• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

Yeggster said:
I'd be VERY surprised to see any court ruling that mentioned people have to shoot to kill to avoid jail time ... universally people are told to shot to STOP (By firing at centre of body mass)
Click to expand...

Shoot to stop/kill center mass is police. Florida and many other states call showing a weapon or firing a warning shot to be brandishing/dangerous use (under various names) - one Florida woman has as ongoing case because prosecutor charged her for firing a warning shot rather than shooting dead/harmed at least. She was in jail, temporarily released and headed back to jail. Kill/wound - don't warn!!!
 
RandFan said:
I thought that you and I worked this out.
Click to expand...

We have to my satisfaction, but I feel obligated to respond when the issue is the question of DGU's and the debunking of Lott.

I have no problem whatsoever in questioning Lott and his conclusions, but the unspoken implication involved is that DGU's do not exist in the real world because Lott came up with ****** numbers - DGU's are real world events, they rarely involve the firing of the firearm being used by the victim and both the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Crime Victimization Survey have numbers that indicate that individuals use firearms in lawful self defense.

For some reason individuals discussing the issue from the anti-self defense aspect hammer on Lott, Lott, Lott and runs for the tale grass when the BJS and NCVS numbers are brought up, and please note, even VPC tried to feature the numbers of lawful lethal force instances and buried the non-firing use numbers in their report.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Another opportunity to see reactions from the...er...gun hobbyists, when their toy of choice is used to kill a bunch of people.



Right.
Which is scarier...Dylann Roof with an icepick?
Dylann Roof with a kitchen knife?
Or Dylann Roof with a gun?

As long as we have Dylann Roofs walking around (and we will), why make it easier for them to kill people?



That seems like a pretty extreme reaction. I can understand it, though. I mean, if I sold a gun to somebody who used it to kill 9 people, it would weigh heavily on my conscience. If only we could detect these "mentally ill" folks before they go on a killing rampage!
Click to expand...

What is the policy you want enacted?

The problem is the gun grabbers don't have any solution or policy. They just shout guns kill people!

There is no law that would have stopped this guy from getting a gun so what is your point?

Your position is to stand on the graves of dead people killed in a tragedy in order to score political points.

Your are totally mistaken
 
Ziggurat said:
True. Which is also why we can't conclude that gun ownership increases risk, despite studies showing a correlation. And yet, people keep making that claim. You don't seem to object to that.
Click to expand...
I do and I do it often. Fear of guns is irrational.
 
RandFan said:
No. Um, no. Where did that come from? It's called contrast and compare.

To pass a controversial bill requires an effort on the part of someone to actually introduce the bill.

You can gauge the political will to pass a bill based on whether or not legislators care enough to even write the bill.

There is no will to get background checks much less ban guns. Is there will to strip women of their constitutional right to get an abortion? Yes.

Can you see any difference between the two or are we going to stick with the dichotomy where one issue speaks to whether another is a problem? My point is about political will. There is none to ban guns. There isn't even enough will to even do what the American public want.

Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal ... - The Hill

Is that clear or are we even communicating?
Click to expand...

RandFan said:
If that's not clear then let me try this, the vast majority of Americans want universal background checks.

Why did the NRA oppose, and why did the GOP oppose, and why is there no law for universal background checks.

I think if you can tackle that question we will be communicating.
Click to expand...


Communicating requires two ways, listening and replying. You're saying something is important in specific contexts with some specific criteria. I said that in very slightly expanded contexts with very little expanded criteria, your point is incorrect.

You're saying that on the federal level there is 'no will' (little to no will) to ban guns, or even to do gun control. Your metric is bills introduced at the federal level. I'm still not convinced about that metric. Comparing it to restricting women's access to abortions won't convince me that your metric is more valid, especially when almost all those challenges come at the state level. At the state level, several gun restrictions have been enacted and several have fallen afoul of constitutional protections, just like abortion access. I still don't see the reason to restrict it to the federal level for either issue.

Like many if not most gun owners at this point, I care little why the NRA does something or not. That there is opposition to the drive for gun bans and very heavy gun restrictions does not mean there are not people who advocate for those things. What I responded to was your view that there aren't people pushing those things.

As far as universal background checks, while Republican/NRA opposition to them plays a part, I think lack of movement on the issue on the federal level is, in part, because it's useful for Dems on the local and state level to push these bills, some/most of which have had unworkable provisions or wording, and have them fail so that they can use them to attack Republicans/NRA. The opposition is more than happy to provide them with this ammo. It's an issue were both sides are behaving badly, even though there is so much agreement in the middle.

Comparing to the abortion access, the mostly if not entirely Republican backed bills are for the same exact effect. They get defeated but they give the backers something to show to their base and attack the 'liberals' with. Unlike with the background check thing though, the opposition doesn't actually provide much ammo as only one side is behaving badly. Of course many of the backers also would actually like to get those restrictions passed. They actually do desire that, just as many actually do desire gun bans or as heavy as restrictions they can get to make guns as difficult to get as possible.

There is will to get universal background checks. I've advocated for them. I also live in a state that bundled banning guns because they are too heavy or have an evil handle instead of less evil handle in with its bill on universal background checks. There is will to ban guns. New York bans sticks as weapons for crying out loud, it would ban guns if it could. 'No political will' vastly overstates the point you are trying to make. 'Not enough' is the best you can say on the federal level.

I get it, there is a lot of mistrust on both sides of this issue. That's one of my biggest complaints as well. However, I'm not about to dismiss the mistrust as unfounded completely. No, on whole democrats are not 'coming for your guns', but yes, there are a non-trivial number who want gun bans. Yes, the NRA and some other gun owners want absolutely no movement on gun control, and want restrictions removed, but no, not all or even most gun owners are like that.

tl;dr There are many mechanisms driving the introduction, or lack of, bills besides political will being 'none'. Politics isn't that simple.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
Because we love excess? And we can. :)
Click to expand...


Except the crime rate in the States is higher than say, Canada, where there are also lower rates of firearms ownership. Obviously, despite your many firearms you aren't able to protect yourselves as well as you think.
 
Still no evidence to support this deeply held feeling, I see?

Ziggurat said:
And lastly, why do you want poor women under threat of domestic violence to be unable to defend themselves? Because that's what a waiting period does: it renders them defenseless.
Click to expand...

Can't say I am surprised.
 
fuelair said:
Shoot to stop/kill center mass is police. Florida and many other states call showing a weapon or firing a warning shot to be brandishing/dangerous use (under various names) - one Florida woman has as ongoing case because prosecutor charged her for firing a warning shot rather than shooting dead/harmed at least. She was in jail, temporarily released and headed back to jail. Kill/wound - don't warn!!!
Click to expand...

I see .. a "warning shot" of any kind is not allowed ... the brandishing law I've heard before and it's wrong ... a percentage of defensive use of firearms is said to be simple brandishing and normally not reported to police
 
tyr_13 said:
There is will to get universal background checks.
Click to expand...
No there's not. If there were any will we would see the bills. Just like we see the bills for abortion. Those bills exist because of the will to write them and sponsor them.

If there were any such will then we would have bills proposed.
 
Yuchi1 said:
The little sign with the circle/handgun/slash is both an indictment on the failure of social engineering and a welcome mat to these monsters that "here is your killing field and place for your 15 minutes of fame".
Click to expand...


Frankly, I find it more than a little foul that you think the problem is not the ease with which firearms can be obtained by questionable individuals, but that some people would prefer to have places free of them.
 
Last edited:
Border Reiver said:
Except the crime rate in the States is higher than say, Canada, where there are also lower rates of firearms ownership. Obviously, despite your many firearms you aren't able to protect yourselves as well as you think.
Click to expand...

Far too many think of a gun like a talisman. They know how guns work, but their thinking still makes it power in the abstract. They don't think of the limitations or implications of the mechanisms by which it can be employed. They aren't effective at overcoming all kinds of offense. They don't protect in all situations or even as many situations as is commonly (it seems) believed.

Of course it goes the other way too, some behaving as if they are some sort of evil talisman that will just magically increase your chances of being a crime victim because stats, regardless of individual risk factors and steps to mitigate. That's not nearly as prevalent thinking.
 
RandFan said:
No there's not. If there were any will we would see the bills. Just like we see the bills for abortion. Those bills exist because of the will to write them and sponsor them.

If there were any such will then we would have bills proposed.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. Just as the existence of bills doesn't mean there is enough political will to do those things either. Again, I don't see a valid reason to limit it to the federal level nor ignore other factors that might limit the introduction of bills besides 'will'.

What do you mean by will? I mean it as desire and goal.
 
tyr_13 said:
Not necessarily. Just as the existence of bills doesn't mean there is enough political will to do those things either. Again, I don't see a valid reason to limit it to the federal level nor ignore other factors that might limit the introduction of bills besides 'will'.

What do you mean by will? I mean it as desire and goal.
Click to expand...
Getting something done. After Port Arthur Australia banned guns. After Sandy Hook we couldn't implement suggested universal background checks even though the vast majority of America wanted them.

How do I define "will", listening to the experts and the people. Absent a moral imperative not to pass universal background checks it makes no sense in a representative democracy to fail to give so little time to it in congress.

I'm going to bow out of the discussion. I'm failing spectacularly to convey a very simple point. Some times we have to admit when we fail.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom