American Gun Ownership Highest In 18 Years

[derspiess]

You guys have been calling them toys for 100 pages now, going on and on about your latest and what accessories you are going to get for it, etc., etc.

No, we haven't.  None of us have called them toys.

But they are most certainly toys in every sense of the word.

Uh, no.

[alfred russel]

I don't have a "side" though - I have a position on an issue that isn't motivated almost completely by my fascination with shiny toys. SO yeah, when the results favor the position that I hold, I don't object. What a shocking thing.

And my position is based on a objective desire to see the Constitution upheld and the rights of individuals protected, rather than a infantile fascination with guns and the NRA.

It is one thing for a tea party member to scream about original intent and practices at the time of authorship with the constitution--they might not mind an 18th / 19th century government. But for an atheist with libertarian tendencies...that seems a bit short sighted.

I am not arguing that we should take the mindset stated, I am arguing that the claim that the 2nd has always been about an individual right to tote around some defined class of firearm such that laws governing, restricting, or even banning particular classes of firearms being carried in public (or against background checks, or registration requirements, or whatever) is patently false.

That is the great lie that the NRA has so successfully sold - that nothing has changed, and in fact throwing out things like the DC handgun restrictions is a *return* to the intent of those who wrote the second.

That is patently and objectively untrue, as anyone who cares to take a small amount of time to look at the history of gun control legislation can see very easily.

The NRA did not stand up and say "In the modern world, the intent of the founders must be re-interpretated such that it is reasonable for the courts to strike down nearly any kind of control on the posession of firearms (which is our basic position)".

My problem with the modern interpretation of the 2nd is not so much that I am opposed to or in favor of more or less restrictions on guns in the particular. I think Georgia's position is fine - I think New York's positions is fine. I think Florida is fucking insane.

What I don't like about the modern interpretation of the 2nd is that it demands that everyone share the same stance on what is reasonable control of guns, and that stance is one held by the most radical of society - that New York is NOT fine, and they should be forced to be like Florida. It is NOT ok for Washington D.C. to have their own views on what the people there, via their elected representatives, want in regards to gun control, they have to go along with the "all gun control is EVIL" stance of the NRA.

The "old" interpretation I think did a perfectly good job of protecting the basic right while leaving local areas free to make their own choices about what is reasonable and workable for them. The "new" interpretation looks like it is moving towards a one size fits all view that

A) Most Americans don't actually want, and
B) Pretty clearly, IMO, contributes to a serious problem with gun violence in America.

You can, of course, reasonable disagree with B. But that disagreement ought to, IMO, be resolved in the court of public opinion and through our nominally representative democracy. Not by the most extreme element defining their way to victory via an invented fundamental right.

That isnt' the way the modern country works though. Major interest groups try to obtain victories through legal rulings in addition to other methods, and link their cause with basic rights. If the NRA didn't do this, they would probably be unique.

I don't own a gun, never want to own a gun, and don't know the laws associated with guns in Georgia and Florida. However, I'm skeptical the laws in Florida are all really more stupid than Georgia.

[Berkut]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/26/3895027/big-pine-key-homeowner-has-gun.html

The gun shop owner told him that there were "rumors" that you could. It didn't take Varrieur long to look up Florida statute 790.15, and he was surprised by what he found."I said to my wife: 'Do you know the only rules to discharging firearms on residential property are that you can't fire over a right-of-way of any paved public road, highway or street, you can't fire over any occupied dwelling and you can't fire recklessly or negligently?' " Varrieur said. "That's it."Until 2011, the statute didn't even include the part about firing "recklessly or negligently."

This is the part that gets REALLY nuts:

Many municipalities in Florida used to have local laws banning the firing of guns in residential areas.

While the preemptive state law has been in place for almost three decades, many local governments ignored it and passed their own gun ordinances.

But in 2011, backed by the National Rifle Association, the Republican-led state Legislature put more teeth into the state law, creating penalties for local lawmakers who violate it. Gov. Rick Scott signed the law that now makes anyone who creates or upholds local gun ordinances subject to fines of up to $5,000. They also can be removed from office and forced to pay their own legal bills if sued over local gun ordinances.

Once the 2011 law took effect, Florida Carry, a nonprofit, gun-rights organization, began systematically going after any municipality that had not already put a bullet into its local gun ordinances.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Depends on how one views suicide.

No, removing handguns will not stop a person determined to kill themselves. Lord knows some people have serious reasons to do so - like finding they have an incurable disease that will kill them in excrutiating pain. However, it will stop some of those who do so on an impulse in a moment of bleakness. Make it more difficult to off someone in a moment, and you make it less likely that a momentary impulse will lead to death.

This is similar to the reason why removing guns from any potentially volatile situation is a good idea. A drunken bar fight that is fought with fists and bottles would generally end with stitches; make everyone armed, and it is far more likely to end in deaths.

The "moment of bleakness" situation was going through my head as I was writing that.  That is a hard thing to deal with, though as I was starting to indicate in my reply to Beeb I think the proper thing is to give people the tools to avoid getting to that precipice in the first place.  I know that is easy to say and hard to do.  I do not see much in the way of attempts to do so, though.  Removing the means, at least the public means, is far easier and leads to an "out of sight, out of mind" situation that is worse for the potential suicide cases than simply letting them get it over with.

The bar fight analogy is apt, and I do think some restrictions are appropriate.  Those restrictions need to be in the context of mental health treatment programs, though, not general gun control.

[Berkut]

I don't have a "side" though - I have a position on an issue that isn't motivated almost completely by my fascination with shiny toys. SO yeah, when the results favor the position that I hold, I don't object. What a shocking thing.

And my position is based on a objective desire to see the Constitution upheld and the rights of individuals protected, rather than a infantile fascination with guns and the NRA.

It is one thing for a tea party member to scream about original intent and practices at the time of authorship with the constitution--they might not mind an 18th / 19th century government. But for an atheist with libertarian tendencies...that seems a bit short sighted.

I am not arguing that we should take the mindset stated, I am arguing that the claim that the 2nd has always been about an individual right to tote around some defined class of firearm such that laws governing, restricting, or even banning particular classes of firearms being carried in public (or against background checks, or registration requirements, or whatever) is patently false.

That is the great lie that the NRA has so successfully sold - that nothing has changed, and in fact throwing out things like the DC handgun restrictions is a *return* to the intent of those who wrote the second.

That is patently and objectively untrue, as anyone who cares to take a small amount of time to look at the history of gun control legislation can see very easily.

The NRA did not stand up and say "In the modern world, the intent of the founders must be re-interpretated such that it is reasonable for the courts to strike down nearly any kind of control on the posession of firearms (which is our basic position)".

My problem with the modern interpretation of the 2nd is not so much that I am opposed to or in favor of more or less restrictions on guns in the particular. I think Georgia's position is fine - I think New York's positions is fine. I think Florida is fucking insane.

What I don't like about the modern interpretation of the 2nd is that it demands that everyone share the same stance on what is reasonable control of guns, and that stance is one held by the most radical of society - that New York is NOT fine, and they should be forced to be like Florida. It is NOT ok for Washington D.C. to have their own views on what the people there, via their elected representatives, want in regards to gun control, they have to go along with the "all gun control is EVIL" stance of the NRA.

The "old" interpretation I think did a perfectly good job of protecting the basic right while leaving local areas free to make their own choices about what is reasonable and workable for them. The "new" interpretation looks like it is moving towards a one size fits all view that

A) Most Americans don't actually want, and
B) Pretty clearly, IMO, contributes to a serious problem with gun violence in America.

You can, of course, reasonable disagree with B. But that disagreement ought to, IMO, be resolved in the court of public opinion and through our nominally representative democracy. Not by the most extreme element defining their way to victory via an invented fundamental right.

That isnt' the way the modern country works though. Major interest groups try to obtain victories through legal rulings in addition to other methods, and link their cause with basic rights.

Of course - but that doesn't mean I have to be ok with the USSC falling for it, or think that it is an acceptable outcome.

If the NRA didn't do this, they would probably be unique.

No, they would just be a group that was about firearms and using them instead of a political organization dominated by radicals.

And to be fair, they managed just fine NOT being a radicalized political organization for a very, very long time.

I don't own a gun, never want to own a gun, and don't know the laws associated with guns in Georgia and Florida. However, I'm skeptical the laws in Florida are all really more stupid than Georgia.

I do own a gun, and think Florida's laws, and more broadly the culture around the NRA/gun nuts faction is fucking insane. Fully as crazy as any other fundamentalist group I can think of barring those running around cutting peoples head off.

[Barrister]

People thinking about suicide don't have big flashing light on top of their heads.  We never know what someone is thinking unless they talk about it, or act on it.

No shit.  The objective should be to get them to talk about it.  Very few people go from fine to suicidal in a short period of time.  Yes, they may look fine, but those people are just very good at hiding it.  Getting those people to ask for help should be the goal.

Reducing the lethality of suicide attempts is absolutely a valid public policy goal.  Studies show that most people who attempt suicide and fail do not go on to further attempts.  And once someone attempts and fails we can intervene more directly to treat the underlying mental health issue.

From the tone of this and the preceding paragraph, you seem to think the action in dealing with the suicidal person should come from the outside and be imposed on them.  I don't agree with that in the case of suicide.  Suicide often comes up because people either have no one to turn to or feel that those they have tried to turn to either have not listened or have not taken them seriously.  They typically do not want or need an "intervention"; they want someone to help them, but either do not know who or how to ask, or feel ashamed of needing to do so.  Persisting in the intervention mindset is making this problem worse, not better.

Here in Edmonton they're spending a million bucks or so to make one of the bridges in town less accessible to suicide jumpers, and I understand San Francisco is doing something similar for the Golden Gate bridge.  So people who want to kill themselves by jumping off a bridge will have to find a lower, less lethal bridge to do it from.  Which sounds like an excellent idea to me.

Great, so instead of jumping off a high bridge and dying, they jump off a medium bridge and end up permanently paralyzed from the waist down.  But at least they're alive and getting treatment!

Don't make perfect the enemy of good.

Sure - getting people to talk about suicidal thoughts is great.  But it's also freaking hard.  Limiting access to handguns, in comparison, is easy (well in normal countries at least).

And yes, in appropriate cases people should have treatment imposed on them.  I mean we already do this - if you make serious and credible threats about self-harm the police will come and lock you up in a psych ward.  I fundamentally disagree with the idea that if you find a suicidal person you just give them a pamphlet and say 'feel free to call if you want' before walking away.

And yes - even in your contrived example, itis better the person is alive and disabled than dead.  Plus, there's a better chance the person is alive and uninjured.

[sbr]

Guy was already suicidal and now alive and disabled? I'm not sure how that is better.

[garbon]

Plus, there's a better chance the person is alive and uninjured.

Also likely that they wouldn't a) necessarily think of jumping as it isn't an iconic bridge / bridge where their have been widely publicized jumpers and b) think it was good idea to jump off a bridge for fear that they would live in worse state than before.

edit: I think I had noted somewhere here about some studies that looked at suicides in cities being lower in places where main bridges had nets, etc.

[Barrister]

Plus, there's a better chance the person is alive and uninjured.

Also likely that they wouldn't a) necessarily think of jumping as it isn't an iconic bridge / bridge where their have been widely publicized jumpers and b) think it was good idea to jump off a bridge for fear that they would live in worse state than before.

edit: I think I had noted somewhere here about some studies that looked at suicides in cities being lower in places where main bridges had nets, etc.

I was looking up the changes to Edmonton's (simply and accurately named) High Level Bridge.  They do suggest that making suicide difficult, particularly in a location well known for suicides, does not simply move the problem somewhere else, though I would have liked some links.

Interesting read, if you have a few minutes:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/insight/Black+Nightmare+Edmonton+High+Level+Bridge+magnet/10122907/story.html

[Malthus]

Here's the video of the incident, clipped right before we go full auto

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611

So the firearms instructor is dead, and died doing what he loved, so don't sweat him;  it's a 9 year old girl has to live with this all her life, somebody that should be worried more about Disney princesses, stickers and a pony instead of a fully automatic 9mm carbine that was standard issue for the Israeli Defense Force.

Psyche: permanently trashed.  Might as well start the cutting, eating disorders and get fitted for the clear heels now.  Way to go, Mom and Dad.  Way to go, Arizona.  Way to go, gun nuts.   

Too bad this didn't happen in Reno.

[MadImmortalMan]

People commit suicide for a reason. Not just mental illness or whatever. Perfectly sane people do it. After a certain amount of abuse/circumstances/whatever, people really just get desperate and figure that's the best way to deal with it.

I think the best way to prevent it is to figure out how to give them options so they aren't backed into a corner. Creating even more structure and even more institutionalization and more rules is the exact opposite of that. It creates more walls with more corners for people to get backed into.

[garbon]

People commit suicide for a reason. Not just mental illness or whatever. Perfectly sane people do it. After a certain amount of abuse/circumstances/whatever, people really just get desperate and figure that's the best way to deal with it.

Except in some sort of terminal illness case (or I guess severe though liveable pain), I'm not sure one can be truly sane and commit suicide.

[garbon]

I think the best way to prevent it is to figure out how to give them options so they aren't backed into a corner. Creating even more structure and even more institutionalization and more rules is the exact opposite of that. It creates more walls with more corners for people to get backed into.

Can you provide an example? All of this sounds rather vague and not really a strong argument against building nets to prevent jumpers and/or forcing people to accept treatment.

[CountDeMoney]

Too bad this didn't happen in Reno.

Whaddya want from me, you know I post before 11am.

[CountDeMoney]

hey derfetus, here's a gun story everybody can love:

Dad Acquitted of Murder of Drunk Driver Who Killed His Sons

A jury on Wednesday acquitted a southeast Texas man of murder in the fatal shooting of a drunken driver who had just caused an accident that killed the man's two sons.

David Barajas cried after the verdict was read and he hugged his wife, Cindy, who was also crying. He could have been sentenced to up to life in prison, if he had been convicted.

Prosecutors alleged that Barajas killed 20-year-old Jose Banda in a fit of rage after Banda plowed into Barajas and his sons while they were pushing a truck on a road near their home because it had run out of gas. Twelve-year-old David Jr. and 11-year-old Caleb were killed.

Defense attorney Sam Cammack said Barajas didn't kill Banda and that he was only focused on saving his sons. The gun used to kill Banda wasn't found and there was little physical evidence tying Barajas to the killing.

Authorities said that after the crash, Barajas, 32, went to his home about 100 yards from the crash site, got a gun and returned to shoot Banda.

Legal experts said prosecutors would likely have to overcome jury sympathy for Barajas, who had the support of many residents of Alvin, which is about 30 miles southeast of Houston. Further complicating their case was that there were no witnesses who identified Barajas as the shooter and gunshot residue tests done on Barajas came back negative.

Investigators testified that a bullet fragment found in Banda's car could have come from a .357-caliber gun, and that ammunition for such a gun was found in Barajas' home, along with a holster. Cammack said his client never owned a gun and that tests showed the bullet fragment also could have come from another weapon.

A forensic scientist testified that blood found on the driver's side door and driver's arm rest of Banda's car was consistent with that of Barajas.

The defense called only three witnesses to testify during the trial, which began last week.

But prosecution witnesses told jurors during questioning by Cammack that more gunfire had taken place well after Banda was shot -- pointing to the possibility that the actual shooter was still at large -- and that a search of Barajas' home failed to find any evidence that directly or indirectly linked him to the crime scene.

Cammack also suggested that Banda could have been shot by his own cousin or half-brother, who told investigators that they witnessed the crash but fled the scene. Both testified that they did not shoot Banda.

Cammack also used 911 calls to create a timeline that suggested Barajas would not have had enough time to shoot Banda.