The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    OK, let's try this gun law thing another way: High-capacity magazines.

    By erica20 on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 12:29pm |

    These threads on gun laws go bad fast. So I'm just going to propose one issue with each post. Please confine yourselves to one brief reply or clarification, and for the sake of keeping things neat, please try not to comment on other people's comments. So here is my first question:

    Would you be in favor of:

    Limiting magazine capacity to 10 and banning possession of larger-capacity magazines nationwide? (This would probably involve some kind of buyback/trade-in program.)

    If your answer is "no" please state what number or specific modification would make the law palatable to you.

    If you have a different idea, please hold your fire, so to speak--we'll get to you soon.

     

     

    Comments

    No.  I think six bullet capacity is enough to protect your home and person but YES to

    'banning possession of larger-capacity magazines nationwide'.


    by Aunt Sam on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 2:19pm

    Thanks aunt Sam 


    by Erica (not verified) on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 5:09pm

    GOP 2012 Party Platform:

    ...We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban....

    Republicans: it's an intolerable affront to our Constitutional right to blow off 20, 30 or 100 rounds to have to suffer the inconvenience, effort and exertion of changing magazines.

    Republicans: limiting clips to 10 rounds won't make a difference because they're so easy to change.

    These are the folks Obama must deal to pass legislation. I wish him good luck. As I have pointed out before, WW2 GI's had eight round clips for their M-1 carbines.


    by NCD on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 2:36pm

    Thanks ncd!


    by Erica (not verified) on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 5:10pm

    Once you establish this supposedly reasonable, small incremental step to ban particular magazine sizes; then make no mistake about it;  THE GUN CONTROL GROUPS WILL come after the pump shotgun next.  Each shot gun shell can contain many different quantities of projectiles each of which could cause death.

    Eventually they'll achieve their objective of banning all guns, just as the Ban the Gun Groups did in Britain.

    YOU don’t have a right, to limit anyone else’s preferences, as it relates to personal self- defense.

    If YOU choose to use a baseball bat, or a machete for self defense, that's YOUR choice; but you can not make everyone else choose YOUR preference. 

    Gun Crime Soars in England by 35% Where Guns Are Banned | The


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 3:24pm

    Thank you resistance!


    by Erica (not verified) on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 5:13pm

    Resistance, you forgot the propane tank you previously mentioned as part of your delusional gov't ban slippery slope (which now includes baseball bats and machetes), got yours?

    Who you gonna kill you loon?


    by NCD on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 5:21pm

    Hey now. 

    I want to keep things very calm on today's thread.

    (But I really want to use the pirate joke, in which double-posting makes whoever does it a doubloon.)

    :^D


    by erica20 on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 6:10pm

    It's a fair question to ask. 

    Resistance has again and again made it clear he harbors apocalyptic fantasies of 'defending' himself with his gun, in 'the next disaster'. Against who? Is it not a fair question?

    Specifically what real life scenario does he envision killing people with his gun? Has he ever had to brandish his weapon or use it to 'defend himself' before?

    This is not a lawless land, we have experienced, trained and equipped law enforcement. Anyone who constantly spouts nonsense about 'defending' themselves with their gun is frankly bordering on outright mental illness.


    by NCD on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 6:18pm

    Damn right it is a fair question.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 6:43pm

    It might start with a fair question,  but soon there will be unfair questions and in the end our Fifth Amendment rights are gone.

    Fifth Amendment

    nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 7:30pm

    Well, that's fair too.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 7:39pm

    Are you implying Resistance might be planning to use of his gun in the commission of a crime?


    by NCD on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 8:14pm

    Its a slippery slope NCD. You might think you're just asking me a supposedly reasonable question but more and more questions will follow. Its by these incremental steps the anti Fifth Amendment folks will achieve their objective of banning the use of the Fifth Amendment.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 8:45pm

    You just don't understand the Bill of rights. Let me explain. First Amendment, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Yet I can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. Sure some people might die, but trampling someone to death is against the law. Punish the law breaker not the person exercising their right to free speech.

    Once you establish this supposedly reasonable, small incremental step to ban one particular type of free speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater,  they will ban other types of free speech as well.

    What part of make no law don't you understand?

    That's why we can't ban any speech or any weapon. That's why I refuse to answer your question. Fifth Amendment. Its a slippery slope that will only end with the loss of all our rights.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 10:33pm

    So true. They are watching....and.... listening......


    by NCD on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:04am

    Resistance cites last year's 35% jump in reported gun crimes, presumably as proof that gun control has failed in England and so shouldn't even be tried in the U.S. But the only reason an increase of that size is possible is that the absolute numbers of gun crimes are so very low.

    The U.K. definitely needs to look into why the 2012 surge occurred. But, as the article spells out, gun crimes previously peaked in 1993 -- at almost the exact same number as in 2011. So the absolute numbers had stayed basically flat for two decades or more.

    What is undeniable is that the average American is 40 times as likely to die from a bullet as the average Brit. That's because there are fewer guns (and fewer bullets) lying around.


    by acanuck on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 4:32pm

    acanuck, I noted that the article seemed low on explanatory data as well. Thanks.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 4:45pm

    There will be no adequate gun control until we effective shut down crazies like this guy, plus would you like to live next door to this guy? OMG!

     

     

    Oh and just for fun, please join my new kickstarter venture, I will be purchasing a store full of remote control aircraft to buzz Alex Jones house day and night. I also will need people who can fly these things and shadowy figures willing to show up where-ever Mr. Jones might be, well if we get enough money on kickstarter we could build shadowy robots to do this, so none of us are really in danger.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 3:28pm

    New Documents on Activist Surveillance May Be "Just the Tip of the Iceberg"


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 4:41pm

    What is your opinion on banning high-capacity magazines?


    by Erica (not verified) on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 5:15pm

    I am an advocate of trying to impose the same regulations Australia did in 1996.

    There will be no changes here without a commitment to extensive regulatory changes. Banning high capacity magazines is one part of the regulatory changes we need.

    We need a nationwide gun buyback program, the banning of all assault style weapons, tightened gun licensing which includes mental health screenings, a national gun registry program, and heavy penalties for violations.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 5:40pm

    http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Dropped-gun-fires-at-Silverdale-st...

    SILVERDALE, Wash. (AP) — A gun went off inside a Kitsap County store after a man dropped it, but no one was injured.

    The Kitsap Sun reports (http://is.gd/xPrA51 ) that a 58-year-old Poulsbo man told deputies he had removed the .38-caliber, two-shot Derringer pistol from a holster on his belt before he entered the Cost Plus World Market in Silverdale on Saturday afternoon.

    He put the gun in a coat pocket, but when he was in the middle of the store, he bent over — and the pistol fell out and discharged.

    It may sound trivial but imo this is where we need to focus a substantial but of energy. This man should lose his right to own guns for a probation period. Its by focusing on the frequent events by irresponsible gun owners that we change minds and behavior.

     

    by ocean-kat on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 7:47pm

    Yep, happened just the other day while I was in Boston on a business trip, I read the article to my boss while we were waiting at the airport. Thing is that is my home county newspaper, I live in Kitsap County. Holy crap, it is surreal. Just carrying around his gun in his pocket, just in case he might need it! We have crazy concealed weapons laws here in Washington and crazy people who carry firearms everywhere.

    Not long ago, well maybe it is a couple of years now, a man couldn't get the lug nuts off his car and so he decided it would be a good idea to shoot the lug nuts off his wheel, incidentally he ended up at Harbor View, since he ended up shooting himself. And that happened not to far from here.

    One man who I commute with on the ferry to Seattle carries four weapons with him every day, he says just in case the terrorists come to the ferry he is going to take them down. That scares the crap out of me.

    I really do believe that the solution is the same solution Australians implemented. I have no problems with hunters and enjoy a little venison every now and again, but I do have a huge problem with this wild notion people seem to have that they need to carry guns where ever they go, just in case. Which is just so weird and disconcerting.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 7:59pm

    PS you are correct, he should lose his right to own any more guns ever. His neighbors in Poulsbo will feel and be much safer.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 8:13pm

    Wow. A Derringah...how charming.

    Yes, I agree that even an inadvertent discharge like this should prompt a misdemeanor charge.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:01am

    It's not trivial.. Related story: years ago, I recall this was around 1987, Indiana legislators finally got fed up with the numerous accidental gun deaths where 6 year old Billy gets hold his dad's loaded handgun and shoots 7 year old neighbor Tommy dead. they decided it was time for stiffer penalties for the clearly irresponsible owners of handguns.

    The NRA got wind of this, came in and spread some money around the legislature; that was the end of the legislation.

    I don't have all the facts, but I think it's safe to assume this scenario was repeated in several states over the last twenty-five years.

    I can only conclude that both our political "leadership" and the NRA are in favor of irresponsible gun ownership, and thus these horrible deaths will continue. There are larger implications here, but will save for another thread.


    by demunchained on Sun, 01/13/2013 - 9:13am

    The Australians really went all-out. I have to admit that I am a little surprised that they had such seeming success with so little fuss.

    I doubt we could have so little fuss here, but I would be happy with significant inroads on the most troubling types of gun deaths.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:16am

    If we don't go all out to fix this stuff erica nothing will change. It's all fake reform without comprehensive reform. Certainly we have more crazies than they seemingly have in Australia, i.e. the Alex Jones listeners, but in the scheme of things they are loud but inconsequential. Yet they get attention and that isn't a good thing, because they have once again hijacked the adult conversation we need to have about regulating firearms.

    Australia did a great job and they took the job seriously and they were able to develop and implement a regulatory scheme that works and they are still a thriving democracy.  For some reason we as a nation aren't approaching this issue as seriously as we need to be, we are only talking about peripheral issues, high capacity magazines are a peripheral issue, and important one but a peripheral issue, because we need comprehensive reform.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 9:39am

    You've asked two questions in one.  No, I would want fewer than 10 rounds in a magazine but yes, I'm in favor of banning possession of larger capacities.

    I also think if guns can be brandished in schools and churches and other public places they should be allowed in government chambers as well.  Why not?  What would be a reasonable argument against it if they're allowed in other places where large numbers of people gather?

    I wonder how many of our lawmakers would feel comfortable with armed citizens in the galleries as they're voting on controversial laws?  I personally would love to see them squirm.


    by Ramona on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 7:06pm

    True, I did ask two questions in one--thank you for answering both.

    I had not thought about making government chambers open to guns. (Maybe we should just outlaw metal detectors. :^)  

    Really, I am joking about that.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:18am

    There are so many ideas to cut down on the violence. Not only do I think a 10 round clip is sufficient. But there is a "bullet button" on a few types of guns that you have to push with a tool to remove the clip. I would support something like that on most guns.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 7:35pm

    Something to consider. Do any countries/companies make one?

    I am wondering if there might be a way to create a gun which is specific to self-defense, as opposed to defending one's fellows from an overweening government.

     


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:24am

    DF, I think,  wrote about bullet buttons being required on some assault weapons in California. I was interested and did a quick search on them. I can't see any reason why all guns with clips couldn't have one. The 30 or 40 seconds it would take to change a clip could save a lot of lives.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:55am

    Hmm, 40 seconds seems like a long time. But you never know.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:01am

    For the benefit of those with reasoning skills

    I'll respond to NCD' mischaracterizations and name calling.

    Do YOU (the audience) really believe religious intolerance has been eliminated forever?

    Or ethnic violence has been eliminated entirely.

    Or that hate crimes are a thing of the past?

    If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

    I'm not looking to kill anybody, as NCD suggests; but I'll damn sure, make sure, I can protect myself and family from intolerant jerks.

    To illustrate

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada

    From another site

    "How is it that we live in a society and a time in history where people who refuse to attack, injure, and kill others are themselves killed for that refusal?"

    If Ehren Watada a Conscientious Objector, in a time of war, when jingoism is rampant, can be persecuted and prosecuted, for taking a stand; who is safe?

    Being a Pacifist, should not be mistaken for weakness.

    Ehren Watada would defend his family, I have no doubt, but he was persecuted for refusing to kill others.

    Imagine a community of war mongers, after another attack, like 911, who thought it your patriotic duty to go to war, and when hearing there was opposition, by CO's, they would hunt CO’s down and bring justice to their fallen friends; justice would be as close as a rope and the nearest tree or lamp post, because the rapidly formed jury decided, " Screw the courts and the cops, let’s send a message to all the other CO's. This is what you'll receive too." So pick up your gun and fight for America, or else.”

    You bring a rope to Ehren's home; ......, you might just get shot?

    Not that he wants to kill you, it's just that he will defend his family and himself.

    Just because we've had peace for a while, in regards to religious persecution, like they had in Northern Ireland, doesn't mean it couldn't arise again in America.

    This is not a lawless land, we have experienced, trained and equipped law enforcement.

    Evidently you are unfamiliar with hate crimes; they don't usually happen in front of police officers.

    Unless you're a part of Rampart Division

    Rampart scandal refers to widespread corruption in the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (or CRASH) anti-gang unit of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Rampart Division in the late 1990s. More than 70 police officers either assigned to or associated with the Rampart CRASH unit were implicated in some form of misconduct, making it one of the most widespread cases of documented police misconduct in United States history. The convicted offenses include unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of false evidence, framing of suspects, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and the covering up of evidence of these activities

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal

    But if you ask NCD, It could never happen again.

    Another Kent State type massacre, could never happen again, or that a cop with Mace, abusing his authority.

    Ask NCD; he'll guarantee, that'll never happen again. He'll say "you don’t have to defend yourself anymore; this is not a lawless land”


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 9:34pm

    Resistance, we all cannot and will not arm ourselves and live in fear of something that could happen but probably won't.  We live with danger and uncertainty every day of our lives and no amount of preparation (whatever that could entail) will keep us all from harm.

    We've come to a moment when it's in our best interests to insist on the regulation of firearms and the accompanying ammunition.  It must happen NOW.  We are a country noted for our gun violence.  We need fewer guns, not more, and we need sensible regulations to keep the violence from spreading.

    Regulating guns is not the same as banning them.  Banning some guns is not the same as banning all guns.

    And the government of the United States is not waiting for that magic moment when you're disarmed and they can get you.  Or me.  Or that other guy.  They just aren't, and there isn't a single bit of evidence that what I just wrote is wrong.

     


    by Ramona on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 10:08pm

    Our forefathers and the Higher Court disagrees with you. The problem isn't the gun.

    It's the people. 

    The regulations of guns, leads to the banning of guns.

    All one has to do, if they were open minded and really wanted to learn, is to examine the  history of England, where they used to have the "Right to Bear arms"  but not any more.

    Those familiar with that case study, are not ignorant of how it happened and can clearly see, the banning of guns began with reasonable regulation.  

    Believe it or not, the gun ban in England  started with the regulation of six shooters (revolvers).

    Britain's gun laws have not made victims safer; they've left the victims unarmed, unable to defend themselves

    That is the reality, not some Fairytale, where everyone loves one another and violent crime is no more.

    REALITY OR FAIRYTALE?

    Evidently our forefathers were well aware of the many times, there would always be those, who would wish to disarm citizens.  So it is written "Congress shall not infringe"   


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 11:06pm

    Who in this country, right now, is threatening to disarm citizens?


    by Ramona on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 11:10pm

    That would be too obvious, to outright threaten to disarm, that's why those who wish to disarm citizens, start off with incremental steps.  "Oh were only asking for "Reasonable" steps"

    First you stir up the population "something has to be done to protect us" its an emergency

    Maybe it's the 911 emergency or it's Sandy Hook Elementary emergency,  but the process is the same, get the people to clamor for protection, and the blind ones, won't even realize, they weakened their own Constitutional rights.

    911 Emergency: Bush and his NSA wiretaps, "We're only asking for reasonable steps"and gullible citizens speaking agreeably, "he's only asking for reasonable steps"

    Sandy Hook Emergency: "Were only asking for reasonable steps"

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/08/2013 - 11:44pm

    Would you say guns not under control of a 'regulated militia' had a deleterious impact on the 'liberty' of 35,000 Americans killed by guns every year? On the students and staff in Newtown?

    Seems staying alive is a more 'essential liberty' than a 100 round magazine or a military assault rifle.

    Guys like you only think of numero uno, themselves. It's part of who and what folks like you are...


    by NCD on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:03am

    Alcohol or drugs? Victim of water boarding? Vietnam torture?

    Help me here.  


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:00am

    So in other words, nobody in our government is threatening to disarm the citizens.


    by Ramona on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:52am

    And, Ramona hits the nail on the head!

    (Using as a hammer the butt of a gun that a responsible person in the USA will still be allowed to own regardless of just about any legislation that could currently be enacted.)

    Thank you Ramona.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:11pm

    Aww, it was nothin'.  Really.


    by Ramona on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 6:18pm

    Come on Ramona, we all know how Washington works.

    Ramona "So in other words, nobody in our government is threatening to disarm the citizens."        DIRECTLY

    Those who would like to disarm the citizens, know how to manipulate the naive.

    It is apparent to those, who keep an eye on Civil Rights matters, the chicanery, the sneaky tactics to be employed. 

    Whether it be, a back door attempt to eventually ban guns or whether it is a back door attempt to quash the right of voters.

    The method of deceit is the same. Stealth and surprise are their best weapons.

    Each rock laid, is another stepping stone to the goal. The goal: DISARM CITIZENS

    Some will never see the the actual threat, till its too late.  Only with hindsight will they discover the method used; the laws passed, that weakened and chiseled away our rights.


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:52pm

    Resistance, I don't think we know that at all. You are seeing something that the rest of us are not seeing, and that's what is frustrating about the gun issue. There are a number of steps we could take to make gun ownership more safe. If you want to hang on to the right to have guns, you need to acknowledge that poor gun safety and selling practices are causing trouble.

    Making gun ownership safer would strengthen the right to own guns, not break it down.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:03pm

    Education is the key.

    Most gun owners I know, respect life.

    Ban violent movies, ban violent video games, ban bath salts and other mind altering drugs.

    Whose fault is it that we have a society filled with disrespect and that many have become heartless and life is not precious to them.  Who were their teachers?

    Who failed to teach them to be good citizens , and to love one another?   

    You think the gun clip, made people kill? Do you think the automobile, made the drunk driver get behind the wheel? Of course not

    I blame a godless society, for the majority of our social ills.


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:26pm

    I'd much rather make it illegal to keep a loaded gun in a nightstand that take on the project of banning every violent movie or video game.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:49pm

    You'd rather take away an individual, without any children, who is forced to live in a crime ridden area, because he cant afford to live in the ivory tower.

    Its easier to take his right away, because you know you can't take on Hollywood?

    Every single person who goes to a violent movie to be entertained,  every parent and child, who is entertained by violent video games,

    THEY ARE THE CULPRIT, THEY ARE NOT THE VICTIMS, they are the very reason violence is prevalent, because they willing accepted to feed upon it.

    It is truly hypocritical, that on one hand, we say we abhor violence, but in reality people do love it, they love the entertainment value.

    People promote it, they feed their minds on it  (GIGO) They pay for it and they make the rest of society, pay for their stupidity.

    They are, what they feed on. They feed themselves and allow their children to feed on a steady diet of violence, then stupidly ask "Why is society so violent "? 

    Wait till our young soldiers come home, and see what war does, to an individuals mind. 


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 2:32pm

    Yes, I'd be ok with that. People could take the money they save on TVs and violent video games and use it to purchase an appropriate weapon, ammunition and secure storage containers. 


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 4:23pm

    I disagree.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/10/2013 - 1:25am

    Okay. That one poor old guy who needs his trusty six-shooter to protect himself in a bad neighborhood gets grandfathered in, if he promises there will NEVER be a child in his home.


    by erica20 on Thu, 01/10/2013 - 11:28am

    What was wrong with the simplistic, "shall not infringe"?

    Your idea will lead to more layers of rules and regulations.

    Enforce the laws already on the books.

    It is already established law, individuals who have been declared unfit or have had their rights taken away by the courts, cannot have firearms in their possession.

    All other law abiding citizens, who haven't committed disqualifying acts, should retain their guaranteed 2nd amendment rights.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/10/2013 - 12:02pm

    So which are we?  A Christian nation or a godless society?  We can't be both.  (And we are neither.)


    by Ramona on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 5:59pm

    We are a Christian Nation; by name only.


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 7:25pm

    R-Gun- Needing a gun to 'protect yourself' from 'intolerant jerks' is a pretty low bar for lethal force. Have you ever tried it?

    Your listing of some sad facts of the human condition and your belief in your personal gun as your own individual solution is frankly sick, yet all too common in America.


    by NCD on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:07am

    Try coming through my front door, some late night, as an uninvited guest and find out how low a bar I set, for the last home invader.

    As I protected numero uno and my loved ones.


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:52am

    How many times in your life has somebody broken through your front door?  It has NEVER happened in my family and I can't think of anybody I've ever known who has had that experience.  Ever.

    I know it happens.  Statistically, it happens.  But how often, really?  Often enough to keep on railing against the regulation and banning of certain guns?

    No.


    by Ramona on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 11:58am

    “Great Spirit, help me never to judge another until I have walked in his moccasins.”


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:01pm

    Often enough to keep on railing against the regulation and banning of certain guns?


    by Ramona on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 6:01pm

    I'm not quite sure how to respond to this, as it is a very big set of issues. So all of you will have to help me with it.

    But the first thing that comes to mind is that choosing to become a conscientious objector to a particular armed conflict, after signing up to participate in armed conflict on behalf of one's country--is a very tricky thing with quite a few conflicting goals, and is mostly outside the scope of what we are, in general, talking about here. I can see how these issues come up, but the Watada controversy is pretty unusual.

    I am sympathetic to the idea that political situations can change quickly, and I would never want to be in a situation where I could not protect my daughter. (Although, it seems sometimes that she doesn't need much by way of protection--she is, as they say, no pushover.)

    In the end, though, I do think it's necessary to draw a clear difference between what it means to be a conscientious objector/pacifist, and to engage in self-defense. They are not the same thing. A person cannot be both. They have to choose. I am sure that Ehren Watada is deeply aware of the differences and is making his way through them as best he can.

    Fortunately, what we are talking about with regard to sensible gun laws is not so starkly philosophical, nor are there so many things that can potentially go wrong. For the most part, we're just trying (or I'm trying, at least) to help create policy that tends to keep guns out of the hands of people most likely to use them badly, and deliver them into the hands of those who can actually live up to their responsibility.

    If I believed that there was some sort of clear and present danger to my family, I might go get a gun, or find ammo for the couple that are about the house. (Fortunately, I'm a pretty good shot so it wouldn't be a lot of work to arm up.) But I just can't make myself feel that it's necessary.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:55am

    I would never want to be in a situation where I could not protect my daughter

    Experience a home invasion sometime, it'll surprise you what a little preparedness can do, or what might have been, if you weren't prepared.

    Its a good chance someone is getting killed.

    I'd rather live, but NCD thinks that selfish.

    What do you think;  Save yourself and daughter or let the perp get it?  


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:11am

    Well you've got me there. And if I or my family were in danger, I doubt I'd have a problem shooting.

    But there's a calculus involved here--for me, the odds of a home invasion are less than the likelihood that a gun kept for self-defense will end up being used for something else. Here's the rundown of scenarios from "best" to worst.

    1. I shoot a dangerous criminal who broke into my home to kill me. I am a gutsy hero and am featured in next year's NRA calendar along with Sarah Palin.

    2. I shoot a pathetic 60-year old woman who broke in looking to steal my phone. I'm sort of not a not-hero....

    3. I shoot a 14-year old kid who broke into my home on a dare. Sad.

    4. I try to shoot a person who broke into my home but don't succeed. Person who broke in takes my gun and kills me. I'm dead.

    5. I shoot my daughter's boyfriend who snuck in, or my daughter who was trying to sneak out. Uh-oh.

    6. I shoot someone who just got mugged and was trying to get in looking for help. Uh-oh.

    7. Someone takes my gun (maybe a stranger, maybe a relative) and uses it to kill themselves or someone else. Tragic, especially if it's a little kid.

    I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. I'm ok with the theory of using a gun for self-defense, but in real life when a person exercises that right by owning a gun, they take on the possibility of a huge number of unfortunate scenarios that go along with it. And the lager their family, the sketchier their neighborhood, the higher their level of family dysfunction, the more likely there are to be bad consequences.

    What practices do you think could maximize the safety of keeping one or more weapons in the home while minimizing the possibility of negative outcomes?

     


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 12:13pm

    IMHO First and foremost; EDUCATION

    (I didn't get behind the wheel of a car, without first being trained)


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 1:10pm

    (I didn't get behind the wheel of a car, without first being trained)

    So then you're FOR gun regulations, just like car regulations!

    Let's try repeating this reply to you when you were commenting anonymously. Your comment here implies you're all for a regimen like Japan's to own and use guns; meantime in most other comments, you spend a lot of rhetoric arguing with some straw man in the ether who wants to take away all the guns.

    To repeat a point I think is important: regulation of automobiles did not decrease their number, actually, just the opposite happened in that case


    by artappraiser on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 5:05pm

    Erica, greatly appreciate you breaking these down into realistic scenarios.

    We have a government now that's skinnied the law to allow indefinite detention, targeted assassinations, sent the last guy back to Yemen dead....


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 6:15pm

    That Guantanamo stuff is a mess. Just chilling.


    by erica20 on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 6:45pm

    It cant be true; someone earlier wrote something about  "we're a Nation of laws" or "we are not a lawless society".


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/10/2013 - 12:49am

    No.

     

    However, I would entertain a discussion why someone feels the need for a magaizne. " just because " isn't an answer. Give me a convincing argument for one is all I ask.


    by Beetlejuice on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 2:08pm

    In terms of slowing down the availability of such incredible firepower, I propose that the restrictions directed at limits on personal possession of this or that sized magazine are meaningless without addressing manufacture and supply of product that becomes available to us as a resource; The supply is the total number of guns and ammunition made. When the focus is only upon the end user, the complaint that criminals can get what law abiding people cannot, tends to trump other issues. The only way to lessen interest in buying ever increasingly effective guns is to reduce the overall supply of military grade weapons. I guess one brutally honest question to ask is how much of the profits that comes from manufacturing guns comes from illegal markets "unlaundering" their product.

    I have read a number of accounts that argue measures restricting supply won't work for the same reason that attempts to stop drug production has not worked. From an industrial point of view, this comparison has a serious shortcoming: Crack made from Columbian cocaine does not have to fit a certain sized pipe to do its job. Bullets and the rifled chambers they spin through need to be precisely machined to work together or they will kill the user. Gun and ammunition manufacturers are not as difficult to locate as meth labs.

    I don't think this is a simple issue with a simple solution. But we could make it a lot less stupid without "disarming" everybody.


    by moat on Wed, 01/09/2013 - 9:42pm

    The only way to lessen interest in buying ever increasingly effective guns is to reduce the overall supply of military grade weapons.

    It's no wonder the stores have seen a large jump in the sale of guns.

    The Gun supporters and buyers, who said the government was coming after the more popular sought after guns, were correct.

    The government, not liking the limits and constraints of the delegated powers; will try to take more power away from the people, through the Commerce Clause loophole.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/10/2013 - 1:47am

    It is difficult to locate my comment in your reply. I understand that you consider any limitation on deadly force to be only a ruse to completely disarm individuals. My proposal assumes that is not the case but doesn't try to prove it. You are advancing against an undefended position.

    The insistence that any limits placed upon ownership of deadly force can only be the first step toward a complete ban invites the question of how much force one is talking about. Perhaps a couple of assault rifles with lots of rounds would allow me to defend myself for several hours against a small group of armed assailants. But what if they have a rocket launcher? Well, it would be really helpful if I had a rocket launcher too. What if they have a tank? I will have been disarmed by the law if I can't have my own tank.


    by moat on Thu, 01/10/2013 - 7:06am

    I get it Moat, you want to lessen the legal right,  of lawful citizens to own particular guns.

    Eventually; the only crime committed by lawful citizens, will be the ownership of a particular gun. Not that it was used illegally, just the ownership.

    Moat wrote : The only way to lessen

    interest in buying ever increasingly effective guns is to reduce the overall supply of military grade weapons.

    You want to reduce the supply. Isn't that a commerce issue?

    You want to attack the 2nd amendment by abusing the Commerce clause,  granting a power that was never intended. 

    If I misread your statement I apologize,

    I understand that you consider any limitation on deadly force to be only a ruse to completely disarm individuals

    Why do you keep insisting on micharacterizations.

    My objective is to point out; that every incremental step, towards LIMITING the lawful citizens rights, should be jealously guarded against.

    Next thing you know, each new additional law or phrasing of the law, gives the Gun Ban advocates, the tools to advance further in their goal.

    TO DISARM THE PEOPLE

    Next thing you know, because you registered your gun, the police will just be allowed to enter your house, because they'll be looking for newly banned guns.  

    "We have probable cause because he's a known gun owner " 

    It may not be your objective, but the folks who do want to ban guns, will look upon many with  favor, as they see unwitting pawns, advancing their agenda.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/10/2013 - 8:36am

    "We have probable cause because he's a known gun owner"

    Said no police officer, ever.


    by erica20 on Thu, 01/10/2013 - 11:32am

    Where do you suppose the PD  might get the idea "Suspect may be armed and dangerous"

    Do you think some police agencies issuing the alert, might get the information off of gathered information?

    Matlock: It says here you own a .38 special and the recovered bullet that killed the clerk was shot from a .38 special 

    Suspect: Who says I own one?


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/10/2013 - 12:11pm

    Probable cause is different from saying "Suspect may be armed and dangerous."


    by erica20 on Thu, 01/10/2013 - 12:18pm

    I do not understand how my description of your argument that restricting ownership of certain kinds of weapons is part of a process that will lead to no private citizens having guns is different from your argument that exactly that outcome is inevitable if such limitations are put in place.

    Your position is not some mind bending idea that no one else can comprehend. Maybe it would be good for you to post your own thing about these matters so that you can defend your ideas directly. 


    by moat on Thu, 01/10/2013 - 10:36pm