Time to ban hammers and clubs

[regulator 0]

What most people overlook was the shooter at the movie theater in colorado used a 100 round beta mag like this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOiOrI56WH8

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And a restriction at 1 or two eliminates six-shooters as a class, if you want to extend the ban to any weapon that can shoot and kill. That would be a logical extension.

Right, but you seem to be making the same mistake as marc. My comment was based on the relevance of restricting magazine capacity, probably more specifically with prevention of mass shootings in mind.

On actual implementation, anything below 10 will likely never fly. Relevance above 10 is extremely low, unless possibly with minimization at extremely high numbers and then only in mobile/carry situations.

Hemce I agree that focussing on those restrictions is not really a worthwhile effort.

Quote

Do we even want a lower level of random violence in the US? Are we willing to change anything to get there, or are we only willing to change someone else's something?

I have asked this same question many times before.

[wmw999 2,584]

Yeah, I tend toward the sociological, it's my bent. Thanks for calling me on it. I'm not sure how we can effect any sort of legislation without considering how people will behave, but it should be the starting point, because when behavior is irrelevant it's better.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Yeah, I tend toward the sociological, it's my bent. Thanks for calling me on it. I'm not sure how we can effect any sort of legislation without considering how people will behave, but it should be the starting point, because when behavior is irrelevant it's better.

Wendy P.

I guess for me Wendy it boils down to this

If it shown that hammers and clubs are used to murder more people than guns, how can one argue for a gun ban (of a type) and not argue to ban hammers or make them less dangerous by making them out of nerf foam?

That is the logic I see

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Yeah, I tend toward the sociological, it's my bent. Thanks for calling me on it. I'm not sure how we can effect any sort of legislation without considering how people will behave, but it should be the starting point, because when behavior is irrelevant it's better.

I think social manipulation is a lot like golf. Whatever you think the affect will be from an action, we are all probably exactly backwards. Lots of good intention social programs that absolutely have made whatever situation they were trying to improve, just a LOT worse in the long run. (ie. short term thinking rarely fits in with long term effects)

You want the ball to go left? guess what - to curve it left you have to swing right.

You want people to be better off? If you help them too much, guess what happens?



And when it gets emotional - the only solutions are black and white and we lose that balancing act needed to actually make happen what we want to - instead of making it worse.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Just opportunities for social manipulation

Isn't allowing the population to be armed to lower crime and prevent a tyrannical government social manipulation as well?

Isn't using punishment for crimes social manipulation?

Isn't building infrastructure to facilitate commerce, social manipulation?

Isn't maintaining a massive military to scare other countries social manipulation?

Isn't almost everything a government does a form of social manipulation?

I know we are going completely off topic here, but you have many times advocated along these lines, that government should stay out of social manipulation.

[rehmwa 2]

you can stop strawmanning at me Dekker. It's about balance - and it's pretty clear on which side of the balance equation I lean towards.

you guys are so black and white on stuff it is really difficult at times


I'll check in later to see if you people all solved all of life's problems here. Fun discussion. have a good weekend

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

An experienced shooter can change magazines in the range of 1-1.75 seconds. Thats not enough time to charge someone while theyre reloading. Which makes the high capacity magazine less relevant.

I agree that it makes it less relevant. Relevance is probably based on the severity of the restriction. A restriction at capacity of 2 or 1 is much more relevant than restriction at capacity of 10 or more.

So now you eliminate many classes of weapons totally

Including hand guns and shot guns

I am not eliminating anything, I was commenting on the relevance of restrictions on magazine capacity.

There would be some relevance at the other extreme as well, when you restrict magazines to a minimum of say 5,000 rounds

How many people here realize that in some cases, like the Colorado theater shooting, the body count would have been higher if the shooter had a revolver?

The shooter's gun jammed and he didn't know his immediate actions. If he had a revolver and had a miss fire, all he had to do was pull the trigger again.

Yes, with a speed loader, I to can reload a revolver in less than 2 seconds (though admittedly it's been a while).

Point is, focusing on a particular weapon because it looks scary is knee jerk, as pointed out earlier.

What was the total people killed by the DC sniper again and what kind of gun did he use? Just because he did it one at a time, he was less of a looney?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

you can stop strawmanning at me Dekker. It's about balance - and it's pretty clear on which side of the balance equation I lean towards.

you guys are so black and white on stuff it is really difficult at times

Wasn't meant as a strawman, just trying to identify what you see as social manipulation.

[billvon 3,110]

>If a device that kills tens of thousands is on the table for the southpaws...one to which
>only one person in the entire USA has access too. Then why discount hammers and
>clubs?

For the same reason you discounted nuclear weapons, I imagine. Perhaps because they are different things.

[regulator 0]

The only reason I discounted nukes is because only one person in the WHOLE USA has access to use them. Whereas with clubs and knives anyone can get one.

[wmw999 2,584]

Well, yes and no. If I hit the ball towards the previous green, I'm going to take a long, long time to get to my target hole. I might make it to the previous hole in a very short time, however

The Hawthorne Studies indicated that the very act of changing and soliciting feedback can change behavior -- it's not necessarily the conditions. So those social welfare programs are necessary, until they become entrenched, at which point they need to be changed (as was done quite successfully during the Clinton administration). People become uncomfortable, they have to change, and a new normal appears. After which it becomes time to change something again, because people will find a way to manipulate that new system.

To say that all systems should be removed is not realistic -- there will always be people who need help, and we can never count on the private sector to take care of all of them, if we expect them not to die from neglect.

But neither should families be used to the thought that growing up on welfare (or whatever) was good enough for my mother, and is something for me to aspire to.

The best changes are the ones we are willing to make ourselves, because they are the only ones we really control.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,110]

>The only reason I discounted nukes is because only one person in the WHOLE USA
>has access to use them. Whereas with clubs and knives anyone can get one.

And while guns are designed to kill people, clubs are not. Thus also a huge difference,

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

The best changes are the ones we are willing to make ourselves, because they are the only ones we really control.

Wendy P.

Ding!Ding! Ding!

The solution is really simple. Love one another. Treat others with respect and care. Treat others with the same consideration we would like to be treated with. When we see someone in pain reach out and try and help. If just 90% of the population did this the vast majority of societies ills would be cured. Any individual can follow this prescription, even if they have an arsenal, including nukes...and nudes.

Sad fact is, you can't legislate that kind of behavior and I just don't see that kind of sea change happening.

[regulator 0]

I think this is where your theory is flawed. Guns are designed to send a high speed projectile downrange at a target. This target could be a piece of paper, a gallon milk jug filled with water...whatever. Because guns have been used in the past to kill people does NOT mean that ALL OF THEM are designed to kill people. If that was the case then we would all be dead already.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Just opportunities for social manipulation

Isn't allowing the population to be armed to lower crime and prevent a tyrannical government social manipulation as well?Allowing? It is a right here. The gov does not ALLOW anything

Isn't using punishment for crimes social manipulation?

Isn't building infrastructure to facilitate commerce, social manipulation?

Isn't maintaining a massive military to scare other countries social manipulation?

Isn't almost everything a government does a form of social manipulation?

I know we are going completely off topic here, but you have many times advocated along these lines, that government should stay out of social manipulation.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I dont think there are millions of nude bombs around

I won't be the first to comment, but I can see an upside and a downside with mass proliferation of nudity. I'd certainly let it determine where I'd choose to hang out.

One thing for sure

It would sure change the concealed weapons debate

Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to...

Oh never mind. You don't have a pocket.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I dont think there are millions of nude bombs around

I won't be the first to comment, but I can see an upside and a downside with mass proliferation of nudity. I'd certainly let it determine where I'd choose to hang out.

One thing for sure

It would sure change the concealed weapons debate

Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to...

Oh never mind. You don't have a pocket.

Don

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

I think this is where your theory is flawed. Guns are designed to send a high speed projectile downrange at a target. This target could be a piece of paper, a gallon milk jug filled with water...whatever. Because guns have been used in the past to kill people does NOT mean that ALL OF THEM are designed to kill people. If that was the case then we would all be dead already.

In that case, surface to air missiles are just designed to launch a projectile into the air. So, why then are American citizens prohibited from owning surface-to-air missiles?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[regulator 0]

The same reason we prohibited Hilary Clinton from shooting a snuke out of her snizz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwY_2o-XCKY

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Here is a link to the actual data.

Yes, there are more people killed by hand or fist than by rifle. If you combine rifles with shotguns, then it varies by year which is more.

Of course, handguns kill over 8 times as many people as hand/fist or hammers, and over 10 times as many people as clubs and/or hammers. I'm not even in favor of banning weapons, but it's BS to cherry-pick the data like that.

I'm sure more people are killed by knives than by automatic weapons, too.

Wendy P.

Did you remove the number of self inflicted wounds?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

And while guns are designed to kill people, clubs are not.

actually, I think clubs are



they are just a more scary club if you put a folding handle on it, or a bayonet

at least a dumbass can't really hold a club sideways - but if he did, it's less likely to jam

(jamb?)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

I guess for me Wendy it boils down to this

If it shown that hammers and clubs are used to murder more people than guns, how can one argue for a gun ban (of a type) and not argue to ban hammers or make them less dangerous by making them out of nerf foam?

That is the logic I see

(a repost with request for an answer)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,110]

>If it shown that hammers and clubs are used to murder more people than guns, how
>can one argue for a gun ban (of a type) and not argue to ban hammers or make them
>less dangerous by making them out of nerf foam?

Because clubs are not used for the mass murder of students in the US. If they were you'd see arguments to restrict their availability and/or design.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>If it shown that hammers and clubs are used to murder more people than guns, how
>can one argue for a gun ban (of a type) and not argue to ban hammers or make them
>less dangerous by making them out of nerf foam?

Because clubs are not used for the mass murder of students in the US. If they were you'd see arguments to restrict their availability and/or design.

But clubs and hammers kill more every year

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln