We don't need no gun control!

[CO. Hoosier]

I think they were talking about reigning in all the excessive force and not all "activity".

Nope

DeBlasio specifically halted random street contacts calling them evidence of a "police state" or something. He requires individualized reasonable suspicion before an otherwise legal police stop can be done. These are not use of force issues but is called "aggressive policing".

 

[Buzz123a]

What I mean by "public" is a record of adjudicated mental illness that a background check would reveal thereby prohibiting sale of a weapon to a person. No one wants to address the fact that we have lots of really mentally ill people walking around amidst a huge number of people who are aware of the problems, but no one has had them before a court to make a record that is public. A background check, as required, does not reveal a record of mental illness unless it is in an accessible public record. Now why you don't know that is a mystery because you know everything - or make it up if you don't which is most of the time.

I know all of this, L, and knew it long before you did. I wanted to see what you knew, and thought. I see that you largely agree with me that our current regulatory regime is laughably ineffective.

 

[FL33]

As far as I know the laws against selling booze to minors work pretty well, and the laws against drunk driving do too. The fact that they don't work 100% of the time is not a good argument for doing nothing.

34% of households have a gun under current gun laws.

78% of teens have tried alcohol and 81% tried drugs with our current alcohol and drug laws.

As far as you know isn't very far, apparently.

 

[Buzz123a]

34% of households have a gun under current gun laws.

78% of teens have tried alcohol and 81% tried drugs with our current alcohol and drug laws.

As far as you know isn't very far, apparently.

Well, I know the difference between trying alcohol or drugs and having a problem which affects society. That's what "working pretty well" means, since you apparently don't comprehend English too well.

 

[DrHoops]

Why do you think that would make such a big difference.....wouldn't it be hard to prove in court that a gun shouldn't have been sold to a person? People seem to concentrate on guns as the root of all evil when there are many more alcohol related deaths than gun deaths (88,000 deaths/year...see here). I read somewhere that a lot of gun related deaths was because of alcohol use. Having said that I do think you should be required to have an extensive background check before you can buy a gun.

So, we can't tackle more than one thing at a time? Since there are alcohol deaths, should we stop donating to fighting cancer?

 

[NPT]

Its not, N: I have the same experience with shooting that you do, and a collection of handguns that currently approaches double figures, but Goat is right here. My bedside gun is a Beretta PX4 compact, my TV room gun is a S&W M&P compact in .45ACP, and my car/carry gun is a Walther PPX. All are defense weapons, specifically designed to kill people efficiently and in large numbers if necessary, and the fact that you can shoot for fun with them doesn't change that. I selected them precisely because if I ever have to pick one up and defend myself or SWMBO they're better choices than a Colt Peacemaker.

The number of rounds fired through Glocks, other high-capacity autoloaders, defense-oriented shotguns and assault rifle replicas which aren't aimed at people is irrelevant; what they were designed to do and how well they do it, especially in the hands of folks like James Holmes, is.

But goat said "Handguns only exist to shoot people." and I disagree completely with that. I have a little 22 Ruger pistol that I take to shoot at targets, etc. and that definitely isn't a handgun that you would buy to shoot people. I have another 44 magnum but I've never even shot it and neither one are ever laying around loaded. I will stick by my statement (just an opinion of course) that over 99% of the bullets shot in handguns are not intended to kill anything much less a human.

 

[Buzz123a]

But goat said "Handguns only exist to shoot people." and I disagree completely with that. I have a little 22 Ruger pistol that I take to shoot at targets, etc. and that definitely isn't a handgun that you would buy to shoot people. I have another 44 magnum but I've never even shot it and neither one are ever laying around loaded. I will stick by my statement (just an opinion of course) that over 99% of the bullets shot in handguns are not intended to kill anything much less a human.

Well, I do too: that's a less than nuanced take, probably because goat isn't a shooter. But the ones I own are most assuredly built only to shoot people, and they're among the most popular on the market.

Bear in mind, however, that IIRC more people are generally killed per annum with .22 rounds than any other caliber.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But goat said "Handguns only exist to shoot people." and I disagree completely with that. I have a little 22 Ruger pistol that I take to shoot at targets, etc. and that definitely isn't a handgun that you would buy to shoot people. I have another 44 magnum but I've never even shot it and neither one are ever laying around loaded. I will stick by my statement (just an opinion of course) that over 99% of the bullets shot in handguns are not intended to kill anything much less a human.

Well, I do too: that's a less than nuanced take, probably because goat isn't a shooter. But the ones I own are most assuredly built only to shoot people, and they're among the most popular on the market.

Bear in mind, however, that IIRC more people are generally killed per annum with .22 rounds than any other caliber.

I feel the need to point out that "Handguns are designed to shoot people" and "Handguns are used only to shoot people" are two entirely different statements. I made the former, and NPT is attacking the latter.

When you practice your handgun, you're essentially doing it so that you'll be confident in your ability if you ever have to shoot a person.

Rifles and shotguns are designed with the purpose of shooting all sorts of things. Handguns only exist to be available to shoot a person, if need be.

Buzz - I shoot occasionally. I'm actually a pretty damn good shot with a .22 rifle.

 

[Buzz123a]

I feel the need to point out that "Handguns are designed to shoot people" and "Handguns are used only to shoot people" are two entirely different statements. I made the former, and NPT is attacking the latter.

When you practice your handgun, you're essentially doing it so that you'll be confident in your ability if you ever have to shoot a person.

Rifles and shotguns are designed with the purpose of shooting all sorts of things. Handguns only exist to be available to shoot a person, if need be.

Buzz - I shoot occasionally. I'm actually a pretty damn good shot with a .22 rifle.

Well, you're still not really correct here, goat: there are plenty of handguns on the market that are specifically designed for target shooting and hunting, and have no application to defense usage. Here are a few:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...ls&fr=ymyy-t-999&hspart=att&hsimp=yhs-att_001

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/deer-hunting/2013/01/best-handguns-deer-hunting

http://www.eabco.com/BFPistols01.htm

http://www.fieldandstream.com/photo...6/25-best-handguns-hunting-ever-made/?image=5

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well, you're still not really correct here, goat: there are plenty of handguns on the market that are specifically designed for target shooting and hunting, and have no application to defense usage. Here are a few:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...ls&fr=ymyy-t-999&hspart=att&hsimp=yhs-att_001

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/deer-hunting/2013/01/best-handguns-deer-hunting

http://www.eabco.com/BFPistols01.htm

http://www.fieldandstream.com/photo...6/25-best-handguns-hunting-ever-made/?image=5

Interesting. I've never heard of anyone hunting with a handgun.

 

[NPT]

So, we can't tackle more than one thing at a time? Since there are alcohol deaths, should we stop donating to fighting cancer?

Didn't say that but

I feel the need to point out that "Handguns are designed to shoot people" and "Handguns are used only to shoot people" are two entirely different statements. I made the former, and NPT is attacking the latter.

When you practice your handgun, you're essentially doing it so that you'll be confident in your ability if you ever have to shoot a person.

Rifles and shotguns are designed with the purpose of shooting all sorts of things. Handguns only exist to be available to shoot a person, if need be.

Buzz - I shoot occasionally. I'm actually a pretty damn good shot with a .22 rifle.

I disagree with that because I don't think they are designed

I feel the need to point out that "Handguns are designed to shoot people" and "Handguns are used only to shoot people" are two entirely different statements. I made the former, and NPT is attacking the latter.

When you practice your handgun, you're essentially doing it so that you'll be confident in your ability if you ever have to shoot a person.

Rifles and shotguns are designed with the purpose of shooting all sorts of things. Handguns only exist to be available to shoot a person, if need be.

Buzz - I shoot occasionally. I'm actually a pretty damn good shot with a .22 rifle.

That is not true...I was arguing that not all guns are designed to shoot people. I go hiking in a couple places where people have told me there are dog packs (domestic dogs running in packs) and from what I've read they can be really mean. I always carry a handgun when I hike there and always will. Would you argue that all bows are make to shoot at people? Everyone I know that has a handgun has never even tried to shoot anyone. Manufacturers know that people like to shoot guns just like people like to hit the little golf ball into the little hole and that is what 90% of the people that I know who have a handgun bought them for. Me.... I just like guns just like you like other things. However, like I said before I think people who buy them need to go through extensive background checks and should be required to go through some process to sell to another person.

 

[Buzz123a]

Interesting. I've never heard of anyone hunting with a handgun.

Interesting. I've never heard of anyone hunting with a handgun.

Oh, its pretty popular in some places: in Arkansas they like to hunt wild pigs with .44 magnums, which takes more grit than I have.

 

[Rockfish1]

Oh, its pretty popular in some places: in Arkansas they like to hunt wild pigs with .44 magnums, which takes more grit than I have.

I wouldn't diss you for your guns, Buzz. The Supremes say they're your right, and since you plainly take the right seriously, with a compensating responsibility, then you're the last person I'd criticize.

Help me with this, though. I don't feel even the smallest bit of fear that would motivate me to buy a gun. I live in Indianapolis's Meridian-Kessler neighborhood, which is a nice place, but which is part of old Indianapolis that is wide open to every sort thing that characterizes near downtowns, including the (perceived) possibility of violence. I have no fear where I live, and I happily walk throughout M-K unarmed at all hours without a single worry. I've been doing this for a long time, without incident, and the most dangerous person I can imagine encountering is Greenirontree Bossier Street Ladoga Works showing up armed for shepherd duty. Why do you feel otherwise where you live?

 

[Buzz123a]

I wouldn't diss you for your guns, Buzz. The Supremes say they're your right, and since you plainly take the right seriously, with a compensating responsibility, then you're the last person I'd criticize.

Help me with this, though. I don't feel even the smallest bit of fear that would motivate me to buy a gun. I live in Indianapolis's Meridian-Kessler neighborhood, which is a nice place, but which is part of old Indianapolis that is wide open to every sort thing that characterizes near downtowns, including the (perceived) possibility of violence. I have no fear where I live, and I happily walk throughout M-K unarmed at all hours without a single worry. I've been doing this for a long time, without incident, and the most dangerous person I can imagine encountering is Greenirontree Bossier Street Ladoga Works showing up armed for shepherd duty. Why do you feel otherwise where you live?

I don't particularly, Rock: as I've noted elsewhere, Suse and I both understand that the chances we'll actually have to repel boarders in our home are way less than the chances we'll slip and fall catastrophically in the tub, and we probably wouldn't have them if we didn't both enjoy shooting. Its like golf; shooting a handgun is difficult in the extreme to do well, so learning to do it is very satisfying.

Still, as I also noted elsewhere, not that long ago an elderly couple was killed in a home invasion scenario not far from where we live, and a week or so ago our across-the-back-fence neighbors came home early from work and found a group of young goblin in their home looting it. Fortunately nobody got hurt, but it didn't have to end that way.

We both have CCPs, and we agree that the chances we could ever use a concealed weapon in a useful way are so low that we never actually carry (which is, by the way, an almighty pain in the ass; if you haven't handled guns a lot you wouldn't believe how heavy those suckers are when loaded). But a home invasion scenario, while way unlikely, is not out of the question, and keeping loaded guns handy in various places is not an inconvenience, so we've worked out a defensive strategy and are prepared to execute it if the alarm ever goes off. The cost of doing that is very low, so why not?

This is premised, of course, on the fact that we are happily childless. If we had house apes, or indeed any visitors on any kind of regular basis, I wouldn't have loaded guns where I can get to them easily, and if they're not within easy reach and ready to point and shoot they're of no value. If you have kids in the house a dog is a much better bet. Even if you don't have kids in the house a dog is probably a better bet, but we don't like dogs and we do like guns.

 

[Rockfish1]

I don't particularly, Rock: as I've noted elsewhere, Suse and I both understand that the chances we'll actually have to repel boarders in our home are way less than the chances we'll slip and fall catastrophically in the tub, and we probably wouldn't have them if we didn't both enjoy shooting. Its like golf; shooting a handgun is difficult in the extreme to do well, so learning to do it is very satisfying.

Still, as I also noted elsewhere, not that long ago an elderly couple was killed in a home invasion scenario not far from where we live, and a week or so ago our across-the-back-fence neighbors came home early from work and found a group of young goblin in their home looting it. Fortunately nobody got hurt, but it didn't have to end that way.

We both have CCPs, and we agree that the chances we could ever use a concealed weapon in a useful way are so low that we never actually carry (which is, by the way, an almighty pain in the ass; if you haven't handled guns a lot you wouldn't believe how heavy those suckers are when loaded). But a home invasion scenario, while way unlikely, is not out of the question, and keeping loaded guns handy in various places is not an inconvenience, so we've worked out a defensive strategy and are prepared to execute it if the alarm ever goes off. The cost of doing that is very low, so why not?

This is premised, of course, on the fact that we are happily childless. If we had house apes, or indeed any visitors on any kind of regular basis, I wouldn't have loaded guns where I can get to them easily, and if they're not within easy reach and ready to point and shoot they're of no value. If you have kids in the house a dog is a much better bet. Even if you don't have kids in the house a dog is probably a better bet, but we don't like dogs and we do like guns.

In fairness to your points, the kids are grown, the wife is ex, and my surly self is an unlikely target -- which makes me even more fearless than I was before. I stomp around where I want whenever I want with no fear at any time of day. But then again I have nothing to fear -- except from ludicrous "sheepdogs" like Greenirontree Bossier Street Ladoga Works who might shoot me if I wore a hoody.

 

[Ladoga]

In fairness to your points, the kids are grown, the wife is ex, and my surly self is an unlikely target -- which makes me even more fearless than I was before. I stomp around where I want whenever I want with no fear at any time of day. But then again I have nothing to fear -- except from ludicrous "sheepdogs" like Greenirontree Bossier Street Ladoga Works who might shoot me if I wore a hoody.

You probably won't be a victim day after day or dozens of time. It would only take once to prove the point to you.

Its not the likelihood that should concern you. Its the severity in the unlikely event that one of those felons that lives with a couple of easy miles of you figures you for a pocket full of money. You have to have "easy mark" written all over you. I hope you don't learn the hard way what many other folks - a lot of them not so far from your haunts - learned. There are maps and police report sources - you could learn something if you didn't know it all already, eh?

 

[Rockfish1]

There are maps and police report sources - you could learn something if you didn't know it all already, eh?

I'm quite familiar with the online police crime maps. Yet still I'm not wetting the bed.

 

[Buzz123a]

You probably won't be a victim day after day or dozens of time. It would only take once to prove the point to you.

Its not the likelihood that should concern you. Its the severity in the unlikely event that one of those felons that lives with a couple of easy miles of you figures you for a pocket full of money. You have to have "easy mark" written all over you. I hope you don't learn the hard way what many other folks - a lot of them not so far from your haunts - learned. There are maps and police report sources - you could learn something if you didn't know it all already, eh?

You need to go a little further here, L: as I'm sure you know, you probably won't be a victim even once, in a long lifetime, and by probably I mean close to statistically out of the question. Your comment re "many people" being victims is thus simply inaccurate, as again I'm sure you know.

Nonetheless, I agree that the severity of the risk has to be weighed, as well as the likelihood that being armed will make a positive difference. That's why SWMBO and I are heavily armed at home, and unarmed out in public. I have yet to see any real evidence that going armed in public provides any substantial element of risk reduction, and a good deal that it has a not insubstantial possibility of simply making a bad situation even worse.

Here are just a couple from among literally thousands of similar incidents, and if you're not giving serious thought to these risks and costs you're under-analyzing the problem.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mom-shot-killed-year-son-walmart/story?id=27907997

http://gawker.com/its-really-hard-to-be-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-1588660306