Author Topic: Las Vegas shooting  (Read 37043 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #150 on: October 05, 2017, 07:41:45 PM »
I don't leave ideas off the table because I don't think they could work.  I leave them off the table because the right to self defense is a right and neither the government nor the collective has the right to take it away from anyone without their consent.

If this right is so essential then why aren't more people in other countries clamoring for it? And why do only one country's citizens seem to find it important? Do you think people in other countries are either misled, or too foolishly trusting of each other?

Mostly, I'm going to claim it probably is cultural for most of them. For many of those countries, they never had the right in the first place, so "it's always been that way" and that's enough for them. For others, looking at the problems here in the US involving fire-arms probably makes them think twice about pursuing it, either of their own volition, or out of realizing the statistics from the US will be trotted out to argue against their cause.

For some other instances, it's also because they have "a culture of trust in authority" to a large degree, so they don't have a significant issue with only their governments having the (legal) guns. While the United States has a history that frequently points out it started out as a rebellion against their government, with warnings about government not being completely trustworthy. So we're culturally predisposed toward being paranoid about what authority may do if we give them the chance.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #151 on: October 05, 2017, 07:56:08 PM »
Other countries have guns, yes. I'm not sure you understood what I asserted - and your own statement about "different rights" serves to buttress what I said rather than challenging it. My challenge was to the "essentialness" of the right Seriati was asserting as regards connecting gun ownership to self-defense. I happen to think that's what the Rule of Law is for, and the paucity of data supporting "hero" tales (yes, you can find anecdotes) of gun-toting home defense is telling.
From Michael Shermer's piece in today's NYT:
Quote
But a 1998 study in The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, to take one of many examples, found that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” That means a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for self-defense.

The problem with home/self defense scenarios as the unfold is that the criminal is going to tend to flee(making it hard to verify), and more likely than not, even if shots were fired, the shooter will miss. IIRC, someone on this forum has previously posted statistics involving officer involved shootings and the number of rounds fired vs number of rounds that hit the target. Keep in mind, for a LEO, weapons proficiency is rather important, and they should in theory, be more proficient at the use of a firearm(and thus more accurate in their shooting) than the general public.

So finding studies indicating that medical practitioners see more "victims" or accidents/suicides coming in to see them for medical care than criminals shot in self-defense is hardly shocking.

Another thing that often gets ignored within the "accidental shooting" subset is the number of shots fired between such incidents happening. As bizarre as that one is to contemplate. You're only seeing the raw number of people being injured/killed by firearms, you're not seeing any numbers in relation to firearm use, because well, such a number is very difficult to even estimate. About the closest you could get to that is tracking sales of ammunition and casings, which isn't entirely reliable(due to stockpiling).

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #152 on: October 05, 2017, 08:05:41 PM »
Drugs are different.  Drugs addict people.  Are you suggesting that guns are addictive like drugs? :)

Also, I am not advocating the complete banning of all guns in our country, unlike the complete banning of certain drugs.  There won't be as much motivation for someone with a bolt-action rifle to find a semi-automatic rifle as a drug addict to find some opioid.  You can still defend yourself with a shotgun, and hunt with a bolt-action rifle, and target practice with both.  Or defend your town from a government take-over, if you have support of your neighbors. :)

And with limiting the number of rounds in a clip?  Even less motivation...

Well, if is in agreement with the people who want to have "pornographic material" regulated as a drug based on physiological responses(and biochemical interactions) that occur upon "being sexually stimulated" then he could certainly make that claim in an honest manner. :)

Considering I know a lot of people I know who enjoy shooting guns get something of "a rush" from the use of said firearms on the range(or elsewhere as conditions warrant). Where I know a few of them would positively love to have a machine gun, just so they could (more regularly) enjoy the thrill of firing off hundreds of rounds per minute down range. So for those "junkies" guns could be compared (indirectly) to drugs.  ???

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #153 on: October 05, 2017, 10:15:49 PM »
Anyone know how many of the weapons Stephen Paddock had with him were actually used in the shooting.
It’s a part of the story that doesn’t make sense to me. Paddock appears to have been very methodical in his planning, so why so many weapons? If he had a plan for getting away there is no way to take them all with him.  If the plan was to fight it out with the police he gave up on that pretty quickly.

I'm guessing based on the amount of rounds fired in the time span he had lots of weapons to simply avoid having to even change out the magazines. Have them all loaded shoot one go to the next and repeat.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #154 on: October 05, 2017, 10:35:52 PM »
If you can't defend yourself and/or hunt with a bolt action rifle, pump action shotgun, and a semi-automatic pistol with a reasonably small magazine then you need to learn to aim your guns or are in a situation where almost no reasonable amount of firepower would help.

My rational for this is with the Gabby Giffords shooter. He was able to be stopped by bystanders when he slightly fumbled a reload on his pistol. A slower rate of fire has minimal impacts for hunting and defense purposes but can save lives in a mass shooting incident.
What if you have a condition that prevents you from the fine motor control required for these weapons? Old people have arthritis, amputees, etc. Once adrenaine starts pumping, even healthy people lose fine motor skills. You're willing to condemn the infirm and those not comfortable in high stress situations for something that, in the end, makes not one bit of difference. FYI, I can swap out my magazine in less about 1 or 2 seconds. I practiced it for about 30 minutes and anyone else can do it too. Just because one nutjob fumbled the exchange does not guarantee they all will.

What condition would prevent you from defending yourself with the weapons I listed and still allow you to safely operate an ak-47? Also I challenge you to find a single defensive gun use that involved firing more than 10 shots from a pistol or more than 1 or 2 from a shotgun or rifle? I would be really surprised if there was 1 in the last decade.

1 to 2 seconds is enough time for me to move 10-30 feet. Depending on the situation that could either allow me to get to a shooter reloading or get outside of the effective range of a pistol. Weren't you one of the people here defending cops who shot a guy with a pipe from 20 feet away because he was already a "lethal" threat. The odds of an amateur reloading perfectly smoothly in their real life situation, with adrenaline and all the other factors going is reasonably low. Also I'm guessing if there is someone armed with a blunt object or pocket knife running at you at full speed its going to make it a little tougher to finish up that speedy reload smoothly.

I don't think my policy proposals would eliminate mass shootings but I do think they would reduce the death toll of each one fairly dramatically. How many people could the LV shooter have taken out in the ~5 minutes it took for police to find him if he was using a bolt action rifle instead of semi-automatics modified to effectively be automatic? The reason these mass shootings are so deadly and hard to stop right now is that the individuals aren't breaking any laws until they actually start pulling the trigger and killing people. Most of them aren't criminal masterminds either, it seems unlikely that if these weapons were illegal if most of the mass shooters would have had the connections in order to obtain them without alerting law enforcement.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #155 on: October 05, 2017, 11:29:46 PM »
Also I challenge you to find a single defensive gun use that involved firing more than 10 shots from a pistol or more than 1 or 2 from a shotgun or rifle? I would be really surprised if there was 1 in the last decade.

Seems to happen with LEO's on a fairly regular basis. And considering we're dealing in a theoretical where we're responding to a threat to ourselves before the LEO can become involved, that tends to indicate my theoretical shot count count could range from lower to higher depending on the specifics of the situation. (If I ended up "shooting it out" my shot count should be higher -- as the LEOs should be better shots in theory)

So earlier comments about keying magazine size to whatever is being used by law enforcement does seem to be fairly reasonable yardstick. Of course, we can then argue slippery slope on that one. By giving the bad guys bigger clips, they can shoot for longer before running out of ammo, which could mean the LEO's in turn are firing more shots as well(suppression fire?).  So I guess a compromise would be some kind of proportional key rather than a static one. I think something like this already exists with some handgun magazines already, Military and Law Enforcement get access to sightly larger clips-ergo, they get "more bangs" than normal civilians can.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #156 on: October 06, 2017, 02:31:55 AM »
Quote
In the 1970s about half of Americans had a gun, and it was almost always just a gun, one on average. Today only about a quarter of Americans own guns—but the average owner has three or four. Fewer than 8 million people, only 3 percent of all American adults, own roughly half the guns. Members of that tiny minority of superenthusiasts own an average of 17 guns apiece.
  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/fantasyland-book-excerpt-the-nra-won-the-gun-rights-debate-and-made-americans-fear-their-own-government.html

The gun fetish of the current era is an ahistorical fantasy... "among the million-plus Americans interviewed in 10 years of Crime Victimization Surveys, exactly one sexual assault victim used a gun in self-defense".

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #157 on: October 06, 2017, 09:09:47 AM »
Quote
I don't leave ideas off the table because I don't think they could work.  I leave them off the table because the right to self defense is a right and neither the government nor the collective has the right to take it away from anyone without their consent.

Are you implying that no one can defend themselves unless they can have the gun of their choosing?  ???
Having a gun of their choosing is their right. Whether it's for personal defense, sport, or no reason other than they just want to exercise their rights. Trying to create a world where people can exercise their rights only the way you see fit for them might as well not have any rights at all.

Except they already can't have any gun of their choosing, e.g. a machine gun.  So it is already limited.

People have a right to defend themselves, but they do not have the right to defend themselves with any possible weapon they choose.

And how many of your friends and family are you willing to sacrifice in order to defend the right of some psycho to have any gun he chooses to kill them with? ;)

You say that as if people are unwilling to go forth with risk against them and their own.

I accept it's not a perfect world. And I would be much happier to have a 4'11 friend or my sister working in a bad part of town to have a pistol then not.

At the same time, there are dangers inherent to driving a car or being a passenger in one.

Whilst you may not find it the same, there are plenty of people who do. When it comes to a rapist versus a small woman, when there's no one around there is only one equalizer. There are plenty of other similar scenarios.

I'm sorry mental health is messed up in the US right now, but there's nothing wrong with allowing people to own guns.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #158 on: October 06, 2017, 09:15:22 AM »
If you can't defend yourself and/or hunt with a bolt action rifle, pump action shotgun, and a semi-automatic pistol with a reasonably small magazine then you need to learn to aim your guns or are in a situation where almost no reasonable amount of firepower would help.

My rational for this is with the Gabby Giffords shooter. He was able to be stopped by bystanders when he slightly fumbled a reload on his pistol. A slower rate of fire has minimal impacts for hunting and defense purposes but can save lives in a mass shooting incident.
What if you have a condition that prevents you from the fine motor control required for these weapons? Old people have arthritis, amputees, etc. Once adrenaine starts pumping, even healthy people lose fine motor skills. You're willing to condemn the infirm and those not comfortable in high stress situations for something that, in the end, makes not one bit of difference. FYI, I can swap out my magazine in less about 1 or 2 seconds. I practiced it for about 30 minutes and anyone else can do it too. Just because one nutjob fumbled the exchange does not guarantee they all will.

What condition would prevent you from defending yourself with the weapons I listed and still allow you to safely operate an ak-47? Also I challenge you to find a single defensive gun use that involved firing more than 10 shots from a pistol or more than 1 or 2 from a shotgun or rifle? I would be really surprised if there was 1 in the last decade.
Well, those knds of stats aren’t kept but, surprise!  Less than two years ago, 2 attackers attempted armed robbery, 12 shots:
Quote
When the suspect slapped the items out of his hand, the victim says his brother got out of the car and shot the would-be robber twice in the chest.

...

The victim said his brother then shot at the second armed suspect.

"Emptied the rest of the clip, we have a 12-round clip, so emptied the rest of the clip into the guy," he said. "Well it turns out the cop said that he turned up at the hospital, he got hit like seven times."
Hit the attacker 7 times, he was still fully capable and able to make it to the hospital.

1 to 2 seconds is enough time for me to move 10-30 feet. Depending on the situation that could either allow me to get to a shooter reloading or get outside of the effective range of a pistol. Weren't you one of the people here defending cops who shot a guy with a pipe from 20 feet away because he was already a "lethal" threat. The odds of an amateur reloading perfectly smoothly in their real life situation, with adrenaline and all the other factors going is reasonably low. Also I'm guessing if there is someone armed with a blunt object or pocket knife running at you at full speed its going to make it a little tougher to finish up that speedy reload smoothly.
21 feet is the threat range sure. But, of course, your making a false comparison. 21 feet was to draw and fire. Someone with weapon in hand and already actively shooting, you’d charge that and engage with a pocket knife? No, not unless you were trying to commit suicide.

I don't think my policy proposals would eliminate mass shootings but I do think they would reduce the death toll of each one fairly dramatically. How many people could the LV shooter have taken out in the ~5 minutes it took for police to find him if he was using a bolt action rifle instead of semi-automatics modified to effectively be automatic? The reason these mass shootings are so deadly and hard to stop right now is that the individuals aren't breaking any laws until they actually start pulling the trigger and killing people. Most of them aren't criminal masterminds either, it seems unlikely that if these weapons were illegal if most of the mass shooters would have had the connections in order to obtain them without alerting law enforcement.
Given the above, it’s more accurate to say that you imagine they would reduce the death toll of mass shootings fairly dramatically but you base that on a lot of bad information with little or no factual evidence and then extrapolate from there into what is mostly just uninformed guesswork.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #159 on: October 06, 2017, 09:28:35 AM »
Quote
In the 1970s about half of Americans had a gun, and it was almost always just a gun, one on average. Today only about a quarter of Americans own guns—but the average owner has three or four. Fewer than 8 million people, only 3 percent of all American adults, own roughly half the guns. Members of that tiny minority of superenthusiasts own an average of 17 guns apiece.
  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/fantasyland-book-excerpt-the-nra-won-the-gun-rights-debate-and-made-americans-fear-their-own-government.html

The gun fetish of the current era is an ahistorical fantasy... "among the million-plus Americans interviewed in 10 years of Crime Victimization Surveys, exactly one sexual assault victim used a gun in self-defense".
Slate?  Right. :o

Quote
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation found that defensive gun uses occur an average of 67,740 times per year.

Based on other studies, we can make an assumption that “Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft."

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #160 on: October 06, 2017, 10:12:09 AM »
Crunch? Right.

But somehow in tone you sound like someone else

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #161 on: October 06, 2017, 10:43:56 AM »
Crunch? Right.

But somehow in tone you sound like someone else
Not sure but I probably sound like a lot of people depending on how you interpret my "tone" - however you do that on this type of medium. I would imagine I could come off a little snippy when I post multiple times in quick succession, hope that's not what's driving this ... whatever this is. Certainly not my intent.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #162 on: October 06, 2017, 10:58:20 AM »
You know, just now looking back over this thread, especially the last page or so, I can see where I might have come off as a bit over the top. Perhaps a little too much passion for the topic and being too conversational impacted my "tone" (I was feeling a little too familiar with some of you I guess). If that's the case, sorry about that. I'll be more mindful. 8)

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #163 on: October 06, 2017, 07:32:44 PM »
Here's something that I understand is clearly unConstitutional and it will never be done, but just wondering if punishing the family members and love interests of a mass shooter would act as a deterrent to at least some of the others. For instance, sentencing his mother, girlfriend, and brother to 20 years of what we could call "protective custody", something less than prison but punitively restrictive against completely innocent citizens. Protective in the sense that it protects other people from at least some of the future mass shooters.

Other than that, there really is no deterrent if they are just going to kill themselves afterwards. I'm not really suggesting we do that, but everyone keeps saying that "we need to do something." Well, that's something. Just wondering if anyone thinks, if it actually was done for instance by passing a new Constitutional Amendment, would it prevent some of the attacks? It seems to be working in North Korea. Note I'm not asking if anyone thinks we should really do this. I will assume the answer is a resounding, "That's absolutely ridiculous so not only no but heck-fire no!" I'm asking if it was done, would it be at least somewhat effective against some of them?

If we're looking at amending the Constitution anyway, just putting that out there. It seems like that would have about the same chance as passing as getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, which is to say no chance at all. But it would affect millions fewer law abiding citizens and could save lives compared to getting rid of the 2nd because that way people could still defend themselves against criminals or a tyrannical government. If you look at it from the perspective of the good of the many outweighing the good of the few, a hundred of so people punished like this could save hundreds of lives. And before anyone scolds me too harshly for even imagining such a thing, let me just remind you that our own gracious host used a similar idea for the backdrop of his book "Treason".

Of course it wouldn't dissuade everyone. Some people may be beyond caring about all of their family members. Some may even hate their family. One other thing to be careful of is to make sure this type of punishment absolutely did not apply to ex-wives. Obviously.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #164 on: October 06, 2017, 07:50:53 PM »
Thanks to this, are we going to start having our luggage scanned at the hotel? That's how we would up with 3oz liquids and removing your hat when you go to a ballgame.

It's hard to imagine a practical way to shut things down. There are a lot of people who would view the "family punishment" as an incentive. Shooters are already causing a lot of pain to their families.

Getting creative, we could make it easier for people to kill themselves which is clearly part of the shooter endgame. Not going to help with ideologues.

Highly intrusive, ubiquitous surveillance is another possibility, but there was plenty of that in the casino. Just perhaps they weren't looking for people setting up shop for a shooting spree.

Maybe tracking who has purchased an abnormally large number of weapons. But I'm not sure how often that is the case, nor would it register if the individual were having a private sale of weapons.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #165 on: October 07, 2017, 02:59:35 AM »
I guess this is what it would look like:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/egypt-solitary-confinement-us-green-card_us_59d680bfe4b072637c42babb

"By Akbar Shahid Ahmed

WASHINGTON ― Ola Al-Qaradawi, a 55-year-old research assistant, used to regularly travel from Egypt to the United States to visit her American daughter and two American granddaughters.

In 2016, she decided to spend more time with them. Her daughter helped her apply for a green card, which U.S. authorities issued earlier this year. Qaradawi began preparing to leave. That’s when Egypt’s National Security Agency — the top domestic security force of a government receiving more than $1 billion in U.S. aid annually — got involved.

Today, Qaradawi is in solitary confinement in a five-by-six foot cell with no toilet, no bed, no natural light and no ventilation in a women’s prison north of Cairo, trying to eat and drink as little as possible because she only gets five minutes of bathroom time a day. She has no access to family and only briefly sees her lawyers every 15 days when the state prosecutor renews her detention. More than three months after she was first arrested, she has received no official charges.

Qaradawi and her husband, Hosam Khalaf, a fellow green card holder arrested with her and now also held in solitary confinement without charge at a separate facility, are caught up in a clash over political Islam that has divided U.S.-aligned governments and inspired repression across the Middle East.

Qaradawi isn’t political. But her father is Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a Qatar-based spiritual icon for the region’s Muslim Brotherhood movement. The Egyptian government, which gained power thanks to a 2013 military coup against a democratically-elected Brotherhood government, has issued statements suggesting its treatment of Ola Al-Qaradawi is tied to its desire to punish her father and the Brotherhood, which it classifies as a terror group. (Most national security officials and experts in the U.S. and Europe do not believe the popular, largely nonviolent Brotherhood deserves that label.)

Egypt and its allies, which have been boycotting fellow U.S. partner Qatar since this summer, see the 91-year-old preacher as a major threat whom the Qataris should immediately imprison.

Now, Aayah Hossam Khalaf, Ola Al-Qaradawi’s Seattle-based daughter, has launched a loud campaign to draw U.S. attention to her parents’ conditions and urge them to be released. She sees their detention as entirely baseless — they have never supported the Brotherhood, she told HuffPost, and are being punished simply because of a family connection."

---------------------------------------------------------

Certainly it's wrong and goes against everything America stands for, but is it effective?

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #166 on: October 07, 2017, 11:57:28 AM »
Crunch? Right.

But somehow in tone you sound like someone else

Haven't read the rest of the responses yet. But come on, don't be like that. If his argument is crap, say it's crap and make an argument against it. Don't try to slime him by comparing him to people or organizations which "your side," will automatically look down on.

It's not an easy issue. Because for better or worse, we do have the 2nd Amendment. I'll ask you again, why do you ask us to respect the Supreme Court on gay marriage but act so condescendingly towards their rulings on the 2nd?

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #167 on: October 07, 2017, 12:04:09 PM »
Here's something that I understand is clearly unConstitutional and it will never be done, but just wondering if punishing the family members and love interests of a mass shooter would act as a deterrent to at least some of the others. For instance, sentencing his mother, girlfriend, and brother to 20 years of what we could call "protective custody", something less than prison but punitively restrictive against completely innocent citizens. Protective in the sense that it protects other people from at least some of the future mass shooters.

Other than that, there really is no deterrent if they are just going to kill themselves afterwards. I'm not really suggesting we do that, but everyone keeps saying that "we need to do something." Well, that's something. Just wondering if anyone thinks, if it actually was done for instance by passing a new Constitutional Amendment, would it prevent some of the attacks? It seems to be working in North Korea. Note I'm not asking if anyone thinks we should really do this. I will assume the answer is a resounding, "That's absolutely ridiculous so not only no but heck-fire no!" I'm asking if it was done, would it be at least somewhat effective against some of them?

If we're looking at amending the Constitution anyway, just putting that out there. It seems like that would have about the same chance as passing as getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, which is to say no chance at all. But it would affect millions fewer law abiding citizens and could save lives compared to getting rid of the 2nd because that way people could still defend themselves against criminals or a tyrannical government. If you look at it from the perspective of the good of the many outweighing the good of the few, a hundred of so people punished like this could save hundreds of lives. And before anyone scolds me too harshly for even imagining such a thing, let me just remind you that our own gracious host used a similar idea for the backdrop of his book "Treason".

Of course it wouldn't dissuade everyone. Some people may be beyond caring about all of their family members. Some may even hate their family. One other thing to be careful of is to make sure this type of punishment absolutely did not apply to ex-wives. Obviously.

Lol. No. *censored* that. I would be more willing to repeal every single amendment then I would to stand behind this. It's literally dictator 101. It's what every third world shat pot dynasty does.

Terrorism sucks but you suck as well. The people who killed an insignificant amount of our population, the people who hoped to influence some of us through terrorism? Look in the mirror, buddy. Those people targeted were you, and you've fallen for it.

It's still possible to elect a dictator. More then once. We can even exchange dictators. I'm not going to be behind that. Ever

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #168 on: October 07, 2017, 12:11:46 PM »
You know, just now looking back over this thread, especially the last page or so, I can see where I might have come off as a bit over the top. Perhaps a little too much passion for the topic and being too conversational impacted my "tone" (I was feeling a little too familiar with some of you I guess). If that's the case, sorry about that. I'll be more mindful. 8)

Crunch you absolutely can come off as a zealot.

That being said, you bring a viewpoint that is rare here. I value it. So long as you're willing to listen and research (in good faith)  what others bring up in response to you, I'll always respect you.

You do you, man. We may disagree on a lot of stuff, but I always welcome your viewpoint. That viewpoint has absolutely led me to valuable insights and information in the past.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #169 on: October 07, 2017, 12:21:43 PM »
I guess this is what it would look like:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/egypt-solitary-confinement-us-green-card_us_59d680bfe4b072637c42babb

"By Akbar Shahid Ahmed

WASHINGTON ― Ola Al-Qaradawi, a 55-year-old research assistant, used to regularly travel from Egypt to the United States to visit her American daughter and two American granddaughters.

In 2016, she decided to spend more time with them. Her daughter helped her apply for a green card, which U.S. authorities issued earlier this year. Qaradawi began preparing to leave. That’s when Egypt’s National Security Agency — the top domestic security force of a government receiving more than $1 billion in U.S. aid annually — got involved.

Today, Qaradawi is in solitary confinement in a five-by-six foot cell with no toilet, no bed, no natural light and no ventilation in a women’s prison north of Cairo, trying to eat and drink as little as possible because she only gets five minutes of bathroom time a day. She has no access to family and only briefly sees her lawyers every 15 days when the state prosecutor renews her detention. More than three months after she was first arrested, she has received no official charges.

Qaradawi and her husband, Hosam Khalaf, a fellow green card holder arrested with her and now also held in solitary confinement without charge at a separate facility, are caught up in a clash over political Islam that has divided U.S.-aligned governments and inspired repression across the Middle East.

Qaradawi isn’t political. But her father is Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a Qatar-based spiritual icon for the region’s Muslim Brotherhood movement. The Egyptian government, which gained power thanks to a 2013 military coup against a democratically-elected Brotherhood government, has issued statements suggesting its treatment of Ola Al-Qaradawi is tied to its desire to punish her father and the Brotherhood, which it classifies as a terror group. (Most national security officials and experts in the U.S. and Europe do not believe the popular, largely nonviolent Brotherhood deserves that label.)

Egypt and its allies, which have been boycotting fellow U.S. partner Qatar since this summer, see the 91-year-old preacher as a major threat whom the Qataris should immediately imprison.

Now, Aayah Hossam Khalaf, Ola Al-Qaradawi’s Seattle-based daughter, has launched a loud campaign to draw U.S. attention to her parents’ conditions and urge them to be released. She sees their detention as entirely baseless — they have never supported the Brotherhood, she told HuffPost, and are being punished simply because of a family connection."

---------------------------------------------------------

Certainly it's wrong and goes against everything America stands for, but is it effective?

No. No it's not.

If we're going to stand for democracy, we have to be real about it. If people are going to stand for things that we disagree with, we should praise their democracy and at the same time bring down sanctions against peoples whose values we disagree with.

Saddam Hussein was the man when it came to keeping zealots under control. He was also a dick. We supported him and it didn't turn out well for anyone. We have interests in the Middle East. Because of that we interfere in their cultural progression. We've dealt with our Christian zealots in a calm and lawful manner, but if there were someone above us, someone wishing to just make the whole country as calm as possible, do you really think we'd be as well off as we are today?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #170 on: October 07, 2017, 02:12:02 PM »
Well I wasn't seriously suggesting we do that. I thought I made that very clear. It's just something to think about like in some dystopian future. It might make an interesting novel or movie. Obviously we say we'd never do that especially if it's just over an infrequent mass shooting or terrorist attack. But what if these mass shootings started happening every week? Or every day? If it wasn't for the bombs he had in his car this guy literally did nothing illegal until he broke the window and started firing. If they'd caught him with all those guns and all that ammo along with the bump stocks they couldn't have arrested him for anything. That means the only thing stopping millions of people out there from doing exactly the same thing is that they just don't want to. And thank goodness. But with the copycat effect we may see more and more of this as time goes on, and every new person who does it will try to beat the last one, coming up with improvements based on the failures or inadequacies of the previous attempts. What if they started involving wmds? If there was a nuke involved what would still be off the table? Eventually people may reach their breaking point and it'll be interesting to see what they do. How much of freedom will they be willing to give up for security, and whose?

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #171 on: October 07, 2017, 02:41:22 PM »
Well I wasn't seriously suggesting we do that. I thought I made that very clear. It's just something to think about like in some dystopian future. It might make an interesting novel or movie. Obviously we say we'd never do that especially if it's just over an infrequent mass shooting or terrorist attack. But what if these mass shootings started happening every week? Or every day? If it wasn't for the bombs he had in his car this guy literally did nothing illegal until he broke the window and started firing. If they'd caught him with all those guns and all that ammo along with the bump stocks they couldn't have arrested him for anything. That means the only thing stopping millions of people out there from doing exactly the same thing is that they just don't want to. And thank goodness. But with the copycat effect we may see more and more of this as time goes on, and every new person who does it will try to beat the last one, coming up with improvements based on the failures or inadequacies of the previous attempts. What if they started involving wmds? If there was a nuke involved what would still be off the table? Eventually people may reach their breaking point and it'll be interesting to see what they do. How much of freedom will they be willing to give up for security, and whose?

Remember the Benjamin Franklin quote about liberty and safety and all that.

It's an old white guy without Islamic ties that we can't even blame on not having sex. I get it. It's freaky. Who can we blame here?

Answer is we strive to tighten up gun laws. Specifically, regarding gun stocks. Or whatever the name is for what let's them turn semis into autos.

If that's not enough, then we as a people need to seriously consider amending or repealing the 2nd. End of.

We can talk about Islamists but when mass shootings occur here it's more likely to be an undersexed white male.

As for your original proposition, if we're doing what you suggest the United States is already dead. We're not about a religion, race, or ethnicity. We're about a set of beliefs and laws. We give that up, we're already dead.

I'd see myself and my family dead before we went about arresting and punishing families based on the crimes of their relatives.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #172 on: October 07, 2017, 02:52:59 PM »
But looking back on what you've asked.

Is it possible? *censored* right it's possible, what with the propoganda today.

We won't be the United States once we do it, though.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #173 on: October 07, 2017, 04:44:06 PM »
cherry,

there are basically 5 types of 'fanatics'

sadists - they have joined terrorists because they enjoy inflicting suffering on others, they might be dissuaded
psychopaths - they have joined terrorists because they think it is a good way to power and influence - they won't be dissuade
fanatics - they have joined terrorists because their extreme religious beliefs convince them it is Gods will, they might or might not be dissuaded
vengeance seekers - they are seeking vengeance for someone in their family being killed, or some other significant loss - probably have already lost those important to them so unlikely to be dissuaded
mercenaries - this seemed the best economic opportunity available to them, they can be dissuaded

however - these are not mutually exclusive - I'd bet that a huge percentage are sadistic psychopaths in addition to being either fanatics or mercenaries.  So for the vast majority it likely will not have a dissuading effect.  For psychopaths and fanatics they might even view it as a benefit - since they are sacrificing their family for the greater cause and thus can enhance their standing.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #174 on: October 07, 2017, 05:50:12 PM »
Just to put things into a certain perspective here, the way pretty much all of us feels about punishing family members like that is the way millions of Americans probably feel about the changes to the 2nd Amendment, or full repeal, that are being suggested. Not exactly feeling that way for the same exact reasons but certainly as far as depth of horror at the prospect and the idea that "omg that's not America anymore and there's no way I'm having it."

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #175 on: October 08, 2017, 12:18:57 AM »
Quote
I'll ask you again, why do you ask us to respect the Supreme Court on gay marriage but act so condescendingly towards their rulings on the 2nd?

I follow the decisions of the Supreme Court. But the specific definition of the 2nd Amendment is not precise. Where is the boundary-line with respect to government regulation of fire power? As said above, the right to bear nuclear arms may be infringed. The question is where to draw the line. We are at a historically extreme position with regard to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but that does not preclude raising cases in the future that more precisely set the boundary.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #176 on: October 08, 2017, 08:15:51 AM »
Just to put things into a certain perspective here, the way pretty much all of us feels about punishing family members like that is the way millions of Americans probably feel about the changes to the 2nd Amendment, or full repeal, that are being suggested. Not exactly feeling that way for the same exact reasons but certainly as far as depth of horror at the prospect and the idea that "omg that's not America anymore and there's no way I'm having it."

Yeah, but it's not like it's an easy thing to cancel out an Amendment, is it?

We both know that with the composition of state legislatures it won't be happening anytime soon. If something happens in regard to gerrymandering, maybe? But even that will be a long time from now.

Despite what you wrote, most leftists aren't talking about changing the 2nd. They know it's impossible. So they're bleating about how we need to "do something."

My point in bringing this aspect up is that doing something in the vein of what they suggest isn't really possible without ignoring the 2nd and Supreme Court rulings. And the most annoying part?

*They know this.*

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #177 on: October 08, 2017, 08:21:12 AM »
Quote
I'll ask you again, why do you ask us to respect the Supreme Court on gay marriage but act so condescendingly towards their rulings on the 2nd?

I follow the decisions of the Supreme Court. But the specific definition of the 2nd Amendment is not precise. Where is the boundary-line with respect to government regulation of fire power? As said above, the right to bear nuclear arms may be infringed. The question is where to draw the line. We are at a historically extreme position with regard to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but that does not preclude raising cases in the future that more precisely set the boundary.

No, it's not precise. But they've made rulings. Their word is law. And taking their rulings into account, I'm not sure what can be done to stop what happened in Vegas. Okay, we ban the attachment that turns semi into auto. What then? We have 20 or 30 dead instead of 50?

You think we wouldn't be hearing the same rubbish about the need to "do something?"

By all means, we can send up legal challenges. But with the composition of the Court, I really don't see any big changes coming through that way.

The only legal way to get what left wing people are currently on TV screaming about is to amend the 2nd.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #178 on: October 08, 2017, 03:24:39 PM »
Nice video breaking down gun statistics and showing what an outlier the US is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4qUsgHa4Y&feature=share

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #179 on: October 08, 2017, 04:45:56 PM »
All of the statistics on gun violence comparing America to Europe apparently begin sometime after 1945. What would the numbers look like if they started at 1940 instead? That gets to the real heart of the 2nd Amendment and its purpose.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #180 on: October 08, 2017, 05:18:44 PM »
All of the statistics on gun violence comparing America to Europe apparently begin sometime after 1945. What would the numbers look like if they started at 1940 instead? That gets to the real heart of the 2nd Amendment and its purpose.

See this is what I don't get.

If the US government decided they had to go in and *censored* something up, it wouldn't matter if a few rednecks had some rifles. Or even militias. They might take their pound of flesh, much like the Iraqis did in urban warfare, but they'd still lose. The difference between the military and what civilians can have is insurmountable.

The only issue is whether the military are willing to kill their countrymen. They seemed perfectly willing to do that in the Civil War.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #181 on: October 08, 2017, 05:25:04 PM »
If you look at many of the coups in Africa nowadays you have some element of the military that fights the government while another part of the military helps the dictator and then you have a brutal civil war. If much of the civilian population was armed they could help the military faction fighting against the dictator so even if the government could easily take out an armed civilian population if they had the entire military at their disposal, that is not a foregone conclusion. If you look at the vulnerabilities of our infrastructure such as the power grid, any real war on that scale is not going to go well for anyone. I'm wondering if the left thinks that we are beyond the days when a tyrant could try to take over America. It's odd that they would make such a claim when you juxtapose it with everything they are saying about Trump and law enforcement.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #182 on: October 08, 2017, 05:32:05 PM »
If you look at many of the coups in Africa nowadays you have some element of the military that fights the government while another part of the military helps the dictator and then you have a brutal civil war. If much of the civilian population was armed they could help the military faction fighting against the dictator so even if the government could easily take out an armed civilian population if they had the entire military at their disposal, that is not a foregone conclusion. If you look at the vulnerabilities of our infrastructure such as the power grid, any real war on that scale is not going to go well for anyone. I'm wondering if the left thinks that we are beyond the days when a tyrant could try to take over America. It's odd that they would make such a claim when you juxtapose it with everything they are saying about Trump and law enforcement.

On the contrary. The left is outright calling Trump a dictator. For no good cause, true, but that never stopped the right when they said the same unfair things about Obama.

Civil war is civil war. If the military splinters - as, to repeat myself, happened in the Civil War - then that's an issue. Random Joe Sixpacks having a rifle won't make a difference.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #183 on: October 08, 2017, 08:02:35 PM »
Quote
In the 1970s about half of Americans had a gun, and it was almost always just a gun, one on average. Today only about a quarter of Americans own guns—but the average owner has three or four. Fewer than 8 million people, only 3 percent of all American adults, own roughly half the guns. Members of that tiny minority of superenthusiasts own an average of 17 guns apiece.
  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/fantasyland-book-excerpt-the-nra-won-the-gun-rights-debate-and-made-americans-fear-their-own-government.html

The gun fetish of the current era is an ahistorical fantasy... "among the million-plus Americans interviewed in 10 years of Crime Victimization Surveys, exactly one sexual assault victim used a gun in self-defense".

Notably, those "victimization surveys" were also taken after gun ownership had dropped by nearly 1/2 of what it was just a few decades earlier. Smaller subset of population with X means the smaller subset of population able to even use X in self defense.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #184 on: October 08, 2017, 08:37:05 PM »
Civil war is civil war. If the military splinters - as, to repeat myself, happened in the Civil War - then that's an issue. Random Joe Sixpacks having a rifle won't make a difference.

Correction: Won't make a strategic difference, but on the tactical side of things, they can certainly influence things. Although it is agreed that on their own, it won't impact much.

Of course, the "other thing" you're ignoring from stuff I've frequently heard in other corners. The citation of gun battles in foreign countries may be bad examples. Even many of their ("3rd world" foreign) military forces subscribe to "spray and pray" which means that even in the best case, their aim is feces due to gun climb, and even when not on full-auto their aim is probably going to be bad(as well as familiarity with the firearms they're using). The typical gun nut in the United States is going to be a very different story from that and wouldn't normally use full auto even if they had it(suppression fire aside). (And unironically, it also is the NRA's stated reason for having banned "bump-stocks" on their own ranges -- They're unsafe because it supports a rate of fire which makes the fire arm near impossible to properly control(aim))

Although this gets into other technical detail, in the event of a US Civil War, full-auto by any party worth their salt will only be used on crew-served weapons, and its primary mission will be suppression fire(getting people to take cover) rather than taking people out. Unless the other side is suicidal enough to repeat some of the crazed mass ("human wave") charges seen in previous wars. Generally speaking, special forces and infantry (on both sides) when fighting would normally be operating on "three round burst" or single shot(multiple pulls) so that they can ensure they hit their target.

Reality is, thanks to Hollywood, if you're going up against a non-professional force, you almost WANT the other side to have fully automatic weapons. Their aim will suck, and they'll blow their munitions stockpiles more quickly.

But getting back to Joe Sixpack, there is another "problem" for US Military vs him. IF there is just one of him, no problem. If it's anywhere close to an even fight, it's a big problem. Joe Sixpack will probably be fighting with ammunition for guns that are not exactly kosher with the Geneva Conventions. If they somehow have penetration rounds on top of that, its even worse. That hunting rifle he used to take down that 6 Point Buck two years ago may very well constitute a war crime if it was used in warfare by a professional military force.

This also ignores terrain familiarity, which was used on numerous occasions to clobber US forces even with air superiority and support available. In a civil war scenario, neither side can necessarily count on air support-making it all a ground game. The US military has been so formidable since WW2 because of its ability to control the skies, you take that away from them and things start to even out quickly. Sure they might still have the other heavy equipment(depending on how the Professional forces split), but as Iraq and Afghanistan pointed out, those can be taken out without needing multimillion dollar weapons platforms, and the biggest thing protecting them was available air support limiting the duration of many engagements for opposing forces.

And the clincher in all of this: Many of those "Joe Sixpack" guys you alluded to? They're often either Veterans of the United States Military, or children/relatives of said Veterans. It's a safe bet a lot of them have a pretty good grasp on the play book that would be used against them, and also either personally experienced, or can obtain much of the same kind of training from those who have.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #185 on: October 08, 2017, 10:52:20 PM »
All of the statistics on gun violence comparing America to Europe apparently begin sometime after 1945. What would the numbers look like if they started at 1940 instead? That gets to the real heart of the 2nd Amendment and its purpose.

See this is what I don't get.

If the US government decided they had to go in and *censored* something up, it wouldn't matter if a few rednecks had some rifles. Or even militias. They might take their pound of flesh, much like the Iraqis did in urban warfare, but they'd still lose. The difference between the military and what civilians can have is insurmountable.

The only issue is whether the military are willing to kill their countrymen. They seemed perfectly willing to do that in the Civil War.
We’ve been at war with people a lot less armed and much more poorly trained than few rednecks for coming up on 20 years now and the US government hasn’t chalked up the win yet. Maybe your assumption is not all that good. I would think, the idea that a large and powerful central government able to impose its will on people by force in a totalitarian way is a cause for concern. That is, if you oppose totalitarianism. There’s a lot here that don’t.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #186 on: October 09, 2017, 09:35:52 AM »
Quote
Despite what you wrote, most leftists aren't talking about changing the 2nd. They know it's impossible. So they're bleating about how we need to "do something."
This is part of the problem.  It implies exactly what many gun rights advocates fear.  That the “leftists” (inaccurate categorization IMO) WANT to change the 2nd.  They WANT to ban private gun ownership.  BUT they know it’s impossible.  So the impression is they are trying to chip away at it.  Gun rights advocates don’t trust that these are solutions to problems, but rather just incrementing towards that “impossible” goal.

The truth is somewhere in between.  The desire to “do something”, is real and often based on empathy and a genuine desire to improve things.  But there is also the underlying goal of, “How can this be used to get us closer to the obvious and sensible conclusion that we MUST eventually reach; banning private gun ownership?”  Because of this, gun rights advocates are cast as unempathetic monsters, willing to make horrific sacrifices to preserve the 2nd amendment which all sensible people would agree is obviously not under threat.

RE: collective / familial punishment.  Would “honor killings” suddenly be OK? 
You are charged with murder, how do you plea? 
Self defense your honor.  My brother was self radicalizing.  To protect myself and the rest of our family I did what needed to be done.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #187 on: October 09, 2017, 10:56:45 AM »
Quote
I don't leave ideas off the table because I don't think they could work.  I leave them off the table because the right to self defense is a right and neither the government nor the collective has the right to take it away from anyone without their consent.

Are you implying that no one can defend themselves unless they can have the gun of their choosing?  ???

Not implying.  I have flat out stated it before.  Guns are an equalizer.  They are the only consistent defense that can protect smaller weaker people from stronger larger people.  Pretty, much given that most violent crimes are already committed by men, particularly young men, taking away guns from everyone else just ensures that they become a permanent class of victims.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #188 on: October 09, 2017, 11:01:17 AM »
I don't leave ideas off the table because I don't think they could work.  I leave them off the table because the right to self defense is a right and neither the government nor the collective has the right to take it away from anyone without their consent.

If this right is so essential then why aren't more people in other countries clamoring for it? And why do only one country's citizens seem to find it important? Do you think people in other countries are either misled, or too foolishly trusting of each other?

Take a look at the world.  In how many countries does the average citizen enjoy anything close to the level of civil rights as in the US.  Whether it be by the government or by armed gangs the rule is not freedom from oppression in most of the world. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #189 on: October 09, 2017, 11:37:47 AM »
IMO from a "strict natural rights" position, you're going to end up on the extreme of if someone can obtain and maintain a Hydrogen (atomic) Bomb, they are within their rights to do so.

No you will not.  There's no rational case for an atomic bomb as a self defense weapon.  Nor is anyone entitled to biological or uncontrollable chemical weapons (people use pepper spray all the time).

The right to bear arms is solely derivative of the right to defend yourself effectively.

Quote
....my personal line clearly proscribes general public access to any weaponry that cannot be carried and used by a lone individual, and is negotiable from there on the stuff that can be carried. I know for most people, their line isn't anywhere near that permissive, while I know others who are much more permissive.

I get what you're saying, but the key is whether a weapon can be reasonably controlled to defend oneself, not whether it can be carried.  No one is entitled to RPG's or mortars, even if the mortars are trivially easy to build.  The lack of ability to use practically for self defense, and the high risk of collateral damage is why fully automatic weapons have been illegal for so long as well.

If they invent practical microwave guns they'll be illegal too, as will fatal sonic cannons.  Something like a "blaster pistol" on the other hand should not be illegal.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #190 on: October 09, 2017, 11:51:12 AM »
Quote
Something like a "blaster pistol" on the other hand should not be illegal.
Unless it is a total game changer in terms of forensic investigation.

As Darth Vader once said, "No disintegrations!"

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #191 on: October 09, 2017, 01:03:18 PM »
Also I challenge you to find a single defensive gun use that involved firing more than 10 shots from a pistol or more than 1 or 2 from a shotgun or rifle? I would be really surprised if there was 1 in the last decade.

There innumberable cases of DGUs by police officers that involve far more than 10 shots.  It's not the best case, but it's not uncommon for more than 10 shots to be fired in gang violence by those defending themselves.  In most cases, a person would not fire 10 shots in self defense.  But again, I see no reason for an arbitrary cap that's set below the magazine size of common pistols on the market, heck I think 10 is below the average for non-revolvers.

Quote
1 to 2 seconds is enough time for me to move 10-30 feet.

Very unlikely that after someone emptied a clip at you - implying you are in cover - that you're going to try and run when they pause for a second or two.  Fact is, in that situation if your cover isn't secure, your best hope is that someone else is armed or someone armed arrives on the scene.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #192 on: October 09, 2017, 01:06:44 PM »
The gun fetish of the current era is an ahistorical fantasy... "among the million-plus Americans interviewed in 10 years of Crime Victimization Surveys, exactly one sexual assault victim used a gun in self-defense".

That's because the average sexual assault victim is a young women who is assaulted by someone she knows and not in a situation where even if she was a licensed carrier and owned a fire arm likely to be carrying it on her person.  Kind of ridiculous stat to cite to.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #193 on: October 09, 2017, 01:25:35 PM »
Well, it shouldn't be a ridiculous stat.  I mean, a large part of the argument, one you yourself use, is that guns levels the "might makes right" power balance.  Unfortunately, though our society doesn't know what to do with a woman who is willing to carry a fire arm.  Gun culture is in many ways quite sexist.  Those most likely to benefit from carrying (women or people in high crime urban areas) are under a lot of social pressure to view guns as "the problem" and certainly not something they should consider carrying themselves.

So you get mostly males, significantly slanted towards lower crime rural areas praising the benefits of being armed and advocating for self defense rights.  The disturbing thing to me is how little effort the all powerful gun lobby puts into attempting to shift that perception. 

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #194 on: October 09, 2017, 02:06:45 PM »
Seriati,

Quote
That's because the average sexual assault victim is a young women who is assaulted by someone she knows and not in a situation where even if she was a licensed carrier and owned a fire arm likely to be carrying it on her person.

There are 321,500 sexual assaults and rapes of women each year.  1/4 of those are not by 'someone they know' - so that is 80375.  22% of women own guns, and roughly 70% of those are handgun owners, but we'll say only 1/3 are of the age range that gets raped - so 80375*.22*.70/3 = 4126 women with guns who were sexually assaulted or raped by a stranger.  1 in 4126 is not particularly effective.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

Guns are 'useful' against a criminal in almost exclusively two contexts - home invasion/breaking and entering and simple spontaneous muggings from someone so high on drugs that they had zero advance planning - in all other cases the bad guy will have the drop on you - so using the gun for self defense is largely a fantasy - bad guys do ambushes from close range or from cover and have their weapon drawn.  And in the vast majority of cases where it is effective (B&Es) - a home security alarm or a dog would be similarly effective.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #195 on: October 09, 2017, 02:39:29 PM »
Well, it shouldn't be a ridiculous stat.

D.W. if a woman defends herself with a gun against a man, is it labelled a sexual assault?  It's literally not, regardless of whether the man would have sexually assaulted her, it didn't happen and in most cases there's no way to even reasonably assert it would have happened.

How do you get an accurate count, where virtually every instance of an event would not show up in the statistics?

Quote
I mean, a large part of the argument, one you yourself use, is that guns levels the "might makes right" power balance.  Unfortunately, though our society doesn't know what to do with a woman who is willing to carry a fire arm.

Whether someone carries outside the home is a personal choice.  Most men don't carry either.

Guns do level the field when defending oneself at home, and in the incredibly rare event that someone is confronted with an attacker.  The stats on being the victim of a violent crime during a lifetime (depending on how calculated - and some calculations are very poor), indicate that generally being the victim of a violent crime twice in a life time is uncommon.  Even people who regularly carry may not be carrying at exactly the right time.  That's the criminals advantage, they know when they plan violence, and they know where to find victims that are least likely to be carrying themselves.

Many assault victims (not just sexual assaults) made themselves, or were forced to be, vulnerable before they were attacked.  Doesn't make what happened to them okay.

Quote
Gun culture is in many ways quite sexist.  Those most likely to benefit from carrying (women or people in high crime urban areas) are under a lot of social pressure to view guns as "the problem" and certainly not something they should consider carrying themselves.

I think you'd be surprised at how many people carry in those areas.  Honestly, though, very few gun crimes are between true strangers.  Don't kill yourself or join a gang and your risk of being a gun victim gets very low.  The only truly big category left is domestic violence, where honestly, there's a ton we could do better as guns are only the tiniest part of the domestic violence problem.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #196 on: October 09, 2017, 02:52:29 PM »
Quote
D.W. if a woman defends herself with a gun against a man, is it labelled a sexual assault?  It's literally not, regardless of whether the man would have sexually assaulted her, it didn't happen and in most cases there's no way to even reasonably assert it would have happened.

How do you get an accurate count, where virtually every instance of an event would not show up in the statistics?
I'm missing your point.  Likely I missed your previous point, and my response therefor doesn't convey what I was getting at. 

Gathering statistics on DGU we've both been over before on how difficult it is to track.  My points are that (A) IMO there should be far more cases of a woman defending herself with a gun and (B) I expect they are already higher than any data point would lead us to believe.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #197 on: October 09, 2017, 03:07:01 PM »
There are 321,500 sexual assaults and rapes of women each year.

I followed through to the data behind what you were looking at, and of course there are some problems with your claim.  The sexual assaults number is overstated.  But there is certainly a non-trivial number that occur.

I'm less wiling to let slide the "stranger" statistic.  We should be clear, that this is not just covering the assault on the street situation.  It literally covers every bar hookup where the two people don't know each other, are drunk, and a sexual assault occurs.  No matter how you cut it, women are not carrying fire arms to bars, it's frequently not even allowed.  There is no fire arm that is going to equalize a situation where a woman is impaired and within the physical reach of a much stronger male. 

Quote
1/4 of those are not by 'someone they know' - so that is 80375.  22% of women own guns, and roughly 70% of those are handgun owners, but we'll say only 1/3 are of the age range that gets raped - so 80375*.22*.70/3 = 4126 women with guns who were sexually assaulted or raped by a stranger.  1 in 4126 is not particularly effective.

Well like I said, your 80k is overstated, and without adjusting for the fact that many many assaults even with strangers are not situations where anyone is going to reasonably be carrying, the idea that your point has much merit is questionable. 

Yes, gun owners are sometimes subject to violent crimes.

Quote
Guns are 'useful' against a criminal in almost exclusively two contexts...

First of all, this is your uninformed opinion, not any kind of fact.  What you've actually "established" is that guns are not useful in certain situations.  I agree with that.  But there are many people who almost never find themselves in those circumstances.

Quote
- home invasion/breaking and entering...

Self evidently true.

Quote
and simple spontaneous muggings from someone so high on drugs that they had zero advance planning

Literal nonsense.  In many cases, violent crimes are not furious flashes.  Often times, people are aware they are being followed, the person confronts them first, in many cases the ambush is not ideal.  They can be interrupted.

Quote
- in all other cases the bad guy will have the drop on you - so using the gun for self defense is largely a fantasy - bad guys do ambushes from close range or from cover and have their weapon drawn.

Certainly possible that even with a gun you won't have a chance.  Of course, if you don't have gun you've foreclosed every single situation where it would have made a difference, and gained literally nothing.  We already know that it's virtually the only effect form of defense against an armed person, and we know there are no other ways to consistently balance a gross strength imbalance that is also incredibly common in such a situation.

Not to mention, you've completely discounted virtually all non-random situations, where a carrier may be on a higher alert status and actively looking to avoid risky situations.

Quote
And in the vast majority of cases where it is effective (B&Es) - a home security alarm or a dog would be similarly effective.

Nice opinion.  I recommend people have both if they live in area where it's needed.  But security is only as effective as local police response times and how easy it is to bypass.  Dogs can and have been incapacitated.  Very few dogs, intentionally, are conditioned to immediate attack a human in a way that would be useful.  Both systems actually serve as a very good way to alert yourself to get your gun.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #198 on: October 09, 2017, 03:09:24 PM »
Quote
D.W. if a woman defends herself with a gun against a man, is it labelled a sexual assault?  It's literally not, regardless of whether the man would have sexually assaulted her, it didn't happen and in most cases there's no way to even reasonably assert it would have happened.

How do you get an accurate count, where virtually every instance of an event would not show up in the statistics?
I'm missing your point.  Likely I missed your previous point, and my response therefor doesn't convey what I was getting at.

His stat referred to DGU's in a sexual assault situation.  A DGU that prevents someone from conducting a sexual assault, won't show up in that statistic, only one that interrupts a sexual assault in progress.  It's completely bunk for the claim he was making.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #199 on: October 09, 2017, 05:59:15 PM »
Seriati,

Quote
That's because the average sexual assault victim is a young women who is assaulted by someone she knows and not in a situation where even if she was a licensed carrier and owned a fire arm likely to be carrying it on her person.

There are 321,500 sexual assaults and rapes of women each year.  1/4 of those are not by 'someone they know' - so that is 80375.  22% of women own guns, and roughly 70% of those are handgun owners, but we'll say only 1/3 are of the age range that gets raped - so 80375*.22*.70/3 = 4126 women with guns who were sexually assaulted or raped by a stranger.  1 in 4126 is not particularly effective.

There are more than a few examples out there where concealed carry permit holders were raped because they had the misfortune of being in compliance with "gun free zone" policies at locations such as University campuses. One such woman actually gave testimony to a legislative committee in Colorado a few years ago, and had the "privilege" of a Democratic politician on that committee call her "an unfortunate statistical outlier" to her face.