If they really wanted the government to not be able to change gun laws they'd become a well regulated militia. Constitution, not "Pick and choose".
Thankfully the supreme court all ready commented on that. See District of Columbia VS Heller. (In brief the 2nd amendment guarantee's the right to bear arms, separate from membership in a militia.)
Gun law is complex and a lot deeper than most of you seem to be willing to admit. Remember there are thousands of experts who have been going over the 2nd amendment for decades. Some trying to tear it apart and others trying to expand it.
I also find it telling that nobody is addressing the mental health angle, or at least, very few. Improving mental health resources and availability of them would be trivial, compared to banning guns.
There are a lot of resources available to graduate students in this regard. His school offers free counseling (individual or group sessions), not to mention he had access to the head of grad students in his department, deans, potential mentors, and fellow students. It sounds like he failed his first part of the qualifying exam and then decided to leave the program. PhD programs are really hard and not everyone is capable of finishing them. I have no idea what else was going wrong in his life but a lot of people who do well up until this point in graduate school do have breakdowns when suddenly they're no longer breezing through academics like they did in college. It doesn't help that graduate students are also treated like crap most of the time but, that's part of why the mental health resources are there for students.
I have no idea what else was going wrong in his life but a lot of people who do well up until this point in graduate school do have breakdowns when suddenly they're no longer breezing through academics like they did in college. It doesn't help that graduate students are also treated like crap most of the time but, that's part of why the mental health resources are there for students.
While I trust you on the first part - you are a doctor, after all - I'm pretty sure there must have been other issues present. A lot of grad students have breakdowns. Not a lot of grad students have months-long insane streaks, culminating in shooting up a public place. I wouldn't be surprised if other issues that were both present and not addressed were exacerbated by the stresses of grad school, and this was the unfortunate result.
While I trust you on the first part - you are a doctor, after all - I'm pretty sure there must have been other issues present. A lot of grad students have breakdowns. Not a lot of grad students have months-long insane streaks, culminating in shooting up a public place. I wouldn't be surprised if other issues that were both present and not addressed were exacerbated by the stresses of grad school, and this was the unfortunate result.
Oh I totally agree that there had to be other things going on besides failing his qual that culminated in him completely losing it. My point was more that there were plenty of resources available to him and making them more available/easier to access wouldn't have made a difference. We don't even know if he was one of the stubborn/stupid students that wouldn't use the resources available to him or if the person he was seeing utterly and completely fucked up in their sessions with him and failed to help him.
I feel it's not entirely unreasonable of an assumption that you may not have a large amount of experience with firearms because of that, like a vast majority of other people I know around our age, location and social strata.
Yes, that assumption is quite correct.
Suggesting we should worry about people just because they own a firearm is idiotic FUD.
This is just a straight-up straw man.
Of you, yes. Of the article, no. He is straight up asking which you should be more afraid of, the guy googling Jihad, or the guy with a rifle and "High Capacity" magazines, and who we should monitor - to quote:
"We're talking about what is more dangerous to Americans and more deserving of our monitoring resources: some jerkoff who knows how to google "jihad"? Or someone who has purchased an AR-15, big ass clip, and 6000 bullets?
In the abstract, putting the massacre aside for a moment, who do you fear more?"
Although the point is very exaggerated in the article (as far as i know this is something the author does quite often), it still doesn't translate into "worry about people just because they own a firearm". However, I think that Holmes' purchase history should have been subject to scrutiny before the shooting occurred.
I'm not sure what you're asking. That's probably just me reading strangely because I'm tired. If you're asking what other types of crimes could possibly be committed with an automatic weapon other than robbery and homicide, then there are aggravated menacing, felonious assault, battery, aggravated rape, attempted murder, criminal damaging, aggravated arson (that would be a stretch, but I'm sure it's happened)....
I think we're arguing across each other, here. I was saying that only two crimes(addendum: that have been prosecuted) have been committed with legally owned Automatic weapons in the US.
If you specifically meant fully automatic weapons, then your original point was likely to be mostly correct, but in that case it was of little relevance as fully automatic weapons weren't really being discussed in the first place.
More Jihadists have succeeded than crimes have been comitted with automatic weapons in the US - Last I remember, it's two.
Your fact needs qualification. Since 1934, there have been two homicide convictions against people who used legally-owned automatic weapons in the U.S.
While there was definitely some miscommunication, the wording in your older post had several flaws and left out some important details, and I can see why Jason felt the need to correct you on them. I'll clarify some of the issues for you.
The "legally-owned" distinction is quite significant and was left out of your original statement.
Criminal homicide is only one of many crimes that might have been commited with such weapons, so you could easily have left out other non-homicide crimes.
A conviction is very much distinct from a commited crime.
Fair point on all but the last - It's hard to judge how many crimes are committed without some sort of judgement that a crime has taken place. I've no doubt that far more crimes of ALL types are committed than are prosecuted OR convicted, but it's very difficult to accurately gauge how many, with no official way of doing so - such as a conviction. I felt that was merely the best metric I had available to me at the time.
It can easily be judged that a crime has taken place without a prosecution or a conviction - unsolved crimes are hardly an uncommon phenomenon. The issue at hand was not the choice of metric - convictions are quite a reasonable choice in that regard - but the wording used to express it.
I want to point out that I still have no problem with people wanting guns, or responsibly having them for that matter. I have a problem with the NRA relentlessly trying to change the right to have a firearm to the necessity for everyone to own a firearm for such reasons as 'a small woman defending herself from a large black man' (I have heard several versions of that disgusting argument) or that having a largely armed civilian populace will result in a crazy person being too afraid of 'mutually assured destruction to pick on soft targets' like civilians in theaters and such.
The lack of foresight and fallacy of appealing to the ideal is running rampant, and the NRA and a shocking number of conservatives in this country have stooped particularly low to try and make that last ludicrous point: The problem is not crazies with guns...it's that there's not enough people with guns.
I literally had my jaw drop for a second or two while I read some of the despicable pandering to the NRA and far-right base in this country. It's highly irresponsible and unbelievably callous to start to indirectly place blame on the victims for not having guns on them.
Weapon ownership aside, do any you you assert that a handgun is in any reasonable instance a better self defense weapon than a taser?
Yes. In the vast majority of instances.
Tasers are temporary, one shot weapons of questionable effectiveness. They cant penetrate heavy clothing, let alone any type of armor. They require a solid shot to have any effect, no grazing.
Also tasers lack a pistol's intimidation factor. Someone is more likely to hesitate when they know their target may be able to kill them than if all their target can do in temporarily incapacitate them.
As you are so fond of saying :"What do the experts use?". Police carry guns, specifically because a taser isn't enough. At some point in the future, with improved technology, they might be. Until then, pistols are the best choice.
Lastly, you and I both live in NY. We cant legally own a Taser. Just having one in our possession would be a crime.
Weapon ownership aside, do any you you assert that a handgun is in any reasonable instance a better self defense weapon than a taser?
One such instance is if they're wearing several layers of thick clothing.
EDIT: Some further Googling suggests that newer taser models would do the job in any realistic clothing scenario, so this is probably not a significant concern. Nonetheless, if tasers were to become widespread, it's likely that effective anti-taser clothing would also become widespread.
Drunken Butler beat me to that one, it seems. Still, some of his other points are flawed.
Yes. In the vast majority of instances.
This kind of assertion needs a hell of a lot more support than you've given for it.
Also tasers lack a pistol's intimidation factor. Someone is more likely to hesitate when they know their target may be able to kill them than if all their target can do in temporarily incapacitate them.
That incapacitation is enough to, for example, guarantee that someone is restrained until the police arrives, which is not an insignificant threat. My thought, though, is that any weapon at all would be intimidating in that kind of situation; the specific nature and effects of the weapon would be a secondary concern.
As you are so fond of saying :"What do the experts use?". Police carry guns, specifically because a taser isn't enough. At some point in the future, with improved technology, they might be. Until then, pistols are the best choice.
Police are equipped for different circumstances because it's their job; there is no reason to think that their choices can be a good guide for your own.
Lastly, you and I both live in NY. We cant legally own a Taser. Just having one in our possession would be a crime.
A point that bears little relevance considering that this is a political discussion, not a legal one. Why do you think Rym's point was prefaced with "weapon ownership aside"?
This kind of assertion needs a hell of a lot more support than you've given for it.
Fair point, I May have overstated, lets say "In many Circumstances" Like the aforementioned thick clothing, or multiple attackers, or an attacker with their own weapons, and of course all of that is assuming your taser works, which with most civilian models is questionable.
That incapacitation is enough to, for example, guarantee that someone is restrained until the police arrives, which is not an insignificant threat. My thought, though, is that any weapon at all would be intimidating in that kind of situation; the specific nature and effects of the weapon would be a secondary concern.
Have you ever been tased? I have, and it sucks, but once it's happened to you a few times you stop being afraid of it. A Pistol is always frightening because it can always kill you.
Police are equipped for different circumstances because it's their job; there is no reason to think that their choices can be a good guide for your own.
Your right, I don't carry handcuffs because that part of their equipment does not pertain to my life (I hope XD). The equipment they carry specifically for dealing with dangerous attackers however does serve as a decent guideline.
If a policeman who is properly trained in it's use and will most likely have armed backup still carries a pistol in addition to his law enforcement grade taser, there may be a just a bit of reasoning that could apply to my situation.
A point that bears little relevance considering that this is a political discussion, not a legal one. Why do you think Rym's point was prefaced with "weapon ownership aside"?
You don't have to own a taser to get arrested for using one. He asked for specific instances. In New York I am less likely to be arrested for successfully defending myself with a gun than a taser. I consider not being arrested to be a pretty big part of that instance.
Lastly, who here has enough experience with tasers and firearms to make this argument? I have some, but I would love to hear from a policeman who has had to decide which to use in a tough spot.
(PS: i'd rather carry pepper spray than either of them, that stuff is non-lethal, reasonably effective, and it's legal here)
Edit - Also, I cant use a taser on a snake, and I have no idea how well they work on dogs or bears. Not common threats, but valid concerns none the less.
Wow there are lots of posts about guns. Here are thoughts from a non-gun-knowledgeable person.
Since there have been crazy amounts of muggings around the Georgia Tech campus, the thought of having a gun sounds nice for a bit. Maybe I could protect myself or someone else from a mugging. This is where most people stop and go "Yeah give me a gun! Merica!"
I have reasoning skills though, so the more I think about it, the more I don't want one. I know that if I ever get mugged, 1 of 2 things will probably happen. 1) I will freeze up or get my purse snatched before I can pull out the gun. 2) I start to pull out the gun, and the mugger freaks and shoots/stabs me before I can shoot. Actually, I probably wouldn't even try to shoot at first, I'd just use it to threaten them, which makes even more time to get myself shot/stabbed. The option of me successfully shooting or scaring away the mugger would be very close to a 0% chance. The chance of the gun going off accidentally or someone finding it and stupidly waving it around accidentally shooting people would be higher than the intended use of the gun. So yeah, someone like me having gun not so good. And there are lots of someone-like-mes out there. And that's my 2 cents.
Except Lyddi's most likely right: with the low amount of training the average person could be expected to have, they will almost always fail at using a gun for self-defense, and stand a fair shot of getting themselves hurt worse than they normally would be if they tried to use a gun.
The same thing applies to using knives for self-defense.
Overanalysis and supposition are not the same as reasoning. :-)
(I'm only snarking because of your heavy implication that gun enthusiasts = stupid, it's simply not true.)
I don't see the implication, honestly.
EDIT: Okay, on a later reading I see where you're coming from - "I have reasoning skills though" in particular is pretty heavy.
I was mainly aiming that toward the average person who doesn't think it through (which I consider reasoning), not talking about gun enthusiasts. And just to see where I'm coming from, I have little faith in humanity, or at least its ability to not be dumb all the time :-P. Obviously the people in this crowd tend to not fall in that category, so I may sound crazy/mean to you guys. I'm talking about the average person.
Except Lyddi's most likely right: with the low amount of training the average person could be expected to have, they will almost always fail at using a gun for self-defense, and stand a fair shot of getting themselves hurt worse than they normally would be if they tried to use a gun.
The same thing applies to using knives for self-defense.
That's not an argument for a gun ban, that's an argument for more training.
Lyddi, in the muggings on campus, how many people have been killed so far?
Its been a couple years since I've gotten the updates, thankfully I don't think anyone's gotten killed but some have been put in the hospital by being shot. Andrew already mentioned this way back, but one of his old roommates was visiting a friend in the neighborhood next to campus, and 3 guys stormed in the house with guns and robbed everyone. Scary stuff man. Recently a student in that neighborhood did have a gun and shot an intruder breaking into his house, unfortunately that intruder was just a lost drunk guy. The mean part of me wishes it had been a real intruder. >.<
Except Lyddi's most likely right: with the low amount of training the average person could be expected to have, they will almost always fail at using a gun for self-defense, and stand a fair shot of getting themselves hurt worse than they normally would be if they tried to use a gun.
The same thing applies to using knives for self-defense.
That's why most people probably shouldn't carry a pistol. Most gun enthusiasts agree that not everyone should carry. Anybody who insists that everybody should have a gun is some kind of nutcase.
Even when you are armed you shouldn't engage a mugger in most situations. I would rather lose my wallet than have hurting someone on my conscience. Even if you have something less lethal like pepper spray it's not worth the risk to your person just to keep your purse.
Lyddi, in the muggings on campus, how many people have been killed so far?
Its been a couple years since I've gotten the updates, thankfully I don't think anyone's gotten killed but some have been put in the hospital by being shot. Andrew already mentioned this way back, but one of his old roommates was visiting a friend in the neighborhood next to campus, and 3 guys stormed in the house with guns and robbed everyone. Scary stuff man. Recently a student in that neighborhood did have a gun and shot an intruder breaking into his house, unfortunately that intruder was just a lost drunk guy. The mean part of me wishes it had been a real intruder. >.<
I don't really see how that's mean, to be honest. While I think most of us would prefer no one was shot at all, ceteris paribus it's better that a willful intruder be shot than a lost drunk guy.
Except Lyddi's most likely right: with the low amount of training the average person could be expected to have, they will almost always fail at using a gun for self-defense, and stand a fair shot of getting themselves hurt worse than they normally would be if they tried to use a gun.
The same thing applies to using knives for self-defense.
That's not an argument for a gun ban, that's an argument for more training.
Bravo! One million points to you for stating the obvious.
During my undergrad, another acquaintance of mine was shot during an attempted kidnapping. Luckily he survived, but it was a pretty serious wound to the chest. Should I mention the highlander style sword duel we had between two grad students a couple years ago?
Comments
Christ, I got ninja'd by five hundred people. That's what I get for posting after a game of Circle of Death.
Gun law is complex and a lot deeper than most of you seem to be willing to admit. Remember there are thousands of experts who have been going over the 2nd amendment for decades. Some trying to tear it apart and others trying to expand it.
The lack of foresight and fallacy of appealing to the ideal is running rampant, and the NRA and a shocking number of conservatives in this country have stooped particularly low to try and make that last ludicrous point: The problem is not crazies with guns...it's that there's not enough people with guns.
I literally had my jaw drop for a second or two while I read some of the despicable pandering to the NRA and far-right base in this country. It's highly irresponsible and unbelievably callous to start to indirectly place blame on the victims for not having guns on them.
"Sixteen people were hurt when a motorist drove his car into more than 100 cyclists in the city of Porto Alegre. The driver was later arrested."
Weapon ownership aside, do any you you assert that a handgun is in any reasonable instance a better self defense weapon than a taser?
Tasers are temporary, one shot weapons of questionable effectiveness. They cant penetrate heavy clothing, let alone any type of armor. They require a solid shot to have any effect, no grazing.
Also tasers lack a pistol's intimidation factor. Someone is more likely to hesitate when they know their target may be able to kill them than if all their target can do in temporarily incapacitate them.
As you are so fond of saying :"What do the experts use?". Police carry guns, specifically because a taser isn't enough. At some point in the future, with improved technology, they might be. Until then, pistols are the best choice.
Lastly, you and I both live in NY. We cant legally own a Taser. Just having one in our possession would be a crime.
EDIT: Some further Googling suggests that newer taser models would do the job in any realistic clothing scenario, so this is probably not a significant concern. Nonetheless, if tasers were to become widespread, it's likely that effective anti-taser clothing would also become widespread.
If a policeman who is properly trained in it's use and will most likely have armed backup still carries a pistol in addition to his law enforcement grade taser, there may be a just a bit of reasoning that could apply to my situation. You don't have to own a taser to get arrested for using one. He asked for specific instances. In New York I am less likely to be arrested for successfully defending myself with a gun than a taser. I consider not being arrested to be a pretty big part of that instance.
Lastly, who here has enough experience with tasers and firearms to make this argument? I have some, but I would love to hear from a policeman who has had to decide which to use in a tough spot.
(PS: i'd rather carry pepper spray than either of them, that stuff is non-lethal, reasonably effective, and it's legal here)
Edit - Also, I cant use a taser on a snake, and I have no idea how well they work on dogs or bears. Not common threats, but valid concerns none the less.
Since there have been crazy amounts of muggings around the Georgia Tech campus, the thought of having a gun sounds nice for a bit. Maybe I could protect myself or someone else from a mugging. This is where most people stop and go "Yeah give me a gun! Merica!"
I have reasoning skills though, so the more I think about it, the more I don't want one. I know that if I ever get mugged, 1 of 2 things will probably happen.
1) I will freeze up or get my purse snatched before I can pull out the gun.
2) I start to pull out the gun, and the mugger freaks and shoots/stabs me before I can shoot. Actually, I probably wouldn't even try to shoot at first, I'd just use it to threaten them, which makes even more time to get myself shot/stabbed.
The option of me successfully shooting or scaring away the mugger would be very close to a 0% chance. The chance of the gun going off accidentally or someone finding it and stupidly waving it around accidentally shooting people would be higher than the intended use of the gun. So yeah, someone like me having gun not so good. And there are lots of someone-like-mes out there. And that's my 2 cents.
(I'm only snarking because of your heavy implication that gun enthusiasts = stupid, it's simply not true.)
EDIT: Okay, on a later reading I see where you're coming from - "I have reasoning skills though" in particular is pretty heavy.
The same thing applies to using knives for self-defense.
Even when you are armed you shouldn't engage a mugger in most situations. I would rather lose my wallet than have hurting someone on my conscience. Even if you have something less lethal like pepper spray it's not worth the risk to your person just to keep your purse.
Should I also state the obvious that a lost drunk guy who marches into someone's home unannounced and uninvited IS an intruder?