Fake Gun Store

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:29 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The 'Gun Culture' in my area seems relatively safe. As in, if you buy a gun, you're expected to keep it in your safe locked up, with a combination that your children don't know about. Keep weapons and ammo separate until you're on the range, etc. etc.

This is one thing I have never understood. I can understand the "Guns are great for self-defense" argument (I don't agree with it, but I can understand it). Similarly I can understand the "Guns are perfectly safe if you store them well" argument. But surely you can't argue both at the same time? If you store your guns in a locked safe, and your ammunition in a different locked safe, then how the heck are they useful for self defense?

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I am curious. Are these points generally argued by the same people, or are these two distinct pro-guns groups? I suppose there's plenty of people who own guns primarily for hunting or sports, not self-defense.


Safe storage means vary, and there's more than one way to do so. However, a solid gun safe is a fine choice. It isn't normal to use two different locked safes. It's sufficient to keep the gun locked and unloaded. So, unlock safe, grab mag from shelf above guns, slam into gun, rack slide. Takes a coupla seconds.

This is somewhat slower with revolvers/shotguns than with magazine loaded firearms, though. A bunch of tradeoffs do exist, and you will find avid debate of pros and cons of various details(often in quite pedantic detail) within the firearm community. Like any other community, I suppose. Some of these factors vary depending on environment and purpose. For instance, if you have children in the house, that's an important factor to consider.

Me, I'm a tinkerer, so about half my guns are in pieces at any one time, due to some sort of modification or something. Those guns would not be my self defense gun, because it's just not reasonable for me to reassemble one under stress. Are they in a safe? God no. They are piles of parts on a work bench. No ammo there, obviously. No kids or anything to mess with them, so given the scenario, they're quite safe. I do use individual cable or bore locks for other firearms and don't store any firearms loaded, but there's always one that's rapidly available in the unlikely event it's ever needed.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby cphite » Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:52 pm UTC

Mokele wrote:
cphite wrote:If you owned a gun, would you be more likely to murder someone simply because it was in your possession? Would you be more likely to deliberately kill yourself?


Yes, easily, for a simple reason - guns are MUCH more effective at inflicting lethal injuries than pretty much anything else most peoplke have access to.


Let me clarify. Would you be more likely to attempt to murder someone or commit a violent crime because you owned a gun? In other words, are you not out murdering or robbing people right now because you don't have a gun, or because you aren't the type of person who goes around murdering or robbing people?

That was my point. People choose to kill - or to commit other violent crimes. Yes, having a gun makes it easier to kill or commit a violent crime. But does having that gun cause you to kill or commit a violent crime?

Not using a gun makes it more likely to be "attempted murder" or "attempted suicide".


My question was does having the gun cause you to be more likely to go out and shoot someone?

If we remove guns from the picture, having a knife makes murder or suicide more likely to succeed; do we blame the knife and ban those? And once we ban knives, having a stick makes it more likely for those things to succeed; do we blame the stick and ban those?

My point is, people murder. Sometimes they use guns, or knives, or cars; but the common denominator is people. If you look at violent crime rates in places that have banned or heavily restricted guns, the crime rates really don't change all that much. The method changes; less people use guns, more people use other means.

While this does correspond to your general point that guns don't *cause* violence (against self or others), it is worth noting that guns make any given violence much more likely to be lethal. The physical effect of a bullet hitting flesh produces damage that is much harder, on average, to survive and to repair, than just about any other physical weapon.


Handgun wounds - which make up the vast majority of illegal gunshot wounds - are lethal about 20-25% of the time. Stabbings are lethal a bit less often - between 10-15% of the time. So yes, guns are more lethal - but not to the degree that most people assume.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby EMTP » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:16 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Let me clarify. Would you be more likely to attempt to murder someone or commit a violent crime because you owned a gun? In other words, are you not out murdering or robbing people right now because you don't have a gun, or because you aren't the type of person who goes around murdering or robbing people?

That was my point. People choose to kill - or to commit other violent crimes. Yes, having a gun makes it easier to kill or commit a violent crime. But does having that gun cause you to kill or commit a violent crime?


That is a distinction without a difference. Making something easier causes it to happen more frequently. Making something more difficult, contrawise, makes it happen less frequently. Your argument is analogous to saying "Does an increase in the cost prevent you from buying beans? Therefore, there is no such thing as a demand curve."

As the prank illustrates, Americans desire guns, although guns make their owners less safe. This is not a unique situation; people make all kinds of irrational decisions with public health consequences. Smoking. Heavy drinking. Riding motorcycles. Etc. And the textbook way to deal with this is to discourage the behavior -- make it more difficult -- without an outright ban.

Legislatively, I'd like to start with a nation gun registry, with a yearly fee of $300 per firearm. In its first year, such a tax could raise $90 billion! We could put that money towards the damages caused by privately owned firearms, so gun owners could start taking responsibility for the social costs their hobby imposes on the rest of us.

Secondarily, and the fake gun store plays into this, social reformers try to change society's narrative around the behavior, to stigmatize it, to make it appear sinister or (even better!) silly. So we make progress against domestic violence not only by passing laws against it, but by vilifying the people who practice it. Given the strong polarization on this issue, the cost/benefit of such a strategy is open to question. But it is a reasonable approach.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:14 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:
cphite wrote:Let me clarify. Would you be more likely to attempt to murder someone or commit a violent crime because you owned a gun? In other words, are you not out murdering or robbing people right now because you don't have a gun, or because you aren't the type of person who goes around murdering or robbing people?

That was my point. People choose to kill - or to commit other violent crimes. Yes, having a gun makes it easier to kill or commit a violent crime. But does having that gun cause you to kill or commit a violent crime?


That is a distinction without a difference. Making something easier causes it to happen more frequently. Making something more difficult, contrawise, makes it happen less frequently. Your argument is analogous to saying "Does an increase in the cost prevent you from buying beans? Therefore, there is no such thing as a demand curve."


And this makes it more difficult for folks to defend themselves. Which, by your logic, will make it happen less frequently.

As the prank illustrates, Americans desire guns, although guns make their owners less safe. This is not a unique situation; people make all kinds of irrational decisions with public health consequences. Smoking. Heavy drinking. Riding motorcycles. Etc. And the textbook way to deal with this is to discourage the behavior -- make it more difficult -- without an outright ban.


The first two are addictive behaviors, and thus, are a little different. Riding motorcycles is a better example, but it's significantly different from your first two.

I'm also not sure that banning or attempting to de-facto ban motorcycles would be very popular. Or even that wishing to ride a motorcycle is irrational. I do not own one, but I understand that plenty of people find satisfaction/entertainment/enjoyment from pursuing the hobby. Valuing that higher than the added risk may simply be a matter of having different values than you or I, not necessarily evidence for lack of rationality.

I also don't know that a fake motorcycle shop in this vein would be very popular, or convince many people.

Legislatively, I'd like to start with a nation gun registry, with a yearly fee of $300 per firearm. In its first year, such a tax could raise $90 billion! We could put that money towards the damages caused by privately owned firearms, so gun owners could start taking responsibility for the social costs their hobby imposes on the rest of us.


This seems like a ludicrously arbitrary number designed solely to push for a de-facto ban on firearms. Mostly on the part of the poor. It'd also provide an excellent financial incentive to make and distribute untracked firearms. Both of these effects seem strictly negative.

Secondarily, and the fake gun store plays into this, social reformers try to change society's narrative around the behavior, to stigmatize it, to make it appear sinister or (even better!) silly. So we make progress against domestic violence not only by passing laws against it, but by vilifying the people who practice it. Given the strong polarization on this issue, the cost/benefit of such a strategy is open to question. But it is a reasonable approach.


And then, surely, you will see how reasonable it is for gun advocates to characterize gun control advocates as evil, and to use a great deal of perjoratives and invectives...and then we all scream at each other instead of having a debate.

Just because it's effective doesn't make it good. Relying on vilification over data and rational debate has produced "wins" in the past like prohibition(one could even extend this to pot given the classic reefer madness ads and such) that have later been unrolled. Yeah, you "win", but it's a bad win. Is politics just about winning, or is it about finding actual solutions? Sure, education is way slower than attack ads, but it's better.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby cphite » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:48 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:As the prank illustrates, Americans desire guns, although guns make their owners less safe. This is not a unique situation; people make all kinds of irrational decisions with public health consequences. Smoking. Heavy drinking. Riding motorcycles. Etc. And the textbook way to deal with this is to discourage the behavior -- make it more difficult -- without an outright ban.


Guns, in and of themselves, do not make their owners less safe. If you look at crime statistics across the USA, places that have higher rates of legal gun ownership tend to actually be safer where crime is concerned; and places that are most restrictive tend to be more dangerous - INCLUDING death by firearms. So the problem is not the legal ownership of guns.

Even if we look at accidental deaths, the vast, vast majority of the time it's because the person did something stupid. Didn't take basic precautions. Guns are actually quite safe if you know how to handle them and follow very basic practices. Guns do not "just go off" on their own; and when they do go off, they only shoot what they're pointed at.

Yes, it's tragic when someone accidentally shoots themselves or someone else - but in nearly every instance it can be traced to someone failing to follow basic common sense rules.
    Always assume that the weapon is loaded.
    Always treat it as if it's loaded even when you're sure it isn't loaded.
    Never point it at anyone or anything you don't intend to kill.
    Keep it away from anyone who doesn't understand and appreciate those first three rules.

Just those four rules, if actually followed, would prevent the vast majority of accidents. Nearly all of them, in fact.

The problem is crime. The problem is human beings taking violent action against one another. Yes; there is a correlation between guns and shootings... there is also a correlation between life preservers and drownings. The question is causation. Your argument implies that guns cause violence; mine is that gun violence is a symptom of a larger problem.

Legislatively, I'd like to start with a nation gun registry, with a yearly fee of $300 per firearm. In its first year, such a tax could raise $90 billion! We could put that money towards the damages caused by privately owned firearms, so gun owners could start taking responsibility for the social costs their hobby imposes on the rest of us.


The vast majority of violent crimes involving guns, with or without actual shooting, injury or death - are committed with guns that have been obtained illegally. Further, people who own multiple guns tend to be collectors, sportsman and the like; criminals tend to not have collections of weapons because it's a liability. So you're essentially targeting the people least likely to cause the social costs that you claim you want paid back. Under your system, a sport shooter who never uses a gun except for on a shooting range is paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a year; the thug who owns a single revolver and uses it to rob liquor stores is paying nothing.

Additionally, you're targeting the poor. You're basically saying that even if someone is perfectly peaceful and just wants to shoot targets or hunt, they cannot do so unless they're wealthy enough to spend that kind of money each year. And someone who lives in a bad neighborhood and legitimately needs a gun for self-defense, you're essentially telling them that right is restricted to those who can pay.

The result of your program would be more illegal gun trafficking, and more illegal guns on the streets. All because of a knee-jerk desire to punish the wrong people.

Hobbyists aren't the problem. We aren't causing "social costs" you mention. In fact, if anything, crime statistics suggest that we're actually a deterrent to criminals, specifically personal crimes such as muggings or home invasions.

Secondarily, and the fake gun store plays into this, social reformers try to change society's narrative around the behavior, to stigmatize it, to make it appear sinister or (even better!) silly. So we make progress against domestic violence not only by passing laws against it, but by vilifying the people who practice it. Given the strong polarization on this issue, the cost/benefit of such a strategy is open to question. But it is a reasonable approach.


The problem is that you're vilifying the wrong people. You're so focused on the gun that you're ignoring the real root problem. Your registration idea above, for example, specifically targets those people least likely to use guns violently, and specifically ignores those people who are most likely.

As a general rule, when an argument depends fully on half-truths and ad hominems, it isn't much of an argument. That holds true whether it's an actual debate, or if it's a supposed "social reform" play like this fake gun store. Anyone can sling mud and use that to make "change" happen; but it's rarely for the better. Someone can always find more mud.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:27 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The 'Gun Culture' in my area seems relatively safe. As in, if you buy a gun, you're expected to keep it in your safe locked up, with a combination that your children don't know about. Keep weapons and ammo separate until you're on the range, etc. etc.

This is one thing I have never understood. I can understand the "Guns are great for self-defense" argument (I don't agree with it, but I can understand it). Similarly I can understand the "Guns are perfectly safe if you store them well" argument. But surely you can't argue both at the same time? If you store your guns in a locked safe, and your ammunition in a different locked safe, then how the heck are they useful for self defense?

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I am curious. Are these points generally argued by the same people, or are these two distinct pro-guns groups? I suppose there's plenty of people who own guns primarily for hunting or sports, not self-defense.


I guess its a different pro-gun group.

As noted before, its hard to imagine a self-defense situation that is made better by me having a gun... outside of attacking an animal. When it comes to defending against humans... well... what if its a cop on the other end? What if its a drunk kid who was at the wrong place, at the wrong time? Things get complicated pretty quickly, and there's a fair bit of training I'd have to go through before I'd be confident that I can point a gun at another human.

The amount of time to react to a deadly situation is reduced when you have a gun. It forces both sides into a fight or die situation.

Hunting for sport or shooting on Gun Ranges is a pretty different matter all together. I've seen the procedures that sportsmen have, and I'm very confident in their gun culture. I support teaching kids to wield weapons early: maybe even around 7 or 8 to hold their first firearm. (A simple rifle mind you, not an Uzi). Its like giving a kid their first knife, they're gonna have to learn how to use one eventually. And you want to make sure that they know its a serious matter and to treat the weapon with respect (and to treat others, when holding the weapon, with even more respect).

In particular, Hollywood has an absolutely horrible gun culture. If you don't teach someone gun safety / proper gun culture, they'll learn it from Hollywood and Comic Books. The only real way to combat the absolutely awful gun culture of movies / TV Shows / comic books is to teach gun safety to the kids yourself.

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

The irony of the situation is that in general, bigger guns are safer. Big rifles and shotguns cannot be concealed. And depending on the model, it is very easy to create a culture where you clearly demonstrate an unloaded weapon. (Around the ranges I go to, it is the culture to walk around with your Shotgun open. Its straight up impossible to shoot someone and everyone can see that your gun is unloaded).

The real weapons of issue are pistols. These are the weapons that cause the most murders, accidents and so forth. Pistols are designed to be easily concealed personal-defense weapons. So IMO, Pistols strike at the heart of the 2nd amendment debate.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:05 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
I guess its a different pro-gun group.

As noted before, its hard to imagine a self-defense situation that is made better by me having a gun... outside of attacking an animal. When it comes to defending against humans... well... what if its a cop on the other end? What if its a drunk kid who was at the wrong place, at the wrong time? Things get complicated pretty quickly, and there's a fair bit of training I'd have to go through before I'd be confident that I can point a gun at another human.


Cops doing no knock raids on the wrong addresses or with insufficient evidence and shooting your dog, your kid, or whatever else are a problem, yes. They are not one caused by private gun ownership. Being unarmed does not make you safe from police violence. They've killed a giant pile of people were unarmed AND clearly non threatening. The cops are the problem here, not the gun.

The kid WAS a home intruder. You hop a fence, trigger an alarm system, and climb through a window at someone else's house, and you're a home intruder. Not mistaken for, ARE. The alcohol is merely a potential explanation for motivation. Drunk kid is not the only reason someone could be a home intruder. Could be someone intent on violence.

Yes, there is training for such things. This is fine. If you decide to get a gun, I definitely suggest you seek training. Not merely whatever crap mandatory training your state offers, either, but an actual course designed to give you a good understanding of everything from maint to safety to accuracy.

The amount of time to react to a deadly situation is reduced when you have a gun. It forces both sides into a fight or die situation.


Or...one side could back down. This is extremely common. Upon realizing that pressing the situation results in significant danger, intruders or aggressors may choose to abandon their goals. Death is not even a very common outcome of confrontation. Note the earlier survival odds for shootings, and then remember that most people simply don't get shot. Despite media potrayals of the US, we really aren't all shooting each other constantly. Go, visit gun shows or what not, where you've got literally thousands of armed people around you, and...there's no trouble at all. Guns don't transform people into murder machines.

Hunting for sport or shooting on Gun Ranges is a pretty different matter all together. I've seen the procedures that sportsmen have, and I'm very confident in their gun culture. I support teaching kids to wield weapons early: maybe even around 7 or 8 to hold their first firearm. (A simple rifle mind you, not an Uzi). Its like giving a kid their first knife, they're gonna have to learn how to use one eventually. And you want to make sure that they know its a serious matter and to treat the weapon with respect (and to treat others, when holding the weapon, with even more respect).


In the US, we are the same people, really. There's a plethora of overlap between people who purchase guns for self defense and other reasons. Often, it's the same gun, because money or whatever. You can walk around the range, and essentially everyone there will own a firearm for self defense.

In particular, Hollywood has an absolutely horrible gun culture. If you don't teach someone gun safety / proper gun culture, they'll learn it from Hollywood and Comic Books. The only real way to combat the absolutely awful gun culture of movies / TV Shows / comic books is to teach gun safety to the kids yourself.


This is certainly true. I will give props to two specific exceptional scenes...both in media I'm otherwise not fond of: Agents of shield has a training sequence up front with a blue gun, just like in actual training classes, and there's an excellent trigger finger safety example in World War Z.

On the flip side, Walking Dead has hysterically bad firearms safety. But, I'm getting off the topic here. Hollywood is a bad way to learn about most fields, and frequently has frustrations for those who are knowledgeable.

The irony of the situation is that in general, bigger guns are safer. Big rifles and shotguns cannot be concealed. And depending on the model, it is very easy to create a culture where you clearly demonstrate an unloaded weapon. (Around the ranges I go to, it is the culture to walk around with your Shotgun open. Its straight up impossible to shoot someone and everyone can see that your gun is unloaded).

The real weapons of issue are pistols. These are the weapons that cause the most murders, accidents and so forth. Pistols are designed to be easily concealed personal-defense weapons. So IMO, Pistols strike at the heart of the 2nd amendment debate.


That is a reason for the second amendment. It's not the only one. There are also national defense reasons(even if the US isn't particularly likely to be invaded anytime soon, that was a historical reason).

Pistols are just more practical for many things, due to size, etc. This is, oddly enough, reinforced by an anti-gun culture. You live somewhere particularly pro-gun, and having a shotgun/rifle rack on the back window of your truck isn't unusual. It'd be pretty unusual in more anti gun areas, though(usually urban ones). Not a lot of people actually lug around rifles or shotguns in such places. Same, same, laws against carrying. If someone's breaking the law, they're going to prefer the option that allows them to hide that fact, usually.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby ucim » Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:52 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:...its hard to imagine a self-defense situation that is made better by me having a gun[...]there's a fair bit of training I'd have to go through before I'd be confident that I can point a gun at another human.
I'm not sure why your own lack of imagination and lack of confidence should translate into laws restricting my ability to make that same decision for myself.

KnightExemplar wrote:The only real way to combat the absolutely awful gun culture of movies / TV Shows / comic books is to teach gun safety to the kids yourself.
That's kind of hard to do without an acutal gun. And doing so also depends on sound reasoning. The fake gun store does not promote sound reasoning - it instead is an appeal to emotions, hoping that fridge logic never rears its head. So it's counterproductive even in that sense.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby EMTP » Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:56 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Guns, in and of themselves, do not make their owners less safe.


In point of fact, they do. Look at the data:

"Gun ownership and firearm-related deaths." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24054955

"Firearms and Suicide in the United States: Is Risk Independent of Underlying Suicidal Behavior?" http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/e ... 7.abstract

These findings suggest that firearm ownership rates, independent of underlying rates of suicidal behavior, largely determine variations in suicide mortality across the 50 states. Our results support the hypothesis that firearms in the home impose suicide risk above and beyond the baseline risk and help explain why, year after year, several thousand more Americans die by suicide in states with higher than average household firearm ownership compared with states with lower than average firearm ownership.


. . . but maybe gun purchasers know that suicide is more prevalent in their area and want to buy a gun in case they want to commit suicide in the future.

Guns make the people who on own them, and those that live with them, less safe. Fact.
The vast majority of violent crimes involving guns, with or without actual shooting, injury or death - are committed with guns that have been obtained illegally.


This fails to advance your argument in a number of ways. First, you need to cite your source. Second, most firearm deaths are via suicide. Third, illegal guns come from legal sales. The easy access to guns for purchase fuels the black market, which is why guns are being smuggled from the US into Mexico.

Further, people who own multiple guns tend to be collectors, sportsman and the like; criminals tend to not have collections of weapons because it's a liability. So you're essentially targeting the people least likely to cause the social costs that you claim you want paid back. Under your system, a sport shooter who never uses a gun except for on a shooting range is paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a year; the thug who owns a single revolver and uses it to rob liquor stores is paying nothing.


Not true: the cost paid by the gun owner robbing the liquor store will likely reflect the higher price paid by the legal owner who sold it on the black market. And he will have to keep paying the cost each year, or explain what happened to his gun. He will pass those costs onto his customers. Economics!

Gun hoarders -- who you euphemistically call "sports shooters" will pay more. That's desirable. Private arsenals are, at best, a luxury item, and aren't needed for any work-related means, unless you are an elite athlete.
Additionally, you're targeting the poor.


You contradict yourself here. First, you say I'm targeting "sports shooters" with dozens of guns. That doesn't sound like a poor person to me. If he is poor, he may want to sell some firearms, invest in job training.

You're basically saying that even if someone is perfectly peaceful and just wants to shoot targets or hunt, they cannot do so unless they're wealthy enough to spend that kind of money each year.


Much like, say, a hunting license. Or a fishing license.

The result of your program would be more illegal gun trafficking, and more illegal guns on the streets. All because of a knee-jerk desire to punish the wrong people.


That's the opposite of being the case. Making legal guns more expensive and thus scarce will make illegal guns more expensive and thus scarce, since illegal guns mostly are legal guns first.
As a general rule, when an argument depends fully on half-truths and ad hominems, it isn't much of an argument.


"When people disagree with me, they are wrong."

Thanks for that insight.

You might want to scan your own argument, which is grounded in a number of falsehoods, as I've shown, and relies on a false distinction between "sports shooters" and (your word) "thugs."
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby cphite » Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:13 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:
Further, people who own multiple guns tend to be collectors, sportsman and the like; criminals tend to not have collections of weapons because it's a liability. So you're essentially targeting the people least likely to cause the social costs that you claim you want paid back. Under your system, a sport shooter who never uses a gun except for on a shooting range is paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a year; the thug who owns a single revolver and uses it to rob liquor stores is paying nothing.


Not true: the cost paid by the gun owner robbing the liquor store will likely reflect the higher price paid by the legal owner who sold it on the black market. And he will have to keep paying the cost each year, or explain what happened to his gun. He will pass those costs onto his customers. Economics!


Guns generally aren't sold into the black market by legitimate purchasers, for obvious reasons. They're generally stolen.

Gun hoarders -- who you euphemistically call "sports shooters" will pay more. That's desirable. Private arsenals are, at best, a luxury item, and aren't needed for any work-related means, unless you are an elite athlete.


Sport shooters - who you dysphemistically call "gun hoarders" - aren't the ones going around killing people. And who cares if their guns are work related? Why does anything need to be work related? Who are you to decide what non-work related items are acceptable for people to have?

Additionally, you're targeting the poor.


You contradict yourself here. First, you say I'm targeting "sports shooters" with dozens of guns. That doesn't sound like a poor person to me. If he is poor, he may want to sell some firearms, invest in job training.


Your proposed policy targets sports shooters in that they pay an inordinate amount of money against the supposed "cost" that you imagine is owed; and it targets the poor in that it limits their ability to enjoy a basic right because of their financial status. Words can be used to convey more than one meaning, and often are.

You're basically saying that even if someone is perfectly peaceful and just wants to shoot targets or hunt, they cannot do so unless they're wealthy enough to spend that kind of money each year.


Much like, say, a hunting license. Or a fishing license.


Neither of which is anything close to $300, and certainly not $300 per animal or fish.

The result of your program would be more illegal gun trafficking, and more illegal guns on the streets. All because of a knee-jerk desire to punish the wrong people.


That's the opposite of being the case. Making legal guns more expensive and thus scarce will make illegal guns more expensive and thus scarce, since illegal guns mostly are legal guns first.


You aren't making guns more scarce unless you're actively destroying them; you're just making it more likely that people steal and resell the ones that exist.

As a general rule, when an argument depends fully on half-truths and ad hominems, it isn't much of an argument.


"When people disagree with me, they are wrong."


Right... the same does apply to straw man arguments. Thank you for providing that example.

You might want to scan your own argument, which is grounded in a number of falsehoods, as I've shown, and relies on a false distinction between "sports shooters" and (your word) "thugs."


One group is shooting paper targets and the other is shooting people. If you can't see the distinction, that may be the root of your problem.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby cphite » Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:35 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Cops doing no knock raids on the wrong addresses or with insufficient evidence and shooting your dog, your kid, or whatever else are a problem, yes. They are not one caused by private gun ownership. Being unarmed does not make you safe from police violence. They've killed a giant pile of people were unarmed AND clearly non threatening. The cops are the problem here, not the gun.


No kidding... especially when they know that the guy was a victim of a home invasion just days before, and they're going on the word of a freaking meth addict? Seriously?

Unless you have a very specific and solid reason to believe that the people you're trying to arrest are armed and planning to resist, there is simply no reason for a no-knock raid on any sort of residence. It's bullshit. It's basically creating a dangerous - potentially deadly - situation where one would otherwise not exist. It's not just that they're accidentally killing or maiming people who (quelle surprise!) react to what is essentially a surprise attack out of nowhere by unknown assailants - it's that all too often they're getting the wrong house, or acting on bad information, etc.

The kid WAS a home intruder. You hop a fence, trigger an alarm system, and climb through a window at someone else's house, and you're a home intruder. Not mistaken for, ARE. The alcohol is merely a potential explanation for motivation. Drunk kid is not the only reason someone could be a home intruder. Could be someone intent on violence.


Exactly. Your alarm goes off and the person who triggered it keeps coming at you and your family... what would you think their intent was?

Frankly, I question the whole "drunken accident" aspect of this case. I get picking the wrong house; I get climbing through the window instead of waking mom and dad. But when the alarm goes off, you'd have to be a pretty incredible level of drunk to not notice that something was amiss. Those alarms aren't subtle.

Yes, there is training for such things. This is fine. If you decide to get a gun, I definitely suggest you seek training. Not merely whatever crap mandatory training your state offers, either, but an actual course designed to give you a good understanding of everything from maint to safety to accuracy.


Agreed. And training specific to your desired use of the weapon. If you're going to hunt, take a hunting safety course. Self-defense, take an armed defense course. Both, take both courses.

The amount of time to react to a deadly situation is reduced when you have a gun. It forces both sides into a fight or die situation.


Or...one side could back down. This is extremely common. Upon realizing that pressing the situation results in significant danger, intruders or aggressors may choose to abandon their goals. Death is not even a very common outcome of confrontation. Note the earlier survival odds for shootings, and then remember that most people simply don't get shot. Despite media potrayals of the US, we really aren't all shooting each other constantly. Go, visit gun shows or what not, where you've got literally thousands of armed people around you, and...there's no trouble at all. Guns don't transform people into murder machines.


I've been involved in two incidents with firearms, both while working security, and both ended peacefully. In both cases, simply pointing out to the bad guy that I was armed was enough to defuse the situation. And you're right... the media portrayals are awful - movies and television are even worse. Most people - including the criminals - don't want actual violence to occur.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:56 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:
Further, people who own multiple guns tend to be collectors, sportsman and the like; criminals tend to not have collections of weapons because it's a liability. So you're essentially targeting the people least likely to cause the social costs that you claim you want paid back. Under your system, a sport shooter who never uses a gun except for on a shooting range is paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a year; the thug who owns a single revolver and uses it to rob liquor stores is paying nothing.


Not true: the cost paid by the gun owner robbing the liquor store will likely reflect the higher price paid by the legal owner who sold it on the black market. And he will have to keep paying the cost each year, or explain what happened to his gun. He will pass those costs onto his customers. Economics!

Gun hoarders -- who you euphemistically call "sports shooters" will pay more. That's desirable. Private arsenals are, at best, a luxury item, and aren't needed for any work-related means, unless you are an elite athlete.


Uh, theft is a source. Illegal manufacture is a source. And of course, someone could falsely declare a firearm destroyed. This is a very incomplete plan. And of course, this doesn't address the fact that there is a large existing pool of firearms that already are not in your hypothetical system, and as firearms last for a very long time, your scenario won't really work.

As for the "gun hoarder" thing...cmon. We don't use that terminology anywhere else. Someone who plays a lot of golf and has a variety of gear for it isn't commonly called a "club hoarder". Your correction away from standard English seems pretty obviously an attempt to skew the dialogue into demeaning language.

Additionally, you're targeting the poor.


You contradict yourself here. First, you say I'm targeting "sports shooters" with dozens of guns. That doesn't sound like a poor person to me. If he is poor, he may want to sell some firearms, invest in job training.


Forgot to trim "Additionally" from your quote snipe, did you?

You might want to scan your own argument, which is grounded in a number of falsehoods, as I've shown, and relies on a false distinction between "sports shooters" and (your word) "thugs."


Violent crime has a pretty high recurrence rate, and also is disproportionately concentrated geographically, economically, etc. It doesn't occur randomly throughout the entire population.

Would you like to provide a citation for sports shooters being thugs?

Additionally, how does any of this relate back to the fake gun store?

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby EMTP » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:08 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Guns generally aren't sold into the black market by legitimate purchasers, for obvious reasons. They're generally stolen.


Bullshit. Stop making stuff up because you wish it were true.

Sport shooters - who you dysphemistically call "gun hoarders" - aren't the ones going around killing people.


One group is shooting paper targets and the other is shooting people. If you can't see the distinction, that may be the root of your problem.


Again, you are practicing argument by making shit up. Gun owners -- "thugs" as you call them when you don't like them, "sportspeople" as you call them when you do (compromise -- sportsthugs?) -- are responsible for the deaths of over 30,000 Americans per year. What small fraction of that was carried out with stolen guns? Evidence please [1].

Your proposed policy targets sports shooters in that they pay an inordinate amount of money against the supposed "cost" that you imagine is owed; and it targets the poor in that it limits their ability to enjoy a basic right because of their financial status. Words can be used to convey more than one meaning, and often are.


Nope, it doesn't target the poor. You have a right to smoke, but smoking is taxed. You have a right to drink, but drinking is taxed. Via a dubious reinterpretation of a sentence authorizing the states to maintain militias, you have a limited right to (stupidly) own firearms, but that can very much be taxed.

Right... the same does apply to straw man arguments. Thank you for providing that example.


I defer to your superior experience with making straw man arguments, asserting half-truths (although the true half seems to be a little light in your lies above,) and arguing by ad homs. But it's not working for you very well here, is it?

Tyndmyr wrote:Violent crime has a pretty high recurrence rate, and also is disproportionately concentrated geographically, economically, etc. It doesn't occur randomly throughout the entire population.


Violent crime represents less than one third of Americans killed by guns each year. The rest die by suicide, or by accident. So violent crime is not the primary issue.

As a secondary issue, violent crime occurs in all areas and all socioeconomic groups. It's higher frequency in some areas or among some populations is only relevant if you can define an effective policy of gun control for that given area or subgroup. But because guns are easily portable, that's not very practical.

In New York, where this fake gun store set up, they have strict firearms laws, but these have limited effectiveness, because gun stores from states with light regulations sell hundreds and thousands of guns to legal purchasers who then illegally import them into New York.

Tyndmyr wrote:Forgot to trim "Additionally" from your quote snipe, did you?


I think you mean cphite forgot that the word "additionally" doesn't make a logically self-contradictory set of claims sound.

Tyndmyr wrote:Uh, theft is a source. Illegal manufacture is a source. And of course, someone could falsely declare a firearm destroyed. This is a very incomplete plan. And of course, this doesn't address the fact that there is a large existing pool of firearms that already are not in your hypothetical system, and as firearms last for a very long time, your scenario won't really work.


Let's take these claims one at a time. First, if private firearms are rare, where do the stolen guns come from? You can steal them from law enforcement or the military. Difficult. You can find a place guns are cheap and plentiful and smuggle them across the border. Also difficult, as evidenced by the fact the Mexican gangs get their firearms from us.

"Illegal manufacture." Have you seen the guns British criminals occasionally "illegally manufacture"? They're pretty pathetic. Facing a criminal with a homemade pipe-and-nail derringer versus a military assault rifle modified for single shot only. Decisions, decisions.

The large existing pool of firearms will be taxed, under my proposal. They will gradually leave the system as people don't want to pay $300 a year to hang on to them. People with ten handguns will decide they really need two.

Of course people may hide their firearms and refuse to pay their taxes. But then, the IRS has their little ways. They got Capone, they will probably get most of the sportsthugs. And again, most people are pretty law abiding. Such a law would gradually increase in effectiveness over time [2]. Remember, the purpose is not to ban guns but to discourage gun ownership like any other public health threat, and allow gun owners to take some financial responsibility for the >30,000 dead Americans their hobby causes each year.

--------------------------------
1. According to a BoP inmate survey from 1991, the answer is 9%:

According to the 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those
inmates who possessed a handgun, 9% had acquired it through theft, and
28% had acquired it through an illegal market such as a drug dealer or fence.


2. And, interestingly, many of the firearms used in crimes are new: "Almost a third of the guns traced by ATF in 1994 were 3 years old or less" (Ibid).
Last edited by EMTP on Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:01 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:16 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:
cphite wrote:
Guns generally aren't sold into the black market by legitimate purchasers, for obvious reasons. They're generally stolen.


Bullshit. Stop making stuff up because you wish it were true.

Sport shooters - who you dysphemistically call "gun hoarders" - aren't the ones going around killing people.


One group is shooting paper targets and the other is shooting people. If you can't see the distinction, that may be the root of your problem.


Again, you are practicing argument by making shit up. Gun owners -- "thugs" as you call them when you don't like them, "sportspeople" as you call them when you do (compromise -- sportsthugs?) -- are responsible for the deaths of over 30,000 Americans per year. What small fraction of that was carried out with stolen guns? Evidence please [1].


Thugs == violent criminals. Sportsmen are different. His meaning is fairly clear here. You're jumping around trying to confuse the issue between suicides and violent crime.

Suicidal people are not thugs. Different problem.

]quote]
Your proposed policy targets sports shooters in that they pay an inordinate amount of money against the supposed "cost" that you imagine is owed; and it targets the poor in that it limits their ability to enjoy a basic right because of their financial status. Words can be used to convey more than one meaning, and often are.


Nope, it doesn't target the poor. You have a right to smoke, but smoking is taxed. You have a right to drink, but drinking is taxed. Via a dubious reinterpretation of a sentence authorizing the states to maintain militias, you have a limited right to (stupidly) own firearms, but that can very much be taxed.[/quote]

Yes, other regressive policies have been used. They are also rough on poor people. Flat fees are always going to be comparatively more burdensome for the poor. This isn't a firearms specific thing, this is just basic economics.

Tyndmyr wrote:Violent crime has a pretty high recurrence rate, and also is disproportionately concentrated geographically, economically, etc. It doesn't occur randomly throughout the entire population.


Violent crime represents less than one third of Americans killed by guns each year. The rest die by suicide, or by accident. So violent crime is not the primary issue.


Accident is a rounding error, so, if you're dismissing the third killed by violent crime, I'm not sure why you're bringing up accidents. Talking about suicide prevention is fair, but I fear we're getting way off the topic of this particular example, as this seemed to be fear mongering primarily with relation to violence.

As a secondary issue, violent crime occurs in all areas and all socioeconomic groups. It's higher frequency in some areas or among some populations is only relevant if you can define an effective policy of gun control for that given area or subgroup. But because guns are easily portable, that's not very practical.


Yes, firearms are easily available and portable, and thus, restrictions have been pretty terrible. The UK, for instance, despite fifteen years of heavy firearms restrictions, has a pretty good pile of violent crime all the same.

The fact that your proposed fixes, by your own admission, can not be effectively targetted at the actual problem is...very worrying.

In New York, where this fake gun store set up, they have strict firearms laws, but these have limited effectiveness, because gun stores from states with light regulations sell hundreds and thousands of guns to legal purchasers who then illegally import them into New York.


As such straw purchases are illegal, these people are, by federal law, not legal purchasers.

Of course, as you point out, it happens regardless.

Let's take these claims one at a time. First, if private firearms are rare, where do the stolen guns come from? You can steal them from law enforcement or the military. Difficult. You can find a place guns are cheap and plentiful and smuggle them across the border. Also difficult, as evidenced by the fact the Mexican gangs get their firearms from us.


Private firearms are not rare now. How do you intend to make them rare? Keep in mind that anyone vaguely handy with tools and access to a home depot can whip at least a simple one up.

Mexican gangs primarily get their firearms locally. Of the firearms sourced outside the country, more are indeed made in the US than elsewhere. Which, yknow, given basic geography, is kind of obvious. A vast majority of firearms are NOT sourced outside the country. Differentiating between these stats is quite significant.

"Illegal manufacture." Have you seen the guns British criminals occasionally "illegally manufacture"? They're pretty pathetic. Facing a criminal with a homemade pipe-and-nail derringer versus a military assault rifle modified for single shot only. Decisions, decisions.


Australia had a recent bust where they had industrial manufacturing of illegal silenced submachineguns. They were NOT modified for single shot only. Because, seriously, once you're at that level of illegal, nobody is worrying about minor details that are also illegal.

The large existing pool of firearms will be taxed, under my proposal. They will gradually leave the system as people don't want to pay $300 a year to hang on to them. People with ten handguns will decide they really need two.


Presumably poor people. Donald trump has two handguns, presumably because he likes owning things, not because he's much a sportsman, but I digress. I doubt he will care one way or the other. The poor family will be impacted first, be it by turning in guns, missing the bill, and being sent to jail, or whatever.

Of course people may hide their firearms and refuse to pay their taxes. But then, the IRS has their little ways. They got Capone, they will probably get most of the sportsthugs. And again, most people are pretty law abiding. Such a law would gradually increase in effectiveness over time. Remember, the purpose is not to ban guns but to discourage gun ownership like any other public health threat, and allow gun owners to take some financial responsibility for the >30,000 dead Americans their hobby causes each year.


Right. You don't care about the gun banning, you just view us as the enemy, and wish to get rid of us. This is, shockingly, not very popular among the people you're trying to get rid of.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby EMTP » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:26 pm UTC

I apologize to anyone I haven't yet responded to in this thread: work has been pretty crazy. I did want to offer up a couple of recent links.

Mother Jones has an investigation of the cost of gun violence in America, which they estimate at $229 billion per year.

Lots of interesting stuff in the article, but I wanted to highlight this graph:

Image

I found this interesting because I often refer to the preponderance of suicides among total gun fatalities as a reason not to view gun violence simply as a crime problem. Interestingly, injuries skew the other way, suggesting you underestimate the cost/harm of criminal gun use if you look only at fatalities. This is also true for accidents, which make up a small percentage of gun fatalities but a more substantial share of gun injuries.

In other "fake gun store" news, the NRA has one nine acres big:

Seventy-thousand people are expected to attend the National Rifle Association’s convention opening on Friday in Tennessee, but they won’t be allowed to carry firearms in one of the main convention venues. This may run counter to the N.R.A.’s ideas about carrying guns everywhere, from elementary schools to workplaces.

There will, of course, be plenty of weapons in evidence at the hundreds of display booths, but for convention security the firing pins must be removed.


Sensible, but somewhat undercutting the NRAs "more guns make everyone safer" message.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby leady » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:43 pm UTC

Just looking at the costs of something is a pretty horribly disingenuous way to determine its merit

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Grop » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:57 pm UTC

Certainly, but who is interested in the merit of gun violence.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Diadem » Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:06 pm UTC

No I agree with leady. We should look at both the costs and benefits of gun ownership.

So tell me leady, what exactly are the benefits of those nearly 20,000 gun accidents each year?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Chen » Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:47 pm UTC

It would be more looking at the benefits of ease of owning a firearm (or gun ownership in general) compared to the costs associated with the violence/suicides/accidents etc. Not that I think the benefits of ownership come even close to countering the costs, but at least compare the right things instead of trying to skew things further using biased statements.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Grop » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:19 pm UTC

But then it is quite complicated to find metrics for the benefits of owning guns.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby cphite » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:42 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:
cphite wrote:
Guns generally aren't sold into the black market by legitimate purchasers, for obvious reasons. They're generally stolen.


Bullshit. Stop making stuff up because you wish it were true.


Do you have evidence to the contrary? That large numbers of people are buying weapons legitimately (that can therefore be traced to them personally) and selling them on the black market? Because if you do, you should send it along to the authorities - you'd really be helping them out. Also, ask them why they never noticed before.

EMTP wrote:
Sport shooters - who you dysphemistically call "gun hoarders" - aren't the ones going around killing people.


One group is shooting paper targets and the other is shooting people. If you can't see the distinction, that may be the root of your problem.


Again, you are practicing argument by making shit up. Gun owners -- "thugs" as you call them when you don't like them, "sportspeople" as you call them when you do (compromise -- sportsthugs?) -- are responsible for the deaths of over 30,000 Americans per year. What small fraction of that was carried out with stolen guns? Evidence please [1].


Again, if you have evidence that is contrary to what the DOJ, the FBI, and other law enforcement around the world is seeing, then you should share it. Otherwise, you might want to ease off on the personal attacks.

According to DOJ statistics, around 90% of guns used in crime are guns that have been obtained illegally. That certainly seems to support my contention that it's criminals, not so much legal purchasers, that we need to be worried about. Again, if you have information that contradicts what the DOJ, FBI, and law enforcement in general is seeing, it would be irresponsible of you not to share it and enlighten them.

As for the terms that seem to be giving you trouble, let me explain. A thug is someone who uses violence to get something they want; in the context of this discussion, the use of a gun is implied. A sportsperson is someone who, in the context of this discussion, shoots targets or hunts, or just collects guns because they enjoy collecting them.

The difference has nothing to do with whether or not I personally "like" them.

The 30,000 deaths you refer to are not caused simply by people who possess guns. They are caused by people who possess guns and use them to shoot a person. Do you see the distinction? Do you understand that, for example, if Bob owns 300 guns but only ever shoots at targets on the range; and Sam owns one gun and uses it to rob convenience stores, that Sam is the "thug" and Bob is the "sportsman" using my terminology? Do you understand what Bob and Sam are doing, respectively, that causes them to be labeled as such?

According to your line of reasoning, Bob is much more responsible (300 times more, in fact) than Sam for gun violence, and should therefore pay 300 times more. That seems silly.

EMTP wrote:
Your proposed policy targets sports shooters in that they pay an inordinate amount of money against the supposed "cost" that you imagine is owed; and it targets the poor in that it limits their ability to enjoy a basic right because of their financial status. Words can be used to convey more than one meaning, and often are.


Nope, it doesn't target the poor. You have a right to smoke, but smoking is taxed. You have a right to drink, but drinking is taxed. Via a dubious reinterpretation of a sentence authorizing the states to maintain militias, you have a limited right to (stupidly) own firearms, but that can very much be taxed.


Sure. But neither drinking nor smoking are taxed at levels that put them out of reach for the poor; which is what you're suggesting for guns.

As an aside, I find it interesting that you seem to have no problem with drinking or smoking - both of which kill far more people than firearms. In terms of "social cost" both are enormously worse than guns.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:38 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:In other "fake gun store" news, the NRA has one nine acres big:

Seventy-thousand people are expected to attend the National Rifle Association’s convention opening on Friday in Tennessee, but they won’t be allowed to carry firearms in one of the main convention venues. This may run counter to the N.R.A.’s ideas about carrying guns everywhere, from elementary schools to workplaces.

There will, of course, be plenty of weapons in evidence at the hundreds of display booths, but for convention security the firing pins must be removed.


Sensible, but somewhat undercutting the NRAs "more guns make everyone safer" message.


This news is false. Not an obscure thing either, you can find it on snopes.

Modern news reporting is pretty much going to hell as far as quality is concerned.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby cphite » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
EMTP wrote:In other "fake gun store" news, the NRA has one nine acres big:

Seventy-thousand people are expected to attend the National Rifle Association’s convention opening on Friday in Tennessee, but they won’t be allowed to carry firearms in one of the main convention venues. This may run counter to the N.R.A.’s ideas about carrying guns everywhere, from elementary schools to workplaces.

There will, of course, be plenty of weapons in evidence at the hundreds of display booths, but for convention security the firing pins must be removed.


Sensible, but somewhat undercutting the NRAs "more guns make everyone safer" message.


This news is false. Not an obscure thing either, you can find it on snopes.

Modern news reporting is pretty much going to hell as far as quality is concerned.


People were not allowed to carry weapons into one specific venue due to existing local law - which is entirely out of the NRA's hands. And display guns have their firing pins removed both for insurance purposes, and as a matter of common sense, because they're on display and can be handled by basically anyone.

The really sad thing is that the NY Times could have easily found this information, within minutes and with minimal effort, if they had even the slightest interest in accurate reporting.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:23 pm UTC

If memory serves, a coupla years back, the NRA did have a convention where guns were not allowed at the venue due to rule/law changes at that venue. They, of course, did not return there. Kind of an expected loss of business there.

You also remove the firing pin specifically because people will totally dry fire the guns, and that, without the impact they are designed for, is generally undesirable. Generally anything that's gonna get handled by a few thousand people is going to get stripped of anything delicate beforehand. Of course, none of that is an NRA rule. It's just normal practice in the community.

Media frequently handles gun reporting especially poorly. At least with tech reporting, they are generally mostly okay at the "I can use a laptop to write stuff and surf the web" level. So, they end up not really having the faintest idea what they're reporting on. One would hope that basic fact checking would happen as a result, but...

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby leady » Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:09 am UTC

Diadem wrote:No I agree with leady. We should look at both the costs and benefits of gun ownership.

So tell me leady, what exactly are the benefits of those nearly 20,000 gun accidents each year?


You know what I'm driving at

that article gives an estimate of the costs of rampant gun ownership in the US which is fine. But guns also prevent a whole heap of crimes each of which would have have an opportunity cost that's not dissimilar to the way the indirect costs in that Mother Jones article.

this is really a gun ownership discussion, but the real argument in gun control (at a pragmatic social impact level) is

Impact of Sprees
Impact of suicides
Impact of accidents
Impact of gang on gang

vs

reduction in burglary
reduction in stranger rape
crimes prevented in the moment

presenting a number for the first, but not the second set is rhetoric.

On that specific store though, surely someone on being told a guns back story must have gone "cool - I'll take that one"

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:18 pm UTC

leady wrote:
Diadem wrote:No I agree with leady. We should look at both the costs and benefits of gun ownership.

So tell me leady, what exactly are the benefits of those nearly 20,000 gun accidents each year?


You know what I'm driving at

that article gives an estimate of the costs of rampant gun ownership in the US which is fine. But guns also prevent a whole heap of crimes each of which would have have an opportunity cost that's not dissimilar to the way the indirect costs in that Mother Jones article.

this is really a gun ownership discussion, but the real argument in gun control (at a pragmatic social impact level) is

Impact of Sprees
Impact of suicides
Impact of accidents
Impact of gang on gang

vs

reduction in burglary
reduction in stranger rape
crimes prevented in the moment

presenting a number for the first, but not the second set is rhetoric.


Really, you want a "does society x have more or less of each of these with or without guns(or some stage in between)". But, spare copies of the US to test on are in short supply, so a perfect comparison is a little more difficult. There are valid statistical methods for dealing with scenarios like this, but...frankly, those don't make good sound bites. So, both sides kind of distill tidbits from whatever studies into fairly short blurbs. If you actually start trekking through the data, the first thing you start to realize is that any effect that exists must not be all that large, and other factors are far, far more relevant to these things. That's how you get a giant pile of studies saying no effect, and of course, studies that both sides trumpet the hell out of because it matches their chosen views.

Doesn't mean there's no effect whatsoever...it just means that it's small enough to be overtaken by politicking to the point where reasonable doubt should be entertained about it's existence based on available studies and skewing introduced by bias. This ain't like global warming, where proving it is actually pretty trivial.

My interepration is that an effect does exist, for somewhat lower deaths, etc, but...it's not huge, and margins of error are big enough that it's hard to say with confidence just how big it is. For America, at any rate. We can't expect every society to handle things in exactly the same way, and expecting a small effect to just be replicated everywhere would be...unwarranted.

On that specific store though, surely someone on being told a guns back story must have gone "cool - I'll take that one"


Well, I imagine it's heavily edited, yes. Probably there were a number of other encounters, like folks just getting annoyed at being preached at and leaving. That's pretty much par for things like this, and in fairness, they couldn't reasonably show everything, and we can't really expect a political stunt to provide us with balanced samples of everyone. They're gonna show the bits that support their view, just like any other politicking group.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby leady » Thu Apr 16, 2015 4:54 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure it was all actors :)

on gun control generally being from the UK I'm not unhappy with strong control laws for the UK, but if I lived in the US I'd be on the other side. There are just massive pragmatic differences between the two, same for Oz.

talkaboutstuff
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:47 am UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby talkaboutstuff » Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:13 am UTC

A shame they only had room in the "store" for one counter. I could imagine a slightly larger store, with another counter, with different guns that had their own stories...

He might say:

This is the gun that kept Gracie Watson from being burned alive by her abusive ex-husband in Jackson MS in 2007. It didn't even have to be fired to save a life.

Not interested in that one? How about this beauty? A shotgun. It's the weapon a woman used in Cape Girardeau in 2008 to kill a man who had broken into her house for the second time, intent on raping her...again.

Ah, I see, perhaps you're into those scary-looking "assault rifles" people talk about so much. Then how about this one? It's the weapon a 51 yr old woman used to stop a crime spree two men were on. She shot and killed one of them with it when they tried to rob her family coffee shop, after having done the same to a motel earlier.


Narratives are powerful, sure. But it's important to remember there are plenty of narratives that involve guns that didn't end in tragedy.

One can make legal points regarding amendments and such. I think they're compelling, but not as compelling as the moral argument: self defense is a fundamental human right. Firearms are how we effect that right. To restrict that right of self defense, absent a compelling and specific reason, is simply not morally justifiable.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:49 pm UTC

mindriders wrote:People came in an were told by the fake clerk of the history of the guns, "this is the gun used in the Sandy Hook Massacre" and so on. The result has been posted on YouTube.


They were told A history of the guns, from a very particular slant, and then that same group produced the video. I do not think this can be considered an unbiased result, merely a propaganda piece.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: Fake Gun Store

Postby Paul in Saudi » Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:36 am UTC

I never claimed otherwise.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 22 guests