yoink

Much easier to outrun a knife than a bullet too...

Here's today's report of an attack in Germany... A country that that doesn't allow everyone to own an arsenal. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41705587 "Man arrested after knife attack in Munich... 4 lightly injured"

Even though it's probably good for 95% of cases It might not work in every possible conceivable scenario. Fuck it. We'll do nothing. That'll probably help, right? That's a perfectly sane response...

No. For the same reason I would not vote yes for a requirement for insurance for free speech or require the speaker to pay for security on a public college. Derek V The two aren't exactly equivalent, so constraining them together is unrealistic. I can't murder you if I say something nasty to you no matter how much it may hurt. And if a speaker at a public event was doing something that may well cause damage I'd say that the institution would be absolutely right to ask for insurance. You have the right to say what you want. NOT to be devoid of the consequences of what you say. If you incite a riot, you don't get to say 'I was only talking. Nothing to do with me..' The consequences for immediate actions with a firearm can be many times more serious than for freedom of speech (in an individual capacity). I made the point earlier that holding all the amendments in the bill of rights to the same level of importance seems like nonsense to me - how do you hold the right to not being charged exorbitant bail amounts to the same level of importance as freedom of speech (or even to own guns, for that matter). I think you should look at each right individually - they each have different consequences and complexities. I would also make the argument that they were written as separate amendments for just that reason - if they were all equal they'd be written as points in a single amendment.

Out of interest, would you vote yes for a requirement for insurance to be carried for each firearm, and for the owner of the firearm to be held financially but not necessarily criminally liable for any crime committed with it?

I agree completely. And I believe we are already at the; "at this point everyone pushes back and says 'No! We have a balance between the ownership of guns, and the price of owning them that we're comfortable with'." That's the bit I don't get. I guess I can't understand how you can be comfortable with your country on average having a mass murder every single day that is on a par with third world dictatorships, and say 'yup. That's seems worth it.' I don't understand how you can't WANT to do better - even if we don't see how yet. I can understand how we can't agree on an acceptable target figure for reduction, but the concept that we should be trying to get some sort of reduction I would think should be part of human nature - striving to do better than we are. I agree - we need to be leery of political legislation that has no tangible benefit. I made a post a while ago about the legislative crowd rushing through laws like this and using up the tiny amount of negotiation available on achieving basically nothing. The next time a law gets suggested the gun rights proponents can rightfully say 'but look, we compromised on x and on y! enough!' Both sides are at fault. The NRA knows this tactic very well - give up stuff that isn't that important and keep it as political capital. The left need to be more responsible in looking for root causes instead of band-aids.

So stupid. You ask for an opinion and then when given an opinion indicate not everybody agrees with that opinion. All of course while haughtily pretending you want honest conversation and debate. Here is a relatively simple law that would reduce the number of gun deaths. All guns have to have a biometric safety system in place, allowing only the owners to shoot them. Only such fitted firearms are allowed to be carried in public. All new firearms are to be sold with such a system in place. 2. no more concealed carry, no more open carry. You are allowed to own firearms and keep them in your house or shoot them on private property. 3. firearm owners have to start carrying insurance for each firearm they own. Insurance to cover any unlawful activity committed with the gun, including any activity after such firearm has been stolen. You will never agree that any restriction is worth a reduction in gun deaths, so really another stupid question. At least probably only until somebody puts a bullet in a loved one. I love #3. I think biometrics are a bit of a red-herring. I'd need to see the data on stolen gun violence vs legitimate owner to be sure, but I suspect that certainly most mass-shootings are committed by either the owner of the gun or someone with permission to use it in the household.

It's a cost / benefit analysis. Look at it this way - some (hypothetical) initial law is introduced that reduces the deaths by 50%, but there is some sort of cost to the ownership of guns. There is some sort of legislation that puts some sort of restriction in place, but both sides agree to it in order to get the large benefit of the 50% reduction. A few years later another piece of legislation is proposed that would further reduce the death rate by another 20%, at the cost of further restrictions. This one is a lot harder to pass, but does eventually after much gnashing and wailing of teeth. Maybe the bill gets altered to make it less effective, but still producing a smaller decrease while not having so many restrictions... A few years later a third piece of legislation is proposed that shows the death rate could be reduced by a further 5% if we introduce just a few more restrictions - at this point everyone pushes back and says 'No! We have a balance between the ownership of guns, and the price of owning them that we're comfortable with'. It's an ongoing process with an undefined end, but one that is not zero gun ownership. Banning all guns will never happen - It just won't. Get that out of your head as a target because it's blinding you to the possibility of ANY compromise. If you see every alteration as inevitably meeting the fictional end result of banning all weapons then of course any suggested alteration is unacceptable. But your basic premise is (I believe) faulty.

If inspection of a foundation shows that there is damage (or it was built incorrectly in the first place) you absolutely DO make changes to the foundation. You also continually repair and maintain it, and you bring it up to current building code (because attitudes about what's acceptable and safe change over time). If you don't then chances are your structure eventually collapses... The nature of the universe is that of change, Ron. A completely static system fails - always. Entropy dictates it.

I see the bill of rights as equally important rights. In the same sense that the oath of allegiance I took a long time ago, all of it is equally important. Parts of it are not important than other parts. I would no more give up my right to free speech than unreasonable search and seizure or freedom of religion. I am not sure if I answered your question or not. Derek V I think so, and I see where you're coming from but can't agree with it. Do you honestly put the same value on the right to freedom of speech and religion as the right of excessive bail not being required (which would seem to be broken regularly)...

You understand it perfectly.

Same as, for example, the 1st amendment. It is just as important a right, to me. Why? Can you explain that to me without using reductive logic? (It's my right so I'm not giving it up because it's my right.)

I've never understood the 'it's in the constitution' argument. By definition the 2nd amendment was itself an alteration to the constitution, so why is it considered sacrosanct? It's not an immutable fact of existence. It can be changed in any way that we as a society see fit. Being in the constitution does not guarantee that it will or should always be in the constitution in its current (or any) form.

Actually, it looks like this is incorrect, or at least only partially correct - my family owns a gun store in LA and there wasn't any upsurge in sales after the Vegas shooting and I don't expect one after this. Every time there was a shooting incident when Obama was in office there was a huge upsurge to buy guns, ammo and modifications because the expectation was that some sort of legislation would be introduced in response. We're not seeing that type of reaction with a Republican government... The sales we're seeing suggest that gun owners don't think anything will change.

Yawn. Not even close to the high score.

Hey. We definitely have hot and not-so-hot. There's also slight-possibility-of-rain which is a fantastic month.

Actually, I brought up the hoodie and I can't help but notice you very successfully used it to dodge the two actual questions I asked you... honestly, it was a clever piece of misdirection. But let's go back to the original post - you posited a scenario where you, personally, were stopped while legally carrying a concealed weapon, were questioned politely by the officer and then simply let on your way. I had two questions... if you were frisked AFTER answering as you did, would you be OK with it happening? And second, do you think the same situation (question and release) would / should happen if you were black and wearing a hoodie - (all other things being equal in your scenario). You see, I think you didn't answer because you know the answer to both is 'no'.

"Stop and frisk" actually involves being frisked. "Stop and ask if they want to be frisked" The most PC police policy ever.

If the exact same conversation were had, but you were black and wearing a hoodie, would you expect to be frisked anyway? You know, just to check there weren't any drugs or undeclared weapons on your person. And a further question - if in your initial scenario the officer frisked you anyway (along with anyone you are with), would you be OK with that?

Oh no. Guess the other one thousand six hundred of them that are combat capable will just have to carry the load... No point in throwing good money after bad.

All men are equal but some are more equal than others... Didn't you know? Edit for quade:

It addresses self defense in the home (no change), and given the restrictions on where firearms would be able to be used the liklihood of you needing self defense in a public space is massively reduced. Do you know of a relatively non-biased source that shows the number and types of self defense incidents that guns have been used in across the country? I've no idea of the rough magnitude we're talking about. There would also be fringe benefits - bank robberies, hostage situations etc.would become much less lethal. And yes, there would be a long transition period where a lot of guns wouldn't have this technology in them - decades at least if not centuries, but over time the majority would, just like introducing a new currency. That's the scale of the issue. There is no magic fix that will make the problems go away overnight or address every single negative point if there's going to continue to be legal gun ownership. All we can do is try to address a majority

I totally thought you were talking about little blue pills for a second... Fine. 99.999% (fucking engineers and their numbers!)

Until your suggestion didn’t work because the server went down or whatever. Getting the technology right would be part of the deal and I'm not saying that there wouldn't need to be new technology developed to make it work. Would you be satisfied with 99.9% up-time? In fact the more I think about it, the more I'm tempted to flesh the idea out and write to my senator with it, because even if it's shot down in flames it shows the pro-gun side for what the are - absolutely intransigent fanatics. There can be no acceptable negotiation. All your talk of solutions 'working' and 'rights infringement' is just a smokescreen. What you mean is 'no. Never. No matter what.' And once the wider public have proof of that, maybe all the wasted negotiation and meaningless half-measures will stop and someone will actually impose a solution on you WITHOUT negotiation. and given that your opinions will be missing there's a good chance that the solution won't be particularly effective - just a removal of your 2nd amendment rights. This is your chance to be part of the solution before that happens.

I don't think you have characterized what I wrote accurately at all. Derek V I'm sure you don't. But that's how I see the reality of the translation of your post. You said If you were intending to use your firearms in a legal manner my suggestion would allow you to exercise your 2nd amendment rights with absolutely no limitations or restrictions on what type of or how many guns you can own and use, what ammo or modifications you might choose to use, or alter in any way how you went about using them. The is no onerous background check or transfer protocol and you would be able to protect your home, and go target shooting or hunting as often as you like - That is me meeting you more than half way. I'm giving you an option for EVERY reason that gun rights activists say there is for owning a firearm. But somehow that's still not enough. Your life would not change in the slightest other than the equivalent of a hobbyist lobster diver applying for a temporary fishing permit. We should also be clear that your desire to exercise your protected rights is a want not a need. I seriously doubt that if you were never allowed to fire a weapon again without oversight that your life would be affected in any meaningful, physical way, and I challenge you to debate that. So you're right - it's all about emotion. Yours included. Your guns don't give you any freedom. They don't protect you from the government, and your insistence on the ability to use them without restriction puts everyone in danger. But somehow that's OK because you WANT to. You're very good at putting the burden back on those who are looking for some sort of legislation and simply saying no to everything, but that's my suggestion and you've kicked it to touch based on a juvenile want. Fair enough. So it's YOUR TURN - You come up with something that might be acceptable that would completely remove random mass shootings and decrease the criminal gun murder rate and I'll give it consideration.