US military spending and the 2nd amendment

[Griffin NoName]

Lttle snippet on the news. Joe Bloggs (forget real name) took on three burglers and won. After they were convicted yesterday in court, a spokesman said (paraphrase but the order of sentences is accurate): we must remind the public never to do this (put themselves in danger). However we do commend Joe Bloggs for his actions.

..... we don't have the right to bear our own skin and bones arms, let alone weapons.... long may it last.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

As a libertarian, I'm rather on the pro-gun side.

On the other hand, I don't feel that I need a 0.50 cal sniper rifle for anything useful. Nor do I feel that just anyone could have one, but that's my opinion.

To me, a gun is just another tool.  No more than a hammer or a chainsaw is.

If people are responsible, then guns are no more dangerous than chainsaws or automobiles are.  If people are irresponsible, then even a puddle of water in the wrong place can have lethal consequences.

As for the 2nd amendment implying that we ought to consider domestic gun spending as part of our national military spending?  No, that is a ludicrous idea to me.

It makes no more sense, than including all cars and trucks that may potentially be used as military vehicles in the military spending.

In British law, as well as in US law, intent is everything.   The only thing separating Murder One from Involuntary Manslaughter is intent.  In each case, someone is dead, and someone is responsible for that.   Intent alone determines which is which.

Thus, a persons intention for purchasing a gun should have a say--- if they intended to start a war, or fight in one, or defend the US's borders with it, then a case could be made in including it in Military Spending figures.

Otherwise, if you do include domestic gun purchases, you should also include any foodstuffs that could be used in a military way(camping food), any vehicles that may be used in a military (all pickups, at least) any tools that might have military use, any and all explosives, even if they were to be used for mining, etc, etc, etc.

A gun is just a tool, and nothing else.

It's people behind the tool that should be judged.

[beagle]

I'm not really pro-gun, but it has to be said that IMHO the ban here has only affected the honest, just like the gun lobby predicted. There are more guns than ever, and city teenage shootings getting so regular as to hardly qualify as front page news any more.

so they clapped me in irons and told me if i did it again i would be in hot water which i believe means walking the plank somewhere in iceland.

They probably just can't cope with the concept of a communist red-coat. 

[Swatopluk]

German parliament tightened the weaponry laws again with a great majority (and over here there actually is enforcement as far as I can tell). While I am in favor of extremly restrictive laws as far as firearms are concerned, there are some rules even I find a bit over the top. Now I am not sure that I can carry my Swiss army pocket knife around any longer.

An imo reasonable position (and therefore unacceptable to the current NRA) would be to regulate guns at least as well as cars.
Cars have to be registered and one has to prove the ability to use them in a responsible way (I never heard that the constitutionality of driving tests was a serious matter of discussion). To my knowledge it is allowed to own a car even without a driving licence as long as one does not drive it in public. There are regulations about what is allowed in cars and what isn't (I mean technical details not what one can do while inside a car). Proven gross irresponsibility can cost one the driving licence*.
I do not even propose to tax guns the same as cars are in most places.

But try to explain that to an organization that puts great efforts into "proving" that the lack of the 2nd Amendment was responsible for the 3rd Reich. I have to admit that the papers they wrote on the topic are masterpieces.... of how to lie with facts or what can be construed as such.

There are otherwise quite sane individuals that see the 2nd amendment as an absolute covering all kinds of weaponry, including nuclear weapons**. The "moderates" among those will only allow the restriction of portability (i.e. portable rocket launchers yes, heavy artillery no). The reason given for that stance was actually the standard argument used by opponents turned on its head: When the amendment was enacted the military only had slow-loading one-shot muskets, so citizens were on equal footing as far as weaponry was concerned. Today the military has far superior weaponry, so citizens must be allowed anything that is able to counter that.

* Iirc the NRA's explicit stance is that even Osama bin Laden should not need a background check and could not be denied a gun purchase in the US.
**I explicitly asked and got the answer that (hypothetical) nuclear handgrenades would be covered.

[Griffin NoName]

I'm not really pro-gun, but it has to be said that IMHO the ban here has only affected the honest,

Isn't that true of all (most?) legislation?

And presumably it affects those who are honest but might tip one way or t'other?

And in respect of guns, presumably it stops a few accidents and stuff like burglars getting shot.

[Pachyderm]

The crack-down after the Dunblane shooting is a case in point.

All handguns banned, amnesty for a month to hand them in, etc. etc. Law-abiding types handed them in. These, naturally, were the sort to have the gun registered and controlled, used properly on ranges after instruction etc. But these people aren't the problem.

It got to the point where the UK Pistol team, in order to train for the Olympics, had to go abroad.

Now, what happened in Dunblane was horrific, but Hamilton should have never been given a licence. Prior to the events of 13 March, 1996, Hamilton was already well known to Central Scotland Police. There were a number of investigations and reports compiled, the exact number and content cannot be verified as they are still unavailable.

[goat starer]

Im enormously pro gun. The little ones on my 15mm GZG stargrunt models look fabulous! as for the ones on my 1/72 scale aliens armoured personel carriers well they are really something to behold!  I am only concerned about the ones that have a tendency to kill people (especially in the hands of Dick Cheney).

All handguns banned, amnesty for a month to hand them in, etc. etc. Law-abiding types handed them in. These, naturally, were the sort to have the gun registered and controlled, used properly on ranges after instruction etc. But these people aren't the problem.

all well and good until burglars break into your house and nick them from a gun cabinet as happened to my uncle. Even guns in the regulated hande of the law abiding can end up in the hands of the criminal. Having none seems to me to be the best solution. Any legal ownership of guns is liable to errors.

[Aggie]

all well and good until burglars break into your house and nick them from a gun cabinet as happened to my uncle. Even guns in the regulated hand of the law abiding can end up in the hands of the criminal. Having none seems to me to be the best solution. Any legal ownership of guns is liable to errors.

Eh, criminals will commit crimes regardless of the weapon involved.  Canada is currently facing a decrease in gun violence and an increase in knife violence:

The figures show that gun-related homicide rates, and the actual numbers, are way down from just three decades ago.

There were 260 gun-related killings in Canada in 1977, compared to 190 in 2006.

On the other hand, knives are being used more frequently than guns in the commission of homicides, robberies, forcible confinements, sexual assaults and uttering threats.

http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=918911
(I would like to have quoted the whole article, so do have a click)
Ban all knives, criminals can nick them from your kitchen drawers and KILL you.   


Where gun violence really seems to be increasing is in youth-youth conflicts, although I'd wager that knife use is up even more, it's just not as visible. I've had both knifings and shootings on my block in the past year; to me the knifing was a larger concern as it happened during a happenstance drunken brawl, whereas the shooting was a very specifically targeted gang-related (presumably) premeditated murder.  The former is more of a danger to the public at large IMO, but in both cases it's more the mentality behind the weapon than the weapon itself that scares me.  We seem to be moving away from settling arguements by non-lethal domination with fists (bad enough) to assaulting with the intent to permanently harm or kill (v. v. bad).

At this time, I'll point out that guns probably do contribute more to second-degree murders than other weapons, simply because of the phenomenally small amount of effort it takes to draw and shoot, and the escalation factor - in a gun/gun conflict there's tremendous pressure to get the first shot off, whereas in fist-to-fist or knife-to-knife conflicts one must get in close enough to attack, leaving more opportunity to let those old biological intimidating-bluff-circuits kick in.  I'd guess that this is especially applicable in armed robbery situations when comparing guns vs. knives, but not necessarily guns vs. blunt objects/fists (i.e. the proportion of armed robberies leading to physical assault is higher for guns than knives).

But back to the article...  one interesting point is made:

Brown was joined in his crusade three years ago by Kingston Police Chief Bill Closs.

Both men believe that knives are being used more and more in the commission of crimes because they carry lighter sentences than if a gun is used.

------

"Where you really notice it is where a woman is sexually assaulted and the suspect is using a gun. He's subject to a harsher penalty than when the woman is subjected to sexual assault with a knife," Closs told Sun Media recently.

"That tells me two things: these laws were made by men and they're out of touch."

According to Statistics Canada, people convicted of gun-related offences received an average sentence of 4.2 years in prison, twice the time handed down to those who didn't use firearms.

I'll hold that as a fair indication that criminals DO contemplate potential sentences when committing crimes; IMO the best way to reduce firearms offenses, ESPECIALLY unlawful possession, is to make the consequences unduly harsh, and make sure they stick. 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

What would make more sense (in the US where the loose interpretation of the 2nd amendment affects many) is to place a non-deformable serial number on each bullet and track it's sale. I believe the proposal already exists and gun manufacturers were up in arms just with the suggestion. Do you want to have a gun? Fine, and if a bullet you bought ends up in a body you bear the responsibility.

But such ideas aren't viable because apparently there is a desire to have lots of dead people  . Could it be the casket industry?

[Aggie]

Three words:  Black market reloads. 

I know guys up here that do their own reloads to save a couple of bucks/customize their ammo, and it's not particularly hard to do.  Casting bullets is presumably somewhat trickier, but non-jacketed lead bullets aren't exactly rocket science, particularly if the gun is being used as an intimidation piece/short range weapon and accuracy isn't that important.

I am not a big fan of the bureaucracy necessary to set up this type of registration system, but that's mostly because of the boondoggle up here with the long gun registry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry#Cost_overruns).  I could have bought a few of boxes of bullets with my share of the $2 billion they pissed away....

[Swatopluk]

Although bullets can theoretically be traced back to the gun they were fired from, it is not completely reliable. Could somebody please develop a system where a gun leaves a specific imprint on all bullets (a barrel-stamp, so to say).
Does of course not work with sub-caliber ammunition or the (banned irrc) teflon-coated "cop-killers".
What already is possible is an owner specific lock (similar to that seen in "Shoot 'Em Up"). That would also reduce the number of accidents and the "shot by your own gun" scenarios where the criminal kills the victim with the gun taken from it.
That is also something the gun-lobby is apoplectic about. There are some nasty suspicions that gun manufacturers actually approve of the rampant gun-stealing because that way more guns go into circulation (because the victims of gun-theft are likely to buy new ones, especially now that their legitimate guns are in the hands of criminals thus increasing their own risk). Something like this is known to be true for car manufacturers (esp. in Germany). A stolen car is an incentive to buy a new one. That has been cited as a reason to object to fool-proof anti-theft devices.

[Pachyderm]

all well and good until burglars break into your house and nick them from a gun cabinet as happened to my uncle.


Your Uncle is hardly at fault if some criminal scrote is willing to break in to his house.

My questions would be how did they get the gun from the cabinet? Was it properly installed, had he taken appropriate safety precautions with the keys? Had it been inspected recently by the Firearms Licensing unit of the relevant Police Force?

Yes, in this case a gun is no longer in the hands of someone who would use it responsibly, and that isn't good, but the theft of firearms is a serious offence, and should bring a custodial sentence for the scrote found with it.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I know guys up here that do their own reloads to save a couple of bucks/customize their ammo, and it's not particularly hard to do.  Casting bullets is presumably somewhat trickier, but non-jacketed lead bullets aren't exactly rocket science, particularly if the gun is being used as an intimidation piece/short range weapon and accuracy isn't that important.

Ya got that 'zactly backwards, Ag.  Hand-cast bullets, complete with hand-swaged jackets is more accurate than typical store-bought ones.   There's a whole cottage industry in hand-made bullets, including jackets of all sorts.

The word is, that match competition shooting, the only way to go is to hand-make your rounds.  You can be extremely finicky about the quantity and quality of powder, the size and weight of the round, the quality of the primer, etc.  Far, far more finicky than standard off-the-shelf rounds are.

Now, mind, there are high-dollar match-grade commercial rounds, too.  And some competitors use these. But, just like racing cars are hand-built, the top competitors use hand made rounds (and finely hand-tuned weapons, too).

You're correct, though:  if bullets were routinely identifiable with a unique stamp or lot-number or other such (like taggants proposed for explosives-- these could be embedded into the lead alloys, making even tiny caliber bullets identifiable) then hand made rounds would become the norm.

And we DO have a unique "stamp" that each and every gun imprints on bullets-- the shape and position of the striking pin is unique to each gun (at high-magnification) as is the marks from the gun's barrel.   (in this case TV is on-target...)

However, for bullets less than 0.30 caliber (less than 9mm) the bullet usually breaks into small fragments, even if jacketed.  But, the casings remain "marked".

Just FYI, carry on.

[Aggie]

I stand corrected. 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Still, isn't a matter of balance? If a criminal is determined to have a gun he will find it, if he is determined to make his own bullets he will make them, if he is determined to break in someone's house he will, and if he is determined to kill he will, regardless of safeties or laws in each case. Is it worse to have a law regulating the possession of guns & ammo? How many deaths are prevented in one or the other way?

I am still astounded at how many school shootings happen in the US, how frequently, and how far less frequent it happens elsewhere. I wonder how many idiotic escalation shootings end up with dead people and how things would be if more stringent laws were available.

I always recall how clear cut the statistics for firearm deaths sank in Bogotá when a law prohibited carrying guns within the city. Most deaths were the result of escalation usually in bars with drunk people. Once the law passed the number of deaths had a dramatic drop. Years later I heard that Sao Paulo did the same exercise with the same results.  At this point I don't recall any significant raise in crime in both cities right after the law, but a 30-50% drop in firearm deaths. It is possible that the statistics for trauma with knives may have risen (I honestly don't know) but in raw numbers the % of violent deaths dropped accordingly.

IMHO it would seem that the pro-gun arguments tend to be more testosterone driven than anything else.