Shooting at Elementary School (est 27 dead)

[Kulaf]

Shining is illegal where I come from.

On your own property?

Dd

Yes as far as I know. Wild animals are governed by the State and are not considered yours just because they happen to be on your property. You can shine in WI as long as you are not in posession of a firearm with certain restrictions:

http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/wisc ... aws_29-314

[Ddrak]

@Kulaf: Weird law. What's the purpose of preventing it?

@Fallakin: The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to create militias that could be called into service against invaders. The constitution specifically forbids taking arms against your own government in plenty of other places - it's called "treason" and is punishable by death. The whole fiction of "taking arms against an oppressive government" was created much later, and has never been supported in any legal or constitutional context.

Like I said, if you believe otherwise, put your money where your mouth is and write a letter to the government informing them that you will try to kill them if they legislate poorly.

Dd

[Kulaf]

I would imagine it is a safety issue. WI has an excellent safety record when it comes to hunting. I read that for the 2012 season there were over 650k tags issued and only 1 hunting fatality. As I recall during gun season the legal hunts can occur from sun up to sun down, which would make shining unnecessary since you cannot legally take a deer when it is dark anyway. And poaching deer off season has heavy fines.

[Raelesyn]

One of our warehouse workers just walked in a little while ago and was talking about an interesting stat he had learned on the news...That more people were killed last year with hammers than with guns...So whats next? A 30 day waiting period on an Estwing 26oz. waffle headed framing hammer?

[Jarochai Alabaster]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... a-table-11

More people murdered with blunt objects in general than shotguns or rifles individually (Excluding handguns). Blunt objects compared to total gun homicides are extremely lopsided against guns, with firearms accounting for more than 17x the murders. More people are murdered by bare hands than blunt instruments.

[Partha]

It makes sense, because hammers don't cost a couple hundred bucks to over a grand to buy.

However, if you can show me one time there was 20+ people left dead in one spree by a guy with a hammer, I'd love to see that link.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Only three hookers and/or johns snuffed in a year. Hmmm, I would have thought that to be much higher.

[Ddrak]

The argument for gun control isn't based on the number of murders or accidental deaths done with them compared to another tool. It's the effect of controlling the tool. Implementing certain gun controls appears to have a much greater impact on fatal incidents than other controls.

That's the only thing that really matters - the net effect of an incremental change. There's a truckload of obfuscation out there (and as Embar pointed out previously, I got confused too), so it's worth sifting through it all to think about what the end result of particular changes really are.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

The argument for gun control isn't based on the number of murders or accidental deaths done with them compared to another tool. It's the effect of controlling the tool. Implementing certain gun controls appears to have a much greater impact on fatal incidents than other controls.

Dd

Tell me how well that worked out for Washington, D.C.

Absent an effective outright ban on all firearms, incremental change does nothing. In fact, in the US, there's little correlation to gun control laws in the states and the number of firearm related fatalities.

[Ddrak]

The argument for gun control isn't based on the number of murders or accidental deaths done with them compared to another tool. It's the effect of controlling the tool. Implementing certain gun controls appears to have a much greater impact on fatal incidents than other controls.

Dd

Tell me how well that worked out for Washington, D.C.

Absent an effective outright ban on all firearms, incremental change does nothing. In fact, in the US, there's little correlation to gun control laws in the states and the number of firearm related fatalities.

There is a small correlation, but you're not going to see that much between states simply because I don't believe there's any controls that have significantly affected the availability of weapons, and I don't see much political will to enact that sort of control.


On a related topic - thoughts on the EO's from Obama?

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Obama issued 23 EOs relating to gun control. All are administrative or advisory in nature.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... president/

Launching a national dialogue and hoping that doctors will talk to patients about guns... I'm estimating it will have just about a zero effect on gun control. Obama knows he can't do shit about gun control without legislation, so this is all just posturing. If he REALLY wanted to do something, he'd make a specific statement that he wants Congress, especially the Dem controlled Senate, to take the lead with gun control restrictions, and he'd lay out the specifics. But he hasn't. And he won't. All those EOs are just fluff and a /nod towards his constituency.

[Ddrak]

I certainly didn't see much there to get worked up about. A bunch of fluff, and some tightening up on things that probably should have been tightened. Congress definitely has to get involved if any sweeping changes are to be made, but I don't realistically see that happening for any number of reasons.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -gun-laws/

Report stating no real correlation between gun control regulations and gun crime.

[Ddrak]

Interesting what does work according to that link:

1. Gun-owner licensing or purchase permits (or some other form of gun-buyer screening)
2. Stricter local dealer licensing
3. Bans on possession of guns by criminals and mentally ill people
4. Stronger controls over illegal carrying
5. Possibly discretionary add-on penalties for committing felonies with a gun.

It's all stuff to essentially control the market, which makes sense.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

We already have 3, 4 and 5 in the US. Most firearm crimes (I'm excluding suicides here) are committed by crazy people that manage to get their hands on guns, or felons, who are forbidden from possessing guns but get them anyway.

The amount of fucks given by crazy people and felons have for gun laws is zero. The only way... the ONLY way... to prevent the Sandy Hooks and Columbines from happening is to ban all firearms and take everyone's guns away. And that ain't gonna happen in this country, at least not in the foreseeable future.

I heard a statistic the other day that I have yet to chase down as true or not. In the UK, where guns are essentially banned for most of the populace, even though the homicide by gun rate per capita is lower than the US, the daytime burglary/robbery rate is much higher. Implied in that statement is burglars/robbers in the UK know their chances of suffering bodily harm via firearm is very low, so a psychological impediment to burglary/robbery is greatly reduced.

Again, I haven't chased that down to confirm it or deny it, but if true, then we're just trading one crime for another by restricting guns.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Again, I haven't chased that down to confirm it or deny it, but if true, then we're just trading one crime for another by restricting guns.

And if that's the case, I'd say trading homicides for burglaries is one hell of a good deal. Loss of life is clearly more severe than loss of property, yes?

[Ddrak]

The amount of fucks given by crazy people and felons have for gun laws is zero.

This is provably false, and is a classic case of B->A therefore A->B. If anything, felons are far more careful because there's a higher penalty and crazy people tend to be self-aware enough to know when they shouldn't be around certain things, at least if you get them access to proper treatment.

The US doesn't have anything close to an effective ban on firearms for criminals or mentally ill people, and frankly I don't see how one could be retrofitted.

the daytime burglary/robbery rate is much higher

I believe the penalties for daytime burglaries are lower than night time in the UK. Could be wrong though.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Again, I haven't chased that down to confirm it or deny it, but if true, then we're just trading one crime for another by restricting guns.

And if that's the case, I'd say trading homicides for burglaries is one hell of a good deal. Loss of life is clearly more severe than loss of property, yes?

Depends. What if it's your property we're talking about? Would you rather just hand it over to a burglar/robber or would you like a fighting chance of denying them that opportunity?

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Again, I haven't chased that down to confirm it or deny it, but if true, then we're just trading one crime for another by restricting guns.

And if that's the case, I'd say trading homicides for burglaries is one hell of a good deal. Loss of life is clearly more severe than loss of property, yes?

Depends. What if it's your property we're talking about? Would you rather just hand it over to a burglar/robber or would you like a fighting chance of denying them that opportunity?

False dichotomy. Just because I don't have a firearm doesn't mean I'm incapable of home defense, nor are firearms the only means of home defense.

But if we want to play that game, no. My PS3 isn't as valuable as someone else's life.

[Embar Angylwrath]

They may not be the only method of home defense, but they are certainly one of the most effective tools available.

While I personally agree with you about the value of life as opposed to property (I wouldn't shoot a robber unless I felt I or my family was in immediate physical danger), I'm not about to lay that morality-based decision on another. Some would argue, quite persuasively, that shooting the sumbitch between the eyes (or more likely center mass) is a perfectly justified and rational response to a home invasion, no matter what the intent of the invader. I can't really find fault with that arguement either, other than my morality-based explanation on the value of human life, even violent shitstains with no regard for others.

I also think a person who engages in that type of criminal behaviour should fully expect that one of the very possible outcomes of his/her criminal activity is the premature ending of that criminal's life. In other words, it should come as no surprise when some thug takes a couple rounds and a dirt nap.

It almost sounds like you're protecting these types of people. Why is that so?