To Arm or to Disarm.

[MightyMouse 12]

Both.

 

I’m saying the better government that would “help” with this and other “issues” used as examples is simply unattainable at the this point… unrealistic… such 'programs' and interventions have been tried, failed, same tried again with 'better' funding, failed, new(same old) programs, failed… degrading rapidly now… not getting better at it...

It’s just like this unrealistic ‘cause’ you’re hooked on…how much we would we have to “better” government to get any real traction is a lot like -

How far into the gun supply would we have to go before it started making an impact on your gun deaths?

A reduction of ?? %.

 

These studies (that one side will vehemently resist) will not be effective … wasting our money on stats or whatever - anything the govt would “do” on this or the other issues would be geometrically LESS effective than ANYTHING you might do... which would also be very ineffective - unless you are working very locally, very diligently, very personally with the ‘at risks’ you drive by every day... instead of staying “suddenly upset” in your Lanza projections.

Do what you will on this issue. Just don’t expect me to want to help pay for fake studies – for either ‘side’ of this arming issue.

 

"Suddenly Upset" works. Because we were "suddenly upset" after the trade center attacks, we know have much safer air travel. DO you think it is much safer or do you feel that it is no better than it was before?

[zdo 20]

 

It is no better than it was before.

It would be just as easy now to create even more terror and even more deaths by suicide planes as it was pre 911

Edited February 13, 2013 by zdo

[zdo 20]

…Although things change fast nowadays, I'd say "perfected" personal printing machines are still a long way off. And will have only certain capability allowed.

 

 

Once out of the box…

 

Once a technology is out of the box - it is out of the box.

 

Once a high utility technology is out of the box, ‘legal’ controls will be largely neutralized. Producers will find a way to produce it. Consumers will find a way to procure it. (… and meanwhile, all the ‘legal’ controls are usually driven by other, less honorable, agendas than those stated.)

 

Technologies rise and fall/ are replaced on their own. Once a technology is out of the box , manipping supply and demand, even taxing flow, is a fools game ultimately.

 

Guns are powerful tools that can be used for good and evil, and until replaced by better personal weapons, the technology is out of the box… If supply is interrupted, substitutions will be found and applied. If high capac. magazines become ‘illegal’, a local machinist can fix that easily… without a printer…

 

Internal combustion tech is out of the box… won’t be replaced until it is replaced…

 

All sorts of drugs formulas - from brewing beer to making meth, etc - are out of the box and won’t go back in the box. If supply or ingredient supply is interrupted, substitutions will be found and applied…

 

Remote wireless surveillance cameras are out of the box…

 

Atomic weapon technologies are out of the box… hm some ‘gun control’ parallels at the sovereign level… and [snic] we should ‘disarm’ all our nukes now asap… all weapons really are pretty ugly, aren’t they ?

 

…and now, drones are out of the box…

To Drone or to Disdrone

do you have a grone yet?

5 Homeland Security 'Bots Coming to Spy on You (If They Aren't Already) | Danger Room | Wired.com

[MightyMouse 12]

 

It is no better than it was before.

It would be just as easy now to create even more terror and even more deaths by suicide planes as it was pre 911

 

Well, you must not travel much. It is a lot better than it was before.

[zdo 20]

Well, you must not travel much. It is a lot better than it was before.

 

It only appears to be better. You are billed to make you feel more secure, but you really aren't more secure...

here we go again ...

plus, the terrors and horrors can be easily rained down via other means... just stick around ... and the DHS will turn out to be much worse than just a total waste...

 

back on topic...

How far into the total gun supply would we have to go before it started making an impact on your gun deaths?

A reduction of ?? %

[MightyMouse 12]

It only appears to be better. You are billed to make you feel more secure, but you really aren't more secure...

here we go again ...

plus, the terrors and horrors can be easily rained down via other means... just stick around ... and the DHS will turn out to be much worse than just a total waste...

 

back on topic...

How far into the total gun supply would we have to go before it started making an impact on your gun deaths?

A reduction of ?? %

 

1 gun would make a difference. A very small difference, but a difference nonetheless.

As an example: if I have a gun in my home, there is a minor chance that the gun gets stolen and used. If I remove that gun, then the minor chance of the gun being stolen and used is gone.

 

If everyone who didn't want their guns anymore simply disposed of them properly, then that would have an impact. I have no data, but I am certain that unwanted guns end up as gun supply for criminals to do damage with.

 

You are really asking me a question that I do not have an answer.

[Patuca 13]

Well, you must not travel much. It is a lot better than it was before.

The hell it is. I travel alot. No safer. Just more trouble. Plus people sometimes get harassed.

[MightyMouse 12]

The hell it is. I travel alot. No safer. Just more trouble. Plus people sometimes get harassed.

 

I am not surprised by your response. Would you care to elaborate on how air travel is not safer? The reasons behind your responses are what make this thread worthwhile for me.

[SIUYA 11]

topical - and who knows the full story yet.....

Oscar Pistorius has supposedly shot his girlfriend while mistaking her for a burglar.

 

BBC News - Oscar Pistorius 'shoots girlfriend' - local media

[SunTrader 10]

topical - and who knows the full story yet.....

Oscar Pistorius has supposedly shot his girlfriend while mistaking her for a burglar.

A "burglar" would wanted to leave him probably.

[zdo 20]

You are really asking me a question that I do not have an answer.

 

Not having an answer is ok … all along, this issue is far far more about ‘people control’ than about ‘gun control’.

[SIUYA 11]

A "burglar" would wanted to leave him probably.

 

yep - there might be more to the story, maybe she was leaving with more than the TV - she was shot 4 times according to one report.

[smmatrix 11]

[sdoma 10]

Of course the NRA will attempt to shamelessly walk you down an illogical path:

 

Prisoners are actually correct. They are all innocent and shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

Prisoners practice professional courtesy. They only victimize non-prisoners and there are no non-prisoners in prison.

 

Women are the problem. There are no women in male prisons so there is no need to commit murder.

 

A criminal is immediately rehabilitated when he enters the prison system and no longer wants to commit murder.

 

Any other silly NRA statement

 

 

Whatever you're smoking, I need some. How about we try a logical argument, shall we?

 

Maybe, just maybe, the murder rate is lower in prison because the prisoners are locked up most of the day, and under watch 24 hours a day. What do you think the murder rate would be for normal people under those conditions? And what do you think the murder rate would be for those same prisoners if we just locked them all into a compound with no staff and airdropped supplies in?

 

Further, if you separate out the murder rates for white males, I'll bet you it's a hell of a lot lower than 4 per 100k. So, you yourself are probably much safer than the average prisoner.

 

Finally, murder isn't the only type of violence you can experience in prison. They get in fights all the time, and sexual assault can be fairly common, depending on what prison you're in.

 

I worked with a guy whose brother did time for accessory to murder. Saw someone get shot and was too afraid to talk, supposedly. The stories his brother told him would curdle your blood.

[MightyMouse 12]

Whatever you're smoking, I need some. How about we try a logical argument, shall we?

 

Maybe, just maybe, the murder rate is lower in prison because the prisoners are locked up most of the day, and under watch 24 hours a day. What do you think the murder rate would be for normal people under those conditions? And what do you think the murder rate would be for those same prisoners if we just locked them all into a compound with no staff and airdropped supplies in?

 

Further, if you separate out the murder rates for white males, I'll bet you it's a hell of a lot lower than 4 per 100k. So, you yourself are probably much safer than the average prisoner.

 

Finally, murder isn't the only type of violence you can experience in prison. They get in fights all the time, and sexual assault can be fairly common, depending on what prison you're in.

 

I worked with a guy whose brother did time for accessory to murder. Saw someone get shot and was too afraid to talk, supposedly. The stories his brother told him would curdle your blood.

 

What if under the same guarded conditions, we gave them guns? Would the murder rate go down or up?

 

And as per your friend's brother, these guys don't give a fuck. They have plenty of time to kill each other in prison if they want to. The murder rate was a lot higher pre-1980. I do not know why, just that it was.

[sdoma 10]

What if under the same guarded conditions, we gave them guns? Would the murder rate go down or up?

 

And as per your friend's brother, these guys don't give a fuck. They have plenty of time to kill each other in prison if they want to. The murder rate was a lot higher pre-1980. I do not know why, just that it was.

 

Perhaps more effective methods of controlling the prisoners? Tactics do evolve. Another friend of mine has a brother who was a prison guard for about a decade, I'll ask him the next time I see him.

 

But really, this is just an enormous straw-man argument with no real insights to offer on the world outside, and really there's no way we can test the hypothesis and even figure out what would happen inside. It's just so moot. I just had to respond to the argument you made and you have to admit it was asinine.

[Tams 20]

[MightyMouse 12]

Perhaps more effective methods of controlling the prisoners? Tactics do evolve. Another friend of mine has a brother who was a prison guard for about a decade, I'll ask him the next time I see him.

 

But really, this is just an enormous straw-man argument with no real insights to offer on the world outside, and really there's no way we can test the hypothesis and even figure out what would happen inside. It's just so moot. I just had to respond to the argument you made and you have to admit it was asinine.

 

 

Its hard for you or someone who is a gun advocate to state that if prisoners where given guns that they would annihilate each other and everything around them because guns make doing that simple and easy even if they had 23 hour lock down. But, they can't do that now because they don't have guns.

 

It was asinine because the argument doesn't support your view of guns? Most likely. It is an odd argument, no doubt, but what remains is that a white or black male has less of a chance of being killed in prison than a white or black male who is not in prison. It is also very interesting how there are no guns in prison. I would expect that with such a large grouping of bad guys, many of whom are murderers, that the murder rate would be a lot higher than the murder rate of the population at large.

[SunTrader 10]

Perhaps more effective methods of controlling the prisoners? Tactics do evolve......

 

Maybe.

 

Just like more effective methods of controlling violence on the outside.

 

Case in point NYC, 50 year record low in murders this past year.

 

And not done by arming every citizen.

[zdo 20]

...

Just like more effective methods of controlling violence on the outside.

 

Case in point NYC, 50 year record low in murders this past year.

 

And not done by arming every citizen.

 

"controlling" ?

 

"not done" ?

 

... "done"

 

On the surface of this post the apparent assumption is 'they' did something, anything to "control violence" which caused lower violence = hubris + more argumentum ad populum et ad nauseam

 

...meanwhile the number of illegal guns is as high as ever...

'Case in point NYC' - more likely the violent aspects of the culture in NYC changed on their own... not because of tough mayors or any of the other typical exciting stories told about how things change...

[zdo 20]

...

 

It was asinine because the argument doesn't support your view of guns?...

 

For this argument, there are a few insights to be gained from the available ‘controls’ on studies of prison populations that aren’t available as controls in ‘free’ populations, but whoever used the word “asinine” pretty much nailed it.

... cabins in the woods ... prisons ... row houses ... whatever... if members (randomly) show up in the groups who will go 'over the line' then violence will go up... weapons or no weapons.

 

Also, in contrast to the 'outside', the murder rate in prisons is influenced heavily by the choices of prison leadership – much more than the ‘controls’ imposed by the warden and guards and infrastructure…

[MightyMouse 12]

For this argument, there are a few insights to be gained from the available ‘controls’ on studies of prison populations that aren’t available as controls in ‘free’ populations, but whoever used the word “asinine” pretty much nailed it.

... cabins in the woods ... prisons ... row houses ... whatever... if members (randomly) show up in the groups who will go 'over the line' then violence will go up... weapons or no weapons.

 

Also, in contrast to the 'outside', the murder rate in prisons is influenced heavily by the choices of prison leadership – much more than the ‘controls’ imposed by the warden and guards and infrastructure…

 

... What does good leadership do? Do they have chorus class on Wednesday, hump day, to help with the monotony of prison life so that they don't think about killing each other?

 

Would chorus on Wednesdays for the non prison population prevent people from killing each other too?

 

It is simply thick headed abstinence to omit the idea that there are fewer murders because there are fewer guns and other weapons. Its a rather simple idea. But, it is not simple for someone to admit if he or she has something to lose by admitting that fewer weapons is a major part of the reason.

 

It remains that prisoners have a smaller chance of being murdered than non prisoners. Yes, there are more controls in prison and one of the controls is that weapons are not allowed.

 

Most intentional homicides are committed with firearms. It is no stretch of the imagination for rational individuals to conclude that the availability of guns increases the possibility of homicide.

 

It is comical to watch people try to deny the facts.

[sdoma 10]

Its hard for you or someone who is a gun advocate to state that if prisoners where given guns that they would annihilate each other and everything around them because guns make doing that simple and easy even if they had 23 hour lock down. But, they can't do that now because they don't have guns.

 

It was asinine because the argument doesn't support your view of guns? Most likely. It is an odd argument, no doubt, but what remains is that a white or black male has less of a chance of being killed in prison than a white or black male who is not in prison. It is also very interesting how there are no guns in prison. I would expect that with such a large grouping of bad guys, many of whom are murderers, that the murder rate would be a lot higher than the murder rate of the population at large.

 

It's not asinine on its face, it's asinine because it's an obvious straw man argument, and the whole thing doesn't make sense anyway for what you're trying to do with it. The only thing that would happen in this crazy hypothetical is that they would break out. Also, it's possible that (in this magical scenario that we keep them in) while murders or justifiable killings would increase, rapes and assaults would decrease. Harder to rape a guy who is packing. As an aside, not everyone in prison is violent, many are in there because of our ridiculous drug policies.

 

The actual valid point in your argument actually supports a core pro-liberty belief. A small, armed group of people can control a much larger unarmed one. This has reams of historical precedent, to the point that you can't really argue it. You actively disarm a group of people or an individual for one reason - to control them.

 

Some state control is good, as it is required to protect individual rights and set economic and legal frameworks in place (i.e. contracts, non-violent dispute resolution) that make civilized society possible. If you disarm an entire populace, however, and keep weapons in the hands of the chosen few, the level of state control becomes too great and its susceptibility to abuse increases dramatically, to the point that it becomes near-certainty.

 

I'm not saying that you have to let everyone have a gun; people like children, violent felons and the mentally ill shouldn't be able to own guns. In other words, if you've proven yourself dangerous, unlawful and/or can't enter a legal contract, I'm OK with you not being allowed to bear a firearm. I don't want the crazy schizophrenic homeless man (that the ACLU has decreed has the capacity to decide he shouldn't be institutionalized) packing heat. But there has to be a very good reason to prove someone is dangerous before denying them a constitutional right.

 

Sandy Hook was a tragedy, a truly terrible thing. The ugly fact of the matter is that no existing, reasonable, or constitutional control would have kept Lanza from getting his hands on a firearm. He also didn't need a rifle to slaughter tykes. Handguns would have been just as effective at that range, and with a little practice, you can change a 7 or 10 round magazine in under a second. Being disarmed by a 6 year old isn't going to happen when you change mags.

 

Having six thousand rounds of ammunition in your house is also irrelevant, as you can't carry more than a hundred or so on you - ammunition is bulky and HEAVY. The vast majority of criminals have no more than several rounds. People who have thousands of rounds are target shooters or law enforcement who buy in bulk to keep costs down.

 

Before you endorse policies, I implore you, consider a few questions:

 

1. What will this policy actually accomplish?

 

2. Who could conceivably benefit? I.e., cui bono?

 

3. What are the second-order effects of this policy? Is there any way it can be exploited or gamed?

 

I await your response.

[zdo 20]

... good leadership

 

.

 

You’re projecting again… the ‘leadership’ word was used alone in my post… if we must qualify it, ‘strong and mean’ leadership would be a much better qualifier than ‘good’ …

 

clarifying points for anyone who can follow… murders in a prison have a much higher “clear” rate than in a city… leadership must control occurrences more because, it is vastly easier to follow the chain of a gang kill in prison back up the hierarchy in prison than it is on the ‘outside’ ... and for individually or gang planned murders, it is much ‘easier’ get implicated and have sentence extended, etc, etc.

 

For example ChiTown only has about a 23% murder clearance / arrest / conviction – lazy corrupt cops, etc. - much lower than in prisons… on the outside the murderers are definitely more worried about vics who turn out to have parity than they are getting caught by the police.

 

… and instead of "chorus" and other activities, the leadership is busy on the ‘control’ of the (much tighter supplies of) objects and less reliable / harder to 'reinforce' human agents

 

… sometimes, MM, your Pollyanna replies are NOT comical…

 

…

 

It is simply thick headed abstinence to omit the idea that there are fewer murders because there are fewer guns and other weapons.

…

Most intentional homicides are committed with firearms. It is no stretch of the imagination for rational individuals to conclude that the availability of guns increases the possibility of homicide.

 

.

 

It is simply thick headed to think that if the murder rate really has changed across the ages because of weapons that suddenly we could put those technologies back in the box and fix anything.

 

It is not comical to watch you focus all this energy into trying to stop future lanza’s that might “suddenly upset” you - by falsely associating those incidents with the all the violence in this culture, by trying to blame regular people for murders because some of us have guns, by thinking that taking our weapons would improve things “a little bit ”, and assert that would cause the murdering to fade away...

 

Meanwhile, while you stay energized by driving by Sandy H and fixated on all the wonderful things you could fix if you could get 1 gun off the streets, you drive by and don’t do a dam thing about incredible damage done to women, children, and other family members every day by those who would use force to get what they want… go away.

[Tams 20]

. .