The Trouble with Killing Life

[Conan71]

The terrorist watch list may include more than 1.5 million people by now. The no fly list  - a subset of the larger one - has about 50,000. Many of those on the lists have not committed a crime yet this proposed legislation treats them the same as criminals. The have no recourse, no due process, and no easy way to challenge their inclusion.

And if we want to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, we will have to give government access to our medical records. The possibilities for abuse are frightening.

That's where we have to balance whose rights are more sacrosanct- those of the potential criminal or those of the innocent bystander.  That's a really, really tough issue no one wants to tackle.

[erfalf]

The terrorist watch list may include more than 1.5 million people by now. The no fly list  - a subset of the larger one - has about 50,000. Many of those on the lists have not committed a crime yet this proposed legislation treats them the same as criminals. The have no recourse, no due process, and no easy way to challenge their inclusion.

And if we want to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, we will have to give government access to our medical records. The possibilities for abuse are frightening.

Agreed, and this is what I have been saying from the start. Is the 5th Amendment not important? Minority Report?

That being said, a little fun with statistics with Canon's list. Only looking at the list here are a few observations.

Weapon Mix Used in Crimes, Num of Events, Num of Deaths, Average Deaths
Handgun, 28, 189, 6.75
Assault Rifle, 6, 52, 8.67
Handgun/Shotgun, 5, 34, 6.80
Uncertain, 5, 21, 4.20
Everything, 2, 20, 10.0
Handgun/Assault Rifle, 1, 12, 12.0
Handgun/Flamethrower, 1, 9, 9.0
Assault Rifle, Shotgun, 1, 7, 7.0

So instances where ONLY handguns were used accounted for 58% of the events & 55% of the total deaths. It would seem that Assault Rifles may be more "deadly" in the sense that more people appeared to die per event when an assault rifle is used.

Looked at in another way:

Event where ____ weapon was used:
Handgun, 37, 264, 7.14
Assault Rifle, 10, 91, 9.10
Shotgun, 8, 61, 7.63
Flamethrower, 1, 9, 9.00

Not sure if the average is really useful in this case since it is not determined which weapons were used for each murder when there are more than one weapon. However, it shows (as I have been saying) that handguns are used in an overwhelming portion of these crimes.

But as has been said, generally speaking it is not the type of weapon that is a problem as there is nothing specifically unique about these weapons, and curbing any more would basically just be banning them out right.

The discussion has to be focused on due process & immigration in my opinion. I know that makes me a racist (eye roll). But no one will convince me that the US as a country has any obligation what so ever to people of other countries. Agreed that the US has benefited greatly from immigration, but not the way it works today.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This is true..however I despise the mentality of 'well, it won't work so let's not even try'.  Why?  The majority of Americans favor some sort of restrictions.  It's not a huge majority, but one nonetheless.  I just don't see the need for civilians to own weapons made for the military.  Almost all my military friends (retired and current) tell me the same thing.

That's part of the big lie we are being fed - it WAS tried for 10 years.  No difference.  At all.  It's not a gun problem or a magazine problem.  It's a people problem.


How about the need for a car that will accelerate 0 - 60 in 3.2 seconds?  Or any of them with a top speed over 90 mph?  Or a car without the means for a police officer to turn the car off during a police chase?  Or any Japanese motorcycle?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Other firearms kill far more people, but assault weapons are the firearm of choice for terrorists and mass shooters. Other than going to the range and throwing lead down range while yelling YEEEHAW, the only other use for such weapons is to kill people. So the focus is on those weapons.

Not the only use - the AR 10 family (7.62) are very good hunting guns for just about everything from small varmint to moderately large North American game - loaded properly, good for bear if that is what one shoots.  I don't, 'cause I don't shoot anything I don't intend to eat, or is trying to eat me or otherwise do me physical harm.

Except feral hogs...those I will shoot any time, any place, every chance I get.  And if intentionally out looking for them, the AR's with large capacity magazines ARE the best tool for the job.  Ya never wanna get around a group of wild hogs without the most firepower you can carry.  Granted, that is not the most mainstream type of hunting done today, but with the problem growing as fast as it is in this country, it will be much more mainstream soon.  I am also trying trap corrals to see if I can catch them in one place to make it easier to dispatch them.  And while I will butcher as many as will fit in my freezer - and may even buy another freezer if necessary - there may be extra that I can't use.  Anyone want an extra hog if I get them?

[cannon_fodder]

Good discussion people!


1) The reason the focus is on the AR style weapons is because it is the best weapon for mass killings. If most mass killings were being done with home-made chlorine gas, we would certainly put restrictions on precursors and materials needed to weaponize chlorine in to a deadly gas. Yet with assault weapons we just throw our hands up over and over.

2) An outright ban might not be the solution. There are middle grounds - like regulating assault weapons the same way we regulate class-3 weapons (minus the whole "no new ones in the market" which drives prices up crazy). We've done it before! How often do you hear of a machine gun attack in the United States? That didn't happen in 10 years, but over a length of time we have arrived at a place where Al Capones goons or Bonnie and Clyde are no longer shooting places up with machine guns. Yet, if I really wanted to get a machine gun I certainly could (again, I'm not advocating for AS stringent of a method on assault rifles).

It will take time. Which is why...

2) The previous assault weapons ban was an utter joke. It basically boiled down to this: 10 years they couldn't sell new high capacity magazines. Everything else was largely irrelevant (no bayonet lugs...). With millions and millions of high capacity magazines already on the market, 10 years did absolutely nothing and it wasn't expected to.

3) Conan mentioned terrorists using fertilizer. Others have mentioned using box cutters. But after a mass killing with a truck full of fertilizer we put restrictions in place to stop people who have no reason to buy lots of ammonium nitrate from doing so. When terrorists used box cutters to hijack plans we put measures in places to prevent people from bringing box cutters onto plans and getting them into the cockpit. So excellent examples!

4) And I have used my AK for culling wild hogs (an AR would generally be a horrible choice, the 5.56 load is just too light to penetrate, and shooting a bear with a .223 probably isn't legal in any state), but I can't say it is more effective than a larger caliber with a 5 round internal magazine. Same with a varmint gun, a Mini-14 Ranch with a 5 shot internal has done a great job killing rodents since it took over from the 30-30. No one should need 30 rounds to hunt, if you do... you probably shouldn't be hunting.

and 5) The choice is NOT between the rights of the potential criminal and the potential bystander/victim. From the government's perspective, they are both the same until and unless one does something wrong.  That's what makes it difficult. We don't want to "pre-punish" someone by taking away their rights because we think they *might* commit a crime. I'm not comfortable with the Democrats idea on the no-fly list... frankly, I don't really like the list itself. These are people we suspect might be bad, so we limit their freedom of travel without even confronting them about what we think they did wrong? And now we want to do the same thing with another Constitutional right (2nd Amendment)?

I'd like to see some sort of due process in there. Otherwise, the government is taking away your constitutional rights and leaving it up to you to figure out why, and prove you are innocent before getting your rights back. While I bet they are correct most of the time, it still makes me uncomfortable.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Good discussion people!


1) The reason the focus is on the AR style weapons is because it is the best weapon for mass killings. If most mass killings were being done with home-made chlorine gas, we would certainly put restrictions on precursors and materials needed to weaponize chlorine in to a deadly gas. Yet with assault weapons we just throw our hands up over and over.

I'm gonna quit trying to cover more than one point at a time in a post - too much gets lost....


Ok, so when one steps back and looks at the entire topic of gun related deaths, ya just gotta wonder why all the hysteria and histrionics about assault rifles??  I personally believe it is an easy point for the anti-gun people to hit on repeatedly and make progress.  Pistols have been a "pressure point" too in the past, but they saw they got little or no traction with that one, so looked for an easier target - "assault weapons".

In my post - next to last on page one - I show some actual facts, and made comments specifically related to mass shootings with assault weapons.  IF one looks at all the causes of death in this country - mass shootings gets more play time on the various media outlets and has by far the least actual impact on the population even compared to things like bathtub drownings.  (2011 - 97 children 17 and under die by drowning in bathtubs.  One year.)  How much time has been spent discussing the prohibition of bathtubs?  It would have a bigger impact on people dying.  Repeating what I said before, as tragic as it is - ALL violent deaths for kids, adults, everyone are tragic - but also a drop in the bucket.  In the 2009 - 2015 time-frame, Norway is a statistically more dangerous place - 1.88 deaths per million population from mass shootings, than the US - 0.089 deaths per million population from mass shootings.  Still looking under the streetlight....

From before;
FBI defines a mass shooting as involving 4 or more victims murdered.  (Not sure what it would be if 20 were just wounded...?)  From 2009 to 2015 (missing this years Orlando) there were 199 killed, so about 250 through now.  This is horrendous - most especially when kids are involved....   This type of killing is a drop in the bucket - it just gets such huge publicity because of special agendas.  Who is concerned about all the Chicago victims - thousands more over the same timeframe?  And why don't we hear the same drumbeat about them?

IF ALL we had were these mass shootings with "assault weapons", we would have the lowest gun violence rate on the planet.  And it still would need attention, as far as I am concerned - even 1 violent gun death...or accidental or suicide or whatever...is too much!!   And guess who has the highest mass shooting death rate per million population from 2009 - 2015?  Norway at 1.88.  We are at 0.089 for the same time period.  Belgium was at 0.128...just for comparison.

Death rate per million people from mass shootings, 2009 thru 2015.

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2016-04-05-at-Tuesday-April-5-1.05-AM.png



Summary;

IF we were truly concerned about reducing pain, suffering, death , mental anguish, of victims - assault weapons would be WAY down on the list of things needing attention!  Below bathtubs!   But we obviously aren't concerned about those things - there are 'bigger fish to fry'....

[cannon_fodder]

I will try to answer your question again:

The reasons the focus is on assault rifles is because 1) they are designed to kill people, 2) they are the best weapon choice for mass shootings, 3) they aren't the best weapon for much else, 4) they aren't very good for home defense, 5) the Supreme Court has made it difficult to restrict handguns and 6) assault weapons are the most commonly used weapon in mass shootings.

Bathtubs are irrelevant, bathtubs are not used by one person to murder another person. They are not an instrument of terror. Total red herring.

Also, as I said previously, while assault weapons are not responsible for most killings. They are responsible for most mass killings. They are used as terrorist weapons. The true effect is not the deaths they inflict, its the terror. As horrible as it sounds, the 49 victims in Orlando wasn't the point of that shooting. It was to terrorize that community and the country. That's how terror works... 911 wasn't devastating to the USA because of the 6K people who were murdered. Israel isn't crippled by a few dozen murdered citizens each year (fewer Israelis were killed by terrorist attacks in the last 2 years than people killed in the Orlando shooting). The number of people killed by assault rifles in the Paris attack was irrelevant to the life of the City of Paris.

But mass shootings have an impact far greater than their casualty toll.

Regulating assault weapons will have a minimal impact on the overall murder rate. But it will reduce casualties from mass shootings, and thereby reduce the effect of the terrorism. If that can be done at the cost of a little red tape to own an assault rifle as a "toy" (which I do), then so be it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I will try to answer your question again:

The reasons the focus is on assault rifles is because 1) they are designed to kill people, 2) they are the best weapon choice for mass shootings, 3) they aren't the best weapon for much else, 4) they aren't very good for home defense, 5) the Supreme Court has made it difficult to restrict handguns and 6) assault weapons are the most commonly used weapon in mass shootings.

Bathtubs are irrelevant, bathtubs are not used by one person to murder another person. They are not an instrument of terror. Total red herring.

Also, as I said previously, while assault weapons are not responsible for most killings. They are responsible for most mass killings. They are used as terrorist weapons. The true effect is not the deaths they inflict, its the terror. As horrible as it sounds, the 49 victims in Orlando wasn't the point of that shooting. It was to terrorize that community and the country. That's how terror works... 911 wasn't devastating to the USA because of the 6K people who were murdered. Israel isn't crippled by a few dozen murdered citizens each year (fewer Israelis were killed by terrorist attacks in the last 2 years than people killed in the Orlando shooting). The number of people killed by assault rifles in the Paris attack was irrelevant to the life of the City of Paris.

But mass shootings have an impact far greater than their casualty toll.

Regulating assault weapons will have a minimal impact on the overall murder rate. But it will reduce casualties from mass shootings, and thereby reduce the effect of the terrorism. If that can be done at the cost of a little red tape to own an assault rifle as a "toy" (which I do), then so be it.

Wasn't really so much a question as commentary on our priorities as a society....we are more worried about a couple hundred deaths because of a psychological reaction (terror) - the "possibility" that one particular bad thing might happen - than we are of orders of magnitude worse things that do happen.  That is the goal of terrorism in general, and we are falling, and have fallen, into 'sheep' mode of a reactionary response time after time.

We are easily lead by people, from many directions/sides, with power and money who feed us a spoon-fed diet of 'stuff' that isn't always the best thing, or the thing where we should really focus our attention.




Side trip on your Israel note - if you look at the record of how many Jews have been killed since 1947, there have been somewhere near 8 - 10 times that of Palestinians killed by Israel.  So the idea that Israeli's live in terror is kinda about 1/8 as much as the Palestinians live in terror.  I bet both feel that way.   I don't really have a bias one way or the other in that discussion - the Jews were the terrorists in the area for 50+ years before they became a country, and the Palestinians have been the terrorists since then.  It is just the way it has always been there and will probably remain.  Not my monkeys, not my circus....

[Conan71]

But it will reduce casualties from mass shootings, and thereby reduce the effect of the terrorism. If that can be done at the cost of a little red tape to own an assault rifle as a "toy" (which I do), then so be it.

Actually, there is no empirical evidence this will be the case if high cap semi-auto weapons are better regulated but it is the meme that politicians keep repeating.  As if the existing guns out there aren't already in the hands of the criminally insane or in the possession of careless owners who leave them under their bed to be stolen and end up in the wrong hands.

Since we value personal privacy so highly, it is nearly impossible to get a hit on mental illness on a background check if the person has not previously been on the radar screen of law enforcement.  You also cannot prevent straw purchases from taking place, you can make the penalty very high, but there are still people willing to take that risk.  So even if you can't buy them at gun shows or you must pass a stricter background check or pay $200 for the license to own one, there are still huge cracks for bad ownership of these to slip through.

[rebound]

Wasn't really so much a question as commentary on our priorities as a society....we are more worried about a couple hundred deaths because of a psychological reaction (terror) - the "possibility" that one particular bad thing might happen - than we are of orders of magnitude worse things that do happen.  That is the goal of terrorism in general, and we are falling, and have fallen, into 'sheep' mode of a reactionary response time after time.

I don't have a hard opinion on the restriction, or not, of the rifles, I do have one regarding why we as a society have a bigger issue with these mass shootings  than we do with the day to day handgun violence (or any day to day violence, really.)  Simply put, we don't like it when bad things happen to people (particularly a group of people) that took no action or had no associations that resulted in the violence.

It's the same reason we pay much more attention to a plane crash than we do to auto accidents.   Many, many, more people day in auto accidents than plane crashes, but we accept that risk every time we choose to drive.  Either we might do some thing stupid and die, or somebody else does something stupid and we die.  Either way, we accepted, at least implicitly, the risk and took an action that put us in harms way.  with a plan crash, the passengers are passive (other than deciding to fly) in the situation.  They have no control, and it is a mass-death.  We, as a society, just don't like that.  We like to find blame, even if it is misplaced.

Same for guns.  In the vast majority of handgun deaths, the victim "did something" that either actively or passively put them in harms way.  The were involved in the drug trade, they were in a bad relationship, they started, a fight, etc...   Combine that with most of those deaths being single deaths at a time, and it's easy to shrug it off and accept (rightly or wrongly) that if we are going to allow guns, we have to accept that some level of violence, and besides, all those victims messed up in some way and that's what got them killed. Emotionally, we want to find a way to say that "they" are different than us.  It won't happen to us.

Mass shootings are different.   None of the school kids, none of the partiers in the nightclub, etc,  did anything that we can rationalize against.   Some random nut, with a weapon that was designed to shoot large numbers of bullets and then quickly reload and do it some more, just decided that those people were their target of choice.  They didn't deserve it.  We don't deserve it.  But it could have been us, and that scares us, because we can't rationalize it.  It could have been us, and we want that stopped, and we don't care about due process, etc.   

[Conan71]

I don't have a hard opinion on the restriction, or not, of the rifles, I do have one regarding why we as a society have a bigger issue with these mass shootings  than we do with the day to day handgun violence (or any day to day violence, really.)  Simply put, we don't like it when bad things happen to people (particularly a group of people) that took no action or had no associations that resulted in the violence.

It's the same reason we pay much more attention to a plane crash than we do to auto accidents.   Many, many, more people day in auto accidents than plane crashes, but we accept that risk every time we choose to drive.  Either we might do some thing stupid and die, or somebody else does something stupid and we die.  Either way, we accepted, at least implicitly, the risk and took an action that put us in harms way.  with a plan crash, the passengers are passive (other than deciding to fly) in the situation.  They have no control, and it is a mass-death.  We, as a society, just don't like that.  We like to find blame, even if it is misplaced.

Same for guns.  In the vast majority of handgun deaths, the victim "did something" that either actively or passively put them in harms way.  The were involved in the drug trade, they were in a bad relationship, they started, a fight, etc...   Combine that with most of those deaths being single deaths at a time, and it's easy to shrug it off and accept (rightly or wrongly) that if we are going to allow guns, we have to accept that some level of violence, and besides, all those victims messed up in some way and that's what got them killed. Emotionally, we want to find a way to say that "they" are different than us.  It won't happen to us.

Mass shootings are different.   None of the school kids, none of the partiers in the nightclub, etc,  did anything that we can rationalize against.   Some random nut, with a weapon that was designed to shoot large numbers of bullets and then quickly reload and do it some more, just decided that those people were their target of choice.  They didn't deserve it.  We don't deserve it.  But it could have been us, and that scares us, because we can't rationalize it.  It could have been us, and we want that stopped, and we don't care about due process, etc.   

Well put.

It sounds bad to say, but the reality is there is a certain comfort when it's apparent the victim knew their shooter.  When it is a random shooting, everyone double checks their doors and subconsciously or consciously feels a little uneasy until the killer is caught.

[Breadburner]

Nope, never did.  However, they also never were interested in having firearms that were made for military use (AR style) regardless of whether or not they were semi-auto or fully auto.  My point is I think we should stop selling guns with the ability to do these mass murders.

And please, no straw man arguments.  I'm pretty sure you're going to side with gun manufacturers and the NRA on this one, as your previous posts have meted out.  I'm not here to convert you.  I will say, however, that until something is done, this will never end.  We will continue having this same argument once or twice a year.

EDIT:  And yes, I AM a firearm owner.  Two handguns and a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun.  I also have my carry license.

Should we stops selling...Airplanes...Ryder Trucks..Fertilizer....Pressure Cookers...Pipe and Pipe Caps...

[Hoss]

Should we stops selling...Airplanes...Ryder Trucks..Fertilizer....Pressure Cookers...Pipe and Pipe Caps...

And...there it is.  The false equivalency.

There was, at one point, a restriction or at least you got looked at a little more closely after OKC if you bought fertilizer in quantity.  Thanks for playing though.

[MyDogHunts]

I lean with rebound.

Stuff happens in other countries & we don't really react to it, from starvation, lack of clean water, massive killings, & human rights.  We wake up and watch the news and the a tragic event strikes at home.

To be truthful, I watched one ISIS beheading to see what happened; yet I can't watch a commercial showing harmed and neglected cats & dogs.  I can relate to the animals for what ever reason.

So maybe as a species we need a way to connect better! ELSE: nothing will change... despite legislation.  Give every child a pet and then at the age of seven have them kill it.  Killing is bad & should be teached, but ain't.

And... Lord, help us with these violent video games & glorification of monchoism that is so prevalent.

I have no kids cause I feared all this; thats why I still root for massive metiorite, volcanoes, earthquakes & zombies... something to level the field & unite us.  I'm not holding my breath fo a Savior.

[erfalf]

And...there it is.  The false equivalency.

There was, at one point, a restriction or at least you got looked at a little more closely after OKC if you bought fertilizer in quantity.  Thanks for playing though.

BINGO!

How all these people can equate assault rifles with these much more deadly items is beyond me too. ;-)

Rifles (all rifles) account for several hundred deaths a year. Heck, 100 kids a year die from accidental bathtub drownings. I keep hearing that assault rifles are made for one thing, but the evidence doesn't seem to be bearing it out. More people die by the bare hands or blunt object of another person every year than by long guns. The false equivilence occurs when most people see Marteen shooting up a club and assume that the weapon is somehow more dangerous than others. That's the problem.