Gun Control Anyone?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Folks who do a LOT of shooting typically own one or more of these:

http://www.dillonprecision.com/#/Dil...hines-8-1.html

A Dillon press to a high volume shooter is a bit like a sports car enthusiast owning his/her own oil refinery.

---------

What I also find quite odd about US firearms laws is how in the US noise surpressors("silencers") are viewed as the tools of hollywood assassins and criminals(although ease of acquisition with a $200 stamp duty I believe is getting easier in the US)...outside the US, or at least here in NZ, rifle surpressors are viewed more as an occupational health and safety issue where anyone can buy one.

[DSpencer]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

What I also find quite odd about US firearms laws is how in the US noise surpressors("silencers") are viewed as the tools of hollywood assassins and criminals(although ease of acquisition with a $200 stamp duty I believe is getting easier in the US)...outside the US, or at least here in NZ, rifle surpressors are viewed more as an occupational health and safety issue where anyone can buy one.

Another example of ignorance. Outside of very small calibers a suppressor does not reduce noise to the extent shown in movies/tv. Most suppressed guns are still so loud that they would require ear protection to be comfortable shooting. They are far from "silent".

[DSpencer]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

While I don't disagree with you, I think the Commerce Clause has proven to be a legal and useful tool for those who advocate gun control.

So while I think you are correct(morally/ethically), I think you might be quite wrong(legally).

This is a constant source of frustration for people who value the Bill of Rights. Yes the commerce clause has been used to justify all kinds of insane regulation and yes the Supreme Court has upheld it. That does not make it right. If the Supreme Court said that up is down would that make it true? If they said that the second amendment refers to arms in the context of the limbs connecting your hands to your torso would that make it legal to ban all weapons? The Supreme Court has used the commerce clause to justify telling someone they can't grow their own wheat, on their own land, to feed their own family. What sane person could possibly think that the founding fathers would find that interpretation reasonable?

We live in a world of doublespeak. Look at how people have claimed powers for the president to increase the debt ceiling without congress based on the 14th amendment. Read the text and explain how they could possibly believe that. It's a lie and they know it.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Getting back on topic. Let's look at one of our most cherished "common sense" gun laws.
According to the gun free school act of 1990:

If you live within 333 yards of a school and you drive out of your driveway with a firearm in your vehicle that is unloaded, zipped in a soft case and placed in the rear of your hatchback car or the rear seat of your pickup truck you have just committed a crime that will cost you ownership of guns forever and could put you in jail for 5 years.

Is this really "common sense"? Get real. These laws are mean and spiteful.

The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) states:
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.


Definitions

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25) the term "school zone" means—
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(26) the term "school" means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.
Penalty

18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(4) establishes the penalty for violating GFSZA:

Whoever violates the Act shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law.

[vt]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

http://townhall.com/columnists/thoma...958/page/full/

[cbr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Getting back on topic. Let's look at one of our most cherished "common sense" gun laws.
According to the gun free school act of 1990:

If you live within 333 yards of a school and you drive out of your driveway with a firearm in your vehicle that is unloaded, zipped in a soft case and placed in the rear of your hatchback car or the rear seat of your pickup truck you have just committed a crime that will cost you ownership of guns forever and could put you in jail for 5 years.

Is this really "common sense"? Get real. These laws are mean and spiteful.

That is standard government practice now: render ALL behavior felonious, thus allowing selective imprisonment of anyone that gets in the way of whatever little stalinist government fiefdom is currently annoyed with you.

governments have several ways of working, as a fundamental fact of human nature throughout time: 1) purely authoritarian autocracy - government and their blessed cronies just do whatever they want by force (current direction we are heading), 2) socialist authoritarian oligarchy - government renders most everything potentially illegal by rule of law, so that anyone giving them trouble can be selectively imprisoned by 'rule of law' (where we are today), 3) egalitarian democracy - government cronies do what they can to abuse power, but are severely limited by an egalitarian, armed, educated public with a large, competent, ethical middle class and free press, along with carefully drafted separation of powers for government. (where we once were, and where government cronies want you to think we still are.....)

this federal law is sol facially unconstitutional it would literally be a joke, except that our judiciary has been overrun by stalinists as well.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I can't be bothered going back through this thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating myself.Whenever I think of "gun free zones" I think of the time my guys and I, partnered with some indigenous police, nailed 3 naughty people who had hacked a local cop into pieces.We tracked them to a village and confirmed their location to a specific building. We hit them about 3am.They were quite well armed, but fortunately we didn't have to shoot them, and fortunately the women and infant in the structure with them were unharmed during the job.Once we finished, my guys and I took a photo in front of the sign that said "Gun Free Village"."Gun Free" anything has bothered me ever since.

[Polish_Silver]

Single Mothers cause lower crime rates?

The private prison industry is grinning all the way to the bank. Meanwhile the real causes of crime (mostly the absence of fathers) continue unabated.

Another poster obliquely hit on a key issue. We have a serious lack of penis control in this country. Most criminal behavior is a direct result of irresponsible reproduction and non existent parenting by baby daddies. It's time for the men of this country to be men, to control their behavior and become responsible again.

We can't solve Chicago with less guns or more guns. Chicago needs socially responsible men.

Crime is fundamentally a social problem, not a gun problem. But the crime rate has been dropping since 1980, even though there are more single mothers than ever.

It turns out that if you correct for the household income, there's no metric that says a father/husband helps the child socially or economcially. It's the father's paycheck, not the father, that makes a measureable difference.

Women have been gaining economic freedom and sexual freedom, and that may be why the crime rate is lowering. They are no longer economically dependent in irresponsible men. There is also some argument that liberal abortion is lowering the crime rate. The 5 states that legalized abortion before Roe vs Wade also saw the crime rate drop earlier than the rest of the nation. (it started dropping about 18 years after abortion became legal). The abortion 5 are NY, CA, HI, AK, and oregon, I think.

New York city just announed that the 2012 murder rate was the lowest on record.

As for the men, they will not stop having sex because they are worried that the child conceived might become a criminal. I wouldn't. A more interesting question is why women want sex with irresponsible men, or why they have so many "unexpected" children.

[LorenS]

Re: Single Mothers cause lower crime rates?

Crime is fundamentally a social problem, not a gun problem. But the crime rate has been dropping since 1980, even though there are more single mothers than ever.

Or it may just be that the fact that we incarcerate so many of the offspring of those single mothers that crime has been dropping.

You are correct, crime is a complex problem.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Single Mothers cause lower crime rates?

The US has the highest incarceration rate in the devoloped world. Higher than China, for example.
It is a big financial and social cost.

However, some fraction of those "criminals" are imprisoned for things completely legal in some countries, such as marijuana and prostitution.

Marijuana is totally legal in many middle eastern countries, Turkey and Egypt for example.

[shiny!]

Re: Single Mothers cause lower crime rates?

There is also some argument that liberal abortion is lowering the crime rate. The 5 states that legalized abortion before Roe vs Wade also saw the crime rate drop earlier than the rest of the nation. (it started dropping about 18 years after abortion became legal). The abortion 5 are NY, CA, HI, AK, and oregon, I think.

New York city just announed that the 2012 murder rate was the lowest on record.

This seems to back up your assertion. I'm not a statistician so I don't know if it's the whole story or selective cherry picking:
Do Demographics Explain the Latest Drop in Crime Rates?

Other factors might include removing lead from paint and gasoline, crack cocaine falling out of favor, and longer prison sentences- basically removing violent offenders from the streets.

My guess is "all of the above".

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Single Mothers cause lower crime rates?

This seems to back up your assertion. I'm not a statistician so I don't know if it's the whole story or selective cherry picking:
Do Demographics Explain the Latest Drop in Crime Rates?

Other factors might include removing lead from paint and gasoline, crack cocaine falling out of favor, and longer prison sentences- basically removing violent offenders from the streets.

My guess is "all of the above".

The abortion link is treated in "freakonomics", where I first heard of it. It is very controversial, but also a very logical idea. But not a "feel good" idea. The other changes, like longer sentences, probably also have some role. An alternative hypothesis was just "older population". A smaller proportion of people in the crime prone 18-25 year bracket. However, that change is much smaller than the observed reduction in crime.

I am very pro "sexual liberation" but still somewhat uncomfortable with abortion. I blame the parents, who, at least in my area, do everything to keep thier daughters ignorant of sex, but do nothing to prevent the daughters from having sexual emotions. For example, they are against sex education in schools, but from what I can tell, the only information they get at home is "just say no". If the daughters were told, on their 11 birthday, everything about sexual emotions, contraceptives, disease, etc, I think there would be a lot less abortions and a lot more condoms in the garbage can.

[shiny!]

Re: Single Mothers cause lower crime rates?

The abortion link is treated in "freakonomics", where I first heard of it. It is very controversial, but also a very logical idea. But not a "feel good" idea.

Definitely not a "feel good" idea, and not posted with any bias for or against.

[reggie]

Re: Single Mothers cause lower crime rates?

A different way to look at the challenges, leveraging systems thinking. Starts off slow, and might be considered oversimplified, and perhaps odd, but I urge readers to stick with it through all 3-videos.

Part 1:The second amendment, containing the right to keep and bear arms, turns out to be a very important ingredient for constitutional control, in addition to the better well known balance of power between the branches of government.

PART 2 of the VIDEO GUN CONTROL and CYBERNETICS presents the control variety equation to create a cybernetic model, not at all complicated, that allows the viewer to understand why LINEAR THINKING leads to gun control laws, while CYBERNETIC THINKING supports exactly the opposite policy.

Part 3 of 3 posted in the next post

[reggie]

PART 3 of the video GUN CONTROL and CYBERNETICS addresses the control loop between the police and the legislators and courts, who are to blame for much of the criminal activity that is protected by bad laws and worse court decisions and precedents. This video explores the first part of the cybernetic loop after the second part was explored in PART 2.

In Stafford Beer's talk "Cybernetics & The Will of the People" (presented in this same youtube channel), Beer shows how Variety is increasing exponentially, perturbating our social system into a chaotic state, with humanity at risk of losing control over this system. Here, we effectively have the Criminals, Legislators, and Police all on the same side of the control-feedback loop, amplifying the variety presented to the public, further perturbating the system and increasing the likelihood of chaos. I don't see how this can be accidental.

Morover, the gov't possesses tremendous expertise in Cybernetic thinking, and has thoroughly modeled system effects Cybernetically. Hence, gov knows precisely how the system will be altered as a result of proposed legislation. It is the PUBLIC who receives linear thinking messages through media as propaganda in order to obscure clear thinking on behalf of the public, reducing the public's ability to attenuate or regulate proposed legislative changes.

Lastly, the media propaganda therefore becomes another amplifier on the same side of the Cybernetic loop as the Criminals, Legislators and Police, acting against the interests of the citizens, who have little in their arsenal to attenuate the signal.