The Big Gun Control Thread

Paleocon wrote:

I think it is fair to say that if anyone has a right to feel aggrieved by the lack of discourse on this thread, I would be pretty high on that list.

I think the act of you labeling some on the other side as extremists contributed greatly to any lack of discourse, so I would not say that is fair.

We all agree that totally unregulated gun ownership is nutty. That does not automatically mean that regulating guns out of civilian life is equally as nutty. Those solutions are both at the far ends of the spectrum, but that does not mean the people you find holding--or even just not rejecting out of hand--those solutions are cuckoo birds of a feather. To move from the 2nd Amendment to the 1st, we all agree that someone who believes in total government censorship is a nut job, but someone who believes in no regulation of speech...well, we can at least understand where they are coming from.

Sorry, but I think you dug your own hole on this one. I think that overall, the people who lean more towards the guns rights end of the gun control spectrum did a bad job by trying to frame the discourse in a certain way, and it backfired. No pun intended.

All in all, I don't think this thread is really that remarkable: it looks like a lot of other liberal/conservative type threads on here, just maybe some people aren't used to being caught on the unpopular side of that dividing line.

Robear wrote:

So we should just give up on civility? He got several responses that made the point without attacking him personally... Civility is part of our rep, isn't it, as a discussion board?

My point is that civility is reciprocal. If I walk into a thread and call someone a douchebag, I can't turn around and complain that my feelings are hurt when I get a similarly insulting response in reply.

[quoteCheezePavilion]
We all agree that totally unregulated gun ownership is nutty. That does not automatically mean that regulating guns out of civilian life is equally as nutty.
[/quote]

This does not follow. Why would one end of a spectrum be "nuttey", and the other end - equally distant from the middle - not be?

Funkenpants wrote:

My point is that civility is reciprocal. If I walk into a thread and call someone a douchebag, I can't turn around and complain that my feelings are hurt when I get a similarly insulting response in reply.

Well, all he did was to make an argument. The worst he said of some unnamed person on the other side was that they were "suicidal". The other post described his inner life as that of a crazy person, without making any kind of actual argument. There's a difference there, and I'll point out that the poster involved didn't seem to be offended by my response, but took it in the way it was intended. I only posted because it seems like posts that are just ad hom - no argument - aren't usually what we are about here, and I thought it was fair to point it out.

Good enough? I understand you disagree, but I'm not sure this is a useful derail, since we both know each other pretty well and can pretty much predict each other's positions.

Robear wrote:

[quoteCheezePavilion]
We all agree that totally unregulated gun ownership is nutty. That does not automatically mean that regulating guns out of civilian life is equally as nutty.

This does not follow. Why would one end of a spectrum be "nuttey", and the other end - equally distant from the middle - not be?[/quote]

Because it's not the spectrum of "nuttey-ness." It's just the spectrum of options. If someone wants to show that the people on one end of the spectrum are nut jobs, then go out and show how they are nut jobs by criticizing what they believe. The spectrum is not real, it's just an abstraction that we use to think about the range of positions on an issue. Whether absolute values along that spectrum of options are also indications of "nuttey-ness" is a question of facts, not something that can be answered just by reference to a spectrum of choices we've created to organize another, distinct set of facts.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Because it's not the spectrum of "nuttey-ness." It's just the spectrum of options. If someone wants to show that the people on one end of the spectrum are nut jobs, then go out and show how they are nut jobs by criticizing what they believe. The spectrum is not real, it's just an abstraction that we use to think about the range of positions on an issue. Whether absolute values along that spectrum of options are also indications of "nuttey-ness" is a question of facts, not something that can be answered just by reference to a spectrum of choices we've created to organize another, distinct set of facts.

This looks like you're simply privileging your own belief by saying I didn't provide facts when you haven't yourself. But it's too complicated too easily tell. I need a Derrida-deconstructor ring with you, I think.

Robear wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Because it's not the spectrum of "nuttey-ness." It's just the spectrum of options. If someone wants to show that the people on one end of the spectrum are nut jobs, then go out and show how they are nut jobs by criticizing what they believe. The spectrum is not real, it's just an abstraction that we use to think about the range of positions on an issue. Whether absolute values along that spectrum of options are also indications of "nuttey-ness" is a question of facts, not something that can be answered just by reference to a spectrum of choices we've created to organize another, distinct set of facts.

This looks like you're simply privileging your own belief by saying I didn't provide facts when you haven't yourself. But it's too complicated to easily tell. I need a Derrida-deconstructor ring with you, I think. :-)

It's complicated because you're losing track of what the 'belief' is here--a little too quick to jump to "Cheeze is being semantically delicious" as an explanation?

If someone believes the spectrum of stances on gun control is anything but the spectrum of stances on gun control, the burden is on them to prove that it is. What I'm saying is as simple as that.

Maybe it's hard--not complicated, just hard--to grasp because we've been conditioned to think of the ends of the spectrum as being where the tin foil hat brigades live, differing only in whether they think you should orient the shiny side outwards to deflect the mind control rays or inwards to keep your thoughts from being read. But that's an issue-by-issue judgement. To use a hyperbolic example that should make it clear, the two extremes in the slavery debate are that slavery is good, and slavery is bad. We all pretty much agree that one extreme of the spectrum is full of nut jobs while the other extreme might actually be the only reasonable position, let alone full of nut jobs.

Or how about this for an example, one I think we'll agree on: the extreme right wing of Congress has a lot more "nuttey-ness" than the extreme left wing of Congress right now. tl;dr: each 'spectrum' has to be judged on its own merits, and isn't a cipher for figuring out who is reasonable and who is not.

A good place to start maybe, but in the end, not proof of anything beyond the spectrum itself.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Maybe it's hard--not complicated, just hard--to grasp because we've been conditioned to think of the ends of the spectrum as being where the tin foil hat brigades live, differing only in whether they think you should orient the shiny side outwards to deflect the mind control rays or inwards to keep your thoughts from being read. But that's an issue-by-issue judgement. To use a hyperbolic example that should make it clear, the two extremes in the slavery debate are that slavery is good, and slavery is bad. We all pretty much agree that one extreme of the spectrum is full of nut jobs while the other extreme might actually be the only reasonable position, let alone full of nut jobs.

Actually, I would say that the other end of the slavery debate goes as far as to say that any sort of control over anther person (such as requiring them to work, follow the law, pay taxes, etc) is bad.

mudbunny wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Maybe it's hard--not complicated, just hard--to grasp because we've been conditioned to think of the ends of the spectrum as being where the tin foil hat brigades live, differing only in whether they think you should orient the shiny side outwards to deflect the mind control rays or inwards to keep your thoughts from being read. But that's an issue-by-issue judgement. To use a hyperbolic example that should make it clear, the two extremes in the slavery debate are that slavery is good, and slavery is bad. We all pretty much agree that one extreme of the spectrum is full of nut jobs while the other extreme might actually be the only reasonable position, let alone full of nut jobs.

Actually, I would say that the other end of the slavery debate goes as far as to say that any sort of control over anther person (such as requiring them to work, follow the law, pay taxes, etc) is bad.

Well now you're using a different spectrum than I was and that's another issue: what's the spectrum? What's extreme on the "gun control" spectrum is pretty middle of the road on the "dangerous tool control" spectrum.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Robear wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Because it's not the spectrum of "nuttey-ness." It's just the spectrum of options. If someone wants to show that the people on one end of the spectrum are nut jobs, then go out and show how they are nut jobs by criticizing what they believe. The spectrum is not real, it's just an abstraction that we use to think about the range of positions on an issue. Whether absolute values along that spectrum of options are also indications of "nuttey-ness" is a question of facts, not something that can be answered just by reference to a spectrum of choices we've created to organize another, distinct set of facts.

This looks like you're simply privileging your own belief by saying I didn't provide facts when you haven't yourself. But it's too complicated to easily tell. I need a Derrida-deconstructor ring with you, I think. :-)

It's complicated because you're losing track of what the 'belief' is here--a little too quick to jump to "Cheeze is being semantically delicious" as an explanation?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Robear wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Because it's not the spectrum of "nuttey-ness." It's just the spectrum of options. If someone wants to show that the people on one end of the spectrum are nut jobs, then go out and show how they are nut jobs by criticizing what they believe. The spectrum is not real, it's just an abstraction that we use to think about the range of positions on an issue. Whether absolute values along that spectrum of options are also indications of "nuttey-ness" is a question of facts, not something that can be answered just by reference to a spectrum of choices we've created to organize another, distinct set of facts.

This looks like you're simply privileging your own belief by saying I didn't provide facts when you haven't yourself. But it's too complicated to easily tell. I need a Derrida-deconstructor ring with you, I think. :-)

It's complicated because you're losing track of what the 'belief' is here--a little too quick to jump to "Cheeze is being semantically delicious" as an explanation?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Exactly.

.

.

CheezePavilion wrote:

It's complicated because you're losing track of what the 'belief' is here--a little too quick to jump to "Cheeze is being semantically delicious" as an explanation?

If someone believes the spectrum of stances on gun control is anything but the spectrum of stances on gun control, the burden is on them to prove that it is. What I'm saying is as simple as that.

You are the one who added "nutty" to the spectrum, remember.

Maybe it's hard--not complicated, just hard--to grasp because we've been conditioned to think of the ends of the spectrum as being where the tin foil hat brigades live, differing only in whether they think you should orient the shiny side outwards to deflect the mind control rays or inwards to keep your thoughts from being read. But that's an issue-by-issue judgement. To use a hyperbolic example that should make it clear, the two extremes in the slavery debate are that slavery is good, and slavery is bad. We all pretty much agree that one extreme of the spectrum is full of nut jobs while the other extreme might actually be the only reasonable position, let alone full of nut jobs.

No, actually, if one accepts the premise that one extreme is crazy, then it's reasonable to assume that the other side, just as far out, is also crazy. That reflects the idea that the further one gets from consensus views ("the center"), the more likely one is to get crazy opinions. You reference that yourself above. I don't agree that one extreme might not be regarded as crazy, while the opposite one is; that seems to me to be the very definition of an extremist viewpoint.

Or how about this for an example, one I think we'll agree on: the extreme right wing of Congress has a lot more "nuttey-ness" than the extreme left wing of Congress right now. tl;dr: each 'spectrum' has to be judged on its own merits, and isn't a cipher for figuring out who is reasonable and who is not.

A good place to start maybe, but in the end, not proof of anything beyond the spectrum itself.

I'd say instead that the extremes of both parties have crazy ideas mixed in with the regular. But as can be seen objectively, the Republicans have purged the middle of their ideological spectrum. So they have more nutty representatives on the whole, but if you compared the extreme left to the extreme right, you'd find similar incidences of craziness on both sides.

If you indeed believe that one extreme is crazy while the other is not, then yeah, you're advantaging your argument by mistaking a fringe view for a consensus one. If your idea is that the middle is also wrong, and only one extreme is right, then it strikes me that the likelihood that that is correct must decrease the further one gets from the consensus. (In other words, the center might be wrong, but it's less likely to be wrong than the fringes.)

Robear, you're missing an equals sign in a quote tag in this post that's screwing up the formatting.

Robear wrote:

No, actually, if one accepts the premise that one extreme is crazy, then it's reasonable to assume that the other side, just as far out, is also crazy. That reflects the idea that the further one gets from consensus views ("the center"), the more likely one is to get crazy opinions.

Reasonable or not, it's just an assumption. What I reference above is that it's a good place to start, not to finish.

Also note my response to mudbunny: someone who is on the extreme end of the "gun control" debate could easily be a moderate if you frame the issue with "dangerous tool use" as the spectrum.

If you indeed believe that one extreme is crazy while the other is not, then yeah, you're advantaging your argument by mistaking a fringe view for a consensus one.

I'm saying that if the evidence shows one extreme is crazy, that doesn't necessarily prove anything about the other extreme.

Maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm saying because you've missed the context. I'm coming at this from where people agree one extreme is nutty. Not just because it's the extreme end of the spectrum, but because there's reasons to think it *is* nutty, *wherever* it happens to be on the spectrum. What I'm disputing is that because we've proven something about one position on the spectrum, that automatically proves something about the corresponding position on the other side of the spectrum.

tl;dr: I'm rejecting the idea that where something is on a spectrum proves it's nutty, at least until we know more about that spectrum.

=====

here's a clear example maybe, and one that's also about weapons: nuclear bombs. One extreme wants to ban the bomb. The other extreme thinks private citizens should have access to nuclear weapons. Do you think they're both crazy because they're both extreme ends of the spectrum? Do you think the reason we call people who think you should be able to have your own private nuclear arsenal 'nutty' has anything to do with where they fall on a spectrum, and isn't about, you know: the fact that their beliefs are just plain nutty, spectrum or no?

So these pictures of kids at a gun and wilderness survival camp have been getting a lot of play recently. I'll admit that my inner redneck that I hide in polite society loves this. Some of my favorite memories as a kid was learning to shoot with my dad.

http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2...

That looks more like indoctrination to me, especially the photo of the kid wearing a shirt saying he's willing to die to protect his 2nd amendment right. He looks like he's 10, he probably doesn't understand the whole thing. Gives me flashbacks to the Michigan militias of the 90's.

The Boy Scouts Rifle Badge was how I learned and the Appleseed events are another good alternative, though may be just as political.

Is Joe Biden's latest gun advice a clever scheme to put people in jail or is he really that dumb?

I said,
Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk
out on the balcony here, walk out, put
[up] that double barreled shotgun and fire
two blasts outside the house.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/jo...

CannibalCrowley wrote:

Is Joe Biden's latest gun advice a clever scheme to put people in jail or is he really that dumb?

I said,
Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk
out on the balcony here, walk out, put
[up] that double barreled shotgun and fire
two blasts outside the house.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/jo...

Three shots from a gun several seconds apart is an internationally recognized distress signal. At worst he got the number wrong by telling her two, but I'm fairly certain it'd have the same effect.
Edit - Granted a 911 call would be a better way to signal distress...but the idea behind his advice is sound.

jdzappa wrote:

So these pictures of kids at a gun and wilderness survival camp have been getting a lot of play recently. I'll admit that my inner redneck that I hide in polite society loves this. Some of my favorite memories as a kid was learning to shoot with my dad.

http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2...

I pray that those guns aren't loaded. If they are, it would take an epic level of stupidity and irresponsibility to give a child a rifle of that caliber to walk around with. It's one thing to teach your kids to shoot, it's another entirely to go bushwhacking with semi-automatic rifles.

One commonality I notice with a lot of these "survivalists". A large number of them look like they'll struggle to survive when their daily access to Krispy Kreme's and Waffle House is cut off.

Bear wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

So these pictures of kids at a gun and wilderness survival camp have been getting a lot of play recently. I'll admit that my inner redneck that I hide in polite society loves this. Some of my favorite memories as a kid was learning to shoot with my dad.

http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2...

I pray that those guns aren't loaded. If they are, it would take an epic level of stupidity and irresponsibility to give a child a rifle of that caliber to walk around with. It's one thing to teach your kids to shoot, it's another entirely to go bushwhacking with semi-automatic rifles.

One commonality I notice with a lot of these "survivalists". A large number of them look like they'll struggle to survive when their daily access to Krispy Kreme's and Waffle House is cut off.

Yeah, the dude that looked like he was about 8 months preggers would probably die of massive CHF the moment a loud noise went off within 40 miles of his hidy hole, but, in general, I do have to say that they had way better muzzle discipline (even or even especially the kids) than most photos of soldiers I have ever seen.

Three shots from a gun several seconds apart is an internationally recognized distress signal. At worst he got the number wrong by telling her two, but I'm fairly certain it'd have the same effect.
Edit - Granted a 911 call would be a better way to signal distress...but the idea behind his advice is sound.

No it's not. First off, discharging a gun into the air is illegal as hell in Delaware. Secondly, it's silly because now she's just sitting there with a empty gun, and no one is coming to help.

Stengah wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

Is Joe Biden's latest gun advice a clever scheme to put people in jail or is he really that dumb?

I said,
Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk
out on the balcony here, walk out, put
[up] that double barreled shotgun and fire
two blasts outside the house.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/jo...

Three shots from a gun several seconds apart is an internationally recognized distress signal. At worst he got the number wrong by telling her two, but I'm fairly certain it'd have the same effect.
Edit - Granted a 911 call would be a better way to signal distress...but the idea behind his advice is sound.

How is telling people to perform an illegal (in most jurisdictions) and unsafe action "sound advice"? And as for three gunshots being a distress call, I've never heard of that and I'd be willing to guess that most cops wouldn't regard it as a distress call either. Heck, walking onto your porch and firing in the air is most likely going to result in you getting shot (rather than whatever caused the bump in the night). Especially when the cause is so benign that you can still just waltz out the front door.

MaverickDago wrote:
Three shots from a gun several seconds apart is an internationally recognized distress signal. At worst he got the number wrong by telling her two, but I'm fairly certain it'd have the same effect.
Edit - Granted a 911 call would be a better way to signal distress...but the idea behind his advice is sound.

No it's not. First off, discharging a gun into the air is illegal as hell in Delaware. Secondly, it's silly because now she's just sitting there with a empty gun, and no one is coming to help.

I'm going to need a citation for that, the closest I can find are these for state laws:

TITLE 7, Chapter 7, § 723[/url]]
§ 723. Hunting or trapping in safety zones; penalty.

(a)(1) No person, except the owner or occupant, shall discharge a firearm within 100 yards of an occupied dwelling, house or residence or any barn, stable or any other building used in connection therewith, while hunting or trapping for wild birds or wild animals of any kind. The area within said distance shall be a "safety zone," and it shall be unlawful to shoot at any wild bird or wild animal while it is within such safety zone without the specific advance permission of the owner or tenant.

(2) Notwithstanding any other law or regulation to the contrary, the safety zone for hunting deer by archery device during established archery seasons shall be 50 yards.

(b) During any open hunting or trapping season, it shall be unlawful for any person, other than the owner or occupant, to hunt or to trap, pursue, disturb or otherwise chase any wild animal or bird within a safety zone without the specific, advance permission of the owner or occupant.

(c) No person, except the owner or occupant, or a person with the permission of said owner or occupant, shall discharge a firearm so that a shot, slug or bullet lands upon any occupied dwelling, house, or residence, or any barn, stable or other building used in connection therewith.

(d) Whoever violates this section shall be guilty of a class C environmental misdemeanor.

TITLE 7, Chapter 7, § 719[/url]]§ 719. Discharge of firearms on or near public roads and public rights-of-way; penalty.

(a) No person, except in lawful self-defense, shall discharge any firearm while on or within 15 yards of a public road or right-of-way unless it is a road or right-of-way within an area controlled by the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the Department of Agriculture of the State or the United States Department of the Interior and is designated by the respective department as an area open to hunting or trapping.

(b) No person shall shoot at any wild bird or wild animal while it is on a public road, nor shall any person shoot across a public road or right-of-way at any wild bird or wild animal.

(c) Whoever violates this section shall be guilty of a class C environmental misdemeanor.

For Wilmington specifically I could only find the following:

Sec. 36-162. - Discharge of firearms on street, etc.[/url]]Whoever, except in lawful self-defense, and notwithstanding intent or lack of intent, discharges any firearm on any public street, sidewalk, alley, roadway or other public place within the city, or in any nonpublic place, if such discharge results in a projectile entering into, over or upon a public place, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b)

Any person convicted of such an offense shall upon conviction be fined up to $2,300.00 for an individual or $5,750.00 for a corporation, and be required to make restitution or meet other conditions deemed appropriate in accordance with the provisions of 11 Del. C. §§ 4206 and 4208 and, in the discretion of the court, may be imprisoned for not more than one year.

(c)

The prohibitions of this section shall not apply, however, to the implementation of a firearm use training program for police officers and for harbor officers at the Port of Wilmington; provided, however, that such training sessions shall be conducted solely under the supervision of the chief of police or his designee.

Sec. 36-163. - Hunting[/url]]It shall be unlawful for any person to use and discharge the type of firearm commonly known as a shotgun for the purpose of hunting in any area of the city, except in accordance with the applicable provisions of 7 Del. C. and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. A violation of this section shall be punishable in accordance with section 1-5.

Keep in mind Biden didn't say to shoot a warning shot at an intruder, but to shoot into the air. I take that to mean signal for help, not scare someone away, which is why I made the comment about a 911 call doing a better job. That it could also scare someone away is an added bonus, but the primary purpose is to get the cops to come to your house.

As for no one coming, a series of three shots evenly spaced apart is taught as a distress signal in just about any hunter-safety course, so I'd certainly hope a police officer would be trained to recognize it. Even if they didn't know it was a distress signal, they'd still come to investigate, which serves the same purpose.

If you're in your home and facing an assault, wouldn't firing a warning shot be considered an element of self defense even if shooting a gun is otherwise illegal?

I mean, it's generally illegal to shoot a dude too, and yet it's often perfectly legal to shoot a dude in self defense.

I believe the legal term everyone is looking for is called:

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/JJT2_zps42d7b849.png)

wait, I mean:

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/JFX2_zps84e43ead.jpg)

gore wrote:

If you're in your home and facing an assault, wouldn't firing a warning shot be considered an element of self defense even if shooting a gun is otherwise illegal?

I mean, it's generally illegal to shoot a dude too, and yet it's often perfectly legal to shoot a dude in self defense.

Delaware is a duty-to-retreat state, so it's only legal to shoot a dude in self defense in very specific circumstances. It's not legal to shoot at some dude prowling around outside your house, even if you are afraid he's going to try to break in.

Heck, walking onto your porch and firing in the air is most likely going to result in you getting shot (rather than whatever caused the bump in the night).

So, why would this not be true if you're firing at an intruder? And if someone else with a gun is that close by and ready to shoot in the few seconds you're out there trying to scare someone off, what the hell is a burglar doing in that neighborhood?

I took Biden to mean that if you show you're armed and unafraid to shoot, that would scare someone off. I can't see any reason you'd use a firearm as a signaling device on the back porch of a house, especially in a rural area where a shot in the distance is not unusual. Why would you not use the phone?

Robear wrote:
Heck, walking onto your porch and firing in the air is most likely going to result in you getting shot (rather than whatever caused the bump in the night).

So, why would this not be true if you're firing at an intruder? And if someone else with a gun is that close by and ready to shoot in the few seconds you're out there trying to scare someone off, what the hell is a burglar doing in that neighborhood?

I was referring to the cops, since it wouldn't be unheard of for them to shoot the person standing on the porch with a gun who had previously been firing indiscriminately (if they eventually show up) . As for someone shooting an intruder, hopefully that person would be inside the home and on the phone with 911 at the time.

I don't think the idea is to stand in plain view for five minutes after shooting.

Robear wrote:
Heck, walking onto your porch and firing in the air is most likely going to result in you getting shot (rather than whatever caused the bump in the night).

So, why would this not be true if you're firing at an intruder? And if someone else with a gun is that close by and ready to shoot in the few seconds you're out there trying to scare someone off, what the hell is a burglar doing in that neighborhood?

I took Biden to mean that if you show you're armed and unafraid to shoot, that would scare someone off. I can't see any reason you'd use a firearm as a signaling device on the back porch of a house, especially in a rural area where a shot in the distance is not unusual. Why would you not use the phone?

There's the highly unlikely scenario in which the phones aren't working, but I figured he was just being an old man prone to saying silly things and forgetting that most people have cell phones.