US military spending and the 2nd amendment

[Aggie]

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

As are the deaths by gunshot.  Do we need mandatory neutering, or are large weapons already compensation for piddly pistols?

[pieces o nine]

Mock gunman terrifies students
Re: guns on campus in US schools. I found the above story off to the side of a different article sent to me. My reaction, even before getting to John Pierce's comments, was that it was an incredibly stupid drill. I would not be surprised if someone there (student, faculty or support staff) had a concealed-carry permit and felt safer breaking the rules to carry on campus. This guy was lucky that he wasn't shot by mistake, and that no-one was physically harmed. Furthermore, if I were the instructor, I would be pursuing every avenue to determine why (1) my classroom was picked and (2) I wasn't properly notified.

University Chancellor Willie J. Gilchrist said in a prepared statement that the drill was a learning experience. He said the university needed to increase the usual scope of scenarios, which generally involve hurricanes, tropical storms and evacuations.

"Unfortunately we learned lessons from frightened students that result when live scenarios are carried out," he said in a news release. "However, we want our campus to be ready in case of such an event."

Do the students feel more patriotic or a renewed loyalty to their alma mater, at being honored to help a chancellor 'learn lessons' by subjecting them to, well, terror? If I were among the affected students or their parents, I'd be mighty tempted to save copies of this story, and enclose a copy -- all by itself -- in every fundraising return-envelope I received from this school for the rest of my life.

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

Violence will out, depending on the culture, regardless of the availability of firearms or not.  NYC has had an effective ban on hand guns for years, yet it's death/violence toll is no less than the national average-- in fact, some claim it's worse.

If guns are eliminated, then knives will be the norm.  And there may be a tiny merit to this: a knife wound is usually not immediately fatal, unlike a gunshot to the head or center-chest.

Perhaps, a ban on drinking would be a more effective deterrent?  Hmmm-- not much support for that idea (see Prohibition).

People like to cite statistics about US guns and violence.  Yet, there are several communities in the US that have effectively eliminated guns, and their violence per capita is right up there with the national average.

Clearly, there is something else at work, than the availability of guns; something in the psyche of the US culture that seems to foment a violent response in people, under certain circumstances.

I, personally blame the Republicans, but as I have no objective data to back this up, it's likely just an unfounded opinion.

Some folk blame the media (TV, movies, etc) for our violence, but I don't think that is correct, or at least not entirely-- the media is a reflection of the culture it stems from, as much as it creates that culture.  It's sort of a circular feed-back thing.

No, seriously, I think the problem runs much, much deeper than mere TV/movies.  I think it goes hand-in-glove with irrationality and the general acceptance of "blame it on someone ELSE" attitude that is so common here.  I think that it is encouraged by fundamentalist-thinking as well-- for these people have a "black-and-white" absolutist attitude about reality.  And, what is more absolute than violence, as an "answer" to a perceived problem?

Heck, even our Preznit chose violence over diplomacy.....

[Swatopluk]

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.

That was how I learned it too but I have heard that (at least in the US) there have been a number of cases of convictions based on that that had to be reversed later because the gun-bullet/cartridge connection turned out to be wrong. Whether it was sloppy police work (perhaps intentionally) or the evidence was indeed ambiguous I cannot recall. But the article I read about that cast more than a bit of doubt on the reliability. And as stated above there have been countermeasures to defang that method (e.g. by coating). Btw, what about sub-calibre ammo for small arms? I have heard things like these have been developed (similar to the armor-piercing "dense darts" used in the anti-tank role).

That's of course completely academic and few killers (accidental or intentional) will waste a thought on forensic wizardry.

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

You're quite correct, subcaliber rounds are impossible to trace using barrel marks.  They have these (discarding sabot) for most rifle rounds, but I've not heard of them being used for pistol rounds-- the barrel is too short, perhaps.

There may be some ambiguity in the barrel marks, but I imagine that with correctly calibrated equipment, this is not a  problem.

However, a savvy lawyer could bamboozle a jury, and cast doubt-- even if the methodology is sound.  After all, they only need to convince 12 persons, who are very likely inexperienced in such things, that the method may not be 100%.

And what scientist, if honest, would claim 100% certainty?

[goat starer]

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.

Bob, sure guns are only dangerous if you point them at stuff in an irresponsible way and pull the trigger but they are rather different from puddles, chainsaws and hammers. The only function of a gun is to kill or maim something. They are therefore very likely to be the choice of irresponsible people who want to kill or maim things. Those same people might choose to use a puddle in the absence of a gun but that is not the main function of a puddle - which is obviously for jumping in with Wellies.

I have no problem with regulated ownership of sporting and hunting weapons but handguns and automatic weapons are neither of these things. At the end of the day shooting burglars is not a solution to burglary.

If I read the second amendment right then it should actually only legitimise the ownership of guns that are useful to a militia so all those handbag pistols should be scrapped.

[Aggie]

...they are rather different from puddles, chainsaws and hammers. The only function of a gun is to kill or maim something. They are therefore very likely to be the choice of irresponsible people who want to kill or maim things.

You've obviously never heard a tree scream.  You're one of those centralnervoussystemists, aren't you? 


(yes, I'm a proponent of properly-managed clearcut logging. And a treehugger) 

[Pachyderm]

I have no problem with regulated ownership of sporting and hunting weapons but handguns and automatic weapons are neither of these things. Goat

But what about competition target shooting with pistols? Can't see the need for non-military held fully automatic weapons, but plenty of people like shooting with handguns.

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

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.

Bob, sure guns are only dangerous if you point them at stuff in an irresponsible way and pull the trigger but they are rather different from puddles, chainsaws and hammers. The only function of a gun is to kill or maim something. They are therefore very likely to be the choice of irresponsible people who want to kill or maim things. Those same people might choose to use a puddle in the absence of a gun but that is not the main function of a puddle - which is obviously for jumping in with Wellies.

I have no problem with regulated ownership of sporting and hunting weapons but handguns and automatic weapons are neither of these things. At the end of the day shooting burglars is not a solution to burglary.

If I read the second amendment right then it should actually only legitimise the ownership of guns that are useful to a militia so all those handbag pistols should be scrapped.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

As Pachy mentioned, there are other uses than to kill.

My response is .... so?

A gun is a tool for killing.... so?   Some things need killing, from time to time.   I have no problem with defending myself with lethal force.  I will sleep just fine.

And, you are incorrect:  if I kill a burglar, then his career as a burglar is over.  It is no longer a problem. 

[Sibling Chatty]

As a former victim of assault, there's PLENTY of reason for handbag guns.

I'm a pacifist, but if the choice is my body being mutilated or the safety of some jerk with a pocketknife that isn't contented to just rape someone?? I'll take the damn gun, thanks.

Not that I need it anymore. I can now radiate an aura of "I will kill you if you LOOK at me" (in some circumstances) that causes people to choose to cross streets rather than walk on the same sidewalk.

[goat starer]

ah the great wild west spirit! and a terrible argument I believe. If you create a society that feels the need to anticipate danger and guard against it then you create one that legitimises violence in the minds of a minority.

[Sibling Chatty]

You'll note I do not own a gun, but I also do not go into dangerous areas anymore.

I've been subjected to non-gun violence, Goatie dear. Do you propose that women that DON'T have the option to avoid dangerous areas go totally unprotected because they cannot control the already prevalent violence?

Or shall I tell the next rape victim that I counsel that was cut up inside "so you don't have no baby by me" that she's got to learn to just put up with it? (Also, no baby by anyone else, and even loss of the baby she might be carrying.)

I don't advocate for handguns for these women, I advise against it, and for other ways of protection. But, not every person can get out of an unsafe area, and areas become unsafe...should a person be denied a protection that WILL, properly used, eliminate the possibility of bodily violation such as a man cannot even visualize?

I detest firing a gun. I've taken training. I can do it. I hate it.

But, rather than have a lunatic with a knife carve me up again, I WOULD put a bullet into his shoulder or knee (not his head) and stop him.

The violence is HERE, it doesn't have to be created.

[goat starer]

i still think having a society with a right to wander around with guns breeds more violence not less.

now morning stars and cudgels I would advocate freely for the type of people you describe.

[Griffin NoName]

This topic seems to show up about the largest difference between us as Toadfish (and America) or Toadfish (and UK).  (I can't caluclate the other countries).

That may be useful to reflect on.

I am solidly behind current UK gun legislation. I suppose I might tinker with it, but only to try and make it work more effectively in the manner in which it theoretically is supposed to work (effect).

If areas are too dangerous, build walls round them, never go anywhere near them, and let them get on with killing each other. Oh yes, I will happily help bus out those who don't wish to stay there and fight for re-locating them. Then when everyone inside the wall is dead.... go in and clear up.

Random psycopaths are a different problem but even serial killers kill a limited number of people.

[Aggie]

i still think having a society with a right to wander around with guns breeds more violence not less.

I can't speak for the rest of my siblings, but I for one would not disagree with this.  However, is it the guns that are causing the violence?  Is an inherently violent society going to see more or less violent crime based on the type of weapons available (I'll concede that the end result of violent conflicts may be more serious with guns than with other weapons)?


Also Goatie - do you believe it's feasible to de-gun a society where guns are common?


Edit:  Hmmm....   plotted up the numbers from wikipedia's gun violence article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence - as % homicide with firearms vs. homicides per 100,000 ppl.  There doesn't seem to be much of a pattern, even plotting the homicides per on a logarithmic scale to spread 'em out a bit.  High (>20/100000) levels of homicide tend to correspond with high (>40%) % homicide with firearms numbers, but I suspect this is mainly a matter of efficiency - it's hard to kill more than 20 people per 100,000 without getting mechanical help. 

I can't draw any real conclusions on this - it seems at first glance that the number of guns in a country probably affect the % of homicides which use guns.  The famous Switzerland vs. USA gun homicide comparison holds true here; Switzerland has much lower homicide rates per 100,000 but shows a similar % homicides using firearms as the US does.