NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

[jimbob]

Yes, because he says 6 yr old black belts have deadly hands and feet.

Here is the quote in context:

More deadly? How so? Do you believe a 6 yr old black belt has deadlier hands and feet than an unskilled adult?

Um, yes. I absolutely do.

Then you need to go to a martial arts studio.

At your stated height and weight I think you would have no trouble pining most black belts under the age of 15, and a fair number of those under 18. I don't recommend choking them to death to prove the point.

The belts are given for skills, not actual fighting.

Seems a little silly, but I'd like to know what the reasoning behind tri's next assertion.

Then you need to go to a martial arts studio.

At your stated height and weight I think you would have no trouble pining most black belts under the age of 15, and a fair number of those under 18. I don't recommend choking them to death to prove the point.

The belts are given for skills, not actual fighting.

Bwahahahahaha!! This is hilarious!

Your ignorance, along with ThaiBoxer's over there, could fill an Olympic sized swimming pool.

I understand thaiboxerken's statement because I have seen six-year olds. At one stage I knew an eight year old who was technically pretty good for her age in a reasonable style of karate (koykushinkiai), she did not spar because it would have been pointless as weight and reach count for a lot, that's why there are different weight divisions in boxing.

Her big brother though, was a different kettle of fish (he was 6'2 and built like the proverbial)

 

[Nessie]

I am no fighter, I am not very fit, but I am big. I don't care how good a 6 year old is at martial arts, they pose no threat to me at all. I would just resort to rugby and get them to the ground and sit on them. Or if they are too fast just watch them bounce around posing till they are too tired and want to go home with mummy.

Too many gun owners see threats where there are none IMO.

 

[jimbob]

I am no fighter, I am not very fit, but I am big. I don't care how good a 6 year old is at martial arts, they pose no threat to me at all. I would just resort to rugby and get them to the ground and sit on them. Or if they are too fast just watch them bounce around posing till they are too tired and want to go home with mummy.

Too many gun owners see threats where there are none IMO.

Or this.

 

[Giz]

That's about it.

Oh well, I was at least able to find a box of .44 mag today! Still no .22LR to be found anywhere though, the doomsday preppers must be hoarding it all. And I need the .22LR to justify the 2 hour trip to my favorite shooting range. Have everything else now - a case of clays, 175 rounds of 12 ga, and 50 rounds of .44.

Just need to find those elusive .22s!

The only caliber available in quantity at my local big store is .45 GAP. Trying to find any of the mainstream centerfire rounds is an exercise in futility.

I'm really hoping the panic buying will wear off soon. There are competitions coming up and a GSSF prize gun that should be turning up sometime that I'd like to be able to shoot.

 

[triforcharity]

Would you shoot such a 6 year old if he/she threatened you?

What is the child threatening me with? A gun? Yep. A stick? Most likely not. I try not to do absolutes for this type of scenario, or really many self defense situations, as many factors come into play.

 

[jimbob]

I still don't understand why you believe that supports a 90% over-estimation. You've shown that the estimate of shootings is obviously over-estimated, but you've only shown reason to suspect 90%, and not to prove it. Of course in reporting there will be wildly different outcomes just like in the rape estimates, but that doesn't mean the high end is the correct number.

And again, what does this have to do with this method of gun control? You seem to be arguing that people shouldn't have guns because they aren't used often for personal defense.

For the time period covered it was implausible that there were more than 100k nonfatal shootings form all causes. The "conservative" DGU extrapolation predicted 130k woundings and killings from DGUs alone.

From what we know about justified homicide (FBI data here) it is a minuscule* fraction of the total number of firearm homicides. Therefore justifiable DGU shootings must be a minuscule number of 100k (10% is very generous). They reported more than this for their shootings, so the DGU survey is worth pretty little.

There is no reason to believe that non-shooting DGUs are any better estimated - just it is harder to perform a sanity check on those estimates.

I agree it has little to do with the insurance case, except that is helps inform of the relative risks of owning or not owning a gun.

Some people will be less at risk having a gun than not having a gun, but for the vast majority of Americans the converse is overwhelmingly true.


*For example 201/8,583 in 2011 for private citizens raising to 653 including law enforcement

 

[thaiboxerken]

What is the child threatening me with? A gun? Yep. A stick? Most likely not. I try not to do absolutes for this type of scenario, or really many self defense situations, as many factors come into play.

you admit that it's not the child, but the gun, that is the threat. We're making progress!

 

[triforcharity]

Are you suggesting that Tri wants semi-automatic firearms to defend against 6 year olds?

Not in so many words.....

Would you shoot such a 6 year old if he/she threatened you?

There is a reason some people fight so hard to keep their semi-automatic weapons.

 

[GeeMack]

you admit that it's not the child, but the gun, that is the threat. We're making progress!

Guns are inanimate mechanical devices. Although there are plenty of people who seem to have an irrational fear of such things, that fear does not endow those things with the power to threaten or cause violence any more than fear of gods endows them with existence.

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, because he says 6 yr old black belts have deadly hands and feet.

That's not what I said. I said they CAN. And that's not why I keep guns. You're lying about my position, which you've known for quite some time. That's pretty rude, and damn low, even for you.

 

[triforcharity]

you admit that it's not the child, but the gun, that is the threat. We're making progress!

No sir, that's not what I said at all. I'm noticing a trend with you.....

 

[GeeMack]

No sir, that's not what I said at all. I'm noticing a trend with you.....

We often see the anti-gun argument presented in the form of hyperbole, a figure of speech which of course has a truth value of zero.

 

[jimbob]

As I've stated many times before, reducing violent crime by targeting the weapons is like curing bubonic plague by lancing the buboes.
A better approach would be to target the criminals, but look at the many threads on gun control and look at how many times suggestions like yours have been brought up, then compare that with the number of times the anti-gun crowd has either hand waved it away, or simply ignored it.
An NCP would be a good place to start. The NRA apparently doesn't have a problem with it.They're already supporting a similar bill (the Reciprocity Bill) which has been shouted own by the anti-gun faction in Congress before, but has now been re-introduced.
A really good start would be to enforce the laws already on the books, such as the Brady Act. According to the BATF, NICS checks have identified over 80,000 convicted felons and fugitives from justice who have attempted to purchase a firearm. Only 150 were referred to the AG, and of those only 44 were convicted.
If you took just half of that 80,000 criminals (which can be presumed to have been contemplating the commission of a violent crime since they were willing to violate yet another Federal law to obtain a firearm, despite being aware that they were excluded persons) and only managed a 50% conviction rate (which shouldn't be that difficult since you have already everything you need to make a good solid case), that would have taken 20,000 hardcore criminals off the street. Taking out that many bad guys could not help but make a huge difference in reducing the crime rate.
This is the response you get from even bringing up such crazy ideas:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/...gun-hearing-youre-wrong-on-background-checks/

Apparently, taking criminals off the street with existing laws,requires too much "paper chasing". Notice how well received the very suggestion was with the liberal press.
There are many other things we could be doing that target offenders and not law abiding citizens, but if the liberals won't even agree to enforce the existing laws, how much traction do you think they're going to get?

I'd agree that the existing measures need enforcing.

Sometimes I think that the more "glamorous" crimes (and possibly politician's interest) overshadows some of the more effective measures that police could take (I'm not talking *specifically* about gun crime here).

For example, criminals tend to ignore the law in lots of ways, so that illegal cars in the UK, when stopped often have more serious criminals in them - I can't find the link at the moment to quantify the story.

I only have one firearm right now, and it's securely stored in an IWB "safe". My set up for other firearms is still available to me should I desire to purchase another long gun.
My spare room has a closet that abuts the bathroom. I have a hardened steel chain that goes through a hole I cut in the wall, and wrapped around a cast iron stand pipe. I have a military surplus high security padlock that goes through the chain. Burglars will have to come prepared at least with a set of bolt cutters in addition to any other tools required to break in. You can't shim a HS padlock, there is no place to insert the shim.They're almost impossible to pick, too.
I also remove some vital part from any firearm I store, and then store it in a separate secure place. A firing pin is good, a bolt is better. This will at least slow them down considerably as they have to first free the firearm from its mounting, then search for a small, easily hidden part, or they don't get bupkiss.
Replacing certain parts is difficult for criminals. They don't have access to many illegal armourers, and taking a gun to a legal gun repair shop and asking to fit a replacement bolt will raise some eyebrows, especially when there will be a BOLO for such activity.

Any insurance premium against negligent storage leafing to theft should be minimal, unfortunately large numbers of guns are not stored like that - earlier I linked to old data stating that 50% were stored unlocked, and 16% unlocked and loaded.

Would you be against Nessie's insurance suggestion?

There are other versions of insurance which would not do the above.

My proposal would be for the gun owner to insure their guns for the following. Accidental discharge and damage or injury caused. Unauthorised use by another person who has permission to be in the house/car where the gun is being kept when it it is not in the possession of the gun owner. Theft, such that if stolen the gun owner claims to get a new gun off insurance. Public liability whereby if the gun owner uses their gun and shoots another in inappropriate circumstances, they have to pay out damages and costs to the shot party to cover their medical bills etc.

The above means when a legally held gun causes damage, the owner has to pay. That would act as an incentive to properly handle and secure legally held guns.

No pay outs to criminals. Irresponsible people will see their premiums rising such they may not be able to get a gun which is good. Responsible people will have lower premiums, which is good. Gun owners help to contribute more to the damage they do, which is good.

 

[uk_dave]

I only have one firearm right now, and it's securely stored in an IWB "safe". My set up for other firearms is still available to me should I desire to purchase another long gun.
My spare room has a closet that abuts the bathroom. I have a hardened steel chain that goes through a hole I cut in the wall, and wrapped around a cast iron stand pipe. I have a military surplus high security padlock that goes through the chain. Burglars will have to come prepared at least with a set of bolt cutters in addition to any other tools required to break in. You can't shim a HS padlock, there is no place to insert the shim.They're almost impossible to pick, too.
I also remove some vital part from any firearm I store, and then store it in a separate secure place. A firing pin is good, a bolt is better. This will at least slow them down considerably as they have to first free the firearm from its mounting, then search for a small, easily hidden part, or they don't get bupkiss.
Replacing certain parts is difficult for criminals. They don't have access to many illegal armourers, and taking a gun to a legal gun repair shop and asking to fit a replacement bolt will raise some eyebrows, especially when there will be a BOLO for such activity.

Chuck, you are indeed a responsible gun owner.

BTW my previous comments were not intended to suggest that you weren't.

You take measures which you deem necessary in order to make any possible theft of your guns either very difficult or render the weapon virtually unusable if it is stolen.

What would be wrong with mandating that all gun owners do the same?

http://townhall.com/columnists/annc...republicans-should-try-being-popular-n1527482


Makes good sense even if it is Ann Coulter.

No, not really.

Though I am intrigued by her suggestion that all prospective gun owners should have a psychological evaluation carried out prior to being allowed to have a gun.

Would that be prior to each purchase or maybe an evaluation which is carried out every 2 to 5 years?

 

[Nessie]

What is the child threatening me with? A gun? Yep. A stick? Most likely not. I try not to do absolutes for this type of scenario, or really many self defense situations, as many factors come into play.

Their martial arts skills, what the conversation has been about. If a six year old threatened you with martial arts would you shoot them?

 

[Nessie]

That's not what I said. I said they CAN. And that's not why I keep guns. You're lying about my position, which you've known for quite some time. That's pretty rude, and damn low, even for you.

Thaiboxerken asked "More deadly? How so? Do you believe a 6 yr old black belt has deadlier hands and feet than an unskilled adult?" and you replied "Um, yes. I absolutely do." (Post #998) Add that to the above comment and you genuinely appear to think there are deadly martial arts 6 year olds out there and they pose a genuine threat. You have admitted before you keep guns for self defence even though the risk of you being attacked is very low.

From that exchange I am saying your ability to assess risk is appallingly bad and that is why you as a gun owner and carrier are a risk to others. I also think that many other gun owners are just like you and their assessment of risk is woeful. I believe that from the numerous news reports of unjustifiable shootings in the name of supposed self defence. From studies of actual DGUs by the likes of David Hemenway and the Harvard School of Public Health. From claims of needing guns to protect against tyranny, which is paranoid, delusional nonsense.

I do not think legal guns owners are as innocent as they like to make themselves out to be. That is why they have to accept further gun control and to contribute more towards to cost of the damage they do as a whole, as a collective. Which is why insurance (not the scheme proposed but a better version) is a very good idea.

 

[triforcharity]

Their martial arts skills, what the conversation has been about. If a six year old threatened you with martial arts would you shoot them?

Threatened? No. Used, got the upper hand, and somehow was putting my life in danger, yes.

 

[uk_dave]

Threatened? No. Used, got the upper hand, and somehow was putting my life in danger, yes.

By that time, he's probably taken your gun away too!

 

[Nessie]

Threatened? No. Used, got the upper hand, and somehow was putting my life in danger, yes.

Wow, you think you could find yourself in a situation where you are in mortal danger from a martial arts 6 year old Please take a step back and get a reality check. You come over as being scared of your own shadow as an excuse to have a gun and use it on another.

When you come out with a claim like that, do you understand why some may feel you should not have a gun at all?

 

[GeeMack]

Threatened? No. Used, got the upper hand, and somehow was putting my life in danger, yes.

It was asked if a gun would be used as a tool for defense if a particular situation came about which put one's life in danger. The response above was affirmative. The follow up argument was an attack against the person responding reasonably. Apparently the anti-gun argument is so lacking in substance that it must rely on hyperbole, dysphemism, and bizarre hypothetical gotchyas, often coming from a position of little vested interest in reducing gun violence in the USA. This exchange demonstrates, as we so often see, that the reasonable arguments for restrictions are not coming from a position of opposition to gun ownership or favoring extreme restrictions, but from the gun owners themselves.