Real Clear Politics
As the Senate gets set to show that you can fight the National Rifle Association, let’s consider what has to be the worst reason ever put forward by anyone to oppose anything in the entire history of the human race: that the actions under consideration “won’t prevent” future tragedies or “wouldn’t have prevented” such-and-such sociopath from unloading hundreds of rounds into the bodies of children. Gun nuts invoke this argument as if it’s some kind of clincher, a discussion-ender. It’s anything but. It shows total ignorance about the reasons that we make laws in the first place.
If these proposals wouldn't stop these types of events, why are you BASING the push for them on these events?
ReplyDeleteYour dismissal of this argument shows that you are merely using the family members and their grief to push laws that you want, but which are unrelated to the cause of their pain.
You're phrasing the question the way the NRA taught you to.
DeleteWhat we really say is although these proposals won't stop ALL such events, they will stop some.
Now, that's a bit different than the mischaracterization you used.
Bitch, please.
DeleteThe NRA didn't teach me this argument. College and law school did.
These proposals would do nothing to stop this kind of mass shooting. Not all. Not some.
Maybe our Tennessean wannabe should have studied a bit harder. Although there remains no medical or academic cure for proud stupidity.
DeleteWhy don't you admit who you are, you would help your cause.
DeleteRegulations are only as good, as it's enforcement. The current system is broken. Felons get guns. You can make a sieve bigger, but it's essence remains.
E.N., are you admitting to being someone with administration privileges on this blog? Otherwise, how would you know who someone who commented as Anonymous actually is?
DeleteHe probably could recognize my disdain for him in various posts. Amazing that he can detect a familiar voice in someone's postings, but can't seem to understand how we can recognize him as all of his sockpuppets.
DeleteI eventually decided to come back here after I got over my disgust over Mike's ghoulish behavior with that picture of Mr. Ratliff. That, and I realized it was better to remind people of that behavior, and all of his other generalized insults and prejudice against whole regions. After all, the more people get to see Mike at his worst, the more folks will come here and, even if they're liberals like Ben who visited a while back, will see the moral bankruptcy of the gun control side. I was out of the habit of typing Tennessean on every post, but if it will make our little troll happy, I'll resume. I would ask, in exchange, that trollkins up his game--he's been slipping--I mean, his post below: "That's how we see it. Don't be fooled." E.N., are you Trying to give up trolling and scream "I'm a caricature!"
Interestingly, by the time I came back, E.N. had started rubbing off on our host who had begun to behave in a more unhinged manner, and has continued down that road of insult, libel, and now even admitting that he wants at least some level of confiscation.
Shit, old habit's die hard, the preceeding was by the Tennessean.
DeleteWelcome back Tennesseean. Was that you who said, "Bitch, please?"
DeleteGlad to see you're back, Tennesseean.
DeleteYes, Mike, it was. I know that wasn't exactly polite, or high dialogue, but frankly I'm pretty damn tired of the "you're a robot of the NRA--you only think what they want you to think, worry about what they want you to worry about, and argue what they teach you to argue" load of crap.
DeleteWe're independent adults and have our own thought process. I grew up reading NRA magazines, irritated that I, as a kid, could come up with better arguments than they often used.
For you to continually accuse us of being NRA automatons is insulting and is a puerile way of avoiding arguing the issue on the merits. When I run up against puerile behavior, sometimes I respond in kind.
As for the topic above--a law needs to have a rational basis at the very least; the government doesn't get to legislate what it wants solely because it wants it. Therefore, these laws need some basis.
The basis constantly cited is that we need to act because of Newtown--I seem to recall POTUS chanting "The families of Newtown deserve a vote!" Etc.
Therefore, it's a legitimate argument to point out that none of this would have made a difference in Newtown. If the politicians want to admit that and stop using Newtown as their reason, they might find a stronger argument. I'd probably still disagree with their logic, and I'd definitely disagree with them on Constitutional grounds, but at least they wouldn't be using these families for emotional impact that has no rational connection to the law they're pushing, and we'd be arguing on more honest grounds.
T., I was just surprised. You seem to be a bit more caustic now than I remember. You told me why, though.
DeleteLet me ask you this? Do you think my stereotype of gun-rights folks is completely without merit? Do you think it could apply to many, or most, if not you personally?
About the magazines, it's also a legitimate argument that magazine size would have made a gigantic difference in the Lanza shooting, especially since his mother was a law-abiding gun owner and very likely would have obeyed the law had it been in effect.
Of course there are some people who fit the stereotype--there's always some people that fit a stereotype. However, the existence of those people doesn't justify tossing the stereotype in someones face as a way to avoid an argument. Nor does it justify using insulting stereotypes to try to rally people against another group of people. Your "Stupid Fat White Men" comments do as much for your side of the argument as "Stupid Shiftless Immoral Niggers" comments do for the White Supremacists. It alienates people who dislike treating people as groups, it shows an unwillingness to argue straightforwardly, and it shows an ugly prejudice.
DeleteAs for the magazines, we've covered this before--Lanza was doing tactical reloads; the only time he seems to have used the full magazine capacity was when he had children cornered in a classroom.
Cho did more damage at VT with handguns and 10 round magazines. Nobody charged him, they just did what he said and laid on the ground praying not to be shot, or not fatally. If big strapping college students couldn't take advantage of his many, frequent magazine changes, how would first graders have done so?
The only difference would have been more magazines littering the floors, and the shooting taking a few seconds longer due to the extra magazine changes.
Crap, keep forgetting to sign.
Delete"The only difference would have been more magazines littering the floors, and the shooting taking a few seconds longer due to the extra magazine changes." Says the man with extraordinary psychic powers.
DeleteAgain, Cho did more carnage with 10 round magazines.
DeleteReports are that Lanza planned and practiced--you don't think he practiced magazine changes?
Please: Tell me what difference there would have been if he had 3x 10 round magazines instead of x 30 rounders.
You're making me repeat myself now. He would have had to change magazines 15 times instead of just 5. I think it's a fair argument that that would have made a difference. Unlike you, though, I don't know what would have happened.
DeleteJudging by the tactical reloads it would have been more like 12, but either way, that means 30 seconds instead of 10 reloading--the bulk of which reloading time would have been spent while in the classroom where he cornered the children, so I'm unclear on how 15-20 seconds of extra reloading time (spread out between barrages) is supposed to make a difference when 17 or more magazine changes didn't allow college students to stop Cho.
DeleteMikeb, why do you accept the word of experts when you agree with the experts' agendas, but not otherwise? That's a critical thinking question.
DeleteWe know what we're talking about regarding changing out magazines. We know from our own practice and study. You've been shown the case of Virginia Tech, where the shooter used the magazines that your side demands. You've been shown how the Aurora shooter's hundred-round magazine jammed, probably saving lives. You don't care. You just want a limit.
This is why I accuse you of having ulterior motives. If a magazine capacity limit can be imposed, then people can be limited to a particular number of magazines. Then magazines can be banned altogether. Step by step, your side will chip away at the right until it has no legal application.
We're not stupid. Like Tennesseean, I get tired of you telling us that we're NRA dupes and irresponsible gun owners. I keep trying to dial down the acrimony, but you won't go along. You still spout insults and implications. So I see your gun control proposals in the same light as your wishes for civility. It's rules for me, but not for thee again.
Greg:
Delete"It's rules for me, but not for thee again."
Rules for thee, but not for me. If you use my motto, get it right!
It comes as no shock that E.N. is too stupid to realize that the phrase had to be reworded to fit the context.
DeleteYou neglected to quote the essence of the argument, so I'll give it here. The original author is saying that we routinely pass laws that improve the situation significantly, even while they don't prevent every bad thing from happening. He cited oil spills as an example of environmental disasters that occur, though we have in place tough laws.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is that we have no reason to believe that a magazine restriction would have any effect at all:
1. There are far too many magazines out there already that give wussies the runs.
2. Such magazines lack serial numbers and can't be distinguished from pre-ban magazines.
3. Such magazines are easy to import (read smuggle) into slave states.
4. Most pragmatically, but just as irrelevant to the right as any of the other reasons, magazine capacity doesn't affect the ability of a person to shoot up a gun-free zone, since changing out magazines takes under two seconds.
I, and most people, disagree with your first point.
DeleteYou disagree with what? That there are millions of standard-capacity magazines already in private hands? Are you also saying that you find the rest of my argument compelling?
DeleteChina was once armed. That problem was remedied. The U.S. will follow.
DeleteSure. It only took the systematic murder of 45 million Chinese before they were done. I guess you don't think that's too great a price to pay.
DeleteRe: #3, given that magazines are little are than sheet metal and springs, it's a great way to encourage a cottage industry black market.
DeleteIn response to the one who refers to itself as "Jim"......................
DeleteIn 1949 we gained control over some 650 new subjects. Even the highest estimates are a drop in the bucket with respect to the massive herd.
This is how we see it. Don't be fooled.
DeleteSorry, Greg, it was you pre-1st point:
Delete"The problem here is that we have no reason to believe that a magazine restriction would have any effect at all:"
I and most people don't agree with that.
Facts are facts, whether you do or don't agree. There's no reason to believe that limiting capacity would do any good whatsoever. I walked you through the logic, but you ignored that and made a blanket statement that your side doesn't agree.
DeleteTypical.
Saying you disagree and citing support from "most people" doesn't win an argument. Instead of an appeal to the bandwagon, I'd like to hear your answer to Greg's arguments. Why are his four points wrong so that magazine bans would work? Is there something he left out? Or is your answer to simply draft the laws so that these factors work against gun owners--make it so that they have the burden to prove the date of manufacture and of their purchase of this unmarked box with a spring in it--or the date they printed it off or made it with a press, etc.? If that's the case, you'll turn them into legal plutonium that kills anyone caught with them--of course, one has to wonder what more extreme elements might do if one of their friends go jailed for a legally purchased and owned pre-ban magazine.
DeleteAll the reasons in the world for why the laws wouldn't work are no excuse to continue making it easier the the bad guys.
DeleteThe millions of high capacity magazines already "out there" are in the possession of lawful gun owners. You make it sound like they're sitting in a box on the corner available to anyone who wants one.
Stopping the manufacture and sale of more and more of them will certainly have an affect on future mad men. That's the simple logic that you don't want to see - even though I've walked you through it.
People sell and trade stuff, so they'd get around. Even if further trade in them was prohibited (unlike in '94, there would be enough violators with huge piles to keep the black market supplied, and then there's Greg's other points--impossibility to enforce unless you catch the illegal sale in process (how's that working in stemming the tide of drugs), black market imports, and lack of affect on crazy mass shooters.
Delete1. With 3D printing, magazines will become easy to make at home.
Delete2. Magazines, like any other contraband, can be smuggled across the border.
3. The millions of magazines now in circulation won't disappear overnight--well, they will disappear, until the reappear on the black market.
4. You have yet to show how a limit of ten rounds would prevent any outrage from happening. Yes, the wacko in Tucson was stopped when he ran dry. Had he stood off a bit, he could have kept shooting. Saying that magazine limits work on poorly prepared wackos isn't a strong argument.
Now, Mikeb, would you address my specific points in detail?
Comrade Greg makes an interesting point.
DeleteWith the advent of new technology and the progressively rapid forms of information dissemination, the ability of the State to control the distribution of a particular object diminishes.
We don't need gun control. We need Thought Control.
The former is useless without imposition of the latter.
Don't call me comrade, E.N. You and I will never be on the same side.
Delete"1. With 3D printing, magazines will become easy to make at home."
DeleteAnd who can afford a 3D printer, all those guys who can't afford a decent gun-safe?
You're forgetting how technology such as printers drops in price after a few years. Safes, by contrast, are made of materials that maintain a steady cost.
DeleteWell, given that over time technology tends to come down in price, I suspect that 3D printers will do the same. That said, any half-way decent home garage machine shop can produce magazines right now. A decent one (not a "great" or "outstanding" one) can produce an entire firearm (including the barrel, though this is the most difficult part). Remember, firearms are about 700 years old. Rifling came along in about 1500. Semi-automatic firearms date from the late 1800's.
DeleteDon't forget the 3D printers being bought by community colleges all over the country. Just swing by one evening with a CAD file, and head home with a few 30 round mags.
DeleteAlso, notice how Mike tossed out a red herring there rather than dealing with all of Greg's points?
DeleteT., did you just want to make a smart-ass comment there, or what? Have you really not read my response to those points of Greg's? They are all over these pages.
DeleteThe smart-assery was intended to goad you into actually presenting an argument. You contradict point four, but don't provide much in the way of explanation. As for 2 and 3, I've never seen you address them when it comes to magazines. Even when it comes to guns, I can't remember you ever providing much of an answer on those topics other than that you didn't think enough guns could be smuggled in since they're large, etc. Otherwise, I remember the threads getting clogged with poo flung by an Anonymous commenter who used "Gunsucks" a lot and denied that guns could be smuggled at all.
DeleteSo, if you can be bothered, I'd like to know how these magazine bans could succeed in relation to at least Greg's points 2 & 3, and related to that, how can you enforce such a ban considering that magazines are simple, non-serial numbered boxes, easy to reproduce, and impossible to trace the ownership history of.
Mikeb, I'm not aware of you ever giving straight and detailed answers when I ask these questions. You're dismissive, or you insist that reason doesn't make sense, or you deny evidence, but you never get around to addressing the specific points that I make.
DeleteI think both you guys are pretending to be unaware of my many responses to these questions.
DeleteGreg thinks enough guns or magazines or whatever would be imported to make up for whatever domestic restrictions we impose, I think not. He cites the importation of cocaine as evidence. I say if cocaine were produced here like it is in Columbia, the amount that's imported would be only a fraction of what we'd have. I win that one.
The gazillion high capacity magazines already owned by gun owners would not continue to supply criminals with access to them if we stopped producing more and outlawed their possession. You think it would, I think not. I think I'm right.
Greg's point 4 is the most tedious of all. I have repeatedly shown examples of this, Loughner being the clearest. Even Greg seems to acquiesce to this one by qualifying it with a "but if he had stood off just a bit..." nonsense.
Mike, in all the time I've been here, you've never put as much effort into discussing this topic as you did in that post.
DeleteUnfortunately, there's still a lot of detail you're overlooking or discounting. You say that if we produced cocaine here like in Columbia, the amount imported would be a tiny fraction of the supply. Are you suggesting that the imported supply would be the same and that we'd see a dramatic increase in demand? Because otherwise, you don't win anything. Your own example shows that without internal production, illegal imports turn into a booming market. Your own example proves our point.
Next, you say that the magazines already out there would not be a problem if we outlawed their possession. However, it's obvious that criminals wouldn't turn in the hi-caps they have. Many other people would become criminals because they would refuse to turn them in, and there would be no way to track them down. Also, more could be smuggled as discussed before--they would be even easier to smuggle than the guns themselves. Finally, they're not that hard to manufacture--even before 3D printing, people could get some sheet metal, make a jig, and manufacture magazines using a hydraulic press. Do you seriously think that a black market that could charge $50-100 each would not quickly spring up, manufacturing new magazines?
Finally, Cho showed the carnage that can be wrought with only 10 round magazines and determination--he didn't even use an evil black rifle. Loughner did manage to get of a lot of shots before he was taken down during his first reload. However, it was the long, 33 round magazine that the people tackling him were able to grab hold of before the gun--with smaller magazines, he might have reloaded without incident.
Also, Greg has an important point with the "if he had stood off just a bit" comment. The only reason that the reload gave people time to tackle Loughner was because he was in the middle of them. Unlike most of our other mass shooters, he did not have a detailed plan. He did something tactically stupid, and, thankfully, that allowed him to be taken down more quickly. Lanza, Holmes, and most others show a great degree of planning. Lanza would shoot, reload, then move to the next target to avoid getting bum rushed like Loughner--this would not have changed with 10 round magazines. Holmes used distraction, strategy, and terror to keep people from rushing him. He also carried multiple weapons, so as soon as one was empty or malfunctioned, he could switch to another, keep shooting, and deal with reloading or clearing the jam as soon as he had a safe buffer zone.
This is the reason for Greg's comment. Mass shootings are rare. Among them, unplanned, reckless ones like Loughner's are even more rare. It's not nonsense to point out that your proposed magazine bans would not affect the outcome in most instances, or to note that if a shooter could not get around a capacity limit, this limitation might cause them to adjust their tactics so that they could keep their body count high.
Mikeb, how do you win? If cocaine were produced here, it wouldn't have to be imported. But the demand exists, and there will be a supply to meet it, whether that comes from another country or from local sources.
DeleteIn addition, magazines are machine parts. Dogs can't sniff them out. They can be hidden inside larger parts. They can be made in machine shops. In fact, look up a Sten gun. The whole firearm could be made with little trouble.
Beyond that, magazines last a long time. Make some kinds illegal, and those will become valuable on the black market.
So no, you didn't win.
Mike, let me give you an argument against mag restrictions that many pro-gun might be scared to provide: altering a legal mag to accept more rounds is often easy. In fact, there are ready made kits for that very thing.
ReplyDeleteReason #3 makes state by state mag bans a joke. People in Mexico and Canada complain that guns are coming over our intrnational border into their country. If an international border won't stop the traffic of guns (larger than mags and serialized) then mag bans between states will not do better but much worse. Also, have you heard of defense distributed and 3D printing?
Mike, restricting mag capacity at the state or federal level will not have ANY positive effect. If anything you could give rise to the Persian effect. Someone w/ the brains and determination will, on his own, develop weapons and weapon systems "from the ground up". These weapons, weapon systems, and attack approaches are often more problematic than the previous problem(s). People will create when faced w/ sanctions much like Nazi Germany did post-WWI and Persia/Iran did after its revolution.
Dave, your side usually says that most gun owners are law abiding folks. Now you're saying, what, that they'd stop being that because of the terrible inconvenience caused by a magazine restriction?
DeleteI don't think so. Most will obey the laws regardless of how strict they become.
Most gun owners are good citizens. That means that we participate in our society, we do good where we can, and we don't harm innocent people. It does not mean that we will go along with unjust laws.
DeleteI'm afraid, Mike, that a significant number will choose to not obey the law. On my best days, I see this as a truly unfortunate event with some potentially ugly and entirely unintended consequences. On other days, I fear pro-rights people are being drawn into a game of NIGYYSOB.
DeleteOnly the fanatics and extremists will dare to not obey. That means the vast majority, to use Greg's favorite expression, will.
DeleteThat's been a safe assumption up until now, but I think you're getting pretty close to where most people draw the line. I don't know where most people's lines are in NY, but in Appalachia, you know we draw the line a lot sooner than most folk (e.g. who do you think cooked up all that moonshine--probably half the people in the mountains were alcohol "fanatics and extremists"). Around here, I'd guess that 75% of the people with "assault weapons" would bury their magazines or hide them in the drywall, etc. Could be a higher number, but I'm guessing just going by the mood and comments I've heard from folks.
DeleteWhat it amounts to is the further you guys push the law, the more people think you've gone too far and wind up in that "fanatics and extremists" group.
Tennessean, I'm curious. If you're willing to answer, where in Appalachia do you live? Years ago I lived the thriving metropolises of both Rogersville and Sneedville.
DeleteI'll keep my current location closer to the vest, but I grew up in Church Hill (Curently still in that corner of the state). Somehow I never made it across that part of Clinch Mountain to Sneedville; some of my dad's co-workers would drive from Surgoinsville to Kingsport, through the gap at Gate City, and come back down to Sneedville when they had to go--they said it didn't take much longer than the mountain roads, and it got them less car sick.
DeleteMikeb, here's a question for you to ponder while you're back at moderating comments:
ReplyDeleteYou've said in the past that I parrot positions taken by the NRA, but haven't I demonstrated many times that I make up my own mind on things? You can't rightly accuse me of being a right-wing ideologue. I've offered a number of my opinions that are more to the left than the right of the political spectrum. Neither am I a left-wing ideologue. I don't buy into random quotes seemingly from famous people of the past, and I don't swallow every wild story
Can we at least agree that when I say something, it's the product of my own thinking?
No, when it comes to guns you are as unreasonable and as influenced as the rest of the gun-rights fanatics.
DeleteI do appreciate that you're left-leaning on some of the other issues.
See, once again, your biases blind you to reality. You just can't conceive of the idea that someone might support gun rights after having given the matter careful thought.
DeleteGreg, don't be offended. It was almost a guarantee that Mike would be unable to admit you came to your conclusions regarding gun rights on your own. It's far easier to maintain a position if you can believe your opponents are illogical, unreasoning and deceived (or evil if all else fails). It has been the mindset of religious and political ideologues for centuries. The possibility that they (those who differ with the ideologue) have honestly and independently arrived at conclusions that contradict your own raises the possibility, however remote, that you might actually be wrong.
DeleteAll of us have a lot of ourselves invested in what we believe. The more we have invested, the less we like the possibility of being mistaken. It can reach the point that being wrong doesn't simply mean there was something wrong with my conclusions. It can mean (because of how much I have invested in my position) that there is something wrong with ME. This is pretty intolerable to almost anyone. If we think of it in terms of the person Hoffer would call the "True Believer", being wrong becomes even more of an issue. It reaches the point, regardless of what the person says about his or her open-mindedness, of being absolutely unacceptable. There is so much riding on the position that the True Believer is literally incapable (not just unwilling) of accepting even the remotest possibility of being wrong. The personal risk is just too great.
Oh yes! We're all just NRA automatons!
DeleteYou demand civility, and impose comment moderation because Hoffman was hurting your feewings, but you keep condescending to all of us and telling us that we are incapable of having an original thought in our heads with regards to guns.
Frankly, your comments are far more offensive than any puerile name calling or caustic words from us.
Retired Mustang, good to see you back here, by the way. Yup, I've been dealing with fundamentalists my whole life, so I recognize the type. I do enjoy pointing out hypocrisy when I see it.
DeleteTennesseean, civility to control freaks means that we submit to what they perceive as wisdom.