|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I'm not sure of your point, but that's pretty much why we don't let children play with pressure cookers. I was mocking the amount of police attention pressure cookers received after Boston.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
5-year-old girl killed A mere misdemeanor, apparently. If he had killed her with a car that would have been a felony.
Still, at least she didn't take his freedom. At worst the State will give him a year in prison, but they might let him off with a fine. And Justice For All.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
So what about the other 761 people who were shot dead in Chicago this past year? Thank God you guys are as socialists as you are. I wonder how much money the survivor would have to pay for the medical costs, the police investigation, the street cleanup, the paramedics, the coroners, the time lost from his own work etc vs how much money he'd have lost through the robbery. Fortunately, it was merely the tax payers that got robbed instead! abe: The Chicago Tribune has an answer!
quote: Totally worth it. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Silencers are for hearing protection? Really? It is one of their primary uses, yes. Out of curiosity - what do you envisage them being used for? They are about as effective as ear protection - and it is still recommended to wear ear protection when firing a suppressed weapon because they are still bloody loud for almost all firearms. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
They're used for sneaking around and shooting people in secret, so nobody hears you and comes after you. Duh. Ah yes, I forgot we were living in a movie or computer game
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Is this saying that the number of guns does make a difference? More guns = more homicide, regardless of rate-of-acquisition? No - the point is that distribution matters. As an extreme example let's consider the difference between 1 person owning 300 million guns and 300 million people each owning 1 gun. The argument goes that the latter is going to result in more deaths by shooting than the former. One person can't exactly wield even a significant percentage of those guns at once. So, if gun ownership went from say, 22% of the population to 25% we might see a rise in deaths. If it went from 22% to 20% we'd see a fall. The absolute number of guns, the argument goes, is less important than the number of people that have them. As it stands, about 50% of the guns in the US are owned by 3% of the population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In the real world, why do you think silencers are banned? Do you think our legislators are out to ruin the hearing of hunters? In the real world - they mostly aren't banned. They are only banned in 8 States of the USA. California is one of them. I assume local politics is the reason, but I haven't taken the time to track down the arguments made in the legislature when the bills were being passed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The pertinent question is: Do firearms users in the other states routinely use them for hearing protection? Yes. They are used to avoid damaging the ears, to avoid noise pollution complaints when hunting or recreational shooting and to reduce recoil as primary purposes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Evidence? What would you count as evidence? Everybody I've seen talk about suppressors who uses them on the internet cites those reasons. Their usage in criminal acts is low. There are about a million of them in circulation, the NIOSH and CDC suggest their use for hearing protection for those who are exposed to lots of gunfire (for instance regular attendees or workers at gun ranges).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
But they are notorious for ruining the accuracy of your shot. What they are notorious for is unimportant. The truth is more important. In truth, for most applications and contexts, they improve accuracy by reducing recoil.
quote: Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
quote: Suppressor Effects - Gun Digest
Why would you want to use one at the shooting range when you can use perfectly good headphones? a) A suppressor reduces the noise for everyone. So if someone has ear protection removed for some reason when a shot is fired, they are still protected. b) People who are living nearby will thank you. Traditionally watching television with ear protection on is couter productive. c) Shooters wearing ear protection are less likely to hear someone warning of a dangerous situation. d) In any event: Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There are about a million of them in circulation.... So, a fraction of one per cent. I'm not sure what that fraction is? Per gun in circulation? Yes.
The next question would be: In the states where silencers are illegal, why? That was an earlier question. You asked it in Message 5062. My answer was
quote: NoNukes gave details of:
quote: If correct, 'local politics' seems about right. It seems reasonable to suppose it is correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Really? How huge is it? Around 1- in-5 to 1-in-3 sales are done in such a way that avoids background checks as a requirement.
Are the "common sense" gun control measures only at the federal level? What are they, explicitly? What would the legislation look like? Firearm Owners Protection Act is a Federal law, right? The one that bans the sale of automatic weapons, with exceptions surrounding grandfathered weapons?
What are the top five common sense gun control measures that will have the biggest impact on the goals that are trying to be achieved? Good question. Here's my attempt to an answer: 1) Ban handguns2) Band semi-automatic weapons 3) Ban weapons capable of holding more than four rounds 4) Require a licence to hold a firearm. The licence can be free to obtain - but does require meeting various standards such as age, the passing of a short safety examination and possibly a practical test (like having a car). Make showing the licence a requirement for the purchasing of a firearm, and any purchase requires the seller to advise some local authority which licence was used to purchase - name address etc etc. 5) Require insurance for owning a weapon to cover expenses to property and payment of injury claims that may occur as a result of accidents, negligence or deliberate misuse of a weapon. If you are able to afford it, you can become self-insured - perhaps with a fund under a third party's control held in reserve. Number 4 would also include reasons to lose the licence: Committing certain offences for example. Possibly include a points system for more minor offenses - once a certain number of points are on your licence, you lose the licence. Also a path for reacquiring a lost licence should be included. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
New Cat's Eye -
So 20-30% hugeness. That's consistent with my collection. Yes, the private market is pretty big. So if you want to avoid those checks - the loophole is wide enough for anyone to step through. No specialist knowledge is required.
I'm not against background checks, but personally I'd rather hassle the people who are committing crimes than those who aren't. The point of the background check is to identify someone who has committed crimes. How else is a seller to know?
I guess "closing the loophole" would mean that every time I sell a gun I would have to go through an FFL? Essentially banning all private transfers, period? Every time I sell a car there is paperwork to notify the change in ownership of the vehicle to the government. It doesn't ban me from selling my car privately.
Ooh, straight to banning guns. Nice, thanks for being honest. Not all guns, just the ones that a clearly liable to causing problems.
We have that in Illinois and it's not working here. Maybe at a federal level it would have a bigger impact, but I dunno. When a Chicago resident can pop over to Gary without much fuss, it does render the States a poor bellweather. Studies have indicated that many of the guns used in crimes in Chicago were bought in Indiana.
Out of curiosity: How would you feel about a free speech license? Or a license for due process? Are you really curious? It looks like rhetoric to me. I don't see the need for the licences you reference. Illegally holding a firearm or driving a vehicle are possible, and it's good to have a system the police can use to efficiently estimate if that is the case. I don't see any instances of a person who is prohibited from engaging in free speech or is banned from due process.
What's the goal for that one? To allow victim's of damages to sue for costs and compensation. A firearm injury can rack up $350k in medical costs - and that doesn't take into account loss of earnings or business, compensation for pains and lost opportunities during recovery etc. The medical costs are typically borne by the tax payer or the victim's own insurance. If gun holder's were insured - their insurance would cover the costs of any damage their negligence or malice caused rather than the injured party or the tax payer. Much like with car insurance.
Could that goal be met with the penalties from criminal charges? I doubt many shooters are capable of covering those kinds of costs so fining people for that amount wouldn't generally result in the victim receiving compensation. A criminal going to prison doesn't pay a victim's doctor, doesn't pay their rent if they are unable to work for extended periods, doesn't cover their transportation costs if they are unable to drive or walk for some time etc. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024