That being said, you're right, nothing Obama has done has anything to do with prosecuting straw buyers (gangbanger mothers and girlfriends most often).
Now, can we please get rid of the 10 day waiting period if I already have half a dozen firearms at home? Makes perfect sense, but I'm sure the gun-grabbers would rally against that as well...
Now, that all being said, if you were in San Bernardino, and two jihadis were spraying and praying into the crowd, would you rather have a cop there to shoot back right away?
Now, if the cop was off duty concealed carry, would you feel the same?
Now, if the cop was really just a trained civilian with concealed carry, would you feel the same?
Cops can't help if they're not there, and some help is better than none.
Having mechanical reliability of 99.99999% is massively different than having eletromechanical reliability of 99%.
Let's take the most simple electromechanical failure - lack of power. Exactly what should the "failure" condition be for a smart gun in that case? Refuse to fire? Or fire without electronic validation?
How much more common is it to run out of batteries than say, break a firing pin in a semi automatic?
Even engineering problems have boundaries, and if you're not willing to understand the boundaries, you'll do silly things like expect 1ms latency over 25000 miles.
No, I won't agree to that. Self defense is an inalienable right today, just as it was in 1776.
The idea that we must all leave ourselves at the mercy of criminals and wait for the police to arrive before effective self-defense can take place is a recipe for more victims, period.
Until they assign secret service details to every citizen of the United States, outsourcing self-defense is a non-starter.
You misunderstand "least restrictive means" and "narrowly tailored".
If you want to prevent the slaughter of citizens, it makes sense to arm the first responders...i.e., good law abiding citizens.
Narrow tailoring would mean you should limit this only to people who have an overwhelming propensity for violence against others (say, Islamists).
Least restrictive would mean that on those narrowly tailored (Islamists) would be subject to additional laws and regulations.
As for various types of weapons, the distinction should generally be area-effect vs. point-target. You can make the rational assertion that no civilian should need a grenade, but an AR-15 should be perfectly reasonable.
Training is certainly important. Regular training is certainly important.
That being said, don't assume that civilians train less than military and police.
If in an active shooter situation, I'd rather have five fatalities between both friendly and unfriendly fire, than 100 fatalities from unfriendly fire alone.
If you're the civilian good guy with a gun in an active shooter situation, you need to be incredibly careful, no doubt. More careful than even the police, since you don't have union lawyers to hide behind.
But that being said, if you, and your loved ones in an active shooter situation, would you rather wait 15 minutes for them to finish the slaughter and the cops to arrive, or would you rather have one of your fellow citizens armed and able to respond as best they can?
Yes, there is some small, minuscule chance that your attempts to fight back might go wrong. But taking that chance against a certain death...which one would you rather have? Die a noble pacifist? Let your children die in the name of your noble pacifism?
The 2nd amendment already has limits: can't murder people, or rob people, or kidnap them, or threaten them.
Now, are we going to have background checks on all newspaper editors? Require training to prove they aren't incompetent or a threat to others? Will you apply the same laws to speech, religion and assembly as you would to self defense?
The 2nd Amendment *isn't* any different than the others - and if you want to limit it, please, let's apply strict scrutiny, shall we?
* compelling government interest * narrowly tailored * least restrictive means
The fact is that criminals aren't generally stupid - they're rational actors who have made possibly misguided calculations, but will do simple things like, avoid confronting armed victims, in order to improve their chances of success. Those that *don't* make those adjustments in risk/reward ratio end up being shot like Trayvon.
I call cherry pick on several different fronts. 1) "legally purchased" is counted even if the weapon is stolen (like Lanza from his mother), 2) "mass shooting" excludes the vast majority of gun crime
They have some good data there on stolen guns (which by definition, is illegal). So when an article says "legally purchased", they don't necessarily mean "legally purchased by the shooter" (although certainly, there are examples of that in mass shootings).
"*Our respondents (adult offenders living in Chicago or nearby) obtain most of their guns from their social network of personal connections. " (that's called "illegal")
When you create a smart gun that will only fire when I'm personally holding it, without any sort of electrical bits, I'll bite. Until then, comparing the reliability of say, a purely mechanical vertical mill built in the 1800s and *still* working today, vs say, any imaginable bit of electrical technology, is like comparing the speed of light to the speed of sound - they're orders of magnitude apart.
Ever try using "TouchID" on an iPhone? Ever have it not work? Yes, smart is "cool", but if I want reliable, I want a mechanical device, not an electromechanical one.
Let's pick something else - say, the unwarranted recording and surveillance of every phone conversation in America. Obviously it won't work, since we simply don't have enough people or computing power to actually scan through every conversation, but are you saying we should just let people have private and possibly dangerous conversations, and do nothing, on the grounds that you think nothing will work?
How defeatist:)
Sometimes, nothing is the right thing to do. In the case of self defense rights in the united states, we should have instant background check, national CCW standards honored by every state, and mandatory firearms safety and marksmanship training in every public school.
Not every civilian needs to have a gun - heck, there are lots of law abiding citizens who *shouldn't* have guns, or aren't willing to properly train for marksmanship and safety. But just a small percentage will dramatically change the odds.
That all being said, if rates of gun ownership aren't a factor, why focus on it at all?
The fact of the matter is this - the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The left-wingers want to define that as "only people taking a government paycheck". Now, perhaps, we could literally put every concealed carry holder on the government payroll, and give them a stipend for carrying for self defense - deputize whoever is willing to go through the permit and training process. And lord knows, that would be effective - more good guys with guns means less crime.
It puzzles me how someone would be perfectly fine with walking into a starbucks with five cops there, all open carry, but be freaked out if one guy was packing concealed under his jacket - especially given the wildly different rules of engagement that civilians have to abide by in order to avoid jail.
No, mass shootings are done by people who are crazy, psychotic, or religiously deranged long before they ever pull the trigger.
Just because you haven't pulled a trigger yet, doesn't mean you're "normal" when you insist on the death penalty for drawing mohammed, or demand that abortion doctors be killed.
That all being said, "mass shootings" are terribly rare - we should be more concerned about the "non-mass shootings" that are overwhelmingly done by criminals with illegal firearms.
1) treat every firearm as if it is loaded 2) never point the firearm at anything you're not willing to destroy 3) keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot (target clearly identified, good sight picture) 4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
#4, of course, is the "good guy" rule - if you're a terrorist, generally you don't care about that one.
Frankly, firearms safety should be a required course in kindergarten (stop/don't touch/leave the area/tell and adult), with another course in high school or junior high.
Slashdot Mirror
Think about it for a moment - when is it appropriate to bear arms?
In self defense - check.
Hunting - check.
Target shooting - check.
Murdering someone - nope - we restrict your right to bear arms towards that end
Kidnapping someone - nope - we restrict your right to bear arms towards that end
Similarly, we don't allow people to speak when yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
The trick is, we restrict behavior narrowly (in the case of "fire!" in a theatre, you're preventing a mass stampede and injuries, death and mayhem).
An analogous restriction for the right to bear arms is to limit it when you are not behaving appropriately.
Actually, straw buyers *are* illegal.
That being said, you're right, nothing Obama has done has anything to do with prosecuting straw buyers (gangbanger mothers and girlfriends most often).
So, if we disarmed all the cops and the military, we'd have less guns.
Do you really think that would mean less death?
Less guns in bad guy hands = less death
More guns in good guy hands = less death
Zero problems with that.
Now, can we please get rid of the 10 day waiting period if I already have half a dozen firearms at home? Makes perfect sense, but I'm sure the gun-grabbers would rally against that as well...
Interesting - I hadn't looked closely at their definition of "mass shooting" (apparently 4 victims isn't enough):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Here, let me restate for you:
The 2nd amendment already has limits: can't murder people with guns, or rob people with guns, or kidnap them with guns, or threaten them with guns.
I thought that it would be obvious :)
Yes, things can go wrong. For every thousand effective self defense uses of a firearm, you can find someone who negligently used their firearm.
Here's a sample of the under-reported good guy with guns:
http://blog.uritraining.com/?p...
Now, that all being said, if you were in San Bernardino, and two jihadis were spraying and praying into the crowd, would you rather have a cop there to shoot back right away?
Now, if the cop was off duty concealed carry, would you feel the same?
Now, if the cop was really just a trained civilian with concealed carry, would you feel the same?
Cops can't help if they're not there, and some help is better than none.
Orders of magnitude matter.
Having mechanical reliability of 99.99999% is massively different than having eletromechanical reliability of 99%.
Let's take the most simple electromechanical failure - lack of power. Exactly what should the "failure" condition be for a smart gun in that case? Refuse to fire? Or fire without electronic validation?
How much more common is it to run out of batteries than say, break a firing pin in a semi automatic?
Even engineering problems have boundaries, and if you're not willing to understand the boundaries, you'll do silly things like expect 1ms latency over 25000 miles.
No, I won't agree to that. Self defense is an inalienable right today, just as it was in 1776.
The idea that we must all leave ourselves at the mercy of criminals and wait for the police to arrive before effective self-defense can take place is a recipe for more victims, period.
Until they assign secret service details to every citizen of the United States, outsourcing self-defense is a non-starter.
Tell me, what mass shooting happened on January 6, 2016?
And for Australia, can you tell me how fast the rape rate increased after women were disarmed?
Bueller? Bueller?
You misunderstand "least restrictive means" and "narrowly tailored".
If you want to prevent the slaughter of citizens, it makes sense to arm the first responders...i.e., good law abiding citizens.
Narrow tailoring would mean you should limit this only to people who have an overwhelming propensity for violence against others (say, Islamists).
Least restrictive would mean that on those narrowly tailored (Islamists) would be subject to additional laws and regulations.
As for various types of weapons, the distinction should generally be area-effect vs. point-target. You can make the rational assertion that no civilian should need a grenade, but an AR-15 should be perfectly reasonable.
Training is certainly important. Regular training is certainly important.
That being said, don't assume that civilians train less than military and police.
If in an active shooter situation, I'd rather have five fatalities between both friendly and unfriendly fire, than 100 fatalities from unfriendly fire alone.
If you're the civilian good guy with a gun in an active shooter situation, you need to be incredibly careful, no doubt. More careful than even the police, since you don't have union lawyers to hide behind.
But that being said, if you, and your loved ones in an active shooter situation, would you rather wait 15 minutes for them to finish the slaughter and the cops to arrive, or would you rather have one of your fellow citizens armed and able to respond as best they can?
Yes, there is some small, minuscule chance that your attempts to fight back might go wrong. But taking that chance against a certain death...which one would you rather have? Die a noble pacifist? Let your children die in the name of your noble pacifism?
Sure, Australia got rid of mass shootings.
And now, they've had increases in violent crime by criminals because they know civilians are unarmed.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?A...
Rape increased 29.9%
So, they eliminated a scenario that was incredibly rare, and opened the doors to more crime and suffering...good job Australia!
The 2nd amendment already has limits: can't murder people, or rob people, or kidnap them, or threaten them.
Now, are we going to have background checks on all newspaper editors? Require training to prove they aren't incompetent or a threat to others? Will you apply the same laws to speech, religion and assembly as you would to self defense?
The 2nd Amendment *isn't* any different than the others - and if you want to limit it, please, let's apply strict scrutiny, shall we?
* compelling government interest
* narrowly tailored
* least restrictive means
Science is not majority rule.
Ever read John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime"? :)
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/
The fact is that criminals aren't generally stupid - they're rational actors who have made possibly misguided calculations, but will do simple things like, avoid confronting armed victims, in order to improve their chances of success. Those that *don't* make those adjustments in risk/reward ratio end up being shot like Trayvon.
So, if you wanted to stop prostitutes from transmitting diseases, would you outlaw all unprotected sex?
Criminals are a way bigger problem than the mentally ill. Trying to develop policy based on incredibly rare incidents is silly.
The issue here is self defense. Either it is a right we have, or it isn't.
I prefer freedom.
I've never used my fire extinguisher.
I've never used my airbag.
I've never used my life insurance.
Boy, I'm still glad I have them :)
If simply having a tool in your home is enough to drive you crazy, I hate to break it to you, you were crazy well before that tool showed up.
That's easy - it's necessary to the security of a free State. Prefatory.
Thank you, comma.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
"shall not be infringed." Operative.
I call cherry pick on several different fronts. 1) "legally purchased" is counted even if the weapon is stolen (like Lanza from his mother), 2) "mass shooting" excludes the vast majority of gun crime
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...
They have some good data there on stolen guns (which by definition, is illegal). So when an article says "legally purchased", they don't necessarily mean "legally purchased by the shooter" (although certainly, there are examples of that in mass shootings).
Also see:
https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfr...
"*Our respondents (adult offenders living in Chicago or nearby) obtain most of their guns from their social network of personal connections. " (that's called "illegal")
When you create a smart gun that will only fire when I'm personally holding it, without any sort of electrical bits, I'll bite. Until then, comparing the reliability of say, a purely mechanical vertical mill built in the 1800s and *still* working today, vs say, any imaginable bit of electrical technology, is like comparing the speed of light to the speed of sound - they're orders of magnitude apart.
Ever try using "TouchID" on an iPhone? Ever have it not work? Yes, smart is "cool", but if I want reliable, I want a mechanical device, not an electromechanical one.
Let's pick something else - say, the unwarranted recording and surveillance of every phone conversation in America. Obviously it won't work, since we simply don't have enough people or computing power to actually scan through every conversation, but are you saying we should just let people have private and possibly dangerous conversations, and do nothing, on the grounds that you think nothing will work?
How defeatist :)
Sometimes, nothing is the right thing to do. In the case of self defense rights in the united states, we should have instant background check, national CCW standards honored by every state, and mandatory firearms safety and marksmanship training in every public school.
Not every civilian needs to have a gun - heck, there are lots of law abiding citizens who *shouldn't* have guns, or aren't willing to properly train for marksmanship and safety. But just a small percentage will dramatically change the odds.
That all being said, if rates of gun ownership aren't a factor, why focus on it at all?
The fact of the matter is this - the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The left-wingers want to define that as "only people taking a government paycheck". Now, perhaps, we could literally put every concealed carry holder on the government payroll, and give them a stipend for carrying for self defense - deputize whoever is willing to go through the permit and training process. And lord knows, that would be effective - more good guys with guns means less crime.
It puzzles me how someone would be perfectly fine with walking into a starbucks with five cops there, all open carry, but be freaked out if one guy was packing concealed under his jacket - especially given the wildly different rules of engagement that civilians have to abide by in order to avoid jail.
No, mass shootings are done by people who are crazy, psychotic, or religiously deranged long before they ever pull the trigger.
Just because you haven't pulled a trigger yet, doesn't mean you're "normal" when you insist on the death penalty for drawing mohammed, or demand that abortion doctors be killed.
That all being said, "mass shootings" are terribly rare - we should be more concerned about the "non-mass shootings" that are overwhelmingly done by criminals with illegal firearms.
Obligatory 4 rules
1) treat every firearm as if it is loaded
2) never point the firearm at anything you're not willing to destroy
3) keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot (target clearly identified, good sight picture)
4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
#4, of course, is the "good guy" rule - if you're a terrorist, generally you don't care about that one.
Frankly, firearms safety should be a required course in kindergarten (stop/don't touch/leave the area/tell and adult), with another course in high school or junior high.