. People-killer guns are different. Those deaths are their _intended_ effect. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#514
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:17:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/13/2017 11:41 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:39:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2017 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 10/13/2017 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if doing so causes or aids thousands of murders. The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing army.* Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal. Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit of it that will be found dispensable. The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My 10th grade English teacher would have had red marks all over it, and not just for style. Obviously, the very meaning was so unclear that serious, intelligent and even impartial readers have disagreed over interpretation for hundreds of years. So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an amendment, and it can be amended. Other aspects of the constitution have been amended and even repealed. The 18th amendment seemed like a good idea. When the effects became apparent, the 21st corrected the situation. We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly written 2nd amendment: a gun murder rate that eclipses any other modern industrialized country. We should amend that amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun nuts. As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than it prevents. BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second with the gun in my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has been for accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have inconvenienced me. So how do you propose to enforce the five second limit? It would seem to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and almost all breech loading single shot firearms.* Most muzzle loaders would be ok, as long as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to reload in four seconds. Again: If you don't like five seconds, we can discuss specific firing rates. But how to enforce? First, outlaw and buy back purpose-designed rapid-fire guns something like what Australia did. Second, I'd be shocked if it were impossible to design a mechanical or electronic damper system to limit fire rates. Reading the legislative history of it, besides The Federalist (Hamilton, Madison & Jay) the intent, that the nation would do well to be armed, to a man, is clear. "well regulated militia." What does "well regulated" mean? Frank, the use of the word "regulate" dates from about 1620 - 30 and is from the Latin. "The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected." 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." It took one Google search on the phrase "well regulated" to get 8.970,000 returns. As they say, "Whoosh!" (That's the sound of the point made in the discussion going over your head.) Of course I know what "well regulated" means. My point was that the founders expected to have a Well Regulated militia. Sure, and the method that they selected to do it was to ensure that the individual was not prevented from owning a gun. I might note that the possibility of modifications to the U.S. Constitution has existed since the document was accepted as the law of the U.S. so I can only assume that to date the 2nd amendment must be acceptable to a majority of the states. You might also want to look at https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/mu...fter-gun-bans/ as it is a bit illuminating regarding gun bans and murder rates. also https://crimeresearch.org/about-us/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott What do we have instead? A massive gaggle of gun hobbyists, a bunch of fat guys who buy Soldier of Fortune magazine, a coward who's afraid to go to a nice music hall without a handgun, etc. Those people do NOT qualify as being part of a Well Regulated Militia. Instead, those sorts of people are unregulated. They are also generally untrained, undisciplined, and uneducated regarding militia duties. They know only what they see on TV crime shows, which is almost total bull****. Yes Frank, I know. But I really do believe that you are a bit overwrought. Not all gun owners are fat. I wasn't and from memory I don't remember any of the many others I saw at state and national pistol matches being fat. Current active target shooters in the U.S. is about 29.5 million, approximately 9% of the U.S. population, and another 14 million, about 4%, are hunters, although there may be some overlap here, and from what I read the numbers are increasing - about 2% annually. In contrast, I read https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres.../cb14-r10.html Seattle had among the highest percent of commuters who bike to work, 3.4 percent, according to 2008-2012 statistics from the American Community Survey. (In addition, 9.1 percent of workers in Seattle walked to work.) -- Cheers, John B. |
#515
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/14/2017 4:25 PM, jbeattie wrote:
Say Tom, since when is posting an exact quote of a Trump tweet a "fake account?" All I do is re-post your links with the actual language cited in the link. It's like you post a Webster's Dictionary link claiming "black" means "white," and all I do is post to the same link and say, not suprisingly, "black" means "black." It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Your accuracy rate is about .05%. But it is true that I don't believe your tin-foil hat websites, probably because the world for me exists beyond the Breitbart conspiracy mills and what I see on the internet. Tom was recently featured in a cartoon. http://tinyurl.com/y8dc4ebh -- - Frank Krygowski |
#516
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:31:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/14/2017 8:51 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: [ ... ] As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than it prevents. BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second with the gun in my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has been for accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have inconvenienced me. So how do you propose to enforce the five second limit? It would seem to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and almost all breech loading single shot firearms. Most muzzle loaders would be ok, as long as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to reload in four seconds. Again: If you don't like five seconds, we can discuss specific firing rates. But how to enforce? First, outlaw and buy back purpose-designed rapid-fire guns something like what Australia did. Second, I'd be shocked if it were impossible to design a mechanical or electronic damper system to limit fire rates. Mechanical? electric? plastic? steel? So many questions. Analogy: The first typewriters had a common mechanical problem. If letters were hit too quickly in sequence, keys would jam. Several solutions arose, but among them was the QWERTY keyboard. It purposely introduced some mandatory clumsiness into the action to slow down the rate of character input. Like it or not, it worked. The QWERTY keyboard was adopted not because it slowed down the rate of character input but because it moved keys commonly struck in sequence, "th", "st", etc., so that their typebars were not neighboring thus avoiding jams. Something similar would be easy to design into guns. To fire, you'd have to push button A before each pull of trigger B. Single action guns do this (e.g. you must pull back the hammer before pulling the trigger) but something similar could be made as inconvenient as necessary to slow firing rate down to whatever was desired. Nope. There are relatively few "single action" weapons built today, i.e., that you have to manually cock. But more pertinent an action where you had to push a button and then pull the trigger to fire would mean that you could no longer fire aimed shots. But why this emphasis on rate of fire any way. Do you somehow feel that if you were to be shot 10 times you would be deader then if only shot 5 times? I would also comment that a great many people that actually shoot people for a living consider excessively high rates of fire to be a handicap? I remember a conversation I had with a Special Forces bloke who said the Special Forces considered the AK-47 with its 600 RPM rate of fire to be more effective then the M-16 with its 700 - 950 RPM. But why all the excitement anyway. Fully automatic weapons can only be legally owned with a license from the federal government and magazine limits were in place some years ago. The now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included limits regarding magazines that could hold more than ten rounds. Interestingly the first complaint against large magazine capacity is said to have originated with Sturm, Ruger & Co., primarily because companies like Glock, and some other companies, manufactured pistols with larger magazines then Ruger did. Or at least On March 30, 1989, Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating: "The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines..." And as I keep saying, we can talk about what's a reasonably slow firing rate. I'd suggest something slow enough to allow a roomful of people a chance at running out if a nut job came in and started shooting. Or if you prefer, slow enough that the very rare competent "good guy with a gun" could shoot back. -- Cheers, John B. |
#517
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
4On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:41:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/14/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:12:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:20:47 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote: As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. ... From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons. Yes, it appears they were. The massacre happened in a state where almost anything to do with guns is legal. Frank, the laws I quoted are U.S. government laws... applicable in every one of the 50 states. But regarding the "not a simple matter": Where do you live again? What's the gun murder rate? How often does your country have mass shootings? How do they define legal firearms? ISTM that this problem, like so many others, is claimed to be just too difficult for the U.S. Yet somehow, it's a problem that'sbeen largely solved in every other advanced country. - Frank Krygowski Sure it is. But is it gun control that caused it? You seem to be ignoring the fact that in a number of instances in the U.S. that States with minimal gun laws also have minimal murder rates. I'm not ignoring that. I'll point out (again) that an island of gun control, so to speak, can't get excellent results in a sea free of gun restrictions. Canada is next to a gun-crazy nation. That's a problem for them. They manage it pretty well by strongly resisting guns crossing the border. Your handgun may be legal in Vermont, but that cuts no ice when you try to take it into Quebec. Britain's gun violence data is even better. I'm betting that it's at least partly due to the fact that they are, indeed, an island. No American nut-jobs are driving their with pistols under their car seats. Yes, I know that you argue it is the pressures of urban living but that argument doesn't seem to hang together either. Example: New York City population of 8,550,861 murder rate of 3.0 rape rate of 14.0 Robbery of 198.2 crimes against property 1518 Los Angeles population of 3,962,726 murder rate of 7.1 rape rate of 55.7 Robbery of 225.9 crimes against property 2359 L.A. has less then half the population and more then double the crime. I know that New York City has very strict gun laws. I don't know about Los Angeles. But things like this might make some difference: http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns But Frank, when I wrote about Vermont with their almost nonexistent gun laws and extremely low murder rate you argued that it was because the Vermonters all lived in rural bliss and that other places were subjected to the pressures of living in urban environments. But that doesn't seem to hold water as New York with its 8.5 million population has far less crime then L.A. with less then half the population. By the way, Detroit, with its paltry population of 673,225 has: murder rate of 43.8 rape rate of 78.7 robbery of 513.5 crimes against property 3529.9 A city 1/12th the size of N.Y with a murder rate 26 times higher? Should we term it "the urban myth"? -- Cheers, John B. |
#518
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:49:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/14/2017 12:41 AM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:50:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2017 2:04 AM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:59:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/12/2017 9:39 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:59:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/12/2017 4:46 AM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:38 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:29:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:42 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:54:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote: It seems unlikely, at best, to believe that you didn't understand the content of the original posts between Frank and I where he commented that punching holes in a paper target with a gun and thinking you were a big, bad, man was childish. I then replied "like a 60 year old guy on a CF racing bike". I can only assume that you are interjecting your off topic remarks deliberately. So yes, goodbye. Walking off in a snit again John? Really, get over yourself. You're beginning to sound like Frank who denies that where the strongest guns laws are we have the highest rates of gun crimes and where the least gun laws are in effect the murder rates are insignificant. You mean like Canada vs. the U.S.? Or like Windsor vs. Detroit? Got numbers? Even a casual look shows little correlation between gun ownership in the U.S. and homicides. Gun ownership http://tinyurl.com/ybnxnu8x States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners (more than 50%) 1. Wyoming - 59.7% Homicide rate 2.7/100,000 2. Alaska - 57.8% 8.0 3. Montana - 57.7% 3.5 4. South Dakota - 56.6% 3.7 5. West Virginia - 55.4% 3.8 6. Mississippi - 55.3% 8.7 6. Idaho - 55.3% 1.9 6. Arkansas - 55.3% 6.1 9. Alabama - 51.7% 7.2 10. North Dakota - 50.7% 2.8 States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners 40. Delaware - 25.5% Homicide rate 6.7/100,000 41. Florida - 24.5% 5.1 42. California - 21.3% 4.8 42. Maryland - 21.3% 8.6 44. Illinois - 20.2% 5.8 45. New York - 18% 3.1 46. Connecticut - 16.7% 3.3 47. Rhode Island - 12.8% 2.7 48. Massachusetts - 12.6% 1.9 49. New Jersey - 12.3% 4.1 50. Hawaii - 6.7% 1.3 Homicide rate from http://tinyurl.com/gp9usuy The State with the lowest homicide rate is New Hampshire (1.1/100,000) and gun ownership of 30%. I've been generally aware of that data for quite a while. Digging deeper, here is what I think it shows: States with lower population density, and especially with a greater percentage of their population living in rural areas, tend to have more people who own rifles and shotguns used for hunting and "varmint" control. They also have much less of the social stress derived from mixed cultures in dense cities. Whether it is lower density or whatever I'm fairly sure that the people are the major problem area. Well, I'm sure that's true. As I understand it, places with no people have very little crime! But please note: I'm strongly in favor of hunting with guns. I'm strongly in favor of most varmint control. I'm not talking about reducing the number of guns in general. Instead, I'm talking about reducing (or ideally, eliminating) the number of guns specifically designed for killing other people. Those would include guns designed or modified to shoot rapidly and to shoot many rounds without reloading. And to further infuriate the gun nuts, I'd be in favor of eventually reducing the number of handguns, since almost all of those are intended as people killers. The problem is, as I tried to point out, is that any configuration of a "gun" can be used to kill people. Wild Bill Hickok kill at least 8 people with a .36 caliber cap and ball revolver, which is classified as an antique and can be legally owned by anyone today. From what I've just read, Hickok did kill several people, during a time when lawlessness and drunken shootings were quite common. In most cases, he killed them as a law officer acting in self defense, although several of those seem to be questionable. But they were almost always one-on-one situations. I don't see that having a gun that fired only once in five seconds would have made a difference. In any case, "Other things can kill so don't ban guns specially designed for killing people" seems a specious argument. We do ban other things specially designed for killing people, and no sane person thinks it's an attack on their second amendment rights. (Thank God the National Hand Grenade Association isn't as flush with money as the NRA.) So: If we could correlate the number of non-hunting guns with gun homicide rates, I suspect we'd see much different results. I think the number of people-killing guns correlates pretty well with the rate of gun deaths. But I doubt that information is out there. The NRA has successfully purchased laws that prohibit studying gun violence too closely. I'm not so sure about that... Really? See http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html ... as without very much effort I seem to find a considerable amount of official data regarding shootings. Find me the data I asked about: the correlation between the number of guns designed specifically for killing people vs. homicide rates. The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use. Ah Frank, now you are down to one shot per second :-) But more to the point, why should I - a law abiding citizen - be deprived of my right to use a pistol to shoot deer with? Or woodchucks for that matter? To my personal knowledge no one in my family has shot a human for five generations. Why should you be deprived of that "right"? For the same reason that an avid admirer of explosives of all kinds is not allowed to possess hand grenades. Heck, it's getting really difficult to find a place to buy C-4 plastic explosive material, just because of the oppressive and unjust anti-explosive laws! (Fun fact: I have a friend who bought some C-4 from a local guy as part of a sting operation, which sent the seller to prison. After his release, in a completely unrelated event, I got to meet the guy with the prison time. He remarked at one time "These things are so strong you couldn't even blow them up!" My friend said "Yep. He would know.") Getting back to the point: Why should handguns, grenades and explosives and rapid-fire people killers be highly controlled? It's a matter of benefits vs. detriments. Regarding the handgun, the benefit is some dude gets to brag "I took that buck with a handgun!" (IOW "Wow, I am highly skilled and manly!") the detriment is thousands of handgun deaths per year, far more per capita than any other advanced westernized country. The detriment is far greater than the benefit. It might also be noted that of the large "gun death" numbers quoted in many articles about the dangers of gun ownership, that for the past 35 years (as of 2015) the majority of the "gun deaths" have been suicide. Yes, depending on the article. Some data counts gun deaths, some data counts homicides. I suppose some might say "If someone wants to shoot themselves, that's no problem." But society as a whole tends to disagree. Much work is done to prevent suicide. Lots of money is spent on 911 operator training, counseling centers, psychiatry and psychology etc. A lot of that is employed after a failed suicide attempt, and the near-victims are often glad they got a second chance to avoid the "permanent solution to a temporary problem." But with guns, there usually is no second chance. You appear to keep ignoring my point(s) that none of your suggestions, i.,e. 5 seconds between rounds, big magazines,etc., are at all practical. What are the laws where you're living? Here, firearms seem to be divided into two categories, I can't provide the exact translation but in broad terms they would be "war weapons" and "not war weapons". An M-16 or a .45 colt, 1911, pistol are war weapons and a 9mm pistol is not. Military hand grenades are war weapons while a ping-pong ball full of black powder is not. The difference seems to be in the penalties imposed. War weapons seem to get jail sentences while not-war may or may not. What are the laws in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, etc.? http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...ere-this-36131 Motor vehicles: http://www.newsweek.com/2015-brought...0-years-427759 38,300 deaths and 4.4 million injured Bicycles: http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm 818 deaths and 45,000 injured http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...g-mandalay-bay 59 deaths and 527 injured A: Logic problems. You're comparing annual deaths for motor vehicles and bicycles to deaths from ONE nut case on one evening in Las Vegas. Why ever not? After all you equate rate of fire with a dangerious weapon. B: As has been stated, motor vehicles, bicycles, stairs, beds and other items causing death have valid uses. The deaths they cause are regrettable side effects. People-killer guns are different. Those deaths are their _intended_ effect. What is the legal definition of a "people killer gun"? But more to the point, an automobile driving 20 mph above the posted limit, running a stop light, or maybe with BAC of oh say 10? Certainly sir, a regrettable side effect... http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/20...ehicle-crashes "The most thorough analysis of crash causation, the Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents published in 1979, found that "human errors and deficiencies" were a definite or probable cause in 90-93% of the incidents examined." http://ridemedtrust.com/americans-dy...all-time-high/ "The National Safety Council warns that preventable deaths and injuries are a constant at every age, and lists the leading causes throughout a person\u2019s lifetime. These leading causes a Ages 5 to 24: Motor Vehicle accidents -- Cheers, John B. |
#519
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/14/2017 7:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:35:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 10/14/2017 12:20 AM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:53:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2017 11:27 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:36:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if doing so causes or aids thousands of murders. The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal. Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit of it that will be found dispensable. The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My 10th grade English teacher would have had red marks all over it, and not just for style. Obviously, the very meaning was so unclear that serious, intelligent and even impartial readers have disagreed over interpretation for hundreds of years. Actually, given the conditions that existed in the Colonies, I suggest that the 2nd amendment made a great deal of sense at the time it was written and likely was perfectly understandable to the writers. There were was no standing army, defense was, excepting British troops, provided by the militia and each colony had laws requiring the male citizens to provide their own firelocks, bullets and powder. Connecticut's 1650 code contains one of the clearest expressions of the duty to own a gun: "That all persons that are above the age of sixteene yeares, except magistrates and church officers, shall beare arms...; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continuall readines, a good muskitt or other gunn, fitt for service, and allowed by the clark of the band...." A less elaborate form of the law appeared in 1636, with reiterations in 1637, 1665, 1673, 1696, and 1741. v "Fines varied between two and ten shillings for lacking firearms or for failure to appear with firearms, compleat and well fixt upon the days of training...." And, the states were all jealous of their own rights and were worried about the federal government infringing on Their rights. All true. And despite the defective language in the 2nd Amendment, that is doubtlessly what the Founders were thinking of. They were certainly not endorsing an UNregulated collection of yahoos with closets of science-fiction (to them) rapid-fire, people killing arms. My point was that at the time the amendment was written it was not defective language and I'm sure that the writers and everyone that read the amendment understood perfectly what it meant. I don't call for a total ban on firearms. That would be one extreme position in this argument. But ISTM that many others are arguing for absolutely no restrictions on ownership and use of firearms. That is the other extreme position, and just as unreasonable. Yet many pretend it is a reasonable position, mostly based on a historically ignorant view of the second amendment. As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. I've mentioned, for example, that the legal definition of "machine gun" is any weapon that fires more then once with a single pull of the trigger. So the bump stocks are a perfectly legal addition. The Federal government passed what was called "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which stated in part: The definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features: Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher As for magazine capacity: The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called the assault weapons ban (AWB), was enacted in September 1994. The ban, including its ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, became defunct (expired) in September 2004 per a sunset provision. Attempts to renew the ban have failed on the federal level. In addition WDC and 8 other states currently have magazine bans. From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons. Thanks for bringing that up. I was puzzled when that odd phrase popped up years ago, apparently from someone trying to Anglicize 'sturmgewehr' which, being German, would be all too scary for the desired effect. But _assault_ weapon hit a nice audience, didn't it? Sounds so violent and all that. I suppose that it is an example of Modern American English. Like "Hey man! Isn't it hot here in Thailand? Ohooo It is so cool". Or calling anything painted black a "tactical" something or another. Hmmmm..... is that a new marketing scheme? Labeling a black bicycle as a "Tactical Bike" and charging 15% more then the red one, that every cyclist knows is faster :-? But I knew a guy who was killed by a baseball bat to the head. Make that an _assault_ baseball bat, as the prosecutor called the event a 'criminal assault' in court. I don't know of any case where a man was dispatched by a scary warlike folding stock, but you never know. And bayonet deaths seem rare, less common than machetes, even after 2004. Grenades were already illegal BTW. Pistol grip makes a firearm scary how? I just don't get that at all. I think that was probably just a method of defining an "Assault" weapon. And according to the Federal law the weapon had to have two of the features. A threaded barrel and pistol grip? And evil scary suppressors? WTF? A running meme around firearms owners is a hand cupped to one ear while saying, "pardon, what was that again?" otherwise known as 'the NRA salute'. I've always wondered about the furor about "Silencers", more properly called suppressors, as ownership is licensed by the Federal government and also some state laws. -- Cheers, John B. I can accept the 1934 (et seq) machine gun ban(s) but I've never heard a good argument for classing suppressors in the same lump as a real .50 cal Browning MA2. WTF? I like belt feed as much as the next guy, but a suppressor doesn't 'reach out and touch someone' in the same way. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#520
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/14/2017 7:51 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes: On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: [ ... ] As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than it prevents. BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second with the gun in my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has been for accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have inconvenienced me. So how do you propose to enforce the five second limit? It would seem to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and almost all breech loading single shot firearms. Most muzzle loaders would be ok, as long as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to reload in four seconds. Again: If you don't like five seconds, we can discuss specific firing rates. But how to enforce? First, outlaw and buy back purpose-designed rapid-fire guns something like what Australia did. Second, I'd be shocked if it were impossible to design a mechanical or electronic damper system to limit fire rates. Mechanical? electric? plastic? steel? So many questions. Why not rely on existing technology? I propose a bit of technology several thousand years old: mittens. Simply pass a law requiring anyone in control of a firearm wear mittens at all times. I haven't watched those rapid fire videos, but would wager that not a one of the shooters wore mittens. I'll shake the hand of any man that can deliver aimed fire at 12 rounds per minute, wearing even the most well-fitted wooly mittens. It's well known that crimes of violence are more likely during hot weather, making mittens, previously not much worn in the summertime, a good solution. Anytime you see a nervous looking chap wearing baggy pants and mittens around the ice cream stand you'll know something is up. Of course, a few loopholes would have to be closed. I've heard of hunters in the great white north cutting a slit in a mitten to allow the trigger finger to protrude. In the future anyone possessing such a modified assault mitten would be subject to the same penalties as for possessing unlicensed a short barelled shotgun or hand grenade. And, of course, we still permit the sale of glittens, mitten like devices that can be converted to *fingerless* gloves in the blink of an eye. Having once bought a pair by accident I can safely say that we lose nothing by adding them to the list of NFA destructive devices. Mittens *might* not be a 100% solution. I imagine that the varmint hunters you admire might find that mittens do not fit their sport. Fortunately they almost alll use telescopic sites -- an opening for yet another bit of time-tested technology: coin operation. Just require a quarter to operate the scope, like those telescopes we've all used at scenic overlooks and beauty spots. Particularly dangerous weapons would require two or three quarters slid in together, as in one of those truck stop condom dispensers. For the Barrett .50, Susan B. Anthony dollars would be required, striking a blow simultaneously for feminism and for gun control. When the coin box becomes full, a shooter would be required to report to the local police station, where the money would be retrieved and added to a fund for children blinded by gunfire, or for the police coffee fund, whichever, in the uniquely competent judgement of the officer on duty, presented the direst need. Do you moonlight as a legislative aide in Congress? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can Women Build Big Muscles? Why Women Cant Build Big Muscles Easily | [email protected] | UK | 0 | February 16th 08 09:41 PM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 5 | September 14th 06 09:59 AM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 0 | August 25th 06 11:05 PM |
Disc Wheel Build Build Suggestions | osobailo | Techniques | 2 | October 5th 04 01:55 PM |
? - To build or not to build -- a bike - ? | Andrew Short | Techniques | 16 | August 4th 03 04:12 AM |