Hammers and guns and Jim and Michael

It was proposed here that hammers kill as many as guns. It does not hold up
to any reasonable degree of scrutiny.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl07.xls

Jim and Michael hate to hear the truth.

Are you guys one or two entities?

I am kill-filed. Will never sleep well again.

 

Haven't read the link yet, but if one considers all of time (i.e., back tothe caveman days) then perhaps "hammers" have killed many more people thanguns of any kind. Just a thought.

As to the topic of guns, in general I support a sane person's right to own weaponry of reasonable lethality. And - I would imagine that many, probably "most", gun owners support reasonable actions to curb gun violence.

However, there's the right-wing gun-nut crowd out there that somehow believes ANY restriction is an attack on their 2nd Amendment rights. (Of course,those same nut-jobs fail to comprehend that assault weapons would be totally useless against a US Government hell-bent on their destruction. Google:Cruise Missile for example. As such, the 2nd Amendment underpinning re: militias seems pretty retarded and outdated.)

That said - I don't see how meaningful gun restrictions can be imposed absent some sort of gun registry. The nut-job crowd probably believes that a registry naturally leads to a confiscation program down the road... It's hard to argue that, since it's fundamentally a hypothetical situation. But the chances are clearly not ZERO, so there's likely at least some merit to their fears.

-mpm

 

There are three sensible things to comment on this:
- How many people can you kill with a hammer in a restaurant before
getting smacked down?
- Is there any other use for a gun except for killing people and
hunting?
- Is putting more guns in the hands of potential lunatics the
solution?

Over here they are currently looking into all licensed gun owners.
Anyone who has (had) mental problems has to turn in their guns and the
license.

 

So you are saying we need restrictions on handguns as well as rifles.
Good idea. I agree. And the sooner the better.

What we also need are people to take responsibility for their weapons,
much like Australia established at their massacre. The cops come by and
want to see if you still have the gun. No big deal. Let them in and show
them your weapon(s). That would get rid of the straw purchases.

 

There are numerous, current examples of citizens using small arms to
resist governments--even ours--e.g., Iraq.

Google "Battle of Athens." Or watch it on YouTube.

It's perfectly rational. The anti-gun crowd has clearly said that they
want to erode the right of self-defense, with confiscation being their
stated ultimate goal.

What's irrational is the grabbers, who want to manifest their paranoid
fears by disarming _good people_. They're gonna get a lot of people
killed.

I don't own any guns, turned down an offer for some that were free. I
don't like them, and I don't want the responsibility, but I personally
know at least four people alive today because of them, all without
firing a shot.

A family friend drove deep into the Mojave, vacationing with his
wife. They were 50 miles from nowhere, sought out a hidden closed
canyon, and went camping. A motorcycle gang tracked their location,
cornered and confronted them, a couple dozen against a man and his
lovely young wife. As they closed in our friend drew a handgun, aimed
at the leader's head, and said "Your guys may kill me, but you [the
leader] are gonna die first, and [pointing] five more with you." The
gang mounted up and drove off.

That's two of them.

We hear successful defense stories at least once or twice a month on
the radio where I live. None of the grabbers are counting those,
which is dishonest. The FBI doesn't count them either, because
_they're_not_crimes_. _Yet._ Would you make these instances of self-
defense crimes?

Not that these examples should determine our decision, they're only
exemplary. Self defense is a basic human right.


James Arthur

 

Of course, how silly. Guns aren't for killing people--that's illegal,
and severely punished. They're for defense, for sport, and for food.
Many people are alive today because they used a gun defensively, as is
their right.

We've got almost 300 million guns in America. If they were for
KILLING people, we'd have bodies everywhere.

James Arthur

 

So you're saying that the person in a mass killing is more "valuable"
than the individual.

Certainly! The biggie is self defense, but you already knew that.

No but putting more guns in the hands of the common citizen quite
obviously is.

Who the **** cares what they do "over here"? Die, for all I care.
Until that happens, BUTT OUT.

Ignorant boob.

 

Here are three who are still alive because of her gun:

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/

 

Excellent example. We hear them _all the time_, in the local news.

As for rifles, when you say no one needs to have more than 10 rounds,
you're saying a Korean shopkeeper in Los Angeles, defending his life,
store, and family against a mob for six days during the LA riots only
gets 10 shots, right? You're condemning him to _death._ The same
applies in Katrina, and other civil unrests.

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/05/01/...nians-learned-then-forgot-to-embrace-the-gun/
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/92-la-riots-current-uk-t91688.html

What does it matter how many rounds a law-abiding good guy wants to
carry? It doesn't.

James Arthur

 

Oh no! Not the list! Anything but the list.....

This thing with numbers. Maybe we're looking at it the wrong way.

How about a 'homicides per single weapon' index ?

That's where the tens and twenties of victims show up, when
semi-automatic mechanisms with large magazines are involved.

Other types of firearms gives us-all Pac-people the opportunity to
make ourselves either scarce, or heroes, after the first few rounds.

Oh well, as you'd say - Life ain't fair.

RL

 

By that measure, let's ban airplanes, and register box-cutter buyers
and rental-truck renters. Background checks for all--let's start
files on 'em! Fees too (this stuff isn't free)!

Then if you live on a remote property and several assailants come
after you, you just have to die? Ask them to wait while you change
magazines? Or if there's civil unrest, or a natural disaster? Sure,
rifles can be misused. But, it's rare.

If the real concern were saving human life, sooo many preventable
things kill far more people. Teen drivers. Alcohol. Tobacco.
Hospitals.

At bottom it's that guns are scccarrrrry--an irrational hysteria
clouds this whole issue. Good guys with guns protecting their own
lives are a blessing to liberty and a problem to no one, as proved by
the 100 million of them every day. How many rounds they need is none
of our business, any more how many romantic partners someone's
allowed.

 

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:35:10 -0800 (PST),

It's too late for Congress to worry about large magazines.
I'm already 3D printing them to arbitrary size and am
experimenting with ABS plastic springs for tension, too. If I
can do it.... anyone can.

Jon

 

With regard to gun ownership and the 2nd amendment:

Unless we the “people” have a few A1 Abrams, Appache helicopters and F22s lying around, it’s not likely well do much to fend off the Government.

Don’t ever forget Ruby Ridge or Waco.

If the concept is to be able to effectively counter a “perceived” tyrannical government, we’re headed in the wrong direction. We need at least full auto, access to grenades, rocket launchers, etc!

Hell the state I live in won’t allow full auto of any sort. We the “folks” are just plain too damn under “armed” to make much of an impact. But what the heck, we can smoke pot!

The 2nd amendment needs to revised, or thrown out.

But what is clear, is that this nonsense re s/a weapons, is because most ofthe people targeting the weapons don’t understand the weaponry.

The real issue is the nut behind the trigger, and everybody knows it. But I suspect, providing an effective solution will be way too costly and much more difficult.

Easier to make busy work and go after high profile emotional topics than fix problems.

Having said all that I’ve been staring at my AR-10 for several hours and it has yet to jump up and battery a charge. I have no “frigin” idea what’s wrong with this damn thing!

My .02 worth.

 

Can't disagree with that. (See long note below, though.) The
original purpose of the 2nd Amendment no longer exists in the
form it did when it was written. For many reasons.

But you may miss my point, given the rest I see below. I'll
resay it again, at the end, after the "..."

The original purpose included foreign invasion as well as
internal revolt as well as providing the "last" and "final"
check against those who might wish to use a federal force
against those in a state of the union.

Other checks were added, including a bar against the idea of
a standing military -- also a barrier long since broken for
reasons both good and bad.

But at the time, there wasn't a standing, well trained army;
and there wasn't nearly as large a distinction in weaponry.
And the world was different in other ways. (Though I think
after reading the massive book, Les Miserables, I'm starting
to take the position that there isn't anything at all new
about politics.)

Pot is harmless. If legal, there'd also be no violence
because the courts would then be available to settle
disputes.

My next door neighbor sells full auto. But if I remember
correctly in the US these are quite limited -- no additional
pieces are authorized and the existing stock is the only
legal stock allowed. And licence fees must be paid ever year,
if I remember right. (Never owned one, though.)

It's already been revised. A 1939 Supreme Court decision used
an entirely "prudential" argument having nothing whatever to
do with original intent, in my opinion.

However, at least there remains an individual right that was
recently upheld... for whatever that turns out to be worth.

I'll add below a long comment I'd written in 2004 on this
topic. Might be interesting to refresh memories.

That's largely true.

It may also require deeper self-examination than most are
willing to engage in. As well as the expense.

Looking busy, though.

I don't often see those and know nothing about their design.
But I do know my weapons well enough to make and replace some
of the parts. (I don't do rifling for example.)

....

My point wasn't to either encourage or defend any particular
side in this seemingly perennial debate or to take sides.
There are strongly felt and reasoned feelings from many
quarters.

My intent was to point out that while it once might have once
been practical to ban large magazines from sales at stores,
it no longer is. 3D printing has already been able to cheaply
build lower receivers that can withstand "some" use before
breaking. It certainly can be and is being used to build
large capacity magazines that work rather well. Banning
larger magazines today, in 2013, will only create a lucrative
niche market for 3D printing. It's effect now will be much
less than it might have been a few decades ago. (And again,
I'm not arguing about that effect. It probably had little to
no effect for the intended reasons at the time.)

I also imagine it will be 'very hard' to make semiautos
illegal. What would be the alternate? Revolvers? Single fire
break-barrel designs like a Barreta 86-F, but without a
magazine? I don't think any of that would pass, either.

Time needs to be put elsewhere. The magazine debate is
pointless. It would, even if passed, only create a new
marketplace as well as accelerated efforts towards cheaper,
more advanced 3D printer designs. That genie is out of the
bag, now. There's no putting it back.

http://wordpress.digitalcrowbar.net/?p=167
http://defdist.tumblr.com/post/37023487585/printed-reinforced-ar-lower-review
http://defensedistributed.com/

....


I'm going to quote a little from the Federalist papers. I
want to make it clear that at the time they were published
they were not the only opinions around. But they were popular
ones and written to push a point of view. There were a number
of other factions, including the anti-federalists (like the
"Federal Farmer".) Still, the 2nd Amendment was well
understood and commonly accepted as wise at the time.

The Supreme Court (itself ever changing) gleans intent not
just from the Federalist Papers. Those papers tell how some
thought and, to the degree that their arguments won through
in writing specific phrases and lines in our Constitution,
you can find some measure of "original intent." But there is
also the intent of those who actually wrote specific elements
and the intent of those who voted in support of the final
document and that is gleaned from elsewhere, including
reading the debates in the various legislatures that
ratified. (As well as in letters, trial versions of the text
before editing changes, and so on.)

Modern Constitutional analysis doesn't just conclude even
from these original intent arguments. Current thinking seems
to include:

(1) textual arguments, which appeal to the unadorned language
of the text and without any 'original intent' analysis to
speak of (on the theory that the document is the controlling
agreement that was signed, and not just what some folks may
have read into it at the time);

(2) historical arguments, appealing to an historical
background, such as specific appeals to the intentions of
framers, as lit by their many writings on the subject (this
is more of that original intent thing);

(3) structural arguments, analyzing the particular structures
established by the Constitution, such as the tripartite
division of the national government or the separate existence
of both state and nation as political entities and/or the
structured role of citizens within the political order (a bit
of an abstraction, but useful in understanding the _thrust_
of intent where specific details may be lacking);

(4) doctrinal arguments, focusing on implications of prior
cases decided by the Supreme Court (stare decisis);

(5) prudential arguments, which emphasize the consequences of
adopting any proffered decision in any given case;

As an example of number (5) above, the 2nd Amendment was in
many ways thoroughly changed from original intent when the
U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S.
174 (1939), that the Second Amendment was designed to protect
only the ability of the states to maintain a well regulated
militia. This 1939 case is the only modern case in which the
Supreme Court has addressed this issue, and since this Miller
decision, every federal court that has considered the issue
has rejected the contention that the Second Amendment confers
a right to firearm possession unrelated to militia service.
(Until District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
appeared on the scene, anyway.)

However, this 1939 position was NOT the original intent nor
can it be taken from the language.

Well before District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008), the constitutional authority, Professor Laurence
Tribe, confirmed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual
right. See "American Constitutional Law, 2nd ed., 1988." He
does so in a somewhat offhand way, but freely admits the
difficulty of any other interpretation, writing, "...the
debates surrounding congressional approval of the second
amendment do contain references to individual self-protection
as well as to states' rights." And Tribe was supportive of
strong gun control laws.

James Madison writes about the subject in Federalist #46,
saying "...the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation...forms
a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more
insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form
can admit of."

He also discusses the idea that a Federal Army might be
formed in order to subdue the people. He leads his point by
first trying to get an estimate of just how big an army the
Federal gov't might possibly be able to muster. He then
dispels it by saying, "To these would be opposed a militia
amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in
their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves,
fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted
by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It
may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced
could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular
troops."

Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist #29, "...but if
circumstances should at any time oblige the government to
form an army of any magnitude that army can never be
formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a
large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them
in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend
their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This
appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a
standing army, and the best possible security against it, if
it should exist."

If you read the Virginia Legislature debates or what exists
of the many writings by the various important visionaries
around this time, well documented in George Bancroft's
"History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United
States of America" (which is often referred to by members of
the US Supreme Court), or if you carefully read through the
Federalist Papers, in particular #24 to #29, #46, and others,
you will find a continuing and clear understanding that
common citizens must be afforded the right to keep and bear
arms.

Even the opposition writers to the Federalists, for example
the "Federal Farmer," an anti-federalist critic of the
Constitution and its absence then of a Bill of Rights, wrote
"to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
the people always possess arms, and be taught alike,
especially when young, how to use them..."

Frankly, on this subject, there was little disagreement back
then.

But, as you imply when you bring up F22's and the A1 Abrams,
the prudential argument wins out at this time. Despite the
original writings and intent. The essence of this position is
based on (5), mentioned above. And it amounts to asking this
question,

"What would happen *if* we decided that the Second Amendment
provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right
to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to
resist government tyranny?"

If one then decides that there *is* such an absolute right,
then one is forced to the conclusion that the Second
Amendment must allow individuals to possess bazookas,
torpedoes, SCUD missiles, biological weapons, and even
nuclear warheads, for they are, like rifles and pistols,
__arms__. Certainly, it is hard to imagine any serious
resistance to an organized and well funded standing military
without many of such arms.

Since to most people in the US today that is clearly
unacceptable to social stability, the question is therefore
reduced to a different one. No longer is it whether or not
to restrict arms ownership, as that is already been
determined by examining alternatives. The question becomes
only by how much to restrict it. The Second Amendment's
origianl intent has bene demolished by a prudential refusal
to accept the original arguments and intent.

The important issues won't be examined. They are more
abstract, largely unattended, and will take time to consider
and then turn into concrete goals. It's much easier to pick
on pithy adages that play well with an ignorant public.

The debate about magazine size will continue. I just think
that it won't achieve its goals, even if some restricting law
comes to pass. Today, it will be even less useful because of
the ready availability of 3D printers and the ease of making
them if you don't already have one, from readily available
parts. I'll be using heavy rollers and aluminum I-beams
designed for pocket doors by Johnson Hardware on the next one
I build, for example. They aren't going to control pocket
door hardware, nor the software that is readily available for
driving these machines with good accuracy. And they are
getting easier to buy or make, by the day. And Pirate Bay has
already set up a special section just for these "Physibles."
As well as the links I provided above.

Interesting times.

Jon

 

I plan to "retire" in a couple years (at 52) and one of my longtime desireshas been to just travel the world with my cameras. Maybe a well-equipped but small RV stateside, and who knows elsewhere. I don't own a firearm either, but I do think I would purchase one (and get trained in how to use it) if I do end up on that photo safari.

Of course, with all the gear in the camera pack, it'll probably have to be a little pea-shooter of a gun. I wonder if something like that would even scare off the would-be robber? Maybe I'll get a really lightweight gun that looks big and impressive, but doesn't shoot worth a sh^t?

 

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:55:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Fix your damned line length! Idjits.

Idiotic statement. One person, probably not. A community, well, take
a look at The Battle of Athens. No tanks or F22s around. Rifles,
yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

Indeed. You conveniently forget The Battle of Athens, though.

Repeating nonsense doesn't make it any more true.

Who's fault is that? It just shows how dumb you can be.

Go for it. Until then, it is the law.

Yet you're all for it anyway. Go figure.

No, the real solution is to harden the targets so the little
chichenshits have a harder time. You'd piss your pants, though.

True. That Constitution thing is just so limiting. Just ignore it,
right? Who cares if a family or a hundred is wiped out, ten thousand
killed, or a million more crimes as long as we do nothing about the
"problem". Actually, banning guns makes the "problem" worse.

You are some piece of work.

You got ripped off.

 

Be careful where you travel. In some states, getting caught with a
loaded gun will get you a *long* vacation in the graybar hotel. Also,
you'll have to get a carry license, even for those states that are
more reasonable. Research which state has the widest reciprocity.
Claim residence there. That said, you can transport weapons (but you
won't be able to carry) through all states but you still have to be
very careful.

Why in hell would you go to all that trouble and then still not be
able to defend yourself? That's nuts. I get a small weapon (I'd
recommend at least two, one easily carried and a hand-cannon).

 

only thing that can kill a bad guy with a a hammer is a good guy with a carpenters knife.

Oh, and --

(are 30 guns better than 3000?)

YES.

Screw the NRA.

 

Now give a real reason for needing a gun. The whole reason people
think they need guns to protect themselves is because every grazy
person can get a gun. Its utter fear! And its just a placebo. You
really don't stand a chance against someone who comes at you with a
gun prepared for any defensive move. Anyone who wants to prove
otherwise should walk into a back ally in some shady part of New York
and try to pull the gun when they get mugged.

About 25 years ago I worked for a couple of Israelis on a project. At
some point they where identifying project hazards. When they came to
bomb attacks they said 'Err.. no, we are in the Netherlands so that is
not a thread'. At that moment I realised that a big part of freedom is
being able to go to bed at night without being afraid some idiot with
a gun or bomb turns up.

Having guns didn't do the people much good. Lots of dead resistance
fighters to name streets after... not to mention the random mass
killings for revenge.

Just wait until some lunatic starts shooting around in the shopping
mall where your family does their shopping. Happened to me... my kids
could have been there but plans changed and I went alone to my parents
later that day. It never ever seemed so long before my parents
answered the phone when I called to check whether they where OK. So
really don't tell me to get my facts right.

 

The links I provided in a way-too-long post show that there
are both organized groups of individuals and individuals
working hard to develop practical 3D printing capabilities
bent towards this aim. Particularly, a lot of time on the
idea of the lower receivers, which are what is the controlled
part of an auto weapon in the US.

I'm kind of curious how all this is going to play out in
countries where guns are much more restricted, though. Even a
single shot capability before the weapon becomes useless
could be enough to change local situations for law
enforcement practices. In the US, probably not so much.

Since spending time actually building a 3D printer and now
having the ability to produce not only very nice and rather
complex project boxes (big boon for me) but also the ability
to print out larger capacity magazines that actually work
well... I am beginning to realize increasingly the potential
impacts of 3D printing. It's not exactly the same situation
as when the Altair 8800 and, later, the IMSAI 8080 appeared
on the scene. (Creating one component to an acceptance of low
cost computers into business -- the other component being
Visicalc on the Apple II.) But there are similarities and
perhaps a promise of some of the kinds of revolutionary
social change, as well.

It will be interesting to see how the next few years play
out.

Jon