The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

mcd001
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby mcd001 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:08 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:"It", in my previous sentence, refers to "the assholes in charge - when they or their kids get shot"; not, in fact, the mass shooting in Texas. But nice try.

Got it. You meant Republican politicians, not southern baptists. That is only marginally less nasty-sounding.

eran_rathan wrote:...most Republicans of the past twenty years have seemed less and less principled and more and more the party of "I've got mine, so fuck you."

Unfortunately, I'm not able to defend the principles of the Republican establishment. They have proven that they care more for helping their Chamber of Commerce donors and big-business cronies than the conservative base that elected them. They will say anything to get elected, then revert to business as usual once elected. But they are finding out you can only play this game for so long.

As for the Democrats, they offer no real alternatives to anyone on the right. They are as thoroughly corrupt as mainstream Republicans, and every bit as interested in gaining and keeping power at any cost.

These two facts explain the election of Donald Trump in a nutshell.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5495
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:15 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I suppose the exception could be made for people with one arm, but I'm under the impression that if you can't handle even a 20 gauge shotgun or a .22 rifle you shouldnt be near any gun at all.


For the record, a 20ga has much more kick than a .22.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:32 pm UTC

Friend of mine, ok friend is stretching it, acquaintance in college, said that in his family at 10 they got a 20 gauge. Assuming I'm not completely head up ass, I'd hazard that "As competent as a 10 year old boy" is a possible lower limit.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5495
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:00 pm UTC

Well, for comparison:

https://images.remington-catalog.com/573cd24177416
20ga, 5/8 oz (273 gr) slug, 1580 fps muzzle velocity

https://images.remington-catalog.com/5751b55958a9a
.22lr, 40 gr, 1080 fps muzzle velocity

The 20ga has about 10x the momentum. That's not insignificant.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:15 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:I suppose the exception could be made for people with one arm, but I'm under the impression that if you can't handle even a 20 gauge shotgun or a .22 rifle you shouldnt be near any gun at all.


For the record, a 20ga has much more kick than a .22.
It has more kick than many things.

2 g at 530 m/s versus 24 g at 335 m/s? 1.06 kg m/s versus 8.04 kg m/s? Yes, I'd say the shotgun has more kick. How fast the weapon will come backwards will depend on its mass. From Field & Stream:
Greener wrote that gun should weigh 96 times its intended shot charge to properly absorb the recoil. According to Greener, therefore, a 20 gauge firing 7/8 once of shot should weigh 5 ¼ pounds while a 20 made for an ounce of shot should weigh 6 pounds. A 12 for 1 1/8 ounces of shot would weigh about 6 ¾ pounds; a gun for 1 ¼ ounce loads (which were considered quite heavy in Greener’s day) would weigh 7 ½.
According to that, the shotgun ought to have 12 times the mass of the rifle, but I doubt anyone makes half-pound .22 LR rifles. Range365 say the Remington Nylon 66 "weighed only 4 lbs. 8 oz.," (2.04 kg) which doesn't make me believe in 8-ounce (227 g) rifles.
The weapon will therefore come back at a much lower speed initially even if it isn't firmly against your shoulder, and it'll move you back a lot less.

9x19 mm 8.04 g at 373 m/s has only 3.00 kg m/s of momentum, so still less than the shotgun load, and the Uzi is listed on wiki at 7.72 lb (3.50). Frickin' US-based industry using imperial units. :roll:
5.56 mm 3.56 g at 1 km/s has, obviously, 3.56 kg m/s of momentum. 7.18 lb (3.26 kg) M16 or 6.58 kg L86? Either way, less kick than that shotgun.
.45 ACP 15g at 290 m/s is a slower, heavier thing with 4.35 kg m/s. The Winchester round at 255 m/s has 3.83 kg m/s. More kick than a 5.56mm for only a third the power! An M1911 is only 2.44 lb (1.105 kg), so that's going to come backwards 6.4 times as fast as an L86 if you don't keep hold of it ... and at 99.90% the speed that 20-gauge would come back at you if you weren't holding onto it.

If you want a one-handed firearm that's some good against intruders, the Five-seveN has some things going for it like a 20-round magazine and the ability to punch through TL2 kevlar vests, but I think it'd be hard to do all the things other than point it and squeeze the trigger that one has to do. A bullpup rifle may be easier to load, unload, make safe and so on than the pistol, because it's probably easier to keep it still without a second hand. You may need some kind of heat shield around the barrel to avoid burning fingers on it.

Then we need to consider blind people's needs. If a blind person's going to shoot an intruder, they need to be using a suppressor, because they're reliant on their hearing to tell them where any other intruders or family members are and which is which. Suppressor bans discriminate against blind people.

---

If you *can* handle it, sure, a 20-gauge loaded with wax slugs or #4 buckshot is a great intruder-stopper. The Evil Black Rifle is probably easier to handle, though, and even if there are 40 of them, who's going to volunteer to be one of the first 30 to step forwards?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:26 pm UTC

Ok looked it up. Mea culpa, was thinking of a 28 gauge. Which still has a recoil of 12.8 foot pounds, vs around 5 for a .22. So yeah, 2-3 times the recoil. So someone that could handle a rifle might not be able to handle a shotgun.

Still going to posit that we should restrict handguns regardless, or at least require a much more extensive screening. If not for crime, then for suicide; handguns seem to be the gun of choice for that.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:09 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Still going to posit that we should restrict handguns regardless, or at least require a much more extensive screening. If not for crime, then for suicide; handguns seem to be the gun of choice for that.

That's probably because they're the gun everyone has, what with them being cheap, concealable and suitable for routine carry, and because it's easier to reach the trigger at the far end of a 5" barrel than to reach one at the far end of a 20" barrel and a long ejection port.

I'd posit that the right to bear arms is long overdue for some infringing.

It's not like you don't already, really. Convicted felon? No gun for you. I'd think most of the Second Amendment Fan Club are probably alright with not allowing an unaccompanied 9-year-old to go into a shop with saved-up pocket money and buy a gun and ammunition.

My suggestion would be a licence system sort of like what we use for drivers of motor vehicles here in the UK. I'd have three tiers: learner, proficient, instructor. There'd be a lead-in phase allowing people to qualify before it became a requirement to be qualified. After that, people would very easily get a learner licence as long as they weren't convicted violent criminals, unable to pass a simple intelligence test, unable to pass a simple grasp of reality test or certified unfit by a qualified psychiatrist / psychologist. They'd have to be supervised by an instructor until they qualified as proficient, though, and have to be proficient to keep and bear arms. I'd introduce an offence of supplying a firearm to or allowing a firearm to come into the possession of a person not qualified to have it under the circumstances existing at the time, which would mean owners had to keep their weapons out of other people's hands, and I'd include culpability for misuse of a firearm that was supplied by or otherwise obtained from an owner who failed to take reasonable precautions to ensure it wouldn't get into the hands of an unfit and/or unqualified person. As with UK vehicles, I'd have categories. Make the tests for revolvers cover all revolver types. Make the tests for semi-automatic pistols cover all types of them. Make the tests for AR-15-type rifles cover all of them. Make the tests for AK-based designs cover all of them. A person would have to be able to make sure a weapon wasn't about to go off accidentally to be allowed to have one, and negligent discharges would void the licence until they retook the tests.

I'd also include "shoot / no-shoot" range time in the tests. Have arcs of 5 targets at 5, 10, 15 and 20 metre ranges, with different colours, faces or shapes on them. Have a computer wait for a button press, tell you what colour, shape or photograph to shoot, wait 10-20 seconds then pop up a target. If you shoot a target you were supposed to shoot, it goes down, another comes up and the test goes on. If you shoot a target you weren't supposed to shoot, you fail. If you don't shoot that no-shoot target, it will go away after a few seconds and another target will come up, possibly before the no-shoot goes away. Take too long to shoot a target and it'll go away to come back later. Once you've shot all the targets you're supposed to, the total time shoot targets were up is your time and it needs to be below a fairly easily-achieved threshold. The main thing is that if you shot any of the no-shoot targets, you failed; you restart the whole course next time there's a vacancy.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:21 pm UTC

You still have to reconcile that with the fact that the second amendment specifically refers to "the people's right to keep and bear arms." This means to me that your proficiency training and so forth can't be particularly onerous, maybe perhaps a basic instruction and at most 40 hours of supervision with a basic test.

And who defines what counts as a grasp on reality? Should we ban tax protesters and footles from owning guns? Scientologists? Animal rights activists and Greenpeace?

The problem I have with psych screenings is that they scare people away from those screenings. When being honest about suicidal thoughts means that the shrink is required to put you under surveillance, or you are immediately sacked from your job as say a pilot, of course people are going to avoid help.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2466
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:24 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:Then we need to consider blind people's needs. If a blind person's going to shoot an intruder, they need to be using a suppressor, because they're reliant on their hearing to tell them where any other intruders or family members are and which is which. Suppressor bans discriminate against blind people.

Reminds me of the old joke…

An American tourist encountering one of the common UK light-controlled pedestrian crossings1, for the first time, asks a local about the beeping noise.

"That's so that blind people know when the traffic lights are red", is the reply.

The tourist is surprised by this, as "They don' let blind people drive, where ah'm from!"…


(…we now return you to our movie double-bill. The Handguns Of Navarone, followed by The Magnificent AK-47...)


1 e.g. Pelican (PEdestrian LIght CONtrolled crossing), Puffin (Pedestrian User-(!)Friendly INtelligent crossing) and Toucan (TWO CAN cross, i.e. pedestrians and cycles both crossing roads from shared use footways), but probably not Pegasus (additional horse-rider height request buttons).

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:28 pm UTC

That's a silly joke, considering that many crosswalk signals already have that beeping sound over here too.

A better joke is
Yank: "We are all mixed. My family is part Irish, Italian, German, Russian, Polish, Indian, Chinese, African, Dutch, Spanish..."
Brit: "How sporting of your mother."

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2466
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:59 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:That's a silly joke, considering that many crosswalk signals already have that beeping sound over here too.
It's an old joke, and a little research indicates that, prior to 1998, it wasn't anywhere near as prolific in the US as in the UK. And if the 'Merkin had hailed (say) from Power Cable, Nebraska, then they may not have encountered the few Stateside examples, back in the '70s or whenever the tourism was happening.

A better joke is
Yank: "We are all mixed. My family is part Irish, Italian, German, Russian, Polish, Indian, Chinese, African, Dutch, Spanish..."
Brit: "How sporting of your mother."

Yank Tourist: Is this college pre-war?
Oxbridge Porter: Madam, this college is pre-America

(I've also just tried to find a good Yankee vs Limey joke where it's Old Blighty's personage that gets the worst of the engagement, for balance, but so far nothing that tickles me enough to consider it worthy retelling. Maybe that's the irony of nothing along those lines appealing to a brit. Which would be ironic in itself!)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:13 pm UTC

I also find that the British are quick to point out how they were oh so great for hunting down slave ships and bringing the enlightenment everywhere. They tend to either shut up or get extremely defensive when asked why India doesn't agree, or when it's pointed out that the lionshare of money made from slavery was actually made by British factory owners; the industrial revolution began with powerlooms and the textile industry, where do you think they got the cotton? Even today, slavery still occurs on the cocoa plantations, and while the plantation owners ain't poor, they don't make anywhere close to what Cadbury and Mars makes from the cocao. Hershey isn't innocent either, but no one likes a smug arse, which is why everyone likes to make fun of American jingoism and the like.

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby KittenKaboodle » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:22 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But Kitten made the specific accusation that it was an America specific thing.


Did not!

The flag thing was hyperbole, I assumed this started with the attack on the bike path in New York, in that case it was reported the attacker had an ISIL (or something like that) flag in the truck with him. If one is carrying an ISIL flag, "accident" is not going to be peoples first thought.

Since I live in the US I'm more familiar with drives getting off with a slap on the wrist (or less) for negligently killing someone, but I'm sure there are countries that are worse, also some that are better.
Actually the "vehicular homicide" was a bit hyperbole too, more like vehicular manslaughter in most cases, thought no doubt some are the former.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5495
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:49 am UTC

I wonder how far into the future Republicans will be able to defend the second amendment as unalienable. "Oh, come on, this is a single shot rifle that fires a projectile with the same momentum as a dinky .22 lr; not only that, the bullet is only 1/100,000th the mass!"
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 916
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Coyne » Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:31 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:You still have to reconcile that with the fact that the second amendment specifically refers to "the people's right to keep and bear arms." This means to me that your proficiency training and so forth can't be particularly onerous,...


I think you forgot a phrase of the amendment. That's okay, you're in good company, most proponents of gun ownership forget the same phrase. How else to justify Zero Regulation?
In all fairness...

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby KittenKaboodle » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:52 am UTC

Coyne wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:You still have to reconcile that with the fact that the second amendment specifically refers to "the people's right to keep and bear arms." This means to me that your proficiency training and so forth can't be particularly onerous,...


I think you forgot a phrase of the amendment. That's okay, you're in good company, most proponents of gun ownership forget the same phrase. How else to justify Zero Regulation?


Not only did they forget a phrase, the got the one they did "quote" wrong.
it is the "right of the people" the collective version of person, i.e. the states, which, as Gen. Kelly recently reminded us were way more important than an individual persons liberty (which, unless one was a land owning white male wasn't really very important at all) or even the Country as a whole.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:27 am UTC

Coyne wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:You still have to reconcile that with the fact that the second amendment specifically refers to "the people's right to keep and bear arms." This means to me that your proficiency training and so forth can't be particularly onerous,...


I think you forgot a phrase of the amendment. That's okay, you're in good company, most proponents of gun ownership forget the same phrase. How else to justify Zero Regulation?


Yes, yes, well regulated militia. "Regulated" as in "regular", aka "trained/skilled". Personally, I wouldn't mind if guns were restricted to only the people that could make up a defense force; if the army wouldn't take you due to a "bone spur", no guns for you.

The problem is that when the constitution says "the people", it says "the people" 9 times in total. Well 8, if you aren't including the preamble. Are you going to make the argument that "the people" who have the right to assemble or the right to not have improper search and seizure are different from "the people" who can bear arms? That perhaps "the people" who can elect senators are a different "the people" who can elect representatives?

Basically, the second amendment has the same force of law as the first amendment or any other part of the constitution. Or should, anyway; amendment 4 is only good for wiping your ass with, these days. Obviously the right to assemble isn't absolute; can't assemble on a nuclear launch site, for instance. Likewise, the right to bear arms isn't absolute. But where are the limits? Poll taxes and literacy tests were perfectly constitutional until the passing of the 24th amendment. But no such amendment exists for arms, so there is nothing preventing a gun tax or a competency test to own arms.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5803
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:57 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Coyne wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:You still have to reconcile that with the fact that the second amendment specifically refers to "the people's right to keep and bear arms." This means to me that your proficiency training and so forth can't be particularly onerous,...


I think you forgot a phrase of the amendment. That's okay, you're in good company, most proponents of gun ownership forget the same phrase. How else to justify Zero Regulation?


Yes, yes, well regulated militia. "Regulated" as in "regular", aka "trained/skilled". Personally, I wouldn't mind if guns were restricted to only the people that could make up a defense force; if the army wouldn't take you due to a "bone spur", no guns for you.

The problem is that when the constitution says "the people", it says "the people" 9 times in total. Well 8, if you aren't including the preamble. Are you going to make the argument that "the people" who have the right to assemble or the right to not have improper search and seizure are different from "the people" who can bear arms? That perhaps "the people" who can elect senators are a different "the people" who can elect representatives?

Basically, the second amendment has the same force of law as the first amendment or any other part of the constitution. Or should, anyway; amendment 4 is only good for wiping your ass with, these days. Obviously the right to assemble isn't absolute; can't assemble on a nuclear launch site, for instance. Likewise, the right to bear arms isn't absolute. But where are the limits? Poll taxes and literacy tests were perfectly constitutional until the passing of the 24th amendment. But no such amendment exists for arms, so there is nothing preventing a gun tax or a competency test to own arms.

That would be awfully dependent on the mercy of SCOTUS even if you got it through the NRA.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:52 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Coyne wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:You still have to reconcile that with the fact that the second amendment specifically refers to "the people's right to keep and bear arms." This means to me that your proficiency training and so forth can't be particularly onerous,...


I think you forgot a phrase of the amendment. That's okay, you're in good company, most proponents of gun ownership forget the same phrase. How else to justify Zero Regulation?


Yes, yes, well regulated militia. "Regulated" as in "regular", aka "trained/skilled". Personally, I wouldn't mind if guns were restricted to only the people that could make up a defense force; if the army wouldn't take you due to a "bone spur", no guns for you.

The problem is that when the constitution says "the people", it says "the people" 9 times in total. Well 8, if you aren't including the preamble. Are you going to make the argument that "the people" who have the right to assemble or the right to not have improper search and seizure are different from "the people" who can bear arms? That perhaps "the people" who can elect senators are a different "the people" who can elect representatives?

Basically, the second amendment has the same force of law as the first amendment or any other part of the constitution. Or should, anyway; amendment 4 is only good for wiping your ass with, these days. Obviously the right to assemble isn't absolute; can't assemble on a nuclear launch site, for instance. Likewise, the right to bear arms isn't absolute. But where are the limits? Poll taxes and literacy tests were perfectly constitutional until the passing of the 24th amendment. But no such amendment exists for arms, so there is nothing preventing a gun tax or a competency test to own arms.


You could always just amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ObsessoMom » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:43 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:You could always just amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Chen
Posts: 5266
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:21 pm UTC

I'm not really sure why that would even be necessary. There are already restrictions on firearms (or any arms for that matter) even with the 2nd Amendment. There are plenty of countries that don't ban firearms who don't have the equivalent of a 2nd Amendment either. The Amendment itself seems pretty irrelevant here unless you want to flat out ban all firearms.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:22 pm UTC

Aside from 2nd amendment not really being forseably repealable, in theory it does not guarantee absolute gun rights. Convicted felons can't own guns, especially while in prison, and you'd have to search under quite a few rocks to find the gun nut that wants to arm prisoners. A case can easily be made that not all arms are protected, e.g. private citizens can only own swords, but more realistically a cap on magazine size or caliber or so forth. A handgun ban is extreme, but I'm in favor of that as it's overwhelmingly the gun of murder even if most mass shootings are from long guns. As for the argument that we would need concealable weapons in the event of an occupation, such an argument is actually supporting war crimes in that soldiers hiding as civilians violates the Geneva conventions.

cphite
Posts: 1153
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby cphite » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:10 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:As for the argument that we would need concealable weapons in the event of an occupation, such an argument is actually supporting war crimes in that soldiers hiding as civilians violates the Geneva conventions.


Civilians who arm themselves and fight during wartime would be considered Irregular forces. A modern example would be the tribal fighters in much of Afghanistan, who are not part of any recognized government military force. They're generally held to the same legal guidelines as regular military... so for example a group of citizens who took up arms to defend themselves against invaders would not in and of itself be a war crime; but if they deliberately merged with civilian non-combatants as a means of hiding or taking cover, that would be.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:22 pm UTC

The exception being the beginning of the war, when they can still resemble civilians. In an ongoing conflict, if they are indistinguishable from civilians, they are war criminals. The argument that citizens need handguns to use in combat is implying they'd be out of uniform and hiding amongst civiliabs.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5495
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:24 pm UTC

So you are saying resistance fighters in WWII were war criminals?
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:29 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:So you are saying resistance fighters in WWII were war criminals?


The relevant Geneva convention was in 1949, so...


Looked it up. The 1977 Geneva convention includes a definition of "perfidy" for "the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status". At least when it comes to killing injuring or capturing adversaries.

dg61
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby dg61 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:20 pm UTC

Right, it looks like the distinction is "are you in some fashion showing (insignia, command, etc-following orders from someone) that you are a military individual or a combatant or under someone's orders". The thing about disguising I think is more for military personnel or non-military personnel deliberately concealing their military status-say, a soldier impersonates a civilian who's lost/looking for directions and then guns the enemy down.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:46 pm UTC

I feel like we are getting off topic. Brought it up because I wanted to point out that the concealable weaponry argument is bunk.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby orthogon » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:58 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:A handgun ban is extreme [...]

This is the Overton Window we've been hearing about, isn't it?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:04 pm UTC

Not sure what the Overton window is. A handgun ban, or in reality, very heavy restrictions where being able to own a handgun is like being a doctor that prescribes cocaine, is about as far as I'm willing to go in terms of restricting guns.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5803
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:49 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I feel like we are getting off topic. Brought it up because I wanted to point out that the concealable weaponry argument is bunk.

The NRA has a ready answer about gun limitations. They claim that all weapons are legal, but the really cool ones (rocket launcher, mini guns etc etc)are rare, expensive, and regulatory burdensome.
They've gotten pretty good at freezing the debate into a partisanship issue instead of a science based one.
For example, no digitalization of any gun records (could become a registry, which slippery slopes into a Schindler's list for guns), no research on gun violence (to prevent innovation in gun control), and no bans except monetary. There's a lot of paranoia, which the moderates are surprisingly ok with.
"Jack booted government thugs are using training exercises as a cover to seize our guns!"
"There goes Carl, always with the crazy stories"

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby orthogon » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:17 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Not sure what the Overton window is. A handgun ban, or in reality, very heavy restrictions where being able to own a handgun is like being a doctor that prescribes cocaine, is about as far as I'm willing to go in terms of restricting guns.

Wikipedia's eponymous article. Your statement just made me think of the Overton Window, since your "extreme" - a total ban on handguns - is the actual law of the land in the UK and has been for a couple of decades. Appeals to the 2nd Amendment aim, very successfully as it turns out, to push gun control outside the window of acceptable discourse in the US.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:16 am UTC

Sableagle wrote:Killer driver who ran over a dad-of-four without realising walks free from court
Dozens of killer drivers walking free from court
Heartbreak for family as killer driver walks free
Lionel Saunders, 24, was speeding, unlicensed and drunk when his car spun out of control and hit a pole.
Killer driver walks free from court
As killer driver walks free, Leeds biker’s family tell of their devastation
Killer driver walks free from court after blaming her diet for crash
Family's shock as half-blind lorry driver who killed couple walks free
Oh, Willie McBride, it all happened again ...

He got a suspended sentence, because it "wouldn't be in the public interest" to lock him up for this one.

... and again and again and again and again.

A woman has been charged with dangerous driving after two boys died and several children were injured when a car crashed into a school at Greenacre. Odds she spends more than 6 months locked up?

Did they beat the drum slowly? Did they play the fife lowly? Did they come up with a device to reduce the air pollution inside your car rather than reducing the pollution it creates, so you can carry on revving high, confident that your own spawn are breathing purified air inside your self-propelled anti-shark cage and thereby gaining a health advantage over the hoi-polloi outside it? There was talk of putting tunnels over busy roads to keep the pollution there rather than letting it spread to nearby residential areas, but the drivers were very upset by that idea.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Chen
Posts: 5266
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:49 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Not sure what the Overton window is. A handgun ban, or in reality, very heavy restrictions where being able to own a handgun is like being a doctor that prescribes cocaine, is about as far as I'm willing to go in terms of restricting guns.


There are heavy restrictions here in Canada for walking around with a handgun (or even just transporting it) but owning one, while regulated, isn't too onerous. It certainly wouldn't stop someone from using one for a mass shooting or even just regular crime. Tighter gun control should still help, but in reality its the whole paradigm that needs to be shifted. I'm not really sure how to go about that. If it's true that a good chunk of the guns in the US are owned by a very small % of the population I'm not sure even trying to reduce the absolute number of guns would do anything. It's not the collectors or the like who are going on these shooting sprees for the most part. And they're not generally the ones committing all the other gun crime either. So how do you go about changing a culture to reduce gun crime? Looking at some rough numbers between US and Canada there's about 5x the number of gun related deaths in the US, but only ~3.3 times the number of guns. So there's clearly SOME other factors going on there.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2466
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:06 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Tighter gun control should still help, but in reality its the whole paradigm that needs to be shifted. I'm not really sure how to go about that.

Gort

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3541
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:12 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:well, we know what the only thing that will change the minds of the assholes in charge - when they or their kids get shot.

Generally not true. People who believe that they could defend themselves if they and/or others were allowed to have a firearm at the time of the attack will probably want *less* restrictions after being victimized. Scalise was already mentioned, but of course it doesn't count if it's a republican lawmaker who's trying to get re-elected, so I remember that part of the impetus for concealed carry being passed in Texas back in the mid 90's was a mass shooting at a restaurant, one of the survivors who's husband was killed got lots of attenton because they had a firearm in their car but it hadn't been legal at the time to bring it into the restaurant. You can also find many survivors of recent mass shooting who are vocal against more gun-control.


CorruptUser wrote:I've always been in favor of restricting handguns. Not very useful for home defense compared to a shotgun, very useful for crimes.

Or better yet, a recycling surcharge on all guns? Make them $50 more expensive so the junkies can't afford them or trade them in for drug money?


Handguns are useful for self-defense outside the home, and are generally less expensive than semi-automatic rifles making them a better option for lower-income individuals. I have very low tolerance for people who don't think the poor should have the same rights as other people, which is basically what you're advocating when you say that firearms should be priced out of range of the poor. Criminals already aren't buying a significant fraction of their guns, so I'm not sure what else you even expect to accomplish.

CorruptUser wrote:
Still going to posit that we should restrict handguns regardless, or at least require a much more extensive screening. If not for crime, then for suicide; handguns seem to be the gun of choice for that.


I believe I remember a study a while back showing that relatively short (3-4 days) waiting periods for handgun purchases reduced their use in suicides. I'd want a mechanism where people in dangerous situations would be able to bypass the waiting period (maybe if you have a friend present when you purchase, or have a police report or something similar, you can bypass the waiting period) but otherwise I have no strong objections. I believe some state was looking into providing suicide awareness and prevention literature with firearms the same way gun-locks are, which also seems like a common sense way to approach the problem. Other than that I'd want to see better access to treatment options rather than any more onerous gun-control as a suicide prevention measure.

Sableagle wrote:My suggestion would be a licence system sort of like what we use for drivers of motor vehicles here in the UK. I'd have three tiers: learner, proficient, instructor. There'd be a lead-in phase allowing people to qualify before it became a requirement to be qualified. After that, people would very easily get a learner licence as long as they weren't convicted violent criminals, unable to pass a simple intelligence test, unable to pass a simple grasp of reality test or certified unfit by a qualified psychiatrist / psychologist. They'd have to be supervised by an instructor until they qualified as proficient, though, and have to be proficient to keep and bear arms. I'd introduce an offence of supplying a firearm to or allowing a firearm to come into the possession of a person not qualified to have it under the circumstances existing at the time, which would mean owners had to keep their weapons out of other people's hands, and I'd include culpability for misuse of a firearm that was supplied by or otherwise obtained from an owner who failed to take reasonable precautions to ensure it wouldn't get into the hands of an unfit and/or unqualified person. As with UK vehicles, I'd have categories. Make the tests for revolvers cover all revolver types. Make the tests for semi-automatic pistols cover all types of them. Make the tests for AR-15-type rifles cover all of them. Make the tests for AK-based designs cover all of them. A person would have to be able to make sure a weapon wasn't about to go off accidentally to be allowed to have one, and negligent discharges would void the licence until they retook the tests.

I'd also include "shoot / no-shoot" range time in the tests. Have arcs of 5 targets at 5, 10, 15 and 20 metre ranges, with different colours, faces or shapes on them. Have a computer wait for a button press, tell you what colour, shape or photograph to shoot, wait 10-20 seconds then pop up a target. If you shoot a target you were supposed to shoot, it goes down, another comes up and the test goes on. If you shoot a target you weren't supposed to shoot, you fail. If you don't shoot that no-shoot target, it will go away after a few seconds and another target will come up, possibly before the no-shoot goes away. Take too long to shoot a target and it'll go away to come back later. Once you've shot all the targets you're supposed to, the total time shoot targets were up is your time and it needs to be below a fairly easily-achieved threshold. The main thing is that if you shot any of the no-shoot targets, you failed; you restart the whole course next time there's a vacancy.


The psychological testing aspect is troubling, since that kind of testing just doesn't exist at the moment and access to mental health is a serious problem for most of the country. I might be ok with such a restriction if there was significant healthcare reform such that mental healthcare was easily accessible and largely de-stigmatized and if reliable testing for violent tendencies with a very low degree of false-positives existed. Absent both those things it just seems like an arbitrary way to make gun ownership more onerous and restrictive for law-abiding people.

The shoot-no-shoot test also seems flawed. Proficiency/awareness testing that includes testing for the ability to discriminate threats from non-threats already exists, using arbitary shapes/colors seems more like a reaction test than an effective way to determine if someone is capable of distinguishing a threat from an innocent.

Also, criminal background checks are already in law, but records sharing is problematic amongst law-enforcement agencies (as recently demonstrated) and so-called 'paperwork violations' such as lying on 4473 form for purchasing a firearm are seldom prosecuted which allows straw-purchasing of firearms by non-prohibited individual for purposes of giving/selling them to prohibited individuals to go unchecked. Such activity is already illegal and punishable by significant prison time, but the law is seldom enforced.

Otherwise, what you suggest would be a deregulation of firearms for many states. I think a large number of gun owners would be ok with some form of standardized proficiency/safety testing in addition to background checks if it meant they could carry firearms across state-lines without fear of suddenly becoming a felon in places like New Jersey or California.

Soupspoon wrote:(I've also just tried to find a good Yankee vs Limey joke where it's Old Blighty's personage that gets the worst of the engagement, for balance, but so far nothing that tickles me enough to consider it worthy retelling. Maybe that's the irony of nothing along those lines appealing to a brit. Which would be ironic in itself!)


A Texas rancher was visiting his farmer cousin across the pond. The rancher wanted to see the property so they got on the cousin's tractor and spent a few hours touring the fields. As they were finished and headed back to the house, the Texan was flabbergasted, saying "You know, back home it would take all day to take a tractor around the fields." To which his cousin replied laconically "I used to have a tractor like that."

CorruptUser wrote:Convicted felons can't own guns, especially while in prison, and you'd have to search under quite a few rocks to find the gun nut that wants to arm prisoners.


I'm not that hard to find. A large fraction the U.S. prison population is incarcerated for nonviolent crimes such as drug-related charges. I see no compelling reason why their right to own a firearm should be curtailed. Even for violent offenders I strongly favor rehabilitation over retributive/deterative imprisonment, and if the judicial system is rehabilitating offenders, then there should be no problem reinstating their rights after their sentence is completed and they are theoretically rehabilitated as functioning members of society.

CorruptUser wrote: even if most mass shootings are from long guns.


I'm not sure that's true. This Mother Jones article from a few years back shows handguns significantly outnumbering rifles and shotguns.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:38 pm UTC

Several things.

1) Are you actually advocating we let prisoners have guns? Loss of gun rights is similar to felony disenfranchisement, but that's a different discussion and I personally am more suspicious of felony disenfranchisement than taking away their guns.

2) The mass shootings lately have been of the long gun variety. Vegas, Columbine, DC sniper, Texas, Columbine, Pulse (though a pistol was also used), Sandy Hook.
Virginia Tech was with pistols though. As was the one in my hometown.

3) The 3 day waiting period mainly reduces suicides for people that don't already own a handgun. So, good for them, but not so much for those that already own one. I'm trying to imagine a world where every gun seller is required to ask if a purchaser is feeling alright or other questions to tell if a buyer is unbalanced, and IIRC a gun seller is obligated to not complete a sale if they suspect something is off about a buyer. Which brings up a question of whether a merchant is allowed to refuse to sell to minorities.

4) The idea behind a "recycling deposit" is that it raises the price of stolen guns, since the owner of a stolen gun could just turn it in for the deposit rather than resell it for less. As for the dis-arming the poor argument, well, that was basically the gun lobby's defense of Saturday night specials.

I mean, let's turn your argument around here; if raising the price of guns hurts the poor, would subsidizing the guns help poor people? Why not actually pay poor people to own guns, like you get extra Medicaid if you own a gun, like we were in a living parody of the NRA's dream world? Are guns really accurately priced, without any taxes and subsidies at all, with negative and positive externalities exactly equal?

Poor people make up the overwhelming bulk of gun crime victims, so virtually anything that lowers gun crime is going to help the poor more than it helps the rich.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 916
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Coyne » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:41 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:1) Are you actually advocating we let prisoners have guns?


Shouldn't be a problem for rehabilitated former prisoners, just as long as they are also allowed to vote, and work in daycare centers and banks.
In all fairness...

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3541
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:48 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Several things.

1) Are you actually advocating we let prisoners have guns? Loss of gun rights is similar to felony disenfranchisement, but that's a different discussion and I personally am more suspicious of felony disenfranchisement than taking away their guns.


Well, not while they're still in prison obviously. But absolutely, I see no compelling reason non-violent felons who have served their time shouldn't be able to own firearms. And if we had a properly rehabilitative justice system, then even violent offenders should be able to have firearms after they've been declared fit to rejoin society.
There's an argument to be made that if a felon can't be trusted to own a firearm without using it in further violent crimes, then perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to rejoin society where illegal firearms and other opportunities for violence are so widely available.


CorruptUser wrote:3) The 3 day waiting period mainly reduces suicides for people that don't already own a handgun. So, good for them, but not so much for those that already own one. I'm trying to imagine a world where every gun seller is required to ask if a purchaser is feeling alright or other questions to tell if a buyer is unbalanced, and IIRC a gun seller is obligated to not complete a sale if they suspect something is off about a buyer. Which brings up a question of whether a merchant is allowed to refuse to sell to minorities.


Well sure, but no amount of psychological evaluation before purchasing a firearm is going to stop someone who already owns one from committing suicide.

It's true that firearms sellers aren't obligated to sell to anyone, however there are federal anti-discrimination laws handling whether or not they can refuse to sell to minorities. I believe the same standards would apply to any business owner who refuses to serve federally protected classes of people.


CorruptUser wrote:4) The idea behind a "recycling deposit" is that it raises the price of stolen guns, since the owner of a stolen gun could just turn it in for the deposit rather than resell it for less. As for the dis-arming the poor argument, well, that was basically the gun lobby's defense of Saturday night specials.


I assume this 'deposit' is being tacked onto the purchasing price on the front-end in order to pay it out on the back end? I guess if the cost was only added to new firearms that might not be overly problematic (though it's basically 50% of the price of a new Hi-point or ring-of-fire pistol).

It's an interesting idea, I suspect it would have the same problems as gun-buybacks, or if making it universal and long-term would at least reduce the elasticity in firearm supply. I believe that Australia's federal buy-back program only got a small fraction of firearms off the streets, and I suspect this idea wouldn't have much better results.

I guess I don't completely hate it, but I don't think it'll do any good either.

Also, 'Saturday Night Specials' were banned form import, but not from domestic manufacture or sale (hence the ring of fire companies). The law had the unintended consequence of banning popular high-quality European compact pistols used as 'back-up guns' by police, but didn't really have much other impact.

CorruptUser wrote:I mean, let's turn your argument around here; if raising the price of guns hurts the poor, would subsidizing the guns help poor people? Why not actually pay poor people to own guns, like you get extra Medicaid if you own a gun, like we were in a living parody of the NRA's dream world? Are guns really accurately priced, without any taxes and subsidies at all, with negative and positive externalities exactly equal?

Poor people make up the overwhelming bulk of gun crime victims, so virtually anything that lowers gun crime is going to help the poor more than it helps the rich.


Well, I'm sure subsidizing anything for poor people is gonna have some positive impact and I'm not sure it matters overmuch what you attach it to. That's basically the premise of Universal Income theories anyway. If you wanna give the poor money or extra medicaid for owning guns, I'm not gonna stop you.

I suspect Firearms are about as accurately priced as any manufactured consumer good. I'm not aware that there are many subsidies or taxes on firearms specifically, though the current economic system does a particularly poor job of accounting externalities, so I'm sure there's room for improvement. I'm not particularly interested in a deep economics discussion, as a general rule. Economics is basically alchemy as far as I'm concerned, though it is getting better.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:20 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Economics is basically alchemy as far as I'm concerned, though it is getting better.


That's silly. Alchemy has been proven to work with very unambiguous rules; we just call it nuclear physics. We can even turn bismuth into gold... at a price tag of a quadrillion dollars per ounce.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chen, relin and 19 guests