Shooting of the Week

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby BruceP on Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:40 pm



Like most memes, that one is a lazy pile bullshit.

We have mass shootings in Canada and even though they don't happen often, they're a problem. So, yeah, we do have a mass shooting problem.

We have strict 'gun control' policies and a pretty decent screening process, but many of the laws are so poorly written that enforcement is draconian and sometimes, even unlawful. Then we have a firearms lab that makes arbitrary determinations of what is non-restricted, restricted and prohibited without those determinations having to be presented as a bill to our House Of Commons and made law - unlike every other piece of legislation that becomes law in this country.

We also have a 'Chicago" problem in our largest cities, but, as has been shown in Chicago and elsewhere, even an outright ban on handguns has zero effect on how many people get shot every day with handguns. It's like a mass shooting, but it happens very slowly, and never stops.

We have one tenth the population of the US so it stands to reason that we don't have as many mass shootings. And you can't scale according to population because the number of crazies increases exponentially. You do understand that, right.
Appeals to authority is why we can't have nice things
BruceP
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:28 pm

Well, how many mass school shootings does Canada average every year? Sure, comparisons based on population can be unreliable depending on what they are meant to show. But, we're not talking numbers, we're talking percentages. (Just like when people talk about crime).

We have mass shootings in Canada and even though they don't happen often, they're a problem. So, yeah, we do have a mass shooting problem.


Yes, even one mass shooting is a problem. Not the same as 100 people shot at a concert, though.

We have strict 'gun control' policies and a pretty decent screening process, but many of the laws are so poorly written that enforcement is draconian and sometimes, even unlawful.


Laws are lawful. They can be unfair, immoral, even unjust; but, they're the law. Ok, laws are poorly written and draconian. But, that doesn't mean they don't contribute to fewer mass shootings. And, there's no way to demonstrate that making laws less draconian would have any effect on the few mass shootings that do happen in Canada.

We also have a 'Chicago" problem in our largest cities, but, as has been shown in Chicago and elsewhere, even an outright ban on handguns has zero effect on how many people get shot every day with handguns.


BS. Chicago has a gang problem. It is not the highest crime city in the country by a stretch. NYC has tougher gun laws and doesn't make the top 50 highest crime cities. Baltimore or New Orleans would be better examples --or any big city in Florida. They have very liberal gun laws and very high gun crime. Tougher gun laws, no matter how restrictive, do not increase crime rates. The US CDC is legally prohibited from studying gun crime. But, here's a couple of lists of high crime cities:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/25 ... ss-AAsxtw1

People bring up Chicago because it's convenient, and Chicago's position on the Mississippi makes it a convenient place for gun trafficking. Baltimore and the I-95 corridor is the same. The guns that do get to NY almost inevitably come up from FL, VA, GA, SC, and Maryland. However, I don't think that there is any less mental illness or mentally ill, or orphans, or drug addicts, or any other of the characteristics that mass shooters have here than anywhere else in this country or Canada. Shuck, we even got what's left of the Mafia.

That said. There's nothing to stop a mass shooting from happening here or anywhere else. That is a mutual, worldwide problem --which does not suggest that there should be fewer or less stringent rules for obtaining firearms.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18595
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby windwalker on Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:04 pm

Steve James wrote:Btw, talk about laws and restrictions. In Israel, some would say there's a constant threat and a lot of guns, but is it safe to say that we'd like Israeli gun laws? Here's an example. The rules seem like common sense --even if they were totally made up.

I've noticed several people in my feed mention Israel concerning armed citizens and guns, quoting BS put out by the NRA, so let me set a few things straight. If you want to own a gun in Israel you must consider the following:

1. 40% of applications for firearms permits are rejected. There are only 170,000 active permits currently (population 8.5 million)
2. Only a small group of people are eligible for firearms licenses. Primarily licenses go to high ranking retired military personnel, police officers, prison guards, security guards, and animal control officers. There are a small number of licences for settlers in the West Bank and hunters.
3. You must be at least 21 years old for those who completed military service otherwise you have to wait till you are 27 or 45 for non-citizen residents.
4. Applicants must be a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years.
5. You must pass an extensive background check (including criminal check, national security check, health exam, and mental health evaluation)
6. You must establish a genuine reason for possessing a firearm. I like guns is not an option. If you say you need a gun for self-defence, you can only have one gun, and you are limited to an annual supply of 50 bullets
7. You have to justify every gun you possess separately. Owning more than two guns is extremely rare.
8. You must pass a multi-week weapons-training course.
9. You have to renew your license and pass a shooting course every three years.
10. You have to undergo a psychological assessment every six years.
11. You must have a safe at your residence in which to keep the firearm.
12. There is 100% VAT on firearms, and you will pay thousands of shekels to qualify for your license and hundreds of shekels each year to keep it.
13. There are enormous legal repercussions should your gun be miss-handled, miss-fire, injure anyone unjustly, or be used in a crime. Even if you are not the one that committed these acts.
14. You are not allowed to sell your gun to anyone but a registered dealer or the police.

In Israel, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. It is illegal to own an assault rifle. The photo below is not an open carry gun enthusiast. It's an off-duty soldier that has to carry her weapon while in basic training. Know that when you see young Israelis carrying assault rifles, those are soldiers. I have yet to meet a single Israeli that liked doing this. It is basically a punishment. Don't believe what the NRA says. Gun violence and gun death in Israel is low, not because we all have to carry guns in our youth, but because of gun regulation, enforcement, and not breeding a culture of fear around personal protection.


Seems like the philosophy behind the law is very different, in the US its gun owner ship is considered a "right" Along with some of the other features that would enable only people with money to have and own guns legally. Of course it still does not stop those who would have them illegally.
Do agree very much with the training...requirements.


Nothing from preventing states to enact some of the laws making it more restrictive as some do..

bump stocks

"In a 2010 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to leading bump stock manufacturer Slide Fire Solutions, ATF noted that according to Slide Fire, the device “is intended to assist persons whose hands have limited mobility to ‘bump-fire’ an AR-15 type rifle.”

A similar claim was made by another manufacturer, Bump Fire Systems, according to the Los Angeles Times."

"The functionality of the bump stock, which requires the shooter’s finger to repeatedly hit the trigger to fire multiple shots, also differs from the legal definition of a machine gun, which is a gun that can fire multiple shots “by a single function of the trigger,” the LA Times reported.

“A lot of discussion was made over it, and there was a lot of thought put into it,” Richard Vasquez, the former acting chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of the ATF, told the Times about the decision to allow bump stocks. “When we looked at it … we could not fit it into the definition [of a machine gun].

“That’s all a government agency can do, because Congress writes the laws,” Vasquez said.
https://mic.com/articles/184982/bump-st ... .Xrh2AYhww

Which they say they want to do, but have not done.....so far no matter what administration is in power.

In the military, m-16s went from fully auto operation to 3 round burst while I was in. Don't know if its still the case.
Dont quite get what some feel about firing auto, but apparently some do, and its been hard to either change or develop the a law that would outlaw them although seems like it would be simple to make a bump stock if one wanted or even to do some simple machining to make an AR-15 into full auto......
Last edited by windwalker on Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby BruceP on Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:21 pm

Steve James wrote:
BS. Chicago has a gang problem


Well, that was my point. Gun laws, unlike what was implied in your meme, don't do anything to stop shootings. Whether its a mass of randomly targeted folks or a nine y/o girl catching a stray as she does her homework. Or the masses of other collaterals. We got the same problems with gangs over here and our laws don't do a damned thing to deter or stop gangs' bullets from hitting non-targets just they don't do anything to stop so-called 'mass shootings'.

When laws are written so poorly/ambiguously that they can't be enforced lawfully, they lack all kinds of legitimacy. When a restriction or prohibition is 'determined' regarding a firearm or device without the restriction or prohibition being made law through parliamentary process, yet it is enforced as though it were law, it aint lawful.
Appeals to authority is why we can't have nice things
BruceP
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:38 pm

My point was that there wasn't any correlation between stricter gun laws and [more] gun crimes. If the guns regulations were looser in Chicago, I don't believe it would be any safer. Let's agree, however, that the issue is mass shootings at churches, schools, concerts, mosques, and other places where people are gathered that are done randomly or without reason by people who are mentally disturbed. Islamic terrorists or immigrants could be doing the same thing --because of the laws. In some countries, I'm pretty sure that someone identified as a potential terrorist would have the "right" to buy a firearm. Anyway, I believe the problem is the proliferation and easy availability of weapons to people who are not responsible.

I don't think that guns are the problem at all. And, it's the people who need to be restricted. Right. Guns don't kill people.... Ok, bullets do the killing, but you get the point.
Last edited by Steve James on Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18595
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:53 pm

in the US its gun owner ship is considered a "right"


Jackson didn't arm the Indians, though ;) Rights have exceptions; so, they might as well be called privileges. Calling something a right makes it sound like it's divinely inspired, even God-given. But, there's always a guy who can take away what God gave.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18595
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby grzegorz on Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:42 pm

Like war, it's all about money.

Image
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Tuck Frump

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby aamc on Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:26 pm

Not been fully up to speed on this conversation. Just watched the Prager University comment. Thought it quietly misdirected the question:

My question would be do less guns mean less shootings? Isn't that kind of what people want?

As a non-US person, what is meant by the term gun crime? If I get robbed at gun point or at knife point are these classified differently?
aamc
Wuji
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Michael on Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:46 pm

Steve James wrote:
in the US its gun owner ship is considered a "right"


Jackson didn't arm the Indians, though ;) Rights have exceptions; so, they might as well be called privileges. Calling something a right makes it sound like it's divinely inspired, even God-given. But, there's always a guy who can take away what God gave.

Come on. The exception doesn't invalidate the rule. You can't dismiss the 2nd amendment, and potentially all rules, rights and laws on the other side of an argument, with sophistry like this.
Diversity is our strength. Wait, I mean ignorance is our strength. Err no, war is peace. Freedom is definitely slavery.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12626
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: 自由 国家

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:52 pm

There's another characteristic which hasn't been mentioned that should go on the list, according to this congressperson.

Rep. Claudia Tenney, an upstate New York Republican who is up for re-election in one of the most competitive congressional districts in America, told a radio host in Albany that Democrats are more prone to be mass shooters.

Speaking to host Fred Dicker on WGDJ radio, Tenney was discussing the shooting in Parkland, Florida that left 17 people dead when she made the remark.

"It's interesting that so many of these people that commit the mass murders end up being Democrats," Tenney said. "But the media doesn't talk about that."


Uh huh, Democratic liberal leftist gun owners. That's why the Dems want to take away guns from law-abiding citizens. Or maybe they're just pretending to be against guns so that they'll be able to take over when the Republicans foolishly turn theirs over. The liberals have been stockpiling assault style weapons for decades. Don't be fooled into thinking that they care about our kids.

One Republican congressman was arguing that we need to protect out children. He suggests that teachers receive training and are issued weapons (or at least have one available). I dunno, but I remember my kindergarten and first grade teacher, and it's hard to imagine them shooting in the class. Meh, even if they were well trained, that would only reduce the damage or number of casualties. True, if only one life were saved, it'd be worth it --especially if it were the life of my child. So, don't misunderstand. I'm not against the principle; I'm saying that it doesn't really solve any problem.

These school shootings aren't done by terrorists with objectives. The shooters are kids who may have been troubled, but weren't released convicts or killers. Even the people who took Cruz in say that, even though he is a monster, he had the right to own his weapons. The father said that he still believed that. So, I don't think that a teacher is any safer or responsible than a parent. If a teacher has a gun, I say that students should have one too. Just in case a teacher flips while on anti-depressants.

Of course, any terrorist could rig up some explosives in a car and then drive it into most local schools, churches, or stores, or place an ied outside one. Ok, we could then put barriers up around these places and have camera security for the perimeter. Yep, it's possible to turn these places into fortresses. But, they'll also be prisons.

Still, I'll be that more children are killed after they get home from school, church or the store. The gov't has forbidden the CDC to get statistics, but it seems that 19 children are killed every day in gun accidents.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+man ... e&ie=UTF-8
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18595
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:05 pm

Come on. The exception doesn't invalidate the rule. You can't dismiss the 2nd amendment, and potentially all rules, rights and laws on the other side of an argument, with sophistry like this.


"The exception"? If you mean the Indians, you're talking about more than one case. The Virginia gun laws in effect at the time of the Constitution's writing restricted or prohibited free Blacks from owning most weapons. You can look it up. Here's a page with a list that you can check: http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html

However, like I said, the "right" to bear arms or any other "right" in this country can be abridged. Whether that's the right against illegal search and seizure, or "privacy," or the right to peacefully assemble. Pick one.

If God gave anyone a right, then it applies to everyone. Slaves didn't have the "right" to own guns. It was up to their masters. It is not sophistry to deduce that "God" had nothing to do with that right. It has been demonstrated.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18595
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Michael on Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:29 pm

Thanks for the link. I know you're more than familiar with that history, but as far as guns, most of it is pretty old. The 2nd amendment is an important part of the argument and if you turn these exceptions into the rule, then I think you're also saying that you can't use existing law as being fundamental to a discussion where one of the most popular suggestions is to enact laws to deal with problem by restricting gun ownership more. It gets circular.
Diversity is our strength. Wait, I mean ignorance is our strength. Err no, war is peace. Freedom is definitely slavery.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12626
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: 自由 国家

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:42 pm

but as far as guns, most of it is pretty old.


It's not "old" at all. It goes from the 1700s to ... aw, it's in the article, and can easily be checked. But,fwiw,

Oops, I meant to refer to the Mulford Act, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
But, whatever.

Gun Control Act of 1968 passed. Avowed anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was “passed not to control guns but to control Blacks.” [R. Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special, p. 280 (1972).] (GMU CRLJ, p. 80) “The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First of all, bear in mind that it was not passed in one piece but was a combination of two laws. The original 1968 Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated with a rifle. Then it was repealed and repassed to include the control of rifles and shotguns after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with a handgun … The moralists of our federal legislature as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen not merely by the handgun/long-gun shell game, but from the inapplicability of the law to their deaths.” (The Saturday Night Special and Other Guns, Robert Sherrill, p. 280, 1972)


Ok, pretty old for you maybe, but still demonstrates my point about rights. And, no, I will not dismiss the facts in order to support the second amendment. I'm not going to pretend that it is really a right, or that it even applies to me. You remember what happened to CA gun laws after the Black Panthers. However, even later,

President seeks to single out all poor citizens residing in federal housing for gun ban. The Clinton Administration introduced H. R. 3838 in 1994 to ban guns in federal public housing, but the House Banking Committee reject edit. Similar legislation was filed in 1994 in the Oregon and Washington state legislatures.


Afa Indians, the "merciless savages" are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and that's Jefferson. I mentioned Jackson, specifically. Anyway, the Indians have their own pov on the 2nd amendment.
http://www.powwows.com/american-indians ... amendment/

All I claimed was there was no such thing as a right given by God --except life, perhaps. All rights are granted by men, and can be taken away by men. We can certainly discuss gun regulation without depending on the concept of "rights." One reason is that your "right" ends where my person begins. No, you can't have the right to own me, particularly if I don't have the right to own you.
Last edited by Steve James on Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18595
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Michael on Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:46 pm

Ian wrote:That argument is trotted out a lot by people like Rush and Tucker when talking about black youth, though. Funny, most of the mass shooters seem to be white.

Most of the shooters are white, but I think you're mixing two things up here: fatherless households in relation to problems with blacks that Rush and Tucker talk about (in regard to what? it may be another topic), and my suggestion that single parent moms might be a common factor of correlation or causality, among a host of other factors, for male mass shooters.

Those two areas might be connected by one or more of the same problems, like the divorce rate and its accompanying disruptions to a healthy society. My idea is that social problems, like the divorce rate and associated factors with things like who is parenting, that they affect male and female children in significantly different ways, and that there is some significant problem for which mass shootings are an extremely rare symptom that has only been done by males up until now.

I just don't see any reason to believe that being raised by a single mom makes someone a mass shooter. There are a lot of us. Do you know what the divorce rate is?

There is a correlation of fatherless households having boys end up in jail, a lot of it probably just related to poverty, so considering that link to anti-social behavior, I think there is something to look at regarding what the mass shootings have in common.

It doesn't make sense to dismiss common factors, like single parent moms, just because of the extremely low percentage of coincidence or correlation. I mean, that's precisely what you'd be looking for in a study of an extremely low percentage phenomenon like mass shootings. We don't dismiss those because of the rarity of their occurrence, but instead focus on them because of their importance, so the common factors should not be summarily dismissed because of being statistical outliers.

You brought up "uniform common sense gun law reform". The usual response to this is to ask for specifics because there are already a large number of regulations and restrictions. I got this from Tucker Carlson in the past few days, haven't checked it myself, but he said there was a so-called assault weapons ban for 10 years from '94-04 that was studied by the DoJ and it concluded there was no change in gun crime, so that's on example of a common sense gun law reform that had no effect.

You said, "Come to think of it, gun laws in most industrial nations are also very effective when they are strict and strictly enforced." This seems to be part of the premise for people reacting to mass shootings in America, but there are still mass shootings in other industrialized countries by crazy people, including one in Russia in the past week.

There was a shooting in Germany in 2009 by a former student that killed 16 high school students, very similar to the one that just happened in Florida.

The attack left Germany, which tightened tough gun controls after a similar attack at a school seven years ago, struggling to understand the carnage that had again befallen it, a country with relatively little violent crime. In 2002, a gunman killed 16 people before killing himself at a school in Erfurt, in eastern Germany.


There are also mass killings with vehicles and knives in industrialized countries, and even authoritarian countries like China, where mass knife killings seem to occur regularly somewhere in the land, often by disgruntled men who suffered some injustice, or by terrorists. These will continue to happen, not primarily because of the availability of guns or other weapons, but because of mental illness, religious zealots, etc.

Even in a very low crime society like Japan, mass killings by nutters do occur:

1982 intentional plane crash by pilot, 24 dead

1995 nerve gas attack in subway, 13 dead

2001 knife attack kills 8 children

2008 truck and knife attack kills 8

2016 knife attack at care center for disabled kills 19
Diversity is our strength. Wait, I mean ignorance is our strength. Err no, war is peace. Freedom is definitely slavery.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12626
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: 自由 国家

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Michael on Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:53 pm

Yeah, I was actually thinking of the Mulford Act being very relevant, but couldn't remember the name. Ironically, it was you who first mentioned it to me.
Diversity is our strength. Wait, I mean ignorance is our strength. Err no, war is peace. Freedom is definitely slavery.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12626
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: 自由 国家

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests