Good lord.
I think this woman is approaching this experiment with a pretty slanted mindset and she doesn't seem like she wants to change her opinion at all. If you go into an experience expecting it to be bad I wouldn't be surprised if you find it awful, stressful, and in general everything you expect it to be. You get what you're looking for, right? Now, was it you thenewgreen where we had a discussion about guns on Hubski and another Hubskier offered to take you out shooting and you had a great time? Ugh I can't find it in search. Maybe it was mk or maybe one of you two will remember. (If not, then I'm going crazy.) Frankly, maybe it was on Reddit. That I thought was a good example of someone who had never picked up a gun, never fired one, wasn't particularly interested in the experience, but went with an open mind. I'm not saying you have to love shooting after you pick up a gun and give it a try, but it doesn't feel to me like this person is even giving it a shot. (Ha. Hardy-har-har, I amuse myself.) Edit: "In some way, I feel a certain vindication. I was right to protest Starbucks policy. Today, they have a woman with absolutely no firearms training and a Glock on her hip sitting within arm’s reach of small children, her hands shaking and adrenaline surging" I fail to see how this is vindication of the Starbucks policy. I don't think her shaking hands and surging adrenaline are going to cause her to whip out the gun and start shooting people. It doesn't make her any more dangerous than she already is, just as someone with a gun. I think in fact her lack of firearms training means that she may be less likely to pull out the gun than someone who is familiar with it. Let's be honest - if this woman gets in a situation where she needs to defend herself, do you think she is going to think fast enough to even rely on the gun? Am I arguing the wrong point, here, or something? I think what she is trying to protest is that she is a barely trained individual with a gun in a Starbucks, but adding on those extra details is...welll...fear-mongering.
Wasn't me. I've grown up around guns and shot plenty of them though. I'm a liberal that doesn't think that gun control is nearly as important as accessible mental health care and reducing disparity. I do think that having a gun for protection on the street is ridiculous. It's a stupid use of a gun as a tool. Unless you specifically train in these scenarios, chances are you are just going to make a bad situation much worse for yourself (even if you train, you might end up killing someone and regretting it). In almost every robbery, people are after money, not your life. In this day and age, the most valuable thing you'll have is your phone, and that's not worth shooting over. In my city, we have a publication where you can see the crime statistics. There are robberies every month. There hasn't been a homicide in years, and homicides by and large don't occur during robberies.
oh boy. As someone who lives in Europe, the fact you can walk around with a gun on your hip is just nuts. Downright, no exceptions, plain and simple nuts. I have fired guns before, shotguns and rifles, in a safe location while hunting so I'm not against guns. I'm against random people walking around near me with a focking gun on their hip or worse, concealed carrying. What the hell! I get that 'bad guys' carry guns, fine, how about you change the law so no one can carry a handgun. Ever. And spend all your time arresting and removing guns from circulation. Nuts.
Sure, that has worked so well. As in not a bit. The second amendment (right to bear arms) is part of what we call The Bill of Rights (BOR). The BOR also protects our absolute right to freedom of worship, assembly, and free speech. And to a prompt trial by our peers. And to the right not to self incriminate. Etc.... We like it. -XC
I like my Second Amendment. Still, I would appreciate people not acting like the world is so dangerous it justifies carry at all times. The US is as safe as it has ever been. I'm not suggesting a law against carrying, but I am suggesting that the people that do are delusional. Our inability to evaluate risk is a big problem in the US. Every sane person should be able to have a gun. But walking around with one is silly.
It's not risky to me when I'm carrying a gun. I've probably carried a gun for 10K+ hours without even one handling error. I've also spent 10K+ hours at the range learning to draw and aim safely. Basically I've had a ton more training than your average cop. Oddly, I am not that great a shot. :-) -XC
I doubt that you aren't safe carrying. It's just tough to imagine a scenario where it works: This guy looks suspicious, but he hasn't pulled a gun. -I don't pull mine.
This guy pulled a gun on me. -I don't pull mine. I know several people that have had guns pulled on them. Not once in a scenario where having a gun would have done them any good. They are all fine.
I'd love to see the data on successful vs. unsuccessful use of guns in self-defense. But you'd also need to include instances where people didn't have a gun for defense and weren't harmed, which is the majority of incidents. I'm also talking about several people I personally know. Six come to mind immediately. That's enough anecdotes for me. EDIT: Make that 8. Detroit is a special place.
Again I have nothing against guns if they are used for recreation or hunting. The core issue as far as I can see is that America has so many weapons in circulation right now that it is impossible to turn back the clock. People are so scared of attack they feel a gun is a necessary thing to have. Now you can argue with me that guns are necessary in that situation and I might see your point of view, but I cant agree with anyone who thinks an armed society scared of attack is a good thing. Bill of Rights is one thing, common sense is another.Sure, that has worked so well. As in not a bit.
Which bit are you referring to?The second amendment (right to bear arms) is part of what we call The Bill of Rights (BOR). The BOR also protects our absolute right to freedom of worship, assembly, and free speech. And to a prompt trial by our peers. And to the right not to self incriminate. Etc....
We like it.
Straw man argument. Freedom of worship, assembly, speech are essential rights and worth fighting for. There seems to be a distinction between the right to defend yourself and the right to carry a gun at all times. The former is a basic instinct inherit to everyone, the latter is a misguided attempt to enforce the former. I see people everyday that should not be trusted with a sharp pencil. The thought that if we were in another country they could freely and legally purchase a gun and carry it around for their "protection" is pretty god damn scary. (thinking about it, I might buy a gun and consider killing them first.... it seems logical right?...)
You mean gun crimes occur in those countries? Sure they do. Lets see the homicide rates per 100K pf population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re... United Kingdom: 0.25 Austrailia: 1.06 Singapore: 0.16 Hong Kong: 0.03 USA: 10.3 - that would be 10 times higher than the highest one you listed. Gun ownership per 100 persons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co... Austrailia: 15 Singapore: 0.5 Hong Kong: not listed. USA: 88 - Thats 88 guns per 100 persons... You can create a law against gravity if you want, it wont change anything. You can tell people carrying a gun is safe, doesn't make it true. Honestly when I saw the PI=3 thing I knew I was being trolled :)
Sorry, pi=3 is a NC joke - we occasionally get a legislator who thinks they can make math easier by legislating pi to a nice even number. I swear I am not joking. America is simply a more violent country for every possible category (except self violence). If you took away every possible edged or projectile weapon we'd beat each other to death with rocks. Remember the old joke about heaven and hell? In heaven the French do the cooking but in hell they run the military, etc, etc. -XC
And is that it? We live in a violent place, so ya know, go buy some guns.... That's pretty defeatist. Answer me this, does it make more or less sense to start removing guns from circulation when you live in a violent society. I assumed you were pro-guns. I got all warmed up for an argument for nuthin. I'm so mad I could shoot someone.America is simply a more violent country for every possible category (except self violence). If you took away every possible edged or projectile weapon we'd beat each other to death with rocks.
Nope, it's not whether or not it makes sense, it's a right. You can't remove free speech. You can't remove right to practice religion. Those are rights that belong to the people - the government hasn't got the ability to grant or remove them. (Well, ok, Felons and all that, but leave the edge conditions out here.) Our rights are backwards from those in most counties. In most countries the government grants rights to the people - the magna carta was the king devolving power to the nobles and from there it sort of trickled down. In America our rights derive from God and the founding documents recognize that. Most of the constitution and bill of rights (the interesting bits) are actually limiting what the central and other governments can do to limit our rights. -XC PS - I am pro liberty. I do own guns. I don't need to be "pro gun" any more than I am "pro free speech" or "pro anti self incrimination."
So things are wrong, God made it that way and not only can we not change it, we shouldn't even consider changing it? Ok, so for a second, lets forget what we supposedly can and cant do. Men wrote the BOR, Men can rewrite the BOR. It's words on a page, its the people who enforce it. Also its one thing to say "We cant change it" and quite another to say "It's wrong and we cant change it"
Wrong? I didn't say they were wrong, I was just explaining why it doesn't make any sense to me to say "change it." There is a process for amending the constitution, and it has been used, in the past, a lot. They banned booze and then put it back, changed the voting age, changed the start date of the presidency, changed when congressional raises take place - from the sublime to the picayune. I doubt we'll ever see another change - there are a lot of reasons, but mostly I think the "ruling class" has lost the confidence of the voting public to the point that nobody would trust them to tamper with the constitution again. IIRC not much has ever been done, amendment-wise, around the BOR - which is really a short name for the first 10 amendments to the constitution. The Supreme court occasionally "finds" things in the constitution when they're ruling on laws - the "right to abortion" was famously found in the 4th Amendment's right to privacy. (I never understood that.) Recently, for example, the Supreme's clearly came out and recognized the second (right to bear arms) as an individual right. So the understanding of the constitution is not static. People, even Americans (sadly), don't understand how that part of our society works. Federalism is another area where stuff happens in America that makes perfect sense to us but baffles the rest of the world. _XC
I don't care whether you think you can or cant remove them, I want to know if you think its right to have guns in a society ( a violent one at that). If you had the choice to live in a gun free (within reason) society, where people have to use rocks to kill one another, would you choose it? If not why not?Wrong? I didn't say they were wrong, I was just explaining why it doesn't make any sense to me to say "change it."
That's the central element to my point. When I ask you to consider if its right or wrong to have an armed society, you say its impossible to change so why consider it. When I ask if it makes sense to remove guns from circulation you say "The government doesn't have the right to remove them".
Yes, the government doesn't have the right, but the people do. The people overwhelmingly do not favor strict gun control, gun registries, gun confiscation, etc. So it can't happen. Which is fine with me, I don't think we need any of those things either. I don't think we need more government regulation of pools, or household poisons or the internet. -XC
Again you avoided my question :) I fully realize that Guns are a complex issue for a lot of people. And even in this discussion the range of topics have covered Freedom of Speech, Government Control, Federalism etc. There is a huge amount of swirl thrown on top of the topic of Gun control. People make their country, Humans like to conform to social norms. For gun carrying to be allowed it must be socially acceptable; which follows that people (the majority) in that society are happy to put up with the violence around them as long as they get to have a gun. That's whats normal to the group. But what about the individual? What do you think, regardless of the rules? As a poor example, I live in Ireland, renowned throughout the world for its drinking culture. Alcohol is a large part of our society and actually makes up part of our image in a similar way Guns do in the US. Alcohol is killing people everyday here, young and old. I have seen friends lost to it. Like you I see how its almost impossible to change the society; but I also recognize that our relationship with alcohol is out of control and its not good for our country. I don't want to ban it, I enjoy it myself but never to excess, I'd like to change how freely accessible it is. I'd like to change the mindset that you need to have a drink in order to have a good time. We have crossed from a healthy relationship into an abusive one. Personally I think this mirrors the relationship with Guns in the US. As they say in AA, recognising you have a problem is the first step. Do you think you have a problem with guns?Yes, the government doesn't have the right, but the people do. The people overwhelmingly do not favor strict gun control, gun registries, gun confiscation, etc. So it can't happen.
I have answered your questions several times - maybe my American English is bad. No, we don't have a problem with guns, we have a problem with violence. A "glass is half empty" person might say that everyone else is "enjoying" too little violence. But I think the correlation between a violent and a creative society is likely to be very weak. See also Rome. As to your "I'd like to change how freely accessible [alcohol] it is" I would ask you why? Why do you think the answer to any problem is to constrain people? I'm not a Big-L libertarian or an anarchist or anything, but in the course of human history we can see that the things that government gets right when they start to control people are pretty few relative to the amount of control they seek. -XC -XC
A "glass is half empty" person might say that everyone else is "enjoying" too little violence. But I think the correlation between a violent and a creative society is likely to be very weak. See also Rome.
There is a famous Orson Wells quote hidden in there dying to get out. Cuckoo clocks.As to your "I'd like to change how freely accessible [alcohol] it is" I would ask you why? Why do you think the answer to any problem is to constrain people? I'm not a Big-L libertarian or an anarchist or anything, but in the course of human history we can see that the things that government gets right when they start to control people are pretty few relative to the amount of control they seek.
Well I never mentioned Government as the tool to enact change. I mentioned that we have a cultural problem, our society has an unhealthy relationship with alcohol but there is no Government action capable of dealing with that effectively. Over here Governments keep the lights on and the ship on course. They are not as powerful as perhaps their US counterparts are. Any change to our relationship to alcohol has to come from inside the society, a popular movement or such. This is happening slowly because people see that we have a problem.No, we don't have a problem with guns, we have a problem with violence.
So Guns play no part? I could say we don't a problem with alcohol, we have a problem with alcoholism but that's a cop out. One way to improve the society for everyone is to tackle the problem and make it less acceptable (note: less acceptable, its still legal) to be drunk in the street at 1 in the afternoon.
While at the same time, we people overwhelmingly favor stricter gun control...The people overwhelmingly do not favor strict gun control,
I'm not even sure they know, given their confusion about simple terms like magazine/clip and semi/automatic. Here's the deal, it is not complicated. If you are a registered firearm dealer (FFL - Federal Firearm License "holder") then you have to comply with federal, state, and local laws regarding firearm transfers. This includes background checks, local permitting, etc. For example, in some counties in NC you have to have a "sheriff's permit" to purchase a pistol. So if you're a Robison county FFL holder and you see a guy from Wake county, you have to collect his Sheriff's permit before sending him a pistol. If the buyer is from Carteret then you don't. Like that. Horribly complex, a patchwork of laws. But the vast vast majority of gun buys come from FFL holders. If you are a non FFL then you have to comply with a number of other federal laws (can't sell a pistol to someone under 21, someone you know has a mental illness, etc) and sometimes with local laws. I can sell a pistol to a Wake County resident without asking to see a permit. When I've sold handguns in the past I've asked to see their CCW because that covers pretty much all the rules. Anyway, so there is no background check for non-FFL holder transactions. This is the so-called "gun show looophole." Here's the deal: something like 96% of sales are FFL, and something like 99% of non-FFL sales do not take place during a gun show. My understanding is that a majority of non-FFL sales take place between people who are acquainted. Personally, I've bought and sold about as many guns from people I know as from strangers. I dunno, did I answer your question? _XC
Unless I'm reading that wrong, you can buy a gun at a gun show from someone who is not FFL without a background check as well as buy a gun without a background check from non-FFLs pretty much anywhere else. I guess I'm not sure where the ambiguity comes from polling saying people overwhelmingly want those exceptions closed, -even when they clarify that the sales are between two non-dealer citizens. Pretty much the only way you can even break even is to word it so family members have to get background checks on family members. That still leaves overwhelming support for increasing background checks to many more gun sales, if not every.
So, you've never been to a gun show, yeah? The tables are almost exclusively dealers, for various reasons. I've only been to gun shows in NC, SC, CA, VA, TX, TN, MA, and FL, so there may be shows that aren't that way, but I'd be surprised. But, again, look at the transfer numbers, non-FFL transactions are very very small. So the reason those polls are ambiguous is that people think (a) it's a serious problem that will (b) make a difference. If you phrased it differently you'd get a different answer. -XC
I think this is an assumption. Sure, I already pointed this out. But the key takeaway is no matter how you phrase it (without actively trying to spin the poll), you get a clear majority wanting increased background checks. Fairly unambiguous, but if you drill down: Still a clear majority. And this doesn't even speak to gun shows. This involves two private citizens making a sale to each other. People aren't misunderstanding the question here. This isn't that tricky. The poll isn't asking if people think that it will solve a serious problem. Part of the reason this might enjoy such large support is because people perceive it as a small "no-brainer" that might only chip away but should be done nonetheless. That's a guess like your guess. What we do know is that people favor some form of increased gun control. Overwhelmingly.So the reason those polls are ambiguous is that people think (a) it's a serious problem that will (b) make a difference.
If you phrased it differently you'd get a different answer.
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them." Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent.
Huh, I had not seen that second one. That first one is completely useless. Is it asked before the second one? I am always reminded of the "Ban Bi-Hydrogen Oxide" stuff. Side note: it's not increased gun control, it's control of the transfer process. -XC
This is great! I hope when people read this they realize that the author is intentionally doing the minimum required to own a gun. Of course you can take a class, learn about the mechanics of the gun, how to use it and how to hold it, you know... how to be responsible. But that is not a requirement. Just about any idiot can purchase and carry a gun. Most fascinating is that the cop was cool with an armed person approaching them at a site where they have someone else pulled over. -Only a woman could get away with this. If I attempted it, it wouldn't be received as gleefully. That's just my guess. I'm interested to see where this experiment leads. I wouldn't be surprised if some of her preconceived notions change.
If they let Paul Krugman speak I guess they gotta let that gal own a gun. Of course, her car is probably more dangerous to the public than her gun. Given her lack of preparation I am going to guess that she will violate at least a few state and federal statutes before it's all over. Federal examples: dropping someone off at the airport with her gun in the car; driving into a federally owned parking deck; being within 200 feet of the VP or POTUS. State examples: being in a municipal parking structure; entering an establishment that sells liquor/beer/wine for consumption on premise; entering a store that forbids carry though a badly marked entrance. (This last is a biggie and is a gray area.) -XC
All of the restrictions seem legitimate to me, but I would think that the burden to prevent guns on premise should fall on the business owner to clearly mark each entrance, with a sign that looks something like this: http://i.imgur.com/b1OahUA.gif I really don't know why anyone would be opposed to a one-time, mandatory gun safety class for prospective gun owners? If you are already knowledgeable because you grew up around guns, then you will be a true asset to the class and we in society will be grateful. Just take it. Then, after that you never have to take it again.Of course, her car is probably more dangerous to the public than her gun.
-Probably why we have mandatory drivers education classes and a, sometimes rather difficult, written test.
Here in MI you have to take a safety class to carry a concealed weapon, which is how most people want to carry pistols anyway. It was actually very thorough and informative. I was quite surprised, as I was expecting not much. The only thing that I think they should change here is that the range qualifying was ridiculous. You had to hit a 2' x 3' target 5 out of 6 shots from 12 feet! Anyone who can hold a gun can do that. Should require a little more, as it would be better to have more well practiced people walking around packing.
There is no mandatory drivers ed class if you're over 18. In NC you don't have to take the written test if you claim you can't read - they will read it out to you. So if you can learn basic road rules and sign rules, you don't even have to know how to read. Yay. You don't have to take a safety class to own a pool, get married, have a baby, practice free speech, refuse to let law enforcement in your home without a warrant, etc, etc. Heck, you don't have to take a class to get elected to any office in the country. And I am fine with all of the above, FWIW, just pointing it out.
I would be shocked if you didn't have to sign a waiver when installing a pool saying you've "read the safety...blah blah." I know the point you're making and some of those things should have an education comment tied to them. -Especially having a child. I think the gun people would do well to concede the "take a class" request from the gun-safety people. There has to be a reasonable middle ground to much of this debate. I'm not anti-gun, but I'd feel a lot better if I knew the guy I see carrying one was definitely educated as to how to safely handle it, and was thoroughly checked/screened for mental illness and past criminal behavior.In NC you don't have to take the written test if you claim you can't read - they will read it out to you. So if you can learn basic road rules and sign rules, you don't even have to know how to read. Yay.
You still need to know the answers. Do you need to know how to read in order to carry a gun? Hard to read those "no concealed signs" otherwise.
I agree with you and I'm not anti-gun (I dont live in the US so I might be VERY anti-gun by your standards...) either. The guns don't scare me half as much as the raised probability that due to the large number of armed people around me the odds that one of them will be having a bad day, their first mental break, their first attempted crime, their first mistake... while I or my family are within range. The math shows that the odds of getting shot are pretty tightly coupled to the number of armed people around you.I'm not anti-gun, but I'd feel a lot better if I knew the guy I see carrying one was definitely educated as to how to safely handle it, and was thoroughly checked/screened for mental illness and past criminal behavior.
No, I concede nothing, because every point limiting gun ownership is not made in good faith by "the other side." Just like conceding that there are so-called free-speech zones means that you agree to abridge your speech in other places. That is BS. Conceding that the TSA has a right to grope your kid's genitals defeats the 4th amendment - ok, I over-egg the pudding, but you get my point. How about less "Democrat" and "Republican" and more "Get your damn hands off my rights?" -XC PS - You don't have to know many of the answers. And I haven't taken the test in 15 years. PPS - You sign a contract absolving the installer of liability, but nothing more, when you buy a pool. You sign nothing when you buy a house with a pool.
IMO the gun debate is never going to be an honest one, because it treats all gun owners as equal when we know they are not. Take my fair city, Detroit. In the burbs there are throngs of dudes packing at all times, and the crime is negligible. In the inner city murder is an everyday occurrence, most often by gun. Most of these murders, so I am told, are drug/gang related. So the question isn't "how do we limit gun ownership?" but rather, "how do we stop gang violence?". But, as we live in civil society where we love to deflect real problems for imagined ones, truth for euphemism, the gun debate will always be about guns, and never about actual causes of violence. Personally, I have no idea how to solve this problem, but I'm damn sure that limiting the number of rounds in a magazine isn't going to help any of my neighbors get jobs and feed their families.
I took the test a year ago, I'm no dummy and a few of the questions had me sweating. You cannot get more than a few wrong or you fail.
Most of the questions have nothing to do with driving but have to do with punitive measures for wrong doing. IE failure to comply with a breathalyzer etc. At times, not exactly intuitive and definitely regionally specific. It sounds like gun laws are similarly so. Perhaps, a class and a test is a good idea? http://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/driver/license/test/sample_test.htm...
Well, the last time there was a test in the south to own guns, it was used to disarm black people. Hmmm, "racist, he explained." More seriously, there is a serious test to get a CCW - and it is 99% about the legal implications of owning and carrying a gun and when to decide to use it. You do have to pass a very lame marksmanship test, but it's no more a test of marksmanship than the driving test is a test of driving. -XC
Haha. I sometimes wonder about this one. Maybe they should at least have to take an anti-corruption class so they can't plead innocent when the Feds discover freezerbags full of cash in their office.Heck, you don't have to take a class to get elected to any office in the country.
For liability reasons, I have to take an anti-corruption training module every year. Good point, why shouldn't they?