The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

the part of the NRA statement where he called for a database to "track" the mentally ill was fucking chilling.

http://www.hungry-for-hunting.com/image-files/hunter-tracking-deer-in-snow-resized.jpg

Guy sounded most like a complete nutjob in need of meds (like 99th percentile of crazy) when making that suggestion.

Um, guys, there were lots of people - even ILXors - talking about mental health exams for potential gun buyers.
Government "database of the mentally ill" is pretty much exactly what that amounts to.

Obviously a terrible idea in all contexts.

A gun buyer is a specific subset of the mentally ill

Are the mentally ill (meaning, those who've had inpatient mental health care, either forced or voluntary) banned/exempt from jury duty, as in the UK?

I think that's up to voir dire.

A gun buyer is a specific subset of the mentally ill

― toy_sleigher (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, December 21, 2012 1:49 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this came out as a sloppy zing by accident. My intended meaning is that subjecting a gun buyer to a mental examination is not the same as keeping a database of all those deemed "mentally ill" since not all of the people deemed "mentally ill" will try to buy a gun.

prefer the zing tbh

the zing certainly lacked the "stating what everyone can easily see for themselves" quality of my intended meaning. yet, I don't actually think that every gun purchaser is mentally ill.

http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr251/mookieproof/huff_zps84245799.gif

Um, guys, there were lots of people - even ILXors - talking about mental health exams for potential gun buyers.
Government "database of the mentally ill" is pretty much exactly what that amounts to.

Obviously a terrible idea in all contexts.

I know, what a terrible idea to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns. It would be like denying a driver's license to the visually impaired. Or it would be following in the footsteps of fascist states like Japan or the U.S. who have laws to prevent the mentally ill from owning firearms. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/auroras-hard-truth-mental_b_1727695.html

the relevant portion since I'm sure milo won't actually read that...

Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." A person is "adjudicated as a mental defective" if a court -- or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications -- has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is "committed to a mental institution" if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. If a person falls under one of these two categories, they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms for life -- although federal law now allows states to establish procedures for such individuals to restore their right to purchase or possess firearms. Many states have done so at the behest of the National Rifle Association, with questionable results.

but I understand that it would be a terrible injustice to infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of someone who isn't actually "adjudicated as a mental defective" but merely wants to shoot up a bunch of children.

there are some legitimate 4th amendment concerns arising from some of the proposals by pro-gun control ppl imo

i'd rather be judged by nuts than carried by dicks

I know, what a terrible idea to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns.

You realize that's not even vaguely what I said, right?

From Tony Horwitz via Ta-Nehisi Coates, I think this comparison of 19th century slaveholders and 20th/21st century pro-gun people is, uh, dead on.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/the-nra-and-the-positive-good-of-maximum-guns/266571/

I don't even get the NRA's position at this point. I mean, I am in No way surprised that they don't support a gun ban, but to respond by suggesting the solution to the overarching problem is introducing more guns, you're basically saying "We need to wait until the gunman is on the doorstep, and then deal with him", you know, never mind the fact that by the time any armed officer intervenes, several people may have already been mowed down, and that you are inviting a gunfight to happen on a school campus, one which may strike down bystanders.

Not that I'm saying "OMG an armed officer on campus is a really terrible idea", but that it isn't a solution to anything. My middle school had one of them. There was no gun violence, but it had little to do with him, and everything to do with the fact that it was a relatively peaceful community with no real history of crime or violence...and half the time, he was occupied far away from the students on the other side of campus.

yeah i don't get why an organization that is supported by the gun industry would suggest something that would introduce more guns.

what an incredibly oblique position

it's not like they're actually lobbying for it though, it's just 'a solution' to exist as a counterpoint to everybody else's solution.

like it exists purely to clutter the 'set of proposed solutions to this problem' - that it's not credible doesnt matter so much

it's like there's a massive wildfire and we could definitely slow it down with some planes dropping water and ppl are like "actually let's set some other fires, like controlled burns" and to those who would insist on at least trying the water solution they're like "as if water could actually put out a fire"

we all have our opinions, some people think water is the best way, some people think fire is the best way, some people think adding gasoline is the best way. it's a subject w/ a lot of nuance and we don't want to put all our chips on one seemingly easy solution.

and of course the only viewpoints that get any attention are the gasoline and the fire ones. cockburn would be proud

maybe proud isn't the word

“It’s a challenge to see how well you can do,” Mr. Andrews, 58, said of target shooting. “It’s like bowling or any other kind of sport. You want to see if you can do it better the next time.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/owners-of-assault-weapons-dismiss-idea-of-federal-ban.html

the 'athleticism' on display must be pretty breathaking

I hiked to the top of Doe Mountain today (don't be impressed...it's only 500ft elevation gain from the parking lot). Here's the view (that's not me)

http://www.pjmweb.com/photos/2008-Arizona/N7027-From-Doe-Mountain.jpg

As I sat at a similar spot to that, contemplating the beauty of nature and all that crap, enjoying the peacefulness a temperate Arizona winter afternoon, BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM...BOOMBOOMBOOM...BOOM rang out across the valley for about 30 minutes, off and on. Knowing that some outdoorsman was getting pleasure from letting off round after round, that certain pleasure that only a firearm can provide, well that just amplified my own sense of well being and relaxation.
(all this to say that even when they are not being used to kill things, they can still be fucking annoying and unsettling. Made me recall how I'd go play tennis, unwinding from the stresses of a work week, and then CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK...oh yeah, there's a gun club range just behind those woods. Super.)

well you should have brought a gun along. if you had let off some rounds of your own, you'd have barely noticed those shots across the valley.

Not sure which of the many gun/shooting threads to post this on, but from my old hometown:

http://gawker.com/5970973/gunman-shoots-firefighters-responding-to-large-residential-blaze-in-western-new-york

christ. i have a lot of family in webster. (i'm from binghamton)

firefighters need guns

http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/there-was-a-firefight.gif

nice

Made me recall how I'd go play tennis, unwinding from the stresses of a work week, and then CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK...oh yeah, there's a gun club range just behind those woods.

it's like you don't know how fucking irritating my neighbors ball machine is at 7:00 am/pm.

jk i don't have that kinda neighborhood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lyj-Ua2pSY

This was an email. It's a post now. I'm self-plagiarizing!

Fuck gun people. I mean really, fuck them. I come from skeet shooting back country rednecks and grew up most of my life in the heart of goddamn dixie. I've shot skeet with an 18 gauge and a .38. I qualified on an assault weapon and cleared a jam in the middle of my last magazine while doing so. I work with a large number of people who really, really enjoy the hobby of target shooting. Guns are incredibly powerful tools. For murdering other people.

The vast majority of guns bought and sold today are expressly designed for killing other human beings. If you want to hunt animals for sport, frankly, we have all kinds of fancy bows and arrows that are actually better for hunting than noisy, smelly rifles. If you want to kill humans as expediently as possible because Red Dawn, or some other flavor of fantasy Bourne/Taken/Death Wish/Punisher/Walking Dead crap has taken over your lobes, you should be in a pit with other people like yourself. Fuck gun people.

If you must shoot birds for fun and/or sustenance, a 20 gauge pump action shotgun can be your friend. If you must shoot in the general direction of a herd of deer to clear a road, the same weapon will suffice. There is absolutely no reason for a civilized human being to desire an arsenal on par with their local SWAT. If you really believe that every citizen deserves the right to arm themselves with military grade weaponry, please move to one of those shitty fucked up joints in Africa where it might come to pass that a 9 year old orphan pops you and your entire family for living in the wrong shack on the wrong day. I'd prefer to live in a country that doesn't let that happen.

Fuck gun people. I'm a dad now and I'm done pretending I give a flying fuck about the insipid "rights" of people who think their privilege to keep a collection of murder weapons in their own home overrides my privilege to go to my office, to send my child to school, to run errands, without fear.

Fuck gun people.

That sets up a false dichotomy between "arsenal on par with their local SWAT" and "20-gauge pump shotgun." Pump shotguns, for instance, are very much a police weapon and there's very little real difference between a 20-gauge and a 12-gauge.
What does "military grade weaponry" mean?

why don't we try an experiment where we actually make a legislative difference between the 20-gauge and the 12-gauge, or any other number of measures of firearms anybody can have and firearms only the cops and military can have, and see if there's "very little real difference?" because this country doesn't know yet. Frankly any pump shotgun is better than a fucking assault rifle as far as public safety is concerned, but I'd like to start negotiating as far to the UK as possible.

What do you think I mean by military grade weaponry? Your guess is half as good as mine.

If it's designed to kill avians and ungulates, one at a time, and miss a lot, and resist being operated by a neophyte, that's fine.
If it fails to resemble any of the above criteria, it's a murder weapon, and it should be illegal.

So the pump action shotgun you refer to (all shotguns, actually) should be every bit as illegal as the "SWAT arsenal." False distinctions are pointless. Everything that shoots a metal object out one end at a high rate of speed is fucking dangerous.

Pump-action shotguns are responsible for more crime than 'assault rifles.'

so?

So sentiments like "frankly any pump shotgun is better than a fucking assault rifle as far as public safety is concerned" are rather absurd.

But your stances aren't?
The point is there is no legitimate reason any civilian should own a fucking assault rifle, so let's start there with banning.

If you want to ban 'assault rifles' because they're scary and look similar to military rifles and "no one should own one" and blah blah blah, good for you. You literally cannot be argued with - you've decided they're evil, so the argument is over.

But when others choose to bring in things like "public safety" and comparisons to shotguns and such, statistics and uses matter.

yes, i've "decided they're evil", what a close-minded fool I am. How can a man of logic and reason even discuss the matter with me?
The only reason people are discussing anything other than "guns are fucking awful, let's get rid of them" is because idiots have poisoned the debate to where that is too "extreme" a position ("think about people's investments! the awful consequences to law-abiding citizens!!" blah blah blah) and so we're left with "ok fine, let's get rid of the military/swat-grade weapons"...but then there's men of logic and reason who argue with even that so...fuck gun people.

Shotguns, bolt-action hunting rifles, handguns of all types, semi-automatic rifles - they're all, quite literally, "military-grade" weapons. That's why it's a pointless and useless distinction.

Granny, while I question acknowledging you, I didn't insult you. I stated a fact - you're a decided party and you openly state the reasons for your stance. Those reasons cannot be argued with or changed.

But you are not a decided party? Your reasons can be argued with or changed? Gimme a break.
Certain firearms have capabilities that surpass those needed to "designed to kill avians and ungulates, one at a time". These are military grade/murder weapons/assualt weapons/WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT TO CALL THEM. Certain cars possess more powerful images, better suspensions, lighter frames which are not needed to carry out the driving tasks of ordinary people. We call these "sports cars". The dividing line can be blurry, but still, sports cars exist. No one can make a valid argument that they need to go 0-60 in 3.4 secs to take the kids to soccer practice.