What can we do about the shootings?

[Ridgerunner]

People do hunt with M-1 Garands. My son got an 8 point buck with one a couple of years ago. Lots of people have those rifles. Lots of people have WWII issue Mausers or knockoffs too, and many use them for hunting. Neither one looks like a modern AR 15, and few would accuse them of being “assault weapons” by their appearance. But both have more firepower and accuracy, especially the Mauser.

Again, among the farmers and ranchers I grew up with, these style of weapons would have been looked upon with scorn.

Wouldn’t be true now, though.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So on the one hand, you make the claim that police are incredibly bad shots.
And on the other hand you cannot support with the actual study.

You rightfully point out the reason these statements are suspect. So I am left wondering what exactly you were trying to say.

I don’t understand why you are saying that. I gave two links, each of which describes several studies. And I told you what to search on for a LOT more. I’m not making the claim the police are bad shots, I’m simply repeating what the studies found. NO study has shown that they are crack shots that I’m aware of. There may be an odd policeman here and there who is a good shot, but on the whole police are not very accurate.

And you’re missing my point, which is that if trained police are not very good shots, why should we trust amateurs who happen to have a gun permit to take action and be effective?

Statement suspect? I never said that. What I said was that different studies look at different factors: some look at actual shooting incidents, others look at target practice, some have a range of statistics depending on the distance from the target, etc. None of this is a knock on the police because, after all, marksmanship is not the #1 requirement to be a police officer.

 

[tafan2]

Wouldn’t be true now, though.

unfortunately not, which is my point. The gun ownership culture has changed. OTOH, I do know some older farmers and ranchers who still feel this way.

 

[tafan2]

People do hunt with M-1 Garands. My son got an 8 point buck with one a couple of years ago. Lots of people have those rifles. Lots of people have WWII issue Mausers or knockoffs too, and many use them for hunting. Neither one looks like a modern AR 15, and few would accuse them of being “assault weapons” by their appearance. But both have more firepower and accuracy, especially the Mauser

Yes they do. And there are M1-Garands shooting events. That is beside the point. If anything it makes my point. It would have been rare to hunt with military style guns in the past. Go back and look at 50 year old issues of firearm magazines, compare one today. You will find a marked difference in both the articles and the advertising.

And even while ownership of these guns sky rockets, the number of people who participate in hunting has been on a steady decline.

There is nothing traditionally American about our current gun culture. Nothing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I dispute that there is a “gun culture” at all, other than among those who are serious collectors. But that’s a “collector culture” similar to all other collector cultures. But being able to own a gun is certainly part of the “culture” at least in rural areas and outside Yankeedom. Remember “To ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth, this is the ancient law of youth…” Don’t you remember that? That’s not “gun culture” that’s “part of being a man” culture. (yes, yes, patriarchal. I know.)

It would have been rare to hunt with an M 1 Garand in decades past because they weren’t readily available like they are now that the government has released the immense numbers in storage to the buying public. But an unadorned M-1 Garand is less effective than the 30.06s that have been around for decades, because they don’t have scopes like the latter do, though scopes can be fitted to them. Most hunters don’t use iron sights, but some of the more skilled do.

Marketing has changed for everything. No reason to think guns would be different in that way. Auto ads don’t sing “Ride away with me Lucille…” anymore either.

 

[tafan2]

I dispute that there is a “gun culture” at all

If we take the second definition of the word culture: the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group and define the social group as gun owners. Then we can certainly say, by definition there is such as thing as a gun ownership culture, which I have been abbreviating as gun culture.

Of course marketing changes for everything. Its not the fact that it has changed, it is how it has changed. The types of guns, ammo, and accessories that are advertised now as opposed to in the past reflect exactly what I have been saying.

You are correct that being able to own a gun is certainly part of American culture as a whole. The widespread ownership of handguns and assault weapons is not. It is an entirely new phenomena. So many people wanting to own weapons whose designed purpose is primarily to kill people is not normal. It is not part of our American tradition. It is not healthy. And it leads to violence.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I don’t know squat about guns, but you seem quite knowledgeable. So, in your opinion, is there any kind of assault weapon that you would not mind being banned, or maybe banned except for hunters?

 

[Nikolaite]

Nikolaite:

I would point out that with credit being so easy now, and certain groups of people having a more readily disposable income, that is more likely a large part of the current reasoning behind acquiring more or varied firearms than anything else. There is absolutely NOTHING immoral about liking, enjoying and collecting firearms. Firearms are not intrinsically evil, they’re neutral tools.

I do not say that firearms are intrinsically evil. And I readily admit that as disposable income increases, enthusiasts buy more or varied firearms. But they are NOT neutral tools. These types of weapons are built for one thing: effective killing. Now, I know that the vast majority of folks owning them have no desire to ever use them for that. But there is something warped about it none the less. And now, you have a person, who grew up playing violent video games, was socially ostracized as a kid, throw in a little mental illness, and he turns 18 and buys a ar-1 and imagines himself as Rambo (this last statement is likely shared by many wholly sensible gun owners these days), and the combination is a disaster waiting to happen. Throw in the prevalence of handguns and assault weapons among the criminal class, and we know we have way too many of these guns around.

One only has to look at violent crime patterns. While these guns have become more and more prominent over the last 25-30 years, overall violent crime has trended downward. Yet mass shootings and gang killings have skyrocketed. It would seem there is a definite correlation between the types of crimes we are having problems with and the prevalence of these types of weapons.

Again, among the farmers and ranchers I grew up with, these style of weapons would have been looked upon with scorn.

Morally speaking, a material being can only be intrinsically good, neutral or evil. If a firearm is not intrinsically evil, the only logical choices are that it is either intrinsically good or neutral. My position is that because the firearm does not occur by nature, but rather by man’s artifice, it is a neutral being. The nature of a firearm is to work as a tool, hence why I called it a neutral tool.

Extrinsically, a firearm can be used to an evil purpose, such as murder. However, morally speaking, that does not change the intrinsic consideration of the neutrality of the firearm.

There is no evil in considering the “stopping” capability of a firearm when discussing self defense. Self defense flows from a natural right of a man to protect his salvation, life, limb, those under his authority, and his great property holdings.

You’re conflating too many points. If you take everything down to first intellective and moral principles, then the confusion will vanish.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The types of guns, ammo, and accessories that are advertised now as opposed to in the past reflect exactly what I have been saying.

The same is true of cars, motorcycles, washing machines, television sets and anything you want to name.

You are correct that being able to own a gun is certainly part of American culture as a whole. The widespread ownership of handguns and assault weapons is not. It is an entirely new phenomena

Might be where you live. Where I live, people have always had guns. There is no evidence that the ability to own a gun causes violence in and of itself.

I don’t know squat about guns, but you seem quite knowledgeable. So, in your opinion, is there any kind of assault weapon that you would not mind being banned, or maybe banned except for hunters?

I do not favor wide availability of actual “assault weapons”, which are fully automatic and which almost nobody has. I see no reason to ban things like AR15s. An AR 15 is no more lethal than an ordinary 30.06. It’s just easier to carry.

 

[tafan2]

Jeeze, I did not realize we were having a metaphysical discussion. But if we play that game, it seems that a firearm should be classified as a artifact, not a being.
Regardless, I admitted above that firearms are not intrinsically evil, so you are taking exception to me saying they are not morally neutral tools. Fine. It has little to do with my overall point. Morally neutral tools can be regulated by the government. There is nothing unjust about that.

 

[meltzerboy2]

And an AR15 cannot be reloaded faster and does not have the capacity for more ammo? Bear with my ignorance, please.

 

[Brian_K]

The common theme I’ve noticed over the shootings over the past decades is hopelessness. Like Islamic terrorists, these shooters feel hopeless and helpless in the face of the rotten Western corporate machine as it poisons their lives and their culture. A friend shared his experience as a young White man in modern society, as being expected to pay exorbitent college tuition, be told he’s evil by teachers his whole life, end up over his head in college debt and unable to find a decent job because he’s not a sodomite or a certain skin tone, then hope to marry a woman who may or may not toss him aside like the week’s trash as soon as she’s “not happy.”

Now I think he might be focusing too much on externals and not on what he can do in the here and now. At the same time we do see a lot of what he says in our culture, and it’s accepted as the norm. Great civilizations were not built with open borders, affirmative action, moral relativism, and promiscuity, and these are all contributing to the decline of Western civilization.

I believe the solution lies with young people who have enough energy and conviction to give their lives for something, but to unite and form community with one another instead of shooting others. I think the El Paso shooter’s manifesto shows evidence that he wasn’t so much mentally ill as he was full of despair. He did have some understanding of the problems plaguing our society, but seemed to feel so hopeless that he could not live for his cause, but only die for it.

I think the next step will be the deterioration of the US and the rest of the western world into more primitive city-states and counties coalescing along lines of language, race, religion, values, etc. Less commerce, less speed, less duplicity. Integrity and trust in one’s neighbor will become a mark of excellence again, and will be the main capital each man has to bring to the table to function in society.

In sum, I believe we’re seeing the final gasps of a civilization that, while it was a noble experiment, sold it’s own people for the hope of a bigger financial payoff. But we’ve also learned a valuable lesson and I pray that in a few centuries that civilization will rise from the ash heap and climb even higher.

 

[PetraG]

The reason that most likely nothing will happen is because the problem is immoral people. You can’t legislate morality. You can’t use the police to beat it into people. And you can’t make immoral people moral by disarming people who are already moral.

I think the evidence is that most mass shootings are not committed by immoral people but by unmoored people.

I don’t know squat about guns, but you seem quite knowledgeable. So, in your opinion, is there any kind of assault weapon that you would not mind being banned, or maybe banned except for hunters?

Banning this kind of weapon or that is fine, I suppose, but what I have seen in my lifetime is a discussion of doing it that is followed by the shelves emptying in the gun shops, followed by nothing happening. This has resulted in over 6 million (or 7 million or 10 million or what have you) weapons of the kind that were supposedly in some danger of being outlawed being bought up. We’re to the point now that we have to admit that weapon bans are, to some extent, too little and too late.

More to the point, look at the Boston Marathon bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing and realize that we’re not going to outlaw pressure cookers or metal pipes or nails. How many attacks during the troubles in Ireland or the ones that take place in Israel involved guns?

The question for me is what to do about the contemporary glamourization of mass murder. I really don’t know. It is a very attractive temptation for some unmoored people.

 

[Nikolaite]

Contrasting an artifact and a being as if an artifact does not exist?

Firearms are already regulated in the USA. If you’re using “regulated” as a equivocal term for “illegal”, then I could understand the context better. You could come to that conclusion if you don’t recognize the inviolable rights to private property that Pope Leo XIII taught us in his great work Rerum novarum, as I cited above.

 

[tafan2]

The same is true of cars, motorcycles, washing machines, television sets and anything you want to name.

Of course all advertising changes. The point I am making is what one can discern from observing those changes. The advertising of guns is now heavily slanted towards assault rifles and handguns primarily designed for killing people. That tells you that there has been a big change in the mentality of gun ownsership. As does the decline in hunting.

Might be where you live. Where I live, people have always had guns. There is no evidence that the ability to own a gun causes violence in and of itself.

I sated above, guns were ubiquitous where I grew up. I relize that people have always had guns. But the type of guns people own and want to own has changed drastically. Ownership of guns is part of American culture, ownership of weapons designed to kill people is not.

An AR 15 is no more lethal than an ordinary 30.06. It’s just easier to carry.

The fact that it is easier to carry, has less recoil, is more compact, typically has a larger magazine, makes it far more lethal than an ordinary 30-06. Far more lethal. Lets go back to an M1-Garand, one simply cannot rapid fire it at all while being accurate and moving. The recoil and weight is far too great. I suspect someone who is good with one and is well situated, might be able to get off a half way accurate shot every 2-3 seconds at best. Not the case with an AR-15. You are just being disingenuous now.

 

[Nikolaite]

Nikolaite:

The reason that most likely nothing will happen is because the problem is immoral people. You can’t legislate morality. You can’t use the police to beat it into people. And you can’t make immoral people moral by disarming people who are already moral.

I think the evidence is that most mass shootings are not committed by immoral people but by unmoored people.

To live life without a moral compass, especially past the age of discretion (i.e., approximately seven years old) is to be an immoral person.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

We are actively trying to deny N. Korea and Iran nuclear weapons. Why not France, or England, or India? We don’t trust N. Korea and Iran.

That’s not the question I was asking

No, right, you were asking about a “constitutional right,” which isn’t of course relevant to N. Korea or to Iran. I was speaking to the right to bear arms, which the Second Amendment does not create or bestow upon people but only righteously recognizes as already existing, apart from any law.

You were asking if there isn’t some level of danger of the weapon, that might exclude its possession from the protections that an inalienable right demands from laws. In mentioning those “rogue” nations trying to arm themselves with nuclear weaponry, I pointed to that the danger of the weapon isn’t the question at all since we ourselves have them, plus India, France, Russia, England, China, and a few or at least one other. Why aren’t we trying to deny these other countries their nuclear weaponry, or voluntarily disarming ourselves of them?

We don’t trust N. Korea and Iran. Do you agree?

Nihilo:

Because the current restrictions are illegal, Unconstitutional, and evil, all at the same time.

Illegal how? If the law restricts it, it’s legal no?

Unconstitutional is illegal. I was repeating myself. Gun control objectively contravenes the Bill of Rights.

How is it evil?

If classical liberalism is correct, and that’s certainly my position, then it is evil to infringe or restrict or otherwise regulate or preside over the right to bear arms, which means it’s evil to meddle in gun markets, evil to restrict what people can and can’t own or carry, force people to register or to jump through administrative and bureaucratic hoops to arm themselves, limit magazine capacity, limit features of the guns including ‘silencers,’ etc.

If classical liberalism is incorrect then gun control is fine.

 

[Nikolaite]

Ridgerunner:

The same is true of cars, motorcycles, washing machines, television sets and anything you want to name.

Of course all advertising changes. The point I am making is what one can discern from observing those changes. The advertising of guns is now heavily slanted towards assault rifles and handguns primarily designed for killing people. That tells you that there has been a big change in the mentality of gun ownsership. As does the decline in hunting.

1. Armalite rifles are not assault rifles or assault-style weapons.
2. You’re railing against firearms designs that were set more than 100 years ago.

 

[tafan2]

Armalite rifles are not assault rifles or assault-style weapons.

You mean like these: Login

I would disagree.

You’re railing against firearms designs that were set more than 100 years ago.

I fail to see when the type of weapon came into existence is pertinent to the discussion at all. Gatling guns are what, 150 years old, so they must be ok in private hands?

 

[tafan2]

If classical liberalism is correct, and that’s certainly my position, then it is evil to infringe or restrict or otherwise regulate or preside over the right to bear arms, which means it’s evil to meddle in gun markets, evil to restrict what people can and can’t own or carry, force people to register or to jump through administrative and bureaucratic hoops to arm themselves, limit magazine capacity, limit features of the guns including ‘silencers,’ etc.

You really believe this. There is no limit to what a person’s right (in a society governed by classic liberalism) to own or carry a weapon?